I want to preface this post by saying that I am not an expert in the field of education. I have done some research on this topic, but it is not comprehensive and may not even be representative. However, my readers have been asking me for a long time to share my thoughts on this topic and those requests have increased since we began our temporary stay in Germany, where homeschooling is illegal. In the interest of full disclosure, as this may colour my thoughts on the issue, I went through the public school system in Quebec and we have chosen a small private language-focused preschool/elementary school for our children, which our son has attended for the past three years and where our daughter will be starting this September.
The right and the duty to learn
Because this will influence much of what I say in this post, I should start with my thoughts on the right and the duty to learn.
I believe in and support the Convention on the Rights of the Child‘s recognition of every child’s right to a free education. I believe that every child should have the opportunity to learn the basic things that they need to function in society. This includes, in my mind, practical skills like reading and math, but it also includes knowledge of the natural world, history, cultures, and societal issues. It includes learning and retaining facts, but also learning how to solve problems, debate issues, and apply critical thinking.
I also believe in the duty to learn. I do not think that ignorance is bliss. I believe that ignorance is dangerous and destructive. I believe it is each person’s civic duty to learn certain things, whether they want to or not. I believe this is good for them and essential for a functioning society. I do not, however, believe that everyone has to learn everything that is currently taught in the current public school curriculum. Nor do I believe that people who successfully graduate from the public school system actually retain everything that is taught as part of its curriculum.
These thoughts on the right and duty to learn have a significant influence on my opinion of different education options for our children.
Schools
I have a love/hate relationship with schools. This is coloured by my own experience in school, my son’s experience so far, and the reading I’ve done on the topic of schooling.
I love that schools:
- Provide a ready made opportunity for children to meet and play with a lot of children from different genders, cultures, and backgrounds. I don’t have to worry about arranging and supervising play dates. I just send my kid to school and it magically falls together.
- Have teachers, equipment and resources to passionately and effectively engage my children on topics and in activities that I am not able to.
- Provide a safe environment for my children to be cared for while my partner and I pursue our careers and our own life learning.
- Ensure that all children learn history and are exposed to a wide variety of beliefs and viewpoints (at least where I live).
I hate that schools:
- Require all students to learn the same things and the same time, meaning that some will be interested, some will be bored, and some will struggle.
- Are seldom able to provide the right level of support for students who are struggling in a specific area and often push it back onto the parents in the form of extra homework for them to do with the child.
- Involve significant amounts of peer pressure, bullying, overexposure to things like commercialization, sexualization, and specific gender roles that I think are counter productive.
- Do not provide enough time for experimentation, play, outdoor time and self-directed learning.
- Often use grades, rewards, and punishments as a way to keep students in line because it is easier than encouraging self-motivation and teaching common sense and respect.
- Can be abused for the purposes of spreading propaganda to youth.
These are, of course, generalizations based on my experience with schools where I live. I know that this does not apply all of the time to all types of schools, although I suspect most of these things apply most of the time. Private schools and alternative schools (sometimes public, sometimes private) are popping up in a lot of areas attempt to capitalize on the strengths of schools and address their weaknesses. However, it only goes so far.
Home Education
While I used the term homeschooling in the title of this post, which is the most common term used in North America, after much consideration I chose the term home education for the title of this section. It is the term used in the United Kingdom and, in my mind, conceptually does a better job of incorporating the wide spectrum of home education options, ranging from homeschooling according to a specific curriculum all the way to pure unschooling. Another term that is used by some is life learning, which applies to children but also to adults and signifies the importance of learning being a life long process.
I don’t have a love/hate relationship with home education in the same way that I do with schools. Perhaps this is because I don’t have any direct experience with home education as the primary education of myself or my children. That said, I am passionate about life learning for myself and hope to be able to offer my children many opportunities to pursue their interests. Despite not having a specific love/hate relationship with home education, there are things about home education that I think are inspiring and there are things about home education that concern me.
Before I list those things, I want to address briefly some of the reasons that people choose home education. Both my experience with home educators and my research on home education (one good example) has suggested that there are two, or maybe three, primary motivations for choosing home education. The first is ideological. This is where parents embrace a different ideology than is taught in the curriculum and object to the curriculum because it doesn’t teach enough about their own ideology and/or teaches things that are directly contrary to that ideology. The second reason for home educating is pedagogical. This is where the parents believe the structure or curriculum of the public education system is pedagogically unsound. They believe, sometimes passionately, that children are able to learn much better outside of school than they can inside school. The third reason, which is one that appears to be more prominent in recent years among my cohort, is that the available school(s) are not a good fit for the child or the family. This could be because the child is struggling in school and not getting the needed attention. It could be because the child has learning difficulties that result in a classroom setting not being a good place to learn. It could be simply because classes are crowded, teachers are stressed, and there are more social problems in the school than in the past. Or it could be because the family moves around a lot (e.g. for one parent’s job) and they are able to provide more stability and consistency to their children through home education.
These reasons for choosing home education are important to understanding what inspires me and what concerns me about home education.
I’m inspired that with home education:
- Children often get much better academic results with much less time spent sitting at a desk, which gives them more time to spend outdoors, playing, and participating in all aspects of family life.
- Children are freer to pursue their own interests.
- There is more self-motivation and less coercion and force involved in learning. This, in turn, encourages children to learn more rather than getting the attitude that learning is boring and uncool.
- Children are not as exposed to negative cultural and societal influences.
- More parents take an active interest in their child’s education.
- Children are free to learn at the time of day that best meshes with their personality and body rhythm, rather than according to the ringing of a bell.
At the same time, there are things that concern me about home education:
- I worry that parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be shielding their children from the realities of the world (other belief systems, other cultures) and their selves (sexuality, gender issues, personal expression), which I believe is dangerous for the individual and for society.
- I worry that a small minority of parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be doing so specifically to pass on discriminatory and hateful viewpoints to their children.
- I worry that parents who take their children out of school out of frustration with the school system (generally or for their specific child) may feel forced into home educating their children when really the school system should be changing and adapting to address those concerns.
- I worry that children who grow up under the guidance of the most gentle, patient, loving and inspiring parents without being exposed to teachers who are strict, ineffective, jerks, play favourites, or use coercive methods may not learn how to deal with those types of people before entering the workforce and may be at a disadvantage (although to be fair, a lot of today’s schooled youth aren’t dealing with them themselves anyway – they are getting mommy and daddy to do it for them).
It is certainly the ideological issues that I mentioned in the first two bullets that concern me the most. I think the other two are more easily circumvented or dealt with.
In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics says that 30 percent of American families that homeschool do so primarily for religious reasons. Realistically, I do not think that there is any reason why parents cannot teach their children about their faith outside of school hours. Therefore, choosing to school your children at home for religious reasons means that there are things that are taught in schools that you don’t think your children should be exposed to. While there are probably some instances of inappropriate curricular content, I think that is better addressed by suggesting changes than pulling your children out. My guess is that in most cases, among those who homeschool primarily for religious reasons, there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs). This, I think, is problematic. Then, in the extreme, and in a very very small minority of cases, are parents who actively teach their children hatred (e.g. white supremacy, antisemitism). This is downright dangerous. Note: green text added above to clarify that I didn’t mean “in most cases” among ALL homeschoolers, just among a specific subset.
I know that a lot of people view lack of socialization as a concern with regards to homeschooling. I don’t see it that way. I think that most homeschooling families do participate in a variety of activities with friends and family that allows their children to be effectively socialized. The only times I worry about the socialization factor is where parents actively avoid socialization with certain types of people (races, religions, sexual orientations) for ideological reasons, but that goes to my previous point.
Back to rights and duties
So where do I stand on schooling versus home education? I’m on the fence.
I believe more strongly in the child’s right to an education than I do in the parent’s right to raise their children any way they want. That said, I see many flaws in the current school system and the many benefits to home education. From that perspective, I don’t blame parents for wanting to pull their children out for pedagogical reasons or just because it isn’t working for their child or their family. But the ideological reasons, the ones that involve immersing your children in your beliefs and shielding them from others, are not my cup of tea.
I also believe in a civic duty to not be ignorant. This means that if you believe something, being exposed to other beliefs should help you to confirm your beliefs, rather than threaten them. Parents with specific belief systems should be prepared to explain to their children why they believe those things, rather than just pretending it is the only thing you possibly can believe. I also believe that to participate in society, as a citizen, people should have a basic understanding of history and social issues. This means that when you participate, as a citizen, and attempt to influence political decisions or address community issues, that you should have a basic understanding of how we got to where we are today. So if important things were left out, because a parent shielded their child from it or because the child chose not to learn it, that puts us at a greater risk of bad history repeating itself.
I don’t think it matters if a child learns to read at age four or age nine. I don’t care if a child learns to add and subtract at a desk or by doing real life activities. I don’t think it makes a difference if you learn world geography first and then local geography later or the other way around. But I do believe that there are certain things that all citizens should learn. Those are the things that should help reduce hatred, war, and discrimination. Those are the things that allow children to learn about and assert their individual rights. So things like good sex ed programs, which significantly reduce teen pregnancy rates or things like comprehensive religious culture and ethics programs that teach children about different beliefs, viewpoints, family structures and relationships are extremely important. Parents who chose home education should be required to teach their children those things (and are in some jurisdictions).
In Germany, homeschooling is illegal. Children have to go to school. They go to schools where they learn about things like the World War II and the Holocaust, in hopes that history doesn’t repeat itself. Despite those efforts, the neo-nazi scene is growing, with one in seven German teenagers (14.4%) having attitudes deemed highly xenophobic. Is the school environment contributing to the growth of the neo-nazi movement? Or would the movement be even bigger of right extremists were allowed to homeschool their children and teach them that the Holocaust is a lie and foreigners are ruining their lives?
My firm belief, and the reason I avoided writing this post for so long, is that there are no easy answers when it comes to education. Nothing is perfect, everything has risks, lots of things have to change.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 198 comments… read them below or add one }
I just spent an hour drafting a post (not published yet) about deciding where to send my son for kindergarten. Public or private. For some reason home schooling never entered into the equation. 1. I work. And 2. I always considered it as something people only do for religious reasons. Thank you showing me that is not always the case.
Great post! As a teacher in a public school, I unfortunately have to agree & am hopeful for change!
Are you concerned for your job stability? Because a public school teacher told me that my daughter would need special ed. classes. 3 years of homeschooling later, she’s testing 3 grade levels ahead. I can easily see why a public school teacher would have a problem with this.
I homeschool my children for so many reasons you didn’t even cover. I am constantly overwhelmed by the misconceptions people have about both public and homeschools. Yes, we are christian and that is a big part of our decision. SOMEONE is going to raise my kids. Do people honestly think that our children are not soaking up everything they see and hear around them for that 8-10 hours they aren’t with us? How well do you know those people? A ‘safe’ environment? Really?
As far as socialization goes, Can you really call public school ‘socialization’? They are pretty much unsupervised except for safety, and even then it’s iffy. Isn’t it more healthy to have your children interacting with other children who’s parents actually care about what they’re doing? Mothers who are close-by and can teach proper social behavior, rather than allowing bullying and other unhealthy public school socialization?
I also have to add, that my oldest daughter spent 3 years in public school. Pre-K, and 2 years of kindergarten where ‘professional’ teachers told me she was un-teachable. After 1 summer she was caught up and this year (she’s been in 3rd grade) her CAT test was at 6th grade level, and it was only that low, because they averaged in Science and History which were different from what we had been doing. Honestly, I think the choice is pretty clear unless you WANT to believe differently, which I admit…is pretty convenient. Let’s be honest, some parents really just want the break or the free ‘babysitting’ during the day. Isn’t that really what we’re trying to justify here?
I believe that my children will be greatly advantaged for this reason.
Gpsings: I’m sorry you have had negative experiences with schools. It is great that you have the option to homeschool. Not all families can afford this possibility and thus I think working for systemic change in schools is essential and is a civil rights issue.
Sarcasm aside, I think that the state should provide subsidized or free daycare to those who need it, so I don’t know why I would feel differently about schools. I think we need to look at things as an investment in the next generation, rather than a handout to lazy parents. I don’t believe that parents should bear the sole responsibility for that investment. I think it is a societal investment.
As a public school teacher, I can see the positives and negatives everyday of the public school system. I agree that the post was great. When making the decision of public, private or home education for my own children these are things that need to be considered. I think the number one thing that parents need to remember no matter what the education method is that they need to be involved and responsible for their children.
There may be things taught in public education that you don’t agree with so you need to explain that to your children. However, they need exposure to the “other” information so when you are not around, they can make good educated decisions.
As far as being with others, you need to spend time with their friends no matter what so that you know who they are and can be sure that they are influencing your child in the way that you want.
There are pros and cons to any type of education that is offered and parents need to make the choice according to the needs of each child because each one has different needs.
This is a great post. It really breaks down the pros and cons of all of the education choices.
I worry that children who grow up under the guidance of the most gentle, patient, loving and inspiring parents without being exposed to teachers who are strict, ineffective, jerks, play favourites, or use coercive methods may not learn how to deal with those types of people before entering the workforce and may be at a disadvantage (although to be fair, a lot of today’s schooled youth aren’t dealing with them themselves anyway – they are getting mommy and daddy to do it for them).
This is one of the anti-homeschooling arguments that I find most distressing and frustrating, because it draws a fallacious parallel between school situations and professional situations. Exposing a child to bullies, jerks, etc. (whether students or teachers) doesn’t teach them how to stand up to those people or work with those people — it teaches them to be victims, to keep quiet when they should speak up, or to tolerate abuse or idiocy they shouldn’t tolerate. Unlike with a job situation, where you can walk out if you are being treated badly, a child doesn’t have the power or freedom to walk away from a school situation. They don’t choose their school like an adult chooses a job. They aren’t federally mandated to spend x hours a day, x days a year in a job. In a professional/business setting, the adult has a significantly greater degree of power than a student. It’s that power imbalance that makes a negative school situation so harmful. Mistreatment at school isn’t comparable with dealing with tough bosses — it’s much more comparable to domestic violence in its emotional effects.
This is one of the topics I’ve covered in my regular “Ask a [Smrt] Homeschooler” column on my blog. I think I’ve gotten more feedback about this post than almost any other.
Smrt Mama:
I agree when it comes to jerks and bullies. No one deserves to be exposed to them in a school or in a workplace. However, with regards to the other types, there are plenty of them out there and if someone “walks away” every time they have to deal with a not so wonderful boss or client (not that I am suggesting someone who is homeschooled would do, I only bring it up since you mention walking away as an option), they are not likely to get very far in their career. Every office has wet noodles. Every office has people who play favourites. Every office has people who will bribe their employees to do something they don’t want to do. I had to deal with plenty of those people as teachers in elementary school, high school, and university before I started my career and I learned how to deal with them. That doesn’t mean that I learned how to accept them or to be a good victim. It means I was exposed to it often enough that I had the opportunity to consider how I would handle the situation if it came up again and it means that I got better at being assertive (rather than being a victim or walking away).
I have previously sent my children to both private and public schools. I can think of many valid reasons to send a child to public or private schools. I just don’t think that learning to get along with unpleasant/conflicting/etc. personality types is a particularly weighty argument in favor of the institutional school setting.
It seems there might be an assumption here that school is the only place, or at least the best place, for one to have those experiences, though. Homeschooled children are involved in clubs, volunteerism, religious organizations, co-ops, classes (like music and art), and society as a whole. Plenty of opportunity to learn to grin and bear in, to deal with difficult situations, or simply with incompatible personalities under conditions where the child is more empowered and is on more of an equal legal and social footing with those around him — and also under closer observance, at least initially, of the parents. I don’t think six or seven years old is the ideal time to learn that the world is full of unpleasant or disagreeable people who will try to thwart, manipulate, or get one up on you. I don’t think that’s an age where they need to be on the losing end of a teacher playing favorites. That’s SO damaging.
I agree with Smrt Mama. In order for children to learn to deal with mistreatment of themselves or others by peers or a person in authority, someone has to model the behavior. In the average school setting, no one’s doing that.
I have very strong memories of teachers deriding students in front of the class and play yard bullies. Who in my cohort of 9 year olds was going to effectively deal with that? None of us. I just made us all feel bad or reinforced the injustice as “normal” behavior. The only model we got was the “good victim” and the successful avoider who stays out of the line of fire (my tactic of choice through most of my schooling). While it sounds like you’ve worked in rough offices, I’ve never seen a co-worker get smacked upside the head or tripped while walking the halls of the office when the boss wasn’t watching, something that happened to a lot of my schoolmates in middle school in spite of hall monitoring by teachers.
There are certainly good reasons to choose formal schooling, but a workplace-representative social environment is not one of them.
“In order for children to learn to deal with mistreatment of themselves or others by peers or a person in authority, someone has to model the behavior. In the average school setting, no one’s doing that.”
Well said!
Offices have those behaviors because that’s what people learnt in school, I’m afraid. In that sense, a healthy dose of homeschoolers would do any bullying-happy office good.
I’ve got to agree with Smrt Mama on this point. Bullies are a part of life, bt young children need to be taught how to deal with them rather than expected to dive in and swim. There are bullies/jerks every where (we have some right across the alley that frequently bother the boys), but they can watch me deal with them and learn how.
Like cooking, I help my children learn next to me in the kitchen. I don’t drop them off at a restaurant and hope the head chef isn’t too big of a jerk. To me that’s a huge benefit of home education in early years, they get to learn how to deal with jerks from their parents, rather than teachers who not as emotionally vested and toss it off as “just ignore him” or “well deal with it then.”
I was bullied often, so that’s my view of it. I would have rather had a caring adult show me how to stand up to a bully than be told to just ignore them, or stop tattling, or that I must have been aggravating them, etc…
I have to chime in agreement here. My children have not been spared bullies and bigots by being homeschooled. When my two elder sons were in private Quaker schools (a pacifist faith to which I don’t personally adhere but I respect), they saw and experienced bullying and bigotry that was far too often tolerated by teachers and administration. They now play each afternoon with a diverse group of neighborhood children and are part of organized after-school activities both of which contain the same cohort they would deal with in public school. But they are spared the immersion in inter-personal violence by being homeschooled. The world they experience as homeschoolers has all the harsh realities they need to prepare them for adulthood.
Well spoken. We are home educating our daughter because public school was a disastrous fit for her (in kindergarten!). My daughter is a totally different person now than she was a year ago, when kindergarten ended. She was anxious, bored, crabby, bored, tired, bored, stressed by the other children’s misbehaviours, bored… I was terrified to keep her home, but it was the best decision for my girl.
I’m a 19 year old unschooler, and I wanted to comment on your apparent concerns about children outside of school not learning about social issues, history, etc.
A few weeks ago, my sister (unschooled for life) and I went to a class a couple of friends of ours (both Aboriginal) were hosting on Native Spirituality on their CEGEP. They naturally talked a bit about about Native culture and history as well, and I was absolutely amazed, and horrified, to discover that virtually none of the people (all traditionally schooled) attending the class had ever even heard of residential schools. That’s something my sister and I known about for years.
Both my sister and I are feminists and anarchists, and we’re very socially conscious, outspoken people. We know more about the history of oppression, more about the oppression going on around the world now, than do most of the schooled people I’ve come into contact with, who tend to have a much more government supporting, complacent outlook on things. Yes, there are some people who “homeschool” for religious reasons: who shelter their children from knowledge of the world, who teach prejudice. But… From what I’ve seen (in the US especially, though in my home province of Quebec as well), there are JUST as many (or more) people who are homophobic, racist, sexist, have more misinformation about sex than anything else (etc. etc. etc.) in school as out. I haven’t seen any evidence that shows homeschooling produces any more “isms” or “bics” than traditional schooling does!
Just my experience…
Idzie:
Thank you for sharing your experience. Having been through the public school system in Quebec, I can say that the History of Quebec and Canada curriculum is way too invested in sharing French Canadian history and injustices to provide sufficient space and discussion on native issues. That is problematic and part of the “propaganda” issue of schools that I mentioned.
I have found that unschoolers and the parents of unschoolers tend to be some of the most open minded people there are. I think you have to be open minded as a parent if you agree for your children to be educated in that manner and I think that unschooling does tend to produce very open minded individuals. My concern about isms and bics is more in scenarios where parents are actively trying to teach their children hateful viewpoints or presenting one world view as the truth, rather than as a belief. That said, I certainly agree that they exist in schools too (and even that some schools can be breeding grounds for that type of thing).
Oh, I understand what you’re talking about: my family was involved with the local (largely conservative Christian) homeschooling community when I was young, and some of the people I met were definitely pretty anti-evolution, anti-gay, anti-decent sex ed etc. However, I’ve encountered SO MUCH prejudice from those in school. Sure, they all know about evolution, but many schooled folk don’t treat GLBTQ people any better than those conservative Christian homeschoolers!
I should make it clear that I don’t agree with that type of world outlook AT ALL (if it wasn’t already obvious from my personal views). I just don’t think there’s a significant difference in that area between homeschoolers and public schoolers. Or, perhaps a *difference* (religious homeschoolers, in my experience, definitely do seem to be more sheltered, and less aware of the wider world. Schooled people, again, in my personal experience, are more likely to be crueler, meaner, more likely to bully, etc.), just not a better one. It seems to me that both cause harm in different ways!
I have run across anti-gay, anti-evolution homeschoolers (to use your terms). What’s interesting is I’ve had many direct conversations with the parents on the subjects (as I hold very different worldviews, similar to your expressed outlook) while we watch our kids swim or whatever. I am not going to claim I can change “hearts and minds” but. At least conversations are happening between us. Wonder if they do so frequently amongst schooling parents?
I agree, Idzie. In fact, in my experience of raising two unschooled from birth teens, they have been more politically active than any of their school friends. It’s a huge assumption (bias, prejudice?) to assert that home educated families are not discussing world history, race, ethnicity and cultural issues, along with sexuality, gender issues and the world’s religions.
First let me say that I am a homeschooling parent. I homeschool for so many reasons they are too numerous to name in this comment. I read your post with an open mind. It is well written, well thought out but you lost me when I read this “I believe more strongly in the child’s right to an education than I do in the parent’s right to raise their children any way they want.”
I’m sorry but I didn’t bring children into this world to turn them over to society, a government, or any other person on this planet to raise them. You may not agree with someone’s ideology but deep rooted spiritual and religious beliefs cannot be denied when parenting ones children, or even when educating them. I was raised in a strict, right wing conservative home and attended private Christian schools. I can assure you that it didn’t hinder me from being open minded and exploring my own spiritual, moral, and political beliefs nor did being parented this way hinder me in anyway socially when interacting with other races, cultures, or those of differing religious beliefs. I can assure you that those of us homeschooling, even those that do so due to ideology, are educating our children thoroughly and parenting them to be productive members in our society.
And if anyone must know, we are secular homeschoolers but I feel it is important to defend my religious homechooling friends.
I should add that I’m a rigorous, classical secular homeschooler (though some of us has decided we prefer the term “evolutionary homeschooler”) , who made the choice based on a combination of concern over teacher bullying, lack of adequate advanced/gifted curricula, and many other factors. The secular homeschool population is growing rapidly and there are so many wonderful resources available to ensure a home-educated child covers all the necessary subjects.
For those interested in homeschooling, I’d recommend reading The Well-Trained Mind and visiting the Well-Trained Mind forums. For those interested in secular homeschooling, you can find support and advice from The Secular Homeschool Community.
We’re homeschooling because we have one very active little boy who is academically ahead of the curve. We were already getting “suggestions” that we should consider medicating him and there’s no way that I’d do that to a 4-year-old. He absolutely loves to learn and pulling him out of preschool to give homeschooling a try is one of the best decisions that I’ve made as a parent.
He is exposed to a wide variety of people through classes, activities, real life situations and playdates. We plan to do a good amount of traveling with him as well. We love that we can teach him at his own pace and cover topics that he loves in a depth that would never be available in a traditional classroom setting. He’ll likely will go to a more traditional school in the future, but for us, this is the right decision for right now.
People homeschool for a vast number of reasons. A lot of them have very little to do with sheltering their child from the big, bad world. I’d be willing to bet that people that homeschool to pass on bigotry and hatred to their child would pass those things on even if the child went to traditional school.
Pathfinder Mom:
I did list a number of different reasons for homeschooling in my post and emphatically stated my support for most of them. I hope that didn’t get overshadowed by my concerns over the ideological reasons some people have for homeschooling.
My son led me to home ed, too! And for me, too, it turned out to be one of the best things I’ve done. I had not imagined home ed for my family, because I didn’t think I knew enough and because I am a single mom and didn’t think I could choose home ed. In the end I took all 4 kids out of school, and like natural childbirth and breastfeeding it all came together organically and feels perfect. Lawrence is now 16. He reads Asimov and Dumas for fun; studies theoretical physics because “it is the most profoundly fascinating subject [he has] ever encountered;” and is a funny, affectionate companion to me and his 3 sisters. Best of wishes to the 3 of you!
This is, as always, a well thought out article, and my hat is off to you for your thoughtful analysis. I would counter, however, that just as you “do not think that there is any reason why parents cannot teach their children about their faith outside of school hours,” there is no reason to believe that racist, hate-filled parents can’t create more of the same, while still sending their kids to school. In fact, one of the reasons I’m choosing to home school my children, at least while they are young, is to prevent them from being “socialized” by other children whose parents I don’t know, and who may have ideas about racism and other things that I don’t share and don’t want my impressionable little ones picking up.
Of course, there are numerous other things on my list of pros and cons about public education. It is a hard decision, and one not everyone makes easily. Thank you for throwing your hat in this particular ring.
Jennifer:
That is an excellent point.
Lots of theories on what WILL happen if a child is not exposed to whatever jerks and bullies, playground mentalities, unpleasant teachers, and Lord of the Flies stuff at school. It sounds like a lot of hand-wringing theorizing, to be honest, especially when you admit you have almost no exposure to home education whatsoever.
I had to deal with plenty of those people as teachers in elementary school, high school, and university before I started my career and I learned how to deal with them. That doesn’t mean that I learned how to accept them or to be a good victim. It means I was exposed to it often enough that I had the opportunity to consider how I would handle the situation if it came up again and it means that I got better at being assertive (rather than being a victim or walking away).
My brother and I went to public schools and were exposed to the same teachers (literally). I am confrontational and assertive, he is passive-aggressive and timid (to over-generalize our natures). Smrt Mama wrote that bad situations “teach [children] to be victims, to keep quiet when they should speak up, or to tolerate abuse or idiocy they shouldn’t tolerate.” I would definitely say my brother was in this category. Just because you prevailed (or believe you did) does not mean it isn’t a harmful environment that many parents are well-within their rights to eschew.
As far as “wet noodles”, if that’s a homeschool pitfall then why do you see so many of them (most of which obviously went to school)? I kind of think each “wet noodle” has their own story, and it’s not fair to lay it down in theory to some kind of parenting choice. I think many who can’t handle conflict are those were exposed to lots of Might=Right, authoritarianism, etc. and did not receive the guidance and opportunity to struggle through these issues on their own – not those who’ve learned when to stand up for oneself and when to let things go by having their parents A. model behaviors in doing so and B. support kids’ in getting in touch with their intuition and sense of Right and Wrong.
I kind of giggle at the idea of the home-educated child being “hidden away”. I certainly allow there are all types of people in all walks of life who insulate their child either physically or with other coercive measure (case in point: the many kids being abused at home who go to school but the abuse is never “discovered” because the child is good at hiding it and adults are good at not seeing). But of course, my children – like most life learning kids I’ve met – spend more time in the public with ALL walks of life than any other children I know. They run across plenty of “jerks and bullies” in neighborhood kids and adults and camp counselors and wait staff and soccer referees and lifeguards (I hasten to add, most people we run across are not in this category) and I am amazed at their abilities to handle these difficult people. Sometimes they “walk away”, but usually they speak up with respect, force, and clarity. I see them handling things with a strong sense of Self, a directness I don’t see in many other kids, a deep empathy, and a lack of timidity. It’s clear to me daily that “home educating” as you call it is a good fit for my family. Notice I do not call our lifestyle prescriptive for others.
As far as sex ed and learning about other cultures etc. This is funny when I think of the patriarchal, racist, ableist, etc etc “education” I received in public school! (and let me tell you, I enjoyed – or thought at the time I enjoyed – school and did very well at it).
The sex ed, cultural, or moral education conversation feels a bit like a potential trap. If I were to explain how we’ve learned about some of these subjects there are many who’d say I expose my kids to TOO much information (i.e. at 6 and 8 they know a lot about sex, contraception, LGBTQ issues, abortion, miscarriage, home birth; on the “cultural” side of things we’ve been watching We Shall Remain, a five-part documentary about Native American history in this country). I allow my friends to educate their children (through school or at home) in their way and I’d hope they’d afford me the same rights and responsibilities without nit-picking. It’s easy to help my kids with their education on social justice, religion, world views, poverty, feminism, socio-economic injustices, racial relations, etc. etc. because my husband and I are passionate and interested in the subjects themselves.
If one is to say, “OK, OK, it sounds like you’re doing a good job – but what about the ‘backward’ homeschooler etc etc.” – like your listed concern: I worry that a small minority of parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be doing so specifically to pass on discriminatory and hateful viewpoints to their children. “Discriminatory and hateful viewpoints” are the parlance of home-educating families now? This is news to me as the most homophobic and misogynistic things I’ve heard out of children’s mouths are from the neighborhood kids (schooled) who come play in our home.
I know the concept of “backward” thinking scares many people but as you point out a few times, there is no school system in existence that stomps this out. Many families are ‘backward’ according to the value system of the person telling us all What’s Good for Our Families & America. Something like 98% of kids go to school in this country. If school was a major ameliorating factor towards “backward” thinking and actions, well. We would have a very different country.
Most of the arguments you’ve written here are ones I’ve seen many times over. It is interesting that few parents are put down for say, making a general choice not to bring cable television or junk food into their house because (in their view) the harm outweighs the good. But when parents say, “Hey, school’s not for us” they are so often vilified or concern-trolled. I’m *not* saying you’re doing that here necessarily; that’s for you to decide.
I think my post is coming off as hostile but please know I write about life learning quite a bit and I’m no 101 writer on the subject. I understand this is a rather 101 article and you are genuinely trying to explore the issue. This is a good thing, this exploration. Please do take my comments as someone who’s rather familiar with about four thousand articles on the subject. Not that I’m claiming expertise of some sort – I am not! – just, a lot of exposure.
Kelly:
Thank you for all of your thoughts.
Just to clarify on the “wet noodle” comment. I wasn’t suggesting that homeschooled kids are more likely to be wet noodles. I was just including “wet noodles” in the long list of challenging people that someone might run into in an office environment. As a schooled child, I had project partners who were “wet noodles”. I had teachers who were “wet noodles”. I learned how to create my own success in spite of them.
In any case, as I said in my post and as Smrt Mama pointed out eloquently in her comments, I think that “concern” that I had about homeschooling is one that is easily dealt with. I wouldn’t list it as a reason not to homeschool. Just as something to pay attention to. I do think that the way that schooled children learn to deal with difficult people is sometimes unfortunate. But they are exposed to it and taught it, whether they want to or not.
I don’t want to belabour the point because I don’t think it is a critical one. My biggest concern, as I stated, is around the ideological reasons that some (not all or even most) parents have for homeschooling.
“My guess is that in most cases there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs).”
Therein lies the problem. No matter if you are atheist, agnostic or otherwise, you are teaching your child your own personal religious views. What one believes is “reasonable and factual” may not be so for another. I do protect my child from certain world views and ideas because he is young. At a time and a place that is more appropriate, he won’t be sheltered from knowing what choices people make, but he will be educated on what we believe. One day he’ll have to make his own choices, but it’s my right and privileged to share what I believe to be the truth with my kids. You can’t shelter a child for ever, but especially at a young age I believe it is your right and your responsibility to protect them from harmful or inappropriate information. Kids are growing up a lot faster than they need to, let them be children for a time!
By saying it’s “problematic” to shelter your children from certain religious view or lifestyle choices….that is indicative of exactly why some have chosen to home school. It’s problematic to you because you believe YOUR views should be taught. That they are “factual and reasonable” but I do not. your views are not mine, so yes, I teach my child the truth according to what I believe is the truth and you do according to what you do. Anyone who argues otherwise does not see plainly that is the fact of parenting! We teach how we live and what we know based on our own worldview. Sure you can teach “other” world views but what you model is what you are truly teaching.
Tia:
I don’t think anything should be presented as factual that is not factual. Not in the school system, not in homeschooling families.
I don’t believe that only MY views should be taught. I believe that ALL views should be taught (well, except for hateful ones). I believe that teachers in public schools should present different beliefs as different options and not present one as being correct or better. I believe that parents should also be tell their children about different beliefs and carefully explain to their children why they believe one thing and other people believe other things, while still being very clear with their children that they have the right to make up their on mind about what to believe.
I certainly believe that children should be taught all views, but they are no more likely to get that in school than at home, in my experience. To cite an example- intelligent design is just as reasonable as the theory of evolution (both require faith to believe- one in an intelligent designer, and one in a mathematically impossible number of advantageous adaptations), yet children in school are often not taught intelligent design- sometimes even by law they are not allowed to learn about it. Schools can really be just as biased as a set of parents.
Sara:
I’m trying to find a nice way to say this, but I’m not sure that I’ll succeed. Having children taught things like that (intelligent design is just as reasonable as the theory of evolution (both require faith to believe- one in an intelligent designer, and one in a mathematically impossible number of advantageous adaptations)) is exactly what I was referring to in my post when I expressed my concerns. Especially if they are not going to a school or other place where they will be taught about the sound science behind evolution.
Ha! Okay I’m sorry but Tia and Sara- you just proved her point exactly!
I’m going to preface my comment by stating that I am a homeschooling proponent (possibly homeschooling my son as he starts K this fall) but I do share some of the same concerns the author has about homeschooling in general. I will only speak to the one issue discussed here for now.
I’ll just say that as a family therapist, there is a developmental milestone at which a child can hold multiple truths. I teach my child that this is what we believe and this is our truth. That is what they believe and that is their truth. No one is right or wrong. This is a HUGE developmental milestone that a lot of people don’t ever reach. Enter religious wars and bigotry (to oversimplify very complicated issues). Children who are only exposed to one world view (and it is presented as the ONE truth while everyone else is wrong and going to burn in hell) are handicapped in their development as they do not reach this milestone in childhood, and possibly never (like a lot of their parents).
That said, you guys are talking about teaching your religious beliefs as scientific fact. That is a whole different can of worms and the reason I have concerns about homeschooling in general, even though I do believe it is a great option for many families. You are homeschooling your kids so no one tells them that species evolve because it conflicts with your belief that God designed you. Your child could be the scientist that discovered the cure to cancer but because you refused to teach him/her modern science because it undermines YOUR (not their) religious beliefs does the world a disservice.
Sorry for probably eliciting a lot more of these fringe comments from my reply phdinparenting but I don’t have to dance around their feelings as this is not my blog
You’re also assuming that all religious people believe that one view of evolution/creationism. Whereas it’s usually more complicated than that. None of the homeschooling families I know leave out any topics covered in public school, they teach that some people believe in creationism and others believe in evolution. And there are a vast number of people, like myself, that believe in a combination of the two. I myself came very close to going to grad school for evolutionary biology because I was interested in studying it from the POV of a religious person who also believes in God. As I stated in another comment, my child will go to a private school where he will learn both, and then he’ll come home and we’ll talk about what his father and I believe. Please don’t lump all religious people into one group.
Caveat: I’m a homeschooler (as much as one can be with a 1 year old – but my intention has always been to homeschool).
I wanted to make two points. First, if you go to public school it is quite possible to never learn about evolution (in the US at least). In my experience it was covered in HS biology which not everyone took and kids often were exempted from that part of the class (just as others were exempted from dissection for ethical reasons). I don’t really think that going to school and being exposed to different ideologies neccessarily means a more open minded person. If they are learning at home that evolution – Godlessness then they might be just as biased in the end.
Second, as a Christian and a scientist (physicist) I always find the evolution/creation debate perplexing. I have no trouble believing entirely in the scientific theory of evolution and in a creator. Evolution – the scientific theory – as taught in college is not anti-creator. That isn’t the point at all. Evolution is a theory of speciation based on observable facts (such as natural selection, the fossil record, etc.). I guess I’m just echoing Karyis – not all Christians think humans rode dinosaurs and the Earth is 4,000 years old. (not implying that this is what Annie was saying)
My reason for homeschooling is almost 100% pedagogical, however, I disagree with Annie’s assessment of the need to learn history. Perhaps Canada is doing it much better than here in the states but the revisionist, selective history taught here by education boards and textbook publishers is one of my major reasons for wanting to homeschool. I remember getting to college and taking a history class and being just totally floored at the lies we were taught. HS history was complete (pardon my language) bullshit aimed to make us all love our country but it was lies. How could we have learned that Mao = bad because he was a communist and Chaing Kai Sheck = good because he wasn’t? Chaing was a brutal murderer and we were taught he was good because it enforced that communism was bad. How about learning about the transcontinental railroad and NEVER being told that it was built by chinese slaves? The final straw for me was seeing the movie Schindler’s List – I just can’t believe how much time we spent in HS on WWII and never heard of a single “good” german.
I don’t want Aellyn to love her country because she blindly believes “Lincoln freed the slaves” – cue patriotic music – I want her to know that he was a flawed man that issued the emancipation proclamation in order to declare martial law. Patriotism and civic responsibility is much better when it is earned through real and honest dialog about the good and the bad of our history. Public schools in the US are NOT DOING THIS – even close. The “history” they are learning is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.
Like I said, maybe Canada is different. I wonder about Germany. With its checkered past do they teach patriotism through only highlighting the good or do the students graduate high school (or equivalent) with a deeper understanding of the mistakes of the past and how not to repeat them? I’d be interested to know.
*note, I’m not saying that 3rd graders need to learn about such deep topics – age appropriate learning when kids are capable of higher moral reasoning (Piaget’s stages perhaps?)
Also–I don’t know how it works in Canada or in other countries, but in my state, homeschooling is very regulated. Parents are required to present their children for testing from time to time, follow an approved curriculum, etc etc etc. That will differ from state to state, as some have very strict regs and others have almost none, but it is a lot harder to completely leave out a subject than it sounds.
Paige–if you’re ever in Baltimore, please send me an email. I could spend all day talking about evolution and creationism, it’s a topic that has always fascinated me, and I always love to talk to other scientists who are also people of faith.
Paige:
You covered a lot of ground in that comment. Not sure I can do it justice in the minimal time I have available this morning, but I’ll touch on a few key points.
1) I know that not all Christians deny evolution. I am thankful for that. It is the ones that deny evolution that I think have the potential to do harm. It is like teaching people that the world is flat.
2) I think Canada is different from the United States and I didn’t realize HOW different until the discussion on this post. However, it is far from perfect.
3) In Germany there is no teaching of “patriotism” like in the United States. There is NO glory assigned to Germany’s past. Germans are taught the facts of history and they are taught about the very shameful history of their country. That is perhaps hard for Americans to understand, but the type of nationalism that is so prevalent in the United States is not a factor in all countries and certainly not in Germany outside of radical illegal groups.
Thanks for replying to this point. I’m glad to hear that Germany does not teach a brainwashing viewpoint of nationalism as the US does. This is one of the main reasons I’ll be homeschooling. Teaching patriotism without CRITICAL THOUGHT and an honest look at the good and the bad is, in my opinion, a breeding ground for the type of extermeism and hate mongering that you are worried about some homeschoolers teaching.
I know that not all Christians deny evolution. I am thankful for that. It is the ones that deny evolution that I think have the potential to do harm. It is like teaching people that the world is flat.
That is absolutely an uneducated and biased comment. Exactly what I don’t want my children to come into contact with. Again they will be taught the theory of evolution but using sound scientific facts and knowledge they will be taught about young earth creationism and the theory and scientific facts behind it. For a little education you might want to check out site such as http://www.answersingenesis.org. Views such as yours that evolution is the only truth to how the earth and it’s inhabitants came to be are just as damaging in my opinion. Especially if you have no knowledge of the science behind other’s beliefs. Again it’s ironic that as long as your belief’s are taught…which in essence is “everything” is truth, you just need to find your own….that is okay. If it’s not your reality and worldview however, it’s deemed potentially harmful. Interesting set of bias you have going there. Only you don’t seem to recognize it as such you are only willing to point the finger at others.
In the US you WILL learn about evolution, it is not only written in state and national Biology standards but has seeped it’s way into other subjects as well. What you won’t hear about is creation science and the SOUND scientific facts that it is based on (www.answersingenesis.org). My husband is a public school science teacher and a young earth creationist. It IS one of the reasons we homeschool. Our children will learn about evolution and why scientists believe it to be true, but they will learn what we believe and the SCIENCE behind it as well.
Rachel, I’m afraid I found on the contrary that PhDinParenting actually proved Tia’s and Sara’s points — that people who would have schools teach evolution but not intelligent design would have them teach it as a stronger theory than it is.
The problem is that evolution, at least as a description of where life came from, is just a theory — a set of inferences based on some observable facts. The “faith” that Sara describes is the unshakable confidence that many scientists have in this theory when in fact we cannot prove that our observations necessarily imply that this is how life came to be. As a mathemetician, I find the allegiance that some have to evolution to be akin to faith. Where is the logical proof that this is the only possible way that events could have taken place millions of years ago?
For what it’s worth, evolution vs. creation is nowhere on my radar when I think about my reasons for homeschooling. But I do respect others who choose to homeschool on account of this issue.
it is fascinating to read these posts. I agree with PhDip that the teaching of Science crippled by fundamentalist Christian beliefs is a real problem in religious homeschooling. The popular argument put forth here by Laura in particular, that is, that evolution is “just a theory,” is proof of the ignorance taught in fundamentalist Christian circles. Other topics in Science that are also “just theories” include gravity, electricity, and magnetism. Science is made up of theories. This doesn’t mean that they are untrue or unproven; it is simply how Science is expressed. There is overwhelming proof for these accepted theories. There is none at all for ideas like creationism.
Only magical notions like that of the hand of God can explain natural phenomena as thoroughly, neatly and concisely as these theories can. Religious people who are not locked into fundamentalism can appreciate that God is not disproven by Science: isn’t He/She even more amazing for having come up with these incredible mechanisms for life on Earth?
Fortunately for society, when the kids grow up and move out they are exposed to the viewpoints their parents tried to block, and many overcome their early indoctrination. However, there is no question in my mind that the fundamentalist influence is the reason for America’s weakness in Science and technology. Our students, both in public schools and in fundamentalist homschooling families, are handicapped in these areas.
Ysadora, you are right — there are some very strong scientific theories out there, so in some sense the fact that evolution is a theory doesn’t necessarily mean it’s shaky. I do maintain that it is unproven, though, by basic logical standards. I would love to see a logical proof of a scientific theory one day! But that is not how science operates. As such I continue hold to my preference for mathematical proof, and I think history speaks for itself as far as how often scientists are wrong compared to mathematicians.
But if we’re going to teach some scientific theories as fact, why can’t we teach others as fact? Well, because not all theories are equally strong. In particular, the idea that evolution describes where life came from and how there came to be a variety of species — I find that this aspect of evolutionary theory is supported by rather weak evidence.
For instance, while the evidence in favor of gravity necessitates that there is a force or combination of forces acting on masses, there is no evidence that *necessitates* that the species evolved from a common ancestor. That is simply one scenario that might have produced the evidence we see. But perhaps the evolutionary changes that happened over millions of years are still minor — changes within a species. We have no evidence to contradict this possibility.
Hmmm… I think that while we are all debating the evolution/creation thing we have forgotten one very important fact. It is the THEORY of Evolution. We homeschool and I will teach the theory of evolution to my kids. I am also Christian so I will teach my kids about our religion. My reasons to homeschool have nothing to do with my beliefs. I have no issue with my kids learning evolution or anything else. I intend to teach them about other religions – my IL’s are Jewish and so they already know a lot about how people believe different things. That said my problem with evolution is that it is often taught as FACT but it is not fact. It is THEORY. That is an important distinction and one that I will make to my children. BUT I would have made sure I made that point to my kids if they went to school too. If they had come home and told me they learned about evolution I would have been sure to teach them how it is a theory. So, I guess you could say that I am screwing them up either way
Upstatemomof3:
Perhaps you missed this link in one of the comments: Evolution is a FACT and a THEORY.
I did not see it before. But I was using fact and theory in a more general sense. The way most people would use them in typical conversation. Evolution is one of those things that I think we have yet to “prove” well enough to be taught the way it is taught in public schools in America – which I did attend. Albeit long enough ago that I will admit things may be taught differently now. Evolution tends to be taught as the ONLY theory and I think that is just as damaging as teaching ONLY creation. I think we have a duty to teach our children all the ideas that are out there – including what we personally believe.
I have always wondered really why people think that the “proof” of evolution goes against the traditional Judeo-Christian God? The Bible says God created animals from the smallest to the largest ending with humans. Seems to me that that is exactly what evolution is showing. Animals emerged from the smallest to the largest. Whether you think it was God, or just a product of the environment (which really from my point of view since God created the environment even if He did nothing else he STILL created us). But that is a different argument – a creation vs evolution argument which is really not what we are discussing here.
Ultimately my point was just that the way evolution is taught in schools is not all that “un-biased.” The same can be said for the sex ed class I got in high school. We learned all about STDs, condoms, diaphragms, birth control, etc. They even taught us how to put on a condom using a model of a penis. I think that is all great. I would WANT my kids to take that class and have that info. I would ALSO want them to know that the only way to be 100% sure you will not get an STD or get pregnant would be to not have sex. I would also want them to know that sex is not just physical that it does affect you emotionally. That was never taught in the class I was given in high school. Again that is not the reason we homeschool – I actually expect my kids to go to high school where I am sure that they will take sex ed. And when they come home and tell me they learned these things I will be sure to add my view and tell them my thoughts on the matter.
I suppose my long winded point is that sending my kids to school will not prevent them from knowing my view on things. From religion to life. My kids already know that I think breastfeeding is very important, that I think abortion is a travesty, that I think the death penalty is awful, that I am in favor of gay marriage and a slew of other things that come up in the news or wherever. I homeschool my kids because the kindergarten teacher at my school is a racist who treated my son badly and when I tried to speak to the principal he refused to listen. So, while I am still fighting to get them fired I will homeschool my kids through elementary school because I do not want them taught in a racist environment.
upstatemomof3:
I agree that it is possible to believe in God and also not dispute the facts of evolution. However, there are many people who are evolution deniers. They claim (even in the comments on this post) that it is not possible. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in God (as the existence of God has not been proven or unproven) and yet to still understand how evolution took place.
I agree that the way things are presented in schools is (unfortunately) not always un-biased. I’m glad the school system where I live is taking some strides to improve on that, but it isn’t nor will it ever be perfect. I think that if children go to school AND also learn their parents’ view on things, then they will be able to process those different viewpoint and make up their own mind. That is also possible in the case of unschooling families or classic homeschoolers that present different ideas and options to their children and allow them to explore them all. However, what I think is dangerous is when one belief is presented as the truth, either by homeschooling parents who shield their children from other beliefs or by a combination of, for example, a religious school and religious parents that tag-team to hide certain things from the children.
I would also not allow my children to be taught by a racist teacher. I would move them to a different school or I would homeschool them, but if I homeschooled them I would ensure that they are learning about different viewpoints. I wouldn’t just be pushing my own as “truth” (and I am not saying that you are doing that – I am saying that I object when others do that).
I completely agree with you that only teaching one view point is dangerous. Frankly, I think it is unfair and will do your child no favors in the real world. It will not even strengthen their faith. Having faith means CHOOSING to believe – you cannot choose if you do not know their is a choice.
I guess maybe it is just the topic of evolution that seems (to me) as a bad example. What I have ringing in my head at the moment is the people who deny the holocaust ever happened. See this whole conversation would have looked differently to me if that had been the example. It is undeniable and it seems unfathomable to me that anyone would see it differently then the schools teach it. But, of course, some people do. And once I am looking at that I see it as a problem. Whereas evolution I feel is not always taught well and I understand the objection.
Lastly I wanted to say that the religious school/religious household combo I find to be equally worrisome. Not for everyone mind you. But for “those” people if you catch my drift. I am Catholic and did not even consider a Catholic school because of some of the things that would get taught. Not that I couldn’t fight those at home just as well as somethings I could fight from a public school but why would I pay for that?
Great post and great discussion as always.
Again, it depends on the school and the family. I was partially educated at a Catholic school, as was my brother, my husband, both my inlaws and my mother. None of us came out of that experience having not learned about evolution, and none of us are anti-gay, anti-tolerance, anti-birth control or think all people who are not Catholic will burn in hell. It’s been many years, but the sex-ed portion of my education at a public school (although they called it “family life” at that point) did not talk about STD’s, teen pregnancy or birth control, it was strictly a mechanics of how bodies work and where babies come from.
We don’t believe in creation science purely based on religion. As a scientist, my husband and I believe in creation science based on sound scientific fact.
I’m looking at home schooling my daughter next fall. We’ll be testing it out over the summer so I don’t officially pull her out of school until I know that it’s a match for us.
We fall into the group that is pulling kids out for school issues. The one she’s at now is just not a good match. Maybe it would be better next year with a different teacher, I don’t know, but with budget cuts the class sizes are going to be bigger next year, and the principal doesn’t even know which teachers will still be there after layoffs are complete.
Add in how quick she is to pick up new information. She’s incredibly bored. At the same time, the lack of challenges means she doesn’t try hard enough on the occasional challenges that do come along.
Plus, I really feel the teacher was “teaching to the test” all year. Nothing but math and English homework all year until just these past couple weeks, now that standardized testing is over. Suddenly they have more interesting assignments, had a field trip a couple weeks ago and another one next week. The school’s test scores have been low in the past, so I assume they’re trying to raise them. I don’t agree with doing that by making school less interesting for the kids or by teaching them less. It’s been shown time and again that a well rounded education is better for kids and test scores.
We’ll see how it goes for us. I’m sending my son into kindergarten in the fall because, for all the school’s faults, his greatest need right now is other kids and learning to deal with more people. He’s really looking forward to meeting other kids away from his sister, but also nervous about dealing with so many kids.
I expect a very interesting and educational school year for both my kids.
Choosing the appropriate venue for your child’s education is not easy. When my daughter started kindergarten (she is now finishing grade 7), we explored EVERYTHING, with the exception of home schooling (for reasons which I will explain shortly). We had a spot reserved for her at the neighbourhood english public school, at the french immersion public school, at the co-ed private school up the street and at the Catholic school just behind us. In the end we chose french immersion, favouring the language skills and the “private school within the public system” reputation, and we have been very happy, although all of the public school drawbacks that you mentioned are a reality. One thing to think about during this decision-making process when the kids are small is that high school is coming faster than you think. In Vancouver, B.C., high school starts in grade 8, and you go through this selection process all over again, adding subject-area-specific mini schools into the mix and this time with an eye to university and beyond. It does not get easier. We have decided to stay the course, and our daughter is remaining in french immersion.
We did not consider home schooling for several reasons. First, I worried about the additional strain it could feasibly put on parent-child relations. It’s a lot of work being a mom. Being a full-time teacher too, I don’t know. And I also know, in hind-sight, that just helping with homework as it becomes more challenging can create tension. I would not want this to be my everyday reality, nor hers. Second, having one teacher, every day, for every subject, for every grade seems so narrow to me. Some teachers are better than others, but it seems to me there is value in diversity. Finally, the only home-schoolers I’ve ever known, and there have not been many I confess, home-schooled for the reasons that concerned you – to withhold their children from ideologies that were different from their own. This has never sat well with me. But, having said all of this, for all the home schoolers who make it work, good for you!
The Know It All Mom:
The first reason you stated for not homeschooling is also one of the main reasons we have chosen to send our children to school. I love my kids to death and enjoy the time that we spend together immensely, but I don’t feel like I have the skills or the patience to be the person who is primarily responsible for their education. This is a limitation of mine, not a limitation of homeschooling.
On your second point, however, I know that a lot of homeschooling families (if not most of them), do not have the parent as the “one teacher, every day, for every subject, for every grade”. The children learn a lot independently. The parents trade off with other parents. They take advantage of community resources, groups, and activities.
Before I started teaching my children at home, I was worried that I didn’t have sufficient command of all the necessary material, and that teaching my kids might set up a relationship as uncomfortable as mine was with my father when he tried to help me with homework. I would rather fail at something than ask my father to help me–it was that bad.
At first, I was just going to try teaching my son, for whom school was never going to fit. Then his big sister, with whom I had a strained relationship, wanted to study with us (Greek Mythology, the explorers, etc.) rather than do the rote work she was given. She couldn’t keep up with all of it, so I took her out of school. To my surprise, my relationship with Nell began improving, as did her relationships with her 3 siblings. The next time my sister visited, she remarked on the changes, and told me that she now supported my decision to educate the kids at home wholeheartedly. She had been opposed.
Over the years, I have indeed run into subjects that I could not have taught as if I were a classroom teacher; however, as it turns out teaching at home is quite different. We have not encountered anything we could not address. The children are expert at finding resources for subjects that interest them or those that give them trouble. And they are internally motivated to seek them out and exploit them. At first I was scared because I couldn’t afford boxed curriculum, but we soon became unschoolers. Our learning process is very organic–learning just comes naturally to kids who are not forced. They are much better educated now than I was at their ages.
My relationships with all 4 children, now aged 14-18, have remained warm and open. They talk to me about their lives, both inner and outer. They are bright, articulate, and interesting. They are not sad, angry or sullen (as I was at their ages); and though they are not preternaturally good (as was my sister), they do not rebel, smoke, drink or use other substances, seek early sexual experience, break rules, or otherwise act like the usual idea of teenagers. I enjoy being with them, and they like being with each other.
I would encourage anyone who is curious about home education to consider it seriously and do some reading on the subject. Don’t give it up as out of your reach! It may be the natural next step for your family.
I agree with Kim’s & Kelly’s comments 100%.
I think that you wrote this post earnestly and thoughtfully, but as you admitted, you don’t know very much about homeschooling.
Parents who are racist/bigoted/sexist/etc. are going to impart those views on their kids regardless of where the kids go to school. I don’t know what things are like in Canada, but here in the US, parents can pull their kids out of sex ed class if they feel that it conflicts with their religious beliefs. I think that this is misguided, but it is their right to do so. I can’t expect to be allowed to make my own parenting to choices if I insist on making them for others. Everyone is entitled to parent their children as they see fit, as long as they are not abusive.
I went to private and public schools, but plan on unschooling my daughter. The positive experiences that I’ve had during my pre-college school years are virtually non-existent. The negative ones have been life changing and even though I am a stronger person for them, I would never want my daughter to experience what I’ve experienced. Surviving anything traumatic can make you stronger, but that doesn’t mean that trauma is the only way to become a strong person.
I have met more homeschooling families than I can count, most of whom (unlike me) consider religious ideology to be a major factor in their decision to homeschool. Not a single one of them was bigoted or racist, nor was I treated poorly by any of them even though I am a very vocal atheist. I personally know of a person who went to a very diverse public school and yet managed to only have friends who went to his church and continues to associate only with other people who hold the same religious beliefs as he does. Sadly, It’s not an unusual occurrence.
As for social skills, this is one of those things that always makes homeschoolers laugh, because their kids have excellent social skills. I have yet to meet a homeschooled child who didn’t have excellent conversation skills, self-confidence, or a high maturity level for their age. There are obviously exception on both ends on the spectrum, but as someone who has only recently (past 4 years) been exposed to homeschooling/homeschoolers it’s been an overwhelming positive and enlightening experience.
I really appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness. Your posts are always interesting. I do hope that you’re able to have more personal experiences with homeschoolers so that you can understand them better and have your concerns addressed. I’m looking forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Limor:
In the part of Canada that we usually live in (when we’re not in Berlin), parents cannot pull their kids out of sex ed class or out of the religious culture and ethics classes. These are mandatory for all schooled and home educated children. I think this is an excellent approach.
The personal experience I have with homeschoolers is mostly with atheist and/or humanist homeschoolers and I am consistently impressed with them and their children. I don’t have a lot of direct experience with religious homeschoolers, but do know from reading the news how vehemently they objected to the mandatory curriculum on religion and ethics that the Quebec government introduced. I also have read a lot about the damage that very fervent religious views can have and while I recognize that those views exist even among families whose children do attend public school, I feel that at least school (or mandatory homeschool curriculum) provides some semblance of balance and forces them to consider why they believe what they do rather than simply accepting it as truth.
I have a big problem with the “mandatory homeschool curriculum” thing. You seem to have a fairly high opinion of unschooling, so how do you reconcile thinking unschooling “works” with wanting a mandatory curriculum imposed on home educators??
Idzie:
Good question. I do have a great respect for unschooling. I think that the majority of topics are probably best learned through the unschooling process.
That said, I think there are certain things that everyone needs to learn in order to be a functioning member of society. Realistically, I think most unschoolers would come across these things on their own learning path so the curriculum would not need to be prescriptive, but more of a “hey, did you ever think of reading a bit about XYZ?”. I think that the mandatory curriculum is more important in instances where parents are actively trying to shield their children from certain facts, from understanding basic human rights, or from objectively learning about different viewpoints.
That said, I’m not sure what the best way is to ensure that everyone learns those things.
The problem with mandatory anything is that you can’t pick and choose: you can’t say “oh, that family seems sane, we don’t need to regulate them!”, and only regulate the ones you deem irresponsible. Who decides? How is the decision made? Either everyone suffers under restrictive legislation (unschooling suffers most of all under harsher government control. It’s misunderstood and usually considered neglectful, as you probably know.), or everyone is free to follow their own path.
Activism, being outspoken on important issues, community building, all these things and many more can be tools for great positive social change. Increased government control and oversight, more regulations, a top-down way of “changing” things, is never the right option, in my opinion. The government does NOT have my best interests at heart, nor the best interests of my friends, family, community. I always get worried when people think the best option is to sanction even more government control!
Idzie:
I understand, sympathize with, and respect your concerns, but don’t have a good solution to propose. I agree that activism, being outspoken on important issues, community building and more are essential and are excellent tools. I do a lot of that here on this blog and in other places. I believe it is critical. But beyond that I do think there is a role for the government in terms of trying to protect oppressed groups, ensure people’s rights are upheld, etc. As an anarchist, you probably feel differently and I’ll admit that I need to go off and do some life learning on the anarchist approach to dealing with issues like oppression and discrimination.
“I believe more strongly in the child’s right to an education than I do in the parent’s right to raise their children any way they want.”
You lost me here too. The two are not mutually exclusive. I firmly believe that both can and often do hold true together, whether a child is home educated or attends a brick-and-mortar school. My child has a right to a rigorous education AND I have a right to raise–and educate–my children as I see fit. The education my children get at home is as rounded and challenging as the education they’d get from the school down the street, if not more so.
And the idea that homeschoolers who homeschool for ideological and/or religious reasons don’t teach children “certain things that all citizens should learn…the things that should help reduce hatred, war, and discrimination….the things that allow children to learn about and assert their individual rights” is insulting. You’re creating false either/or arguments. EITHER children attend government schools and learn the ideologies du jour OR they are not taught to address these issues at all (at least not to the current popular cultural standards), as though homeschool families, particularly those who home educate for religious reasons, don’t teach about peace or sex or government or individual rights. Most homeschoolers I know (and I know many articulate, thoughtful people of different faiths who homeschool for religious and social reasons) put a great deal of time, thought, effort and discussion to teaching these issues at home.
And finally, I am a fan of public schools. But the U. S. school system is groaning under the burden of more students with more significant issues, and dwindling dollars. Schools are designed to teach the greatest number of children possible, to teach to the middle. If you’d ever spent time advocating for a child with special needs or a child who learns in a very different way, or just pressing for higher academic standards in schools just struggling to satisfy the burdens imposed by legislation like No Child Left Behind, you’d understand that just advocating for change is daunting at best, and expecting a straining unwieldy system to adapt to an individual child’s needs is unrealistic.
I do appreciate your well-thought-out arguments. Though I vehemently disagree, it’s refreshing to read an opinion piece about homeschooling that acknowledges the plusses and attempts to be respectful. Thanks.
“Surviving anything traumatic can make you stronger, but that doesn’t mean that trauma is the only way to become a strong person.”
Well-said, regardless of a homeschool discussion or no.
“As for social skills, this is one of those things that always makes homeschoolers laugh, because their kids have excellent social skills. I have yet to meet a homeschooled child who didn’t have excellent conversation skills, self-confidence, or a high maturity level for their age. There are obviously exception on both ends on the spectrum, but as someone who has only recently (past 4 years) been exposed to homeschooling/homeschoolers it’s been an overwhelming positive and enlightening experience.”
Yes, this is one of the homeschool Bogeymen that keeps getting passed around as a valid concern of the lifestyle – and I agree with you, it’s very funny as the vast majority of the many h/s kids I’ve known do very well; I have to say, often better than their schooled peers (although I love all groups of kids dearly, invite them into my home and cook for them and have them for sleepovers, et. al!)
I agree completely on both points.
On the first one, I wrote a post a while back called “That which does not kill us makes us stronger. Or does it?” I don’t think trauma has any place in a school. I am not advocating that trauma is good for kids. I don’t see learning to deal with difficult people as equivalent to trauma. I wouldn’t equate the horrendous bullies I faced in school (which I would call trauma) with the wide variety of generally difficult or ineffective people that I ran across (which I wouldn’t call trauma).
With regards to social skills, I completely agree that homeschooled children generally have excellent social skills.
I’m a former home educator, current mother of public school kids and did scholarly work in the area of education and citizenship and I think the major humbug here is that you would be challenged to find a provincial school system that teaches well or at all “good sex ed programs, which significantly reduce teen pregnancy rates or things like comprehensive religious culture and ethics programs that teach children about different beliefs, viewpoints, family structures and relationships are extremely important.”
The major issue with public school and citizenship is, if you look closely at what is going on in some (or many) schools, is even if there are curriculum objectives about democracy, equality, respect, trust, listening, etc, the “hidden curriculum” or how children are treated within the schools don’t live up to those ideals.
A particular example is the Canadian failure to live up to its commitment to teach children about the Convention on Children’s Rights and the violation of rights that occur in schools every day- (like having input into decisions that affect them, let alone issues of illegal search and seizure in high schools and other privacy violations.)
(I do think this is a great post, though, and my overall belief is that the children of parents who care about education and learning- no matter what educational setting the children spend their days in- will generally have kids who turn out to be active, engaged, learning people.)
radmama:
I hope you’ll click on the links that supported the sentence that you quoted. The first is about the impact that good sex ed programs have had. The second is on Quebec’s religious culture and ethics curriculum, which I think is excellent. The full curriculum is available online. I’ll probably do another post just on it another day because I think it is truly exceptional.
I will when I’m not at work. I am curious as to how they are implemented. In theory, NS has great sex ed resources but the curriculum outcomes are written so teachers in grades 4-6 can choose how much to teach, meaning in practice very few children in NS get any sex ed before grade 7. By grade 7, 2 per cent have already had intercourse and more are sexually active. Grade 7,8 and 9 students can only get the excellent sexual health resource book with written parental permission and cannot get it at all in some parts of the province. (Unless they download it off the internet, but that takes some seeking)
And there is a children’s rights curriculum in theory, but I don’t think it has ever been used in our board.
I think kids learn more from the culture of the school than the curriculum. In our school, I have seen so many kids sidelined and made miserable because of personality conflicts with teachers. A good life lesson? But HORRIBLE to see a 5, 6, 7 year-old’s school life and self-esteem wrecked so early.
“the children of parents who care about education and learning- no matter what educational setting the children spend their days in- will generally have kids who turn out to be active, engaged, learning people.”
This is so true isn’t it? I went to public schools and I got a great education because my parents are life long learners and were engaged in my education.
Provide a safe environment for my children to be cared for while my partner and I pursue our careers and our own life learning.
( Safe with the bullies, school shootings, drugs, etc. ? )
Ensure that all children learn history and are exposed to a wide variety of beliefs and viewpoints (at least where I live).
( You obviously haven’t read anything about the changed to Texas textbooks on history ! )
I worry that children who grow up under the guidance of the most gentle, patient, loving and inspiring parents without being exposed to teachers who are strict, ineffective, jerks, play favourites, or use coercive methods may not learn how to deal with those types of people before entering the workforce and may be at a disadvantage .
( I will not put my children in a lousy school so that they learn from strict, inneffective, jerks, who play favorites, or use coercibe methods just to please you. There will be plenty of time for my children to learn this in high school or college.
I am a rigorous classical secular homeschooler of 22 years. With three homeschool graduates and two just starting out. My older children do not lack anything. Two of my sons are serving in the Army and the Navy. All three are attending college. I am proud that I don’t just warehouse my children in lousy schools because it is expected. I want my children to learn to think for themselves.
Jana:
If I was in Texas, I would homeschool too. Or move.
Ah, there’s the rub. This may have changed in recent years but the last time I checked, the Texas school system is so large that the textbooks adopted there basically become the standard for the country. AP story
It is still pretty much the same, California is liberal, and Texas is very, very, very conservative in the texts they will use in the next 10 years. I don’t want either choice, I will teach my children all sides and let them determine what to believe.
fortunately, in the age of computer-based publishing, this is decreasingly true. publishers can produce different versions of a book for different states now, without goiing bankrupt in the process.
that was the reply for the above post! to this one, I wanted to say that the term conservative is not correct for Texas curriculum and all that is going on on that side of U.S. politics these days: conservatives want to move forward at a stately pace. these people are reactionaries: they want to move backwards.
This is the point I was trying to make about history in the US above. Unfortunately, as Texas is such a large state their text book choices can effect children all over the US. It is just sickening. Maybe Canada is doing better?
This is what Jana is saying. B/c TX and CA effect textbooks that are used nationwide, most texts are biased one way or the other. Although, due to CA’s recent budgetary woes, TX will most likely dominate the field for some time. This is, of course, to say nothing of the cross-marketing that is the newest trend in textbooks…DK and Nat Geo breakout boxes and the like. Or the evolution from notetaking, to use of a computer-linked projector with a powerpoint, to handing out photocopies of the powerpoint instead of having to students take notes, to handing out the powerpoint instead of having a text at all. That’s now very common here in upstate NY, particularly for science and history. Also, there’s only one high school in our county that still uses grammar and vocabulary texts, and it’s a private Catholic school.
Affects. Bargle.
*I worry that parents who take their children out of school out of frustration with the school system (generally or for their specific child) may feel forced into home educating their children when really the school system should be changing and adapting to address those concerns.*
While I am home educating my son precisely because the system was not set up to handle him-gifted/autistic/learning disabilities-I had to make a choice. Did I spend his remaining school years fighting the system, or did I spend them making sure he was educated to the best of his ability to learn? I had so many people tell me that it was my duty to fight the system.
I chose to educate him. The fight is right for some people, but my son was already in middle school, and by the time I might win the fight (if I did win it) his school years would have been over. I already had school refusal, hours on homework that should have taken maybe 30 minutes, and an anxiety driven child. I was already fighting, trying to get my son educated. I was fighting him.
Do I wish the school system would have been able to do right by him? Yes, I do. However, I have been told repeatedly by school systems, and by therapists, that they do not have programs for a child like mine. They do not have the resources to put programs into place. I am on my own.
I love the journey we are taking together. I love learning about my son, about how he thinks, learns, experiences the world. I would not trade this journey, though it was not something I wanted in the beginning. He still takes hours on what should take minutes. This is part of his disability. There is no more anxiety, no more school refusal. He gets up in the morning, and says So,mom, what do we have for school today? Let’s get to it!
This is why I home educate. I felt forced into it, yes. It has been the best educational choice for my son.
martinsma: Thank you for sharing your story.
As a former public and private school teacher and current homeschooling parent, I visited your blog ready to feel attacked. How relieved I am to see that your piece is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. I think we do the most harm in commenting about education in any form when we make assumptions and blanket statements about both education and families. When I taught in a public high school, where both prominent and poor families sent their children, I witnessed the spectrum of educational possibilities. I have seen children genuinely loved by their teachers–encouraged, challenged, and well-taught. Most of these students received an excellent education and have gone on to top universities and sought-after careers. I have been very fortunate to stay in touch with many of my former students, and I am thrilled to see their success. I have, though, also seen kids attacked, stabbed, and raped at this same school. We have found students having sex on the stairwell in the middle of the school day, and we have had to make allowances for students to change classes at very planned intervals because of the risk of fighting and gang activities. I have seen children neglected, ignored, and honestly? Intimidated. When it was time for me to decide what to do with my own children, we spent some time in a private school–which was ho-hum at best, and a public school–which was a great experience–but I have some philosophical differences with the process of public education (too many to discuss here). I ultimately decided on homeschool with a classical approach because the philosophy of a classical approach to education makes sense to me, because my oldest daughter had some learning holes that I felt like could only be filled with very personal attention, and because my son could move ahead in some classes where he was ready for greater challenge. They have been so successful at home, that we have, for now, chosen to stay on that path. We currently live in a state that is ranked in the bottom of the U.S. in terms of education, and we recently had a girl raped in the bathroom at our local middle school. So, for us, safety and quality of education is an obvious major concern. But my experience is not the same as everyone else’s. I deeply believe that the key in understanding each path is meaningful dialogue. When we stop listening to each other and only talk louder and louder to be heard, no one profits. I am happy to be part of your dialogue, and I thank you for an honest and, I think, healthy perspective on both choices.
I believe if tested on this you would change your mind in a heartbeat. Under the threat of something you didn’t like, or didn’t feel was safe for your kids you would interfere. I can’t believe anyone would feel Parent’s don’t have a right to raise their kids the way they want!
It also bothers me enormously when people say or infer that Christians homeschool to “brainwash” their children into believing what they do. No matter what you believe, Christian or not, this is what you are teaching your children. If you do not believe in God you teach your child He doesn’t exist. If you believe in reincarnation, you teach your child this. Gay couples teach their children about alternative lifestyles. No matter what you believe or don’t believe you are teaching your children what you “know” to be the truth.
As for the Hate crimes, I think these parents can do just as much damage after school hours. I do not believe keeping their children home allows them to poison their minds more than just living together does.
Alexis:
I do not believe in God and I teach my children that some people believe in God and some people don’t. I do not believe in reincarnation, but I talk to my children about it being a possibility.
I do not think that gay couples teach their children about alternative lifestyles. I think that gay couples are more likely to teach their children about the variety of normal lifestyles that exist.
I agree that parents with hateful views can do damage after school hours. However, there is the potential for it to be balanced with reality in a school setting and also for a teacher to notice something problematic is happening (like a Manitoba girl who went to school with a swastika drawn on her arm).
Many people assume I homeschool but my kids are actually in public school. I always thought I’d homeschool or send them to private, but when the time came, public was the better option for us. In my case, I’m very thankful and have had a good experience, especially with my oldest child needing extra help, he has an IEP, etc. It’s been a good thing so far (my oldest is in 3rd grade). I do believe it is a choice best made for each individual child (not necessarily each family, as I think some kids are suited better for school versus home school, so maybe having 1 in school and 1 home educated would work better for some families, etc).
Steph
For a better education on the origins and purpose of compulsory schooling, I would suggest the John Taylor Gatto books, The Underground HIstory of American Education or Weapons of Mass Instruction. Some of your points in favor of public school and against homeschooling would seem ludicrous were one to know all the background on compulsory schooling as well as the reality as it exists today. Because, here’s the kicker: You wish for all children to be knowledgeable about history, various cultures and worldviews, and ps is the absolute worst place to get that education. It is the primary reason I homeschool! And you might want to note some inconsistencies exist in your article. How can religious people have plenty of time outside of school to teach their religion, yet ps prevent bigoted parents from effectively doing the same (as would be inferred from some comments?)
And as a previous poster pointed out, what you call factual I call theory. How many evolutionists have ever witnessed evolution? How many old earthers were around to observe the dinosaurs millions of years ago? So do not tell me they are factual in the true scientific meaning of the word. They are technically theories. [Scientific method and accepted scientific process of moving from hypothesis to fact or law says theories must be able to withstand the test of being observable/reproducible multiple times over to be considered fact-those I mentioned can never be reproduced nor observed.] Just some thoughts for life learning.
Lakota:
I don’t think you have to have observed something first hand to know it is true. I never ran into a live dinosaur personally, but the evidence of their existence is pretty damn impressive. I haven’t been to Mars, but I am confident that it exists. Not because I simply believe these things, but because there is scientific evidence of their existence.
Lakota,
Evolution has in fact been directly observed. The fact that you don’t seem to have even a basic understanding of evolution, or that you don’t know what “theory” means in the scientific context is only proving Annie’s assertion. And also, scary.
A fact is defined by something that can be repeated over and over again. Other Theories such as gravity, relativity can be repeated and demonstrated. Evolution is based on evidence and information that requires an interpretation based on scientific principles and laws. There are thousands and thousands of scientists that DO NOT believe in evolution based on sound scientific laws and principles. If you do some research you will find this to be true. The idea that evolution is fact is further proof of the brainwashing that has taken place for those who are unthinking and uneducated. The idea that there cannot be 2 theories based on sound scientific data, is ludicrous! As I stated previously. We are not against teaching our children the theory of evolution and certain scientific ideas behind evolution. But there are other theories! Based on sound science! Just because you post some random article highlighting quotes with Gould and Dawkins does not make evolution fact. We can only observe and take an appropriate guess as to how the earth and it’s inhabitants were created, based on evidence, there are many guesses. None are fact.
I’m not sure that is the definition of a fact. It is a fact that millions were killed during the Holocaust and we don’t need to repeat it over and over again for that to true.
That said, I understand what you are saying. But your information is incorrect. Evolution has been observed repeatedly. That is discussed (with a link to a detailed scientific article) in this article on the five major misconceptions about evolution. Evolution is a fact.
I’ve always been interested in how many people who send their kids to public/private schools also practice homeschooling? While my daughter is only in kindergarden that is what try to do. We spend lots of time outdoors and I teach her about plants and we play math games and read a LOT of books. I wonder how much some folks who homeschool or unschool do with their kids each day and wonder if what I do in addition to sending her to school is over kill or just us spending time together having fun and learning. WOuld this mean I don’t need to send her to school at all because I am doing enough? I usually chastise myself for not doing enough with her. Anyway, I know I’ve gone off on a tangent here, but I always like to do the best of all of my options, so on some days I like to think of myself as both a homeschooling mom and one who sends her child to public school.
Melodie:
I do teach my children a lot of things at home. I teach them about the things I am passionate about. I teach them about the things that I think are important to becoming a valuable member of society. I would also like to think that I create an environment where my children can pursue their own passions.
At the same time, there are things that I cannot (easily) or do not want to teach them, but that are interesting or valuable to my kids. I am not big on doing crafts and art projects with my kids, but I understand the value that those types of activities have and my children really enjoy them. I speak French, but not perfectly, and I only speak a small amount of Spanish. I am thrilled that my children have the opportunity to learn those languages from native speakers at school (that includes both teachers and other students).
So like you, I combine homeschooling and sending my children to school.
I wonder… if you send your child to school but still support their interests and engagement outside of school, is that really homeschooling (as they do go to school elsewhere) or is it simply engaged and supportive parenting? Homeschooling implies that home is where the child’s “schooling” takes place. If you say that your child is homeschooling *and* attends school, it muddies the waters, especially as homeschooling is a legal educational option in many locations, written into school law, including in several Canadian provinces. I’m not sure it’s possible to claim to do both and I’m not exactly sure why someone would want to. Is there something about homeschooling that attracts you and so the label becomes important as it describes something you’d actually like to do? Or are you just trying to use the term to describe your ongoing support of your child’s learning and living outside of school? If so, I really do think “parenting” is a sufficient descriptor.
I see our homeschooling as an extension of my role as a parent. It’s not the core of my parenting, it’s simply a choice along the way. It’s a choice to have my child with my 24/7 instead of sending them to be in the care of others for a good proportion of their waking hours (and is an extension of our choice to follow attachment parenting principles in his early years). Sure, it’s about learning, too, but since my son has been competently learning since he was born (probably even before then), it’s more about choice of venue for us.
You may be interested in checking out Lucy Calkins book, “Raising Lifelong Learners”. It’s an excellent choice for any supportive parent to read, whether her/his children go to school or not. It’s one of my favourite books about how to support children’s learning in a way that really work for everyone. It’s just lovely.
Rebecca:
Beyond what you have discussed here, I know that there are some families that primarily homeschool, but that also send their children to a public school for a certain number of hours per week. I’m not sure if that is an option that is available everywhere, but it came up in some of the statistical reports I was reading on homeschooling.
I had a friend whose daughters attending a French immersion program (in Nova Scotia) but who arranged with the school to have them at home with her in the afternoon (or vice versa). In that situation, she could legitimately claim to be homeschooling. But if a child attends school full-time, then whatever “learning” a parent facilitates at home is not homeschooling.
In BC, where I live, we have online schools or “Distributed Learning” and these are not, for the most part, correspondence schools. Children are learning at home with their parents, may or may not have access to the computer, and their educational programs are overseen by a certified teacher. The government has made it clear that although those children are learning at home, they are not legally homeschooling and the schools cannot refer to these children as homeschoolers. I think that might be an extreme reaction on the part of the gov’t but it’s because “homeschooling” is recognized as something quite different in the School Act and does not require a certified teacher’s supervision.
It’s easy to get twisted up in words and people get rather possessive of certain terminology. I don’t want to go there with you. However, I also think it’s wonderful when parents whose kids attend school continue to support and facilitate learning (and are interested in it) when kids are outside of school. Can all those parents call what they do homeschooling? I don’t think so. But I’m really glad they are doing it anyway (as long as it’s not “school at home” drudgery stuff).
Saying you homeschool because you do crafts with your kids when they get home from public/private school is like calling yourself a single parent when your husband is out of town for the weekend.
That statement minimizes the burden the home schooling parent has as the person primarily responsible for the entire education of the child. It is a burden freely chosen and gladly borne, but a very large one nevertheless.
Honestly, I think it is all parents’ responsibility to “home school” whether their children attend physical school or not, and do hope all do this to some extent. And I don’t limit that to teaching them numbers and letters etc., but to me, reading to and with children is education, taking them to places like museums, libraries, parks, having them in activities like music or sports, doing errands and chores, even sometimes just hanging out as a family or giving them free play time, all of these can be educational (and often in a much more practical way than school-school — and often in a way that is more appropriate and engaging for a child than worksheets). This is why I have such an issue with school work sent home, I feel it interferes with the other types of learning that occur at home. I know people often suggest parents that oppose homework are shirking their duty to ensure their child gets a good education and foisting responsibility on to the teachers, but for me, it is BECAUSE I think it’s a combined effort between home and school that it bothers me when homework interferes with home life. Esp. since studies are showing homework as it exists now is of little value.
Adding, yes, I suppose one could also just call that parenting, or educating, as opposed to using the label “home schooling”. It is a parental responsibility no matter where “schooling” happens.
Andrea:
I completely agree on the homework issue. On my other post on anti-homeschooling propaganda in Germany a few commenters discussed the mandatory parental guidance and assistance with school work outside of school hours. I absolutely hate that concept. I think children should learn in school, what the school curriculum requires of them. They should then be free at home to either review that information (if they are interested or if they need more practice) or be able to pursue other interests.
I just wanted to say that I think this is a really great post! Thought-provoking and balanced.
Thanks!
I am a mother of one public-school child (in Australia) and two younger children who will also attend public school in their turn. Well, *probably* will! I am really drawn to home education and would love to do it on so many levels, and if our local public school wasn’t so lovely (and really, it is – we are lucky) we’d probably be doing it right now. It was and remains a lineball call for us.
I think what Melodie says above is very thoughtful and reflects my experience too. My eldest child is in her second year of public school in Australia and so far it has been a very positive experience for her. My second child will start at the same school next year. However, we also do a lot of learning extension at home. My eldest is pretty maths-sci focused, so we do experiments (a lot of them – sigh
and she attends Astronomy Club with her dad, and keeps a star journal / star chart. Both my two eldest like to read well beyond the parameters deemed normal for 5 and 7 year olds, so at home we read lots of stuff (classics, science, poetry) and so on.
But then perhaps this is just reflecting what I think is the case for so many families – that wherever the daytime education takes place, parents and home contexts provide an essential part of any child’s educational experience.
On the other points, I think I’d probably agree with the tenor of the commenters above who have suggested that exposure to different kinds of people and different styles of authority doesn’t have to happen in a school and in fact often happens detrimentally in a school (power imbalances being what they are). Similarly, not sure that I buy the dilution effect of public schooling on exposure to negative parental attitudes (or positive ones for that matter, or philosophical ones, or religious ones). I’m of the view that parental attitudes are pretty powerful in influencing young children and become less powerful as time goes on.
That said, my *personal* philosophy is that I actually do not want my children to absorb my worldview by osmosis, nor do I want to shield them from alternative perspectives. I want them to hear views diametrically opposed to mine, and I am not bothered if that happens when they are young. I trust them to think it through, being as how they are people and all. (I think you advert to something similar above, Annie, when you talk about what you tell your children about beliefs).
That is of course only my personal philosophy, and I know it is absolutely not shared by everyone (some philosophies demand a transmission of truth to the next generation, in fact). But I would say that the willingness to be open and allow your children to be open is a trait shared across all schooling sectors and in fact a common demoninator in my own home education circle of friends. I would not say that closemindedness characterises that community at ALL.
What a diffuse ramble this has been! To summarise – I think your piece is thoughtful, I think home education is a broad church, and I think formal schooling also covers a wide array of parenting styles and philosophies. I have no general preference for one model or another, but I think each family should be able to make the choice and should be prepared to do the work in making that choice an informed one for their particular circumstance.
I want to address one concern about this post that has come up in a message board discussion. People are saying that I contradict myself when I say that I am concerned about ideological reasons for homeschooling (i.e. people who do not want their children exposed to certain ideas or facts at school) but then say: “Realistically, I do not think that there is any reason why parents cannot teach their children about their faith outside of school hours.”
I should clarify that in an ideal world, I do not think that parents should teach their children that one belief system is better than another. Period. That said, I recognize the right and desire of a lot of parents to pass on their faith to their children. I think that is fine, as long as the children are also exposed to other ideas and beliefs too so that they can make up their own mind.
I think there is a big difference between trying to pass your beliefs on to your children while they also learn about other options versus pretending there is only one truth and shielding them from other views.
While I think I’m on the same page as you (we aren’t raising our children in any particular religion and I do want them to learn about multiple belief systems, and feel free to chose their own, or none — and I don’t believe in religion in public schools except in an academic sense), I don’t see how it would be possible, if one subscribed to a faith, NOT to teach one’s children that it is the true faith, and therefore “better” than another. It doesn’t (and shouldn’t) follow that those parents will also teach their children people of other faiths are less worthy, or worse, should be hated. If you believe in something though, don’t you believe in it because you think it’s better? We all pass our beliefs (and biases) on to our children, for better or for worse.
I do have to agree with the others who have commented that hate can be taught as well as faith outside school hours. The parents who want to keep their children sheltered from other beliefs or groups of people, or want to pass on hatred, will do so. Not all parents parent the way I do, and really, that is their right no matter what my personal preferences are
I also think jerks are plentiful outside of schools, so have no concern about home schooled kids not getting exposed to difficult social situations.
Our school-aged son is in a public school, btw, though there is a lot that draws me to home schooling. Your comment, and one of a poster to a previous post, about trying to make the system better rather than removing our kids, did resonate with me though.
“I don’t see how it would be possible, if one subscribed to a faith, NOT to teach one’s children that it is the true faith, and therefore “better” than another.”
It is absolutely possible. My children have learned that my faith is right for me, but their father has no faith and that is right for him. And the grandparents have their faith and that is right for them. They don’t need to be told that one faith is right and true over every other, jst that each individual has their own truth to find.
But some people’s faith specifically do not believe that “each individual has their own truth to find.” This is called moral relativism, which some believe it – that each person has their own truth and finding it is the spiritual journey. However, many people do not believe in relativism but instead believe that there is one truth.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with teaching my child that X is the one truth as long as a) you teach that others feel differently and b) to always have empathy and respect for others’ opinions. (and I’ll add c) that you respect and love your child when they choose a different path even if you don’t think it is “truth”)
I mean, do you really care if I teach my child that Christianity is the One True Faith? Or are you more (and rightly) worried that I’ll teach her to hate and discriminate against others?
Thank you, Paige — this expresses my thoughts very well.
As a Christian, I believe that God exists — that he really and truly exists, in a way that can’t be wished away. I also believe that it is important for me to love and respect people whether or not they believe in God.
As a citizen of a free country, I have the right not only to believe this, but also to express this view — and that includes the right to express that view to my children. How do you draw the line between free speech and teaching your children what you believe?
Laura:
How do I draw the line?
For starters, Canadians have a different definition or interpretation of free speech than Americans do. Free speech in Canada does not include hate speech. So that is one place where I draw the distinction.
With regards to religious beliefs, I think that parents have the right to tell their children what they want. However, I also think that those children have a right to be exposed to other viewpoints.
I certainly want to pass some of my values on to my children, but I think that the best way to do that is by modeling those values and by talking about them, not by shielding them from other viewpoints.
Agreed Summer.
yes: it is the difference between teaching and indoctrination. I wish to teach my children so that they can think for themselves…teach them HOW to think, and not WHAT to think. I believe that indoctrination is scary and dangerous. It is the basis of intolerance and of totalitarianism.
As someone who was home schooled off and on up until I started high school, I thought I’d throw my hat in the ring. Although I agree that home schooling doesn’t lead to poor social skills. I do think there are some gaps (or at least there were in my case). While I have always felt comfortable and confident in social situations with adults, it wasn’t always the case with teenagers. And when I started high school, although I was academically more than prepared, socially it was extremely difficult. Having been previously in a very challenging and nurturing environment I was ill prepared for the bullying, bitchiness and ritual humiliation of my school experience. Full disclosure – my home schooling was religion-based and therefore may have been more isolated than many others.
That being said, I’m not sure if that is a reason to avoid homeschooling. Indeed, it might be an argument for it. And I’m also not sure if it says more about my personality than it does about the experience as a whole.
I don’t know what the answer is to the negative experiences in schools – is it better to be desensitised to bullying over a long period of time, or avoid it entirely? I do know that what I was always taught in my home schooling environment – that if there were any conflicts they were dealt with by talking about our feelings one on one – were not considered to be an appropriate or even a useful method of resolution in the traditional school environment.
Zoey…I was public schooled all the way to grad, and I wan’t even remotely prepared for the nastiness, bulliness and general crap that got ditched out once I hit high school. It’s not about whether or not you were homeschooled. It’s about whether or not you got bullied when you were younger. It didn’t start for me until about 6th grade…puberty. I’ve seen it start earlier and later for other kids. Bullying is bullying, and one’s educational background really makes no difference, imo.
All that said…I find that when most people talk about the reasons why public school is better, or the pros of public school, they’re talking about public school as it presents itself to be, not as it really is. My oldest son is in public school, and he’s done okay there (most As and Bs, lots of friends. extracurricular activities in service, arts and athletics, etc.), but I don’t think he’s truly thrived the way he potentially could have. Public school squashed me and my desire to learn, and I’m only really getting that back now…in my 40s. My other three children are/will be (only one of thme is “school age”) homeschooled. They’re also exposed to a very wide variety of belief structures and lifestyles…far more than I ever encountered in public school, where everyone seemed to be trying as hard as they could to be just like everybody else.
I am a home school graduate. My high school experience included co-op and online classes, but other than that it was mostly the kitchen table (or my bunk bed, or outside in the play house, or…) My parents are Christians, and raised me to be a Christian, and taught me how evil Nazis were (from our own family history, as well as from the history books), and they definitely pushed me to learn why we believed what we do.
When you say- “I should clarify that in an ideal world, I do not think that parents should teach their children that one belief system is better than another. Period.” -you lose me. Parents should teach their children that they (the parents) believe something despite it being no better than any other option? So I should teach my children that I’m a Christian, but if they want to become a Nazi skinhead that is ok too, since all belief systems are equal?
I suspect everyone would be nodding until the Nazi bit. But I see that as very inconsistent… allowing and encouraging all viewpoints… except for the exclusive ones, that think they’re right, and the hateful ones, that nobody likes. I think that my parent’s approach of teaching me what we believed and expecting me to ask questions, read differing view points, and be able to coherently explain them, was much more reasonable.
I realize that this isn’t actually the point of your post… but while I enjoyed quite a bit of your post that kept sticking out to me.
Natalie:
When I refer to beliefs, I mean things like whether there is a God(s), what happens after we die, whether you should/need to pray/worship and if so how, etc. I think children should be taught that different people believe different things and be encouraged to explore different options. However, their parents certainly can explain why they believe what they do. They just shouldn’t present it as the truth. They should present it as a belief.
I would separate beliefs from things like hate and discrimination (which are often promoted by religious groups, but are not inherent to religion). I don’t think it is right to advocate for hate or discrimination under any circumstances.
However, their parents certainly can explain why they believe what they do. They just shouldn’t present it as the truth. They should present it as a belief.
Should I lie to my kids then and say that this is not necessarily true, just what I believe. This boils down whether or not you believe in truth. I teach my kids what I believe to be true. I present it as truth, b/c I believe it to be so. If it isn’t true then it wouldn’t be worth anything.
Please know I am not a philosopher or theologian. I am just a person who believes in absolutes and will pass to my children. Just as I am, hopefully, passing love towards all and a desire to serve others.
Pam:
I think presenting beliefs as truths is problematic.
I think beliefs can be extremely valuable, even if they can’t be proven to be true.
Annie I don’t think it is possible to believe in God and not present it as truth. Christianity does not leave room for that type of relativism so I have to disagree with “They just shouldn’t present it as the truth. They should present it as a belief.”
As I said in another reply (gosh, this post is good it is more like a discussion board!) why should you care if I believe my faith is TRUTH and thereby that your belief is FALSE? The problem would come if I translated my belief that my way is better into treating you as if I think that makes me a better person than you. Don’t we often talk about this same thing with lactivism? I think formula is the bad choice but I don’t think formula feeders are bad people. I will certainly raise my daughter to believe that breast is the “only way to go” but that she should always show respect and empathy to people with a different choice.
Maybe that is a bad example because breast is best has facts behind it. How about vaccination? I believe that vaccinating is a very poor choice for overall health and I’ll pass my overall beliefs in health to my daughter but also teach her to respect others’ views.
Paige is right, Christianity teaches that the beliefs ARE truth, despite lack of scientific proof. That’s why it’s called faith. (And, off topic, there are a number of books available providing scientific proof in religious matters. I recently read “The Case For Christ” which examines how the Bible was translated, sometimes inaccurately, and shows evidence that Jesus Christ was a real person.)
I’ve been thinking about this post and the comments all day. And perhaps I’m wrong, but the impression I get is that it’s not homeschooling that you have a problem with, it’s religious people using homeschooling as a platform to teach religious dogma that you disagree with. And I’m wondering why you object so strongly. How does it affect you or your children if someone else chooses to teach their kids that evolution does not exist? That’s not something I personally believe but it’s none of my business if someone else teaches that. I feel like you’re trying to say that religious arguments lead to close-minded hateful people, and that’s quite a stretch.
Kayris:
A reply to a few of your comments/questions:
You said: Paige is right, Christianity teaches that the beliefs ARE truth, despite lack of scientific proof. That’s why it’s called faith.
As I explained in another comment, I don’t see truth and faith as synonymous. Truth = verifiable fact. Faith = something I believe in when there is no verifiable fact. Truth = the earth is round. Faith = I believe there is no God, you believe there is one. We can have faith in different things, without pretending that they are facts.
You said: And perhaps I’m wrong, but the impression I get is that it’s not homeschooling that you have a problem with, it’s religious people using homeschooling as a platform to teach religious dogma that you disagree with.
I don’t have a problem with homeschooling any more than I have a problem with public schools. I pointed out benefits and drawbacks to both in my post. However, the comments seem to have honed in on my critiques of homeschooling. I do have a problem with religious people using homeschooling as a platform to teach religious dogma as fact to the exclusion of verified facts. Unfortunately I have learned that it seems a lot of American schools do this too, so I would have the same objection to them.
You said: How does it affect you or your children if someone else chooses to teach their kids that evolution does not exist? That’s not something I personally believe but it’s none of my business if someone else teaches that. I feel like you’re trying to say that religious arguments lead to close-minded hateful people, and that’s quite a stretch.
First, you’ve been reading my blog long enough that you should know that I care about more than just my children. I care about society. Why would I bother with, for example, my breastfeeding advocacy if I only cared about my children. They have both weaned, so if I only cared about then, I could just shut up about it now. the
Second, the reason that it matters if other people’s children grow up learning that evolution doesn’t exist (or any of the other “truths” that aren’t really true) is that those children grow up to be politicians, business leaders, teachers, celebrities, and so on. So someone that grows up being taught that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong and that isn’t presented with any alternative theory would never consider changing discriminatory laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying. Someone who believes less in science and more in “the will of God” may be less likely to consider public policies or invest in science that would address some of the ills that are affecting our planet (e.g. global warming). People who believe that their beliefs are the truth have a history of starting wars against those who have different beliefs. I could go on, but I don’t have the time this morning. Perhaps that will be the topic of another post.
Once again thanks for this post. I don’t want you to construe my arguing repeatedly as a lack of respect for this wonderful discussion.
“So someone that grows up being taught that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong and that isn’t presented with any alternative theory would never consider changing discriminatory laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying. ”
Unfortunately, I can see all too well why you would think this. It is shameful sometimes to be a christian (little “c” for what people do for it, I’m never ashamed to be a Christian) because of what some people do with it. I’m not surprised you said this because with many people who define as christians this is so true. However, it saddens me beyond reason because it is NOT TRUE for me and for many Christians I know.
Now, for the record, I personally am not a Bible literalist so I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin (I’m also “pro-choice” which makes me hated in some circles) but here’s the thing. Even if I DID think homosexuality is a sin IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that I would then be less inclined to care about the HUMAN FREEDOM TO MARRY WHO ONE WISHES. I believe that abortion is a sin, however, I understand that my stance is based on MY truth and I 100% and COMPLETELY support people’s rights to access abortion and make their own moral choice. Honestly, 100%. Yes, I’m a Christian that has marched in parades for gay rights and donated money to pro-choice groups.
So, while I understand why you think this way (due to horrible real life examples) it is still stereotyping to conflate teaching religious dogma with discrimination/lack of societaly change/or ignorance.
Not to get all religious (too late, huh?) but I don’t recall Christ marching on Rome to change the laws. I’m pretty darn sure he wouldn’t have been outside the front of an abortion clinic with a picket sign but rather would have been waiting outside the back door to offer comfort to the women leaving.
I have no desire (nor do I think it would be productive, nor do I think it is in line with the teachings of Christ) to LEGISLATE or in any other way force MY TRUTH on anyone else. To do so is discriminatory and hateful and distinctly unChristian.
Now the real point I think your making is…for those who DO teach a hate-based curriculum – homeschooling can exacerbate the problem by not exposing those children to alternative viewpoints. I agree with you here. However, I think any legislation that restricts homeschooling would only hurt the 99% of homeschoolers who are NOT doing it for these reasons in order to control the 1% of bad eggs. And, honestly, there is no law in the world that will get rid of all the bad eggs.
Paige:
I agree that teaching religious dogma does not automatically lead to discrimination, lack of social change, and ignorance. But I do think that it significantly increases the chances of it.
Now the real point I think your making is…for those who DO teach a hate-based curriculum – homeschooling can exacerbate the problem by not exposing those children to alternative viewpoints. I agree with you here. However, I think any legislation that restricts homeschooling would only hurt the 99% of homeschoolers who are NOT doing it for these reasons in order to control the 1% of bad eggs. And, honestly, there is no law in the world that will get rid of all the bad eggs.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. While I would hazard a guess that it is more than 1% of homeschoolers who fit into the “bad egg” category, I certainly know that it is not the majority of them. For that reason, I do think that homeschooling is primarily a very positive thing.
Why do you have the right to say that? As others have said, moral relativism is antithetical to some belief systems. Religious folk that have spoken out against it include Catholics, Calvinists…and Buddhists. My religion is comparatively quite liberal, but it seems clear to me that if you refute a parent’s right to teach his or her religious beliefs as truth, at least in the United States, you are violating the Constitution. Also, I do not see why a person cannot teach a course in comparative religions and still say, “I believe this one to be the truth.” A spirited discussion as to why would certainly be much more useful to a child’s intellectual development than insisting that all belief systems are equal.
Saille:
I’m amused that you question my right to say something and then go on to question why I would refute a parent’s right to teach his or her religious beliefs as truth. Are you advocating for or against freedom of speech?
I think it is excellent if parents teach comparative religion. If they then want to say “I believe this one to be the truth”, that is fine and appropriate too. The “I believe” not “I know” is critical to that sentence. I object when they do not teach comparative religion and simply say “this is the truth.” There is a big difference, in my opinion, between explaining your beliefs to your children and teaching them as the factual truth.
I think you are being facetious. Certainly you have the right to say whatever you want. I’m questioning the validity of your statement. The argument that parents “should not teach their religion as truth” makes me think you are either non-religious, or a religious relativist. In either case, just because you do not believe in religion as truth does not mean that you have the right to advance that agenda to the exclusion of a parent’s right to teach his or her belief system to his or her offspring. I would probably have made that argument myself while I was a public school teacher, but homeschooling has forced me into close quarters with some highly intelligent people who believe very differently than I do. It’s easy to advance shoulds that would never result in your toes being stepped on…even to convince yourself that the reason your rights aren’t being violated is because you are more “right” than the other guy. But you sound like someone who would resist living in a theocracy. Why is it difficult to understand why a religious person would refuse to accept agnosticism or relativism as part of the national public school curriculum? Frankly, our country does a very poor job of preparing public school students to live in a diverse religious nation, because public schools teach tolerance, but they don’t simply teach the facts about the various belief systems being practiced in our country. From where I’m sitting, classical homeschoolers are doing a much better job.
As a homeschooler, I sometimes criticize very specific actions of schools, teachers, or school systems. For example, I’m not thrilled with the recent changes in Arizona and the developments with regard to textbooks in Texas. But I don’t judge parents for choosing to send their children to school. I assume that their decision is right for their families. I don’t assume I understand their motivations, religious viewpoints, cultural preferences, or educational needs.
I could argue for days about your “concerns.” But I think it can be summed up in a general worry about how people with very conservative social and religious views are raising their kids. You’re saying that homeschooling may be all right for some, but others (most?) may be doing it for the wrong reasons. Therefore: what? It shouldn’t be allowed? They’re “wrong?”
Instead, I’ll just ask why you feel the need to criticize a group of diverse and unique individuals, most of whom you clearly don’t understand at all?
Adrienne:
This post wasn’t designed to “criticize a group of diverse and unique individuals.” It was my response to numerous requests from my readers to share my thoughts on different education options and on the homeschooling ban in Germany. My conclusion was not “It shouldn’t be allowed. They’re wrong.” My conclusion was that there are no easy answers.
I’m a licensed teacher and I’ve definitely been a part of the most wonderful educational settings and also ones that lost touch with the vision of educating a whole child (mainly driven by achievement tests). With that said, my 6yo daughter goes to a “public” school that educates the whole child. Her education is student driven and rarely is there a moment when all 25 students are sitting down and learning the same lesson, plus there aren’t even desks in her classroom. Her classroom is also full of 6-8 year olds and I’ve witnessed the positive impacts of a multi age classroom when you have a child that is very self driven, passionate, and motivated to learn.
The biggest point to drive home about education, is it a fit for your child? Are they being nutured and growing?
Denise:
“The biggest point to drive home about education, is it a fit for your child? Are they being nutured and growing?”
Agreed. I would add to that: Are they being given the opportunity to pursue things they are passionate about (maybe that is part of nurturing and growing, depending on how you define it).
I’m often in awe of those who homeschool. It would not have been the right decision for our family, simply because I’m just not that patient, nor do I have the know-how to teach. To that end, I’m in awe of teachers in general. Excellent post – lots of great insight.
“My guess is that in most cases there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs).”
Reasonable and factual are two different things. As a Catholic mom, I have no problem with my children learning about the concept of birth control, I do have a problem with it being presented as a reasonable option! I believe in evolution to some extent, but it’s not a “fact” it’s a theory – it’s reasonable to teach it but not to the exclusion of other theories. I don’t believe that homosexuality is abnormal, quite the contrary, I think it is a natural trait that is out of one’s control, but that doesn’t mean I condone a homosexual lifestyle.
What is reasonable to some is outrageous to others, and “factual” is not the same as a majority consensus about what is true.
That being said, I do agree with most of what you wrote, and I found your presentation much more evenhanded than what I normally read about this educational debate!
Jennifer (and others who have stated that evolution is “just a theory”):
I would suggest that you read the article Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. Here is a brief quote from Gould that is cited in this article:
The rival theory to the theory of evolution is not creationism or intelligent design. It is an alternate theory of evolution that may better explain the evolutionary process.
On the other two issues, I’ll have to disagree too. I have a problem with birth control not being presented as a reasonable option, even if your preference is for abstinence. I condone a lifestyle that discriminates against homosexuals (and condoning their lifestyle DOES discriminate against them).
Birth control IS an option for your daughter! You can’t say birth control is a theory and you don’t believe in it. You can say you don’t want her to use it and discuss with her your beliefs in the context of the world and your society and what is out there. But birth control is real and it is an option for your daughter whether you like it or not.
Okay seriously, I’m done commenting. Jeez phdinparenting- your commenters keep sucking me in to reply!
I’m pretty sure that’s what she said.
A note on the percentage of homeschoolers who do so for religious reasons. The study from which this comes conflates multiple groups of people and, I believe, is inaccurate. To begin with, because most states do not keep statistics on the number of homeschoolers, we do not know what the total number of homeschoolers actually is. I am not complaining about the practice of the states but rather the statisticians who act as if they know the total from which they are deriving these percentages. Secondly, the question asked in that particular survey (which can be found here http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp ) is whether the parent homeschools for “religious or moral” reasons. I am an atheist who pulled her eldest from school in part because I objected to the racism and homophobia he learned there. I consider racism and homophobia immoral. I would have to be counted among those who checked “yes” to a question now being used to lump me in with those who homeschool in order to teach creationism rather than science. I most definitely do NOT homeschool for religious reasons but using that data I would be counted among those who do.
Jake:
Thank you for clarifying and for sharing your story. I have learned that that is the case for a lot of people. I think the state of a lot of American schools is quite sad indeed if I can judge from what people are saying here.
“I think the state of a lot of American schools is quite sad indeed if I can judge from what people are saying here.”
I’ve seen no evidence that the schools here in Canada are all that, either. I have a relative who finished grade 11, then got her GED (quite a few years ago). She didn’t know that sugar is a carbohydrate (at least not until she got nutrition counseling after her heart attack). She also doesn’t care. I have a nephew who is currently in high school, about to start 10th grade. He is a very, very sweet, patient boy – but he’s also woefully ignorant about almost everything…and doesn’t care.
Schools can’t make people learn. But, they *can* (and do) make people think that learning is a painful, boring process, to be avoided if at all possible. They do work for some people, but they fail miserably for many, as well.
“These thoughts on the right and duty to learn have a significant influence on my opinion of different education options for our children.”
This is a very thought provoking piece and I certainly appreciate your opinions. I am an educational expert and an unschooling mom, and I enjoyed reading it with both hats on (sometimes simultaneously). And I did get hung up a bit on your word choice here: “the right and duty to learn”.
I find it interesting when people think that learning is something other than a natural, innate, biological process. Perhaps you may meant something different than “learning”. Perhaps you meant that all children have a “right to receive instruction and a duty to attend to it”, because people learn all the time, even adults, without even intending to. No one can *make* another person learn – it’s a completely autonomous process. And learning occurs most successfully (easily, naturally, effortlessly) when we are engaged in an activity or pursuit we find interesting, intriguing and fascinating, while in an environment that feels emotionally safe and supportive (there’s research to back that… and I’m not sure most schools provide that). In a school environment most of what kids are learning are things that adults are not intending them to learn; instead, kids are learning things as a byproduct of that particular milieu that has nothing to do with a “well-rounded education”… and you point these out beautifully in your “cons” section about school (and there are many more things that kids learn, especially negative things about themselves as learners and as people, that are not intended).
So maybe you also meant that adults have “a duty to provide an environment that is supportive of and conducive to learning”?
You refer to Article 28 from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I love that document… and I understand that the reason that education is referred to as compulsory has nothing to do with my decision to homeschool my child (as I have other laws that currently protect my right to do that). It’s about access (for the child) and accountability (for the country and the adults who make decisions on behalf of that child).
I’m a big fan of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educationalist who wrote the book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Basically, literacy gives us the ability to have political will. His “radical” mandate was to provide people with literacy skills so they could make decisions (and vote) based on information they could read themselves. All children should have access to education for this reason – the ability to self-determine… but not all educational methods or approaches are supportive of real learning (or self-determination).
I could likely write an essay about this but I won’t do it in your comments.
However, here are some fabulous videos you may or may not have seen that speak to schools, learning, and motivation. These are highly enjoyable and worth the time it takes to watch.
Sir Ken Robinson Part 2 http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html
Sir Ken Robinson Part 1 http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Dan Pink on Motivation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Yes, Rebecca! All of this! Also, Freire – anyone who is interested in authentic, democratic _real_ education needs to read Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and then follow wherever the path leads you. Not the easiest read in the world, but so worth it. I imagine it would be even better in the original Portuguese…
Rebecca:
Thank you for your detailed comment.
I see the right to learn as a human rights issue – i.e. children and adults should be given adequate time, resources, and freedom to be able to pursue learning. I don’t see it as being specific to “instruction”, although I recognize that instruction is the way that most countries choose to provide this basic human right. With regards to the duty to learn, again I don’t see it as a duty to attend instruction. I see it as a duty to learn the things that are required to function as a reasonable human being (i.e. to be able to earn a living, to not act/judge out of ignorance, etc.).
Just a couple of points:
1. I don’t see the right to “learn” as a human rights issue. I know it’s semantics on one level, but it is also a matter of using clear terminology. Everyone learns, even the oppressed. The “right” is really access to environments that facilitate certain kinds of learning. Sorry for nit-picking, but I think it’s an important difference.
2. Duty to learn. I think that things such as being able to earn a living and having a broad perspective and understanding (thus not acting/judging out of ignorance) are very important, so I certainly agree with you about that. And I also think that saying it’s the duty of the learner to learn these things is putting the responsibility in the wrong court. It’s really the responsibility of the adults in a child’s life to ensure that the child has an opportunity to explore many different activities, to treat a child with kindness and empathy (so that a child learns to take the perspective of others), and to allow that child the freedom to develop according to that child’s unique strengths so that the child can find satisfying and successful paths to earning a living down the road. Kids learn so many things through adult modeling that we can find the roots for things like bigotry and intolerance in a child’s environment.
Children who are treated kindly, who are supported and given lots of opportunity to grow and develop (according to their unique developmental timeline and pathway), who are able to see adults engaged in meaningful work and pursuits, and who witness tolerance and understanding in action are likely to incorporate those things into their adult lives. It’s not their duty to learn these things… they will learn them naturally if provided with the right environment in which to learn them. It’s the duty of their caretakers to provide that optimal environment, from my perspective.
Exactly, Rebecca. So many of these comments have been about whether one could be “patient enough to teach”, when in fact, that has little to do with it. If any value had to be assigned to the parent/child dynamic, I think it should be trust. Learning to trust in your child’s ability to learn is the big hurdle most folks deal with. Which brings me to this: “I believe more strongly in the child’s right to an education than I do in the parent’s right to raise their children any way they want.” I find this interesting because we are unschooling with our children by extension of our attatchment parenting, interconnected, continuum beliefs. At preschool age, our children were still nursing. When our daughter was five it seemed unnatural and unreasonable to separate her from not only her parents, but her younger sibling as well. I think the amount of grief and loss a sibling suffers when the other is removed from the home for 8 hours a day must be one of the most painful things a child can endure, but it is rarely considered. When our son was five, we knew it would not be appropriate to send either to school, as they were thriving at home (in the world) and with each other. Today, I am so thankful that we listened to and learned to trust our children and that we saw the value of preserving their attatchment to one another, now that I see how close and loving they are at 11 and 13. They are thriving. We are thriving with them. Nothing about unschooling has been stifling, limited or oppressive. Because of their strong foundation for love and trust within their immediate family, they are confident, questioning, mindful and kind, out in the world (ie, attatchment parenting doesn’t end at toddlerhood.) So yes, I’m raising our children the way I want, but more importantly, I’m raising our children the way they want.
Amy:
I have a high regards for unschooling (and obviously for attachment parenting, extended breastfeeding, etc.) and I certainly don’t disagree with any of your points in that regard. I think it is excellent that you and other unschooling families are raising your children with a great deal of respect for their needs, desires and interests. I think that is fabulous.
When I express any of my own concerns regarding patience, I am referring purely to my own limitations. I would never project that onto other families and suggest that they wouldn’t have the patience for it. Perhaps it is a reflection of me or my children’s personalities or a combination of both, but I am finding my current experience being at home with them full time to be very trying. I do try to take an unschooling approach when I am with my children, which is part-time at home and full-time at the moment. But I find it physically and emotionally draining to do it full-time. They have so many questions and so many interests and so many needs, yet their needs rarely seem to be compatible (one wants to go one way and the other wants to go the other) and neither of them is at an age where they can be sufficiently independent in their learning. Maybe I will feel differently in a few years time, but I’m finding these ages very challenging.
I agree with Andrea when she said that parents who send their kids to school also need to homeschool. No school is perfect, even the incredibly expensive private ones. In fact, some of the most prestigious and expensive high schools in my area also have the biggest problems with drugs. I attended both public and private schools as a child, where I had both good and bad experiences and good and bad teachers. My son will be starting kindergarten at a Catholic school in the fall, but I don’t feel like I’ll send him off to school and brush my hands off of the responsibility to educate him.
I also feel like your list of don’t likes and likes could be combined into a “what to consider” list instead, because it’s almost the opposite of my list. My child’s school is safe, but our local high school is not. Drugs, fights, weapons. And while the local elememtary school is safe, we felt that “direct instruction” was not a good fit for our son and instead put him into the parochial school where the manner of instruction is different and more individually based. And we asked about and where happy to learn about the vast resources available for kids who are either struggling or very advanced.
However, as a religious person who attends church regularly and is teaching my children what we believe to be the truth, I wonder how unbiased your opinions are since you are an atheist. I have many friends who homeschool for religious reasons. I have many friends who would prefer to teach sex ed on their own. I even have a relative who does not believe in evolution. And none of them are hateful or ignorant people. Do I agree with my relative? Absolutely not, but it’s also his right to teach his children about creationism. Religion is a highly important part of many people’s lives and it’s also extremely personal. For some religious people, their beliefs ARE their truths.
“Religion is a highly important part of many people’s lives and it’s also extremely personal. For some religious people, their beliefs ARE their truths.”
This is how I feel also- there is no point in having a belief (in my opinion) if you don’t believe that it’s the truth. That doesn’t mean that you have to hate others beliefs or treat them differently because they have different morals or belief systems, but to teach your children that “here’s what I believe but I’m not sure it’s true” wouldn’t foster a whole lot of respect.
I feel that I should be able to teach my daughter what I have found to be the truth, and show her how to test it out for herself. In that way she is able to make her own decisions, but I am not being ‘wishy-washy’ with my own beliefs and morals. I haven’t decided yet what we will do about schooling (she’s only 4 months), but I don’t feel like public schools are very safe right now, and I couldn’t afford private school. So homeschooling might be the best option for us.
Hateful people passing down hateful ideas are not only found in the homeschooling community. Actually, I’ve never met even one homeschool family I would describe as hateful, but I’ll take your word for it, since my experience is limited to 3 years homeschooling.
But I have met and witnessed hateful people in schools, on playgrounds and in outside activity meetups (sports, science, music, performances, etc.). Usually they have parents who don’t care to involve themselves one way or the other. Wouldn’t those be the last kind of parents to homeschool? It takes an awful lot of work, patience and love to teach your children at home.
I agree having teachers who love a subject and convey that love in a phenomenal and creative way are priceless. I can’t do that for every subject for me kids, I realize that. And I hope to supplement often with classes and opportunities that will put them in close proximity with amazing teacher like that. But the sad truth is there are very few of them. In my entire lengthy education, I think I could list one, maybe two really stand out teachers. After 18 years of education and dozens of teachers. Well. That doesn’t speak well to the education community at large. It’s a job for most people, not a passion. As a homeschooler, I can track down those who have a real passion and a contagious learning style, and enroll my children in those classes with those teachers. (If we privatized the educational system, I think we’d see a lot more passion and creativity just as a matter of competition. Parent would demand it. Currently they have a limited voice. Here in America, the NEA has a lot more power than parents. And they are sworn to protect the rights and interests of teachers, not students!)
Me? Well, I just love to spend time with my kids. I work hard to give them a solid education. And the combination is magical. Not that every parent would want to do it, or that every child would benefit from it. But I sure hope my right to teach them at home isn’t questioned because of some theoretical ideas about the types of people who do it. My experience is the the parents who homeschool care more, not less. Whether they are secular or Eastern Orthodox or Jewish or Unitarians or chanting California hippies. I have seen so many wonderful moms bravely taking charge when they see the need.
Just my perspective. I do think you hit on a lot of key points. Even though you don’t homeschool, it seems you have tried to put yourself in our shoes in order to give a fair and balanced view, and you clearly care deeply for your own children.
Dana:
From some other research I’ve been doing lately, I have realized that being predisposed to hateful views can come from being actively taught them or can come from being neglected/feeling hopeless. So certainly, if children have parents who don’t care to involve themselves or if they are in a school system that leaves them feeling hopeless, they are at risk too.
Here’s another homeschooler who thought this was a very good and evenhanded post. I do think you may be too concerned about the teaching of hate under the cover of homeschooling; this has always struck me as one of the odd things that non-homeschoolers worry about as a theoretical possibility, but which doesn’t actually seem to happen with any significant frequency. There was a great brouhaha a few years ago about some little white supremacist girls whose mother bragged about homeschooling them–Lynx somebody?–but few noticed the followup story that they were never in fact homeschooled, but were enrolled in a charter (i.e. public) school, and that their mother used “homeschooling” to mean “the Nazi ideology I taught them at home.”
My contribution is two points that I think are often not considered by those “outside” homeschooling when comparing home education (yes, a better term) and schools.
1. There’s often an assumption that the parents have chosen homeschooling rather than public school. In fact many of us chose between homeschooling and our parish/diocesan school; and I personally know many homeschoolers who chose between homeschooling and a Christian school (often Baptist), and a couple who chose between homeschooling and Jewish day school. For many homeschoolers–and many of us are probably those whom one might consider “ideological”–our non-homeschooling option would probably be more isolating within a particular ideology (or, more accurately, faith tradition) than our choice to homeschool. My homeschooled children play with children who are being raised Buddhist, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, and Evangelical. This wouldn’t be happening if I’d given in to the pressure to enroll them in St. ***** parochial school. Public school was never even on the radar. So it’s worth asking, where would the child really be if not homeschooled?
2. Yes, there are a lot of homeschoolers, at least in my neck of the woods, being carefully taught to withstand the propaganda of Darwinists (like us) and science from a creationist viewpoint. But growing up in Texas, I recall these same families were not only teaching their children creationism, but working to take over school boards to prevent evolutionary theory from being taught to anyone’s kids. This happened in my own ISD. Our biology teacher in high school, no doubt keeping his job in mind, simply skipped the chapter on origins altogether. Frankly I prefer the safety valve of homeschooling. Do you really want these active-in-the-community, ideologically committed parents forced to put their kids in school?
S.D.
I’m starting to realize through comments like yours, and the post written by my friend Summer, the sad situation in the United States. As I said on her post, perhaps I should rephrase my concern to say that I have grave concerns about any educator, be they a home educator or a school educator, that attempts to push specific belief systems on children, that hides scientific facts from them, or that breeds hatred and discrimination.
Here’s the thing–you believe that because you’re not a religious person, although I’d need clarification of what you mean by “push.” Because while I intend to raise my children in the faith that my husband and I were raised in, I don’t feel that is “pushing” a belief system on them. There are several notable scientists that are people of faith, so the two are not mutually exclusive. But I do not intend to also teach my kids about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or every other form of Christianity other than my own and then let them pick which one they most identify with. What they decide to do as adults is up to them (a choice my parents gave to my brother and I), but it’s my job now to impart the beliefs that we hold most dear. Obviously there are some lessons we all hope children would never learn. But telling someone what they can and can’t teach their children sounds suspiciously like censorship, something I’m firmly against.
I agree so much Kayris. When I was 7 years old and decided I “didn’t want to go to church” anymore that was not an option for my parents. I was raised that Christianity was truth. As adults I am a Christian and my sister is an atheist. My parents didn’t disown her and our family events are not riddled with jamming our beliefs down her throat. On the contrary we have excellent conversations about topics of faith, fact, truth, etc. because most importantly we were taught to respect other peoples’ ideas and thoughts. We actually come to consensus on so many things!
As far as that breeding hatred and discrimination I guess we were also raised to believe that judiasm is wrong (not wrong as in bad but not “truth”) but we certainly are NOT anti-Semites. Hating or discriminating against Jewish people would be the furthest thing from the way we were raised.
I feel like you are conflating teaching truth with harboring hatred.
Sorry I keep commenting so much – this is truly a wonderful and thought provoking post! Thank you for opening this particular can of worms!
To clarify the above post: “(like us)” refers to Darwinists (or, less tongue-in-cheek, adherents to mainstream biological science), not to the creationist homeschoolers.
” I think children should be taught that different people believe different things and be encouraged to explore different options.”
See, now this is where all homeschoolers get put into that little box again. Our children aren’t set in a tiny little box or chained to tables all day. At least in our homeschool, we explore other religions. We are Protestant but we have been involved with the Catholic church, we’ve talked about the Muslim faith, Buddism. We even live in an area heavily populated by Amish and Mennonites and have used curriculum, and if we come across a different belief we discuss those beliefs, why they believe them and we also talk about what we believe as well.
My daughters know that there are other people in the world that do not believe the same we do. We go to the many cultural festivals in our area during the summer.. Russian, Greek, Polish ,,etc. So we learn about cultural diversity.
The vast majority of homeschoolers that I have talked to in person or online do many of these very things in their home. I’ve seen atheists have their children read Bible stories, I’ve seen homeschoolers do studies on faiths other than their own. So this is not something that all homeschoolers should be grouped into.
There are going to be some people who believe the way they believe is the right way. I’ve seen this with families who send their children to school. I’ve talked to many families who have children in public school who feel that the way they believe is the only way and work very hard and grounding those beliefs in their children even if they attend school. I see what you are saying about being around others all day that just don’t believe what mom and dad believe. Trust me when I say our children aren’t around us 24 hours a day 7 days a week. When our children are out socializing they are around many people who believe different things too.
There maybe small groups of homeschoolers who only keep their children in groups that believe in only what they do, but in the same breath there are children who go to school who seek out those who believe the way they do , think the way they do as well,and their families limit their exposure at home as well. Its a two way street. There are pros and cons to both homeschooling and public/private schooling. There is no perfect answer to what is best. The only way to answer that is to know what feels right to you and what works best for your own family.
Tracy:
Huh? I don’t understand how the quote that you took from one of my comments puts all homeschoolers into a little box.
I am surprised at how many homeschoolers are feeling defensive with the post. In my opinion, it appropriately addresses benefits and concerns for both schools and home education situations. In fact, I felt that the piece was missing some additional concerns about home education. (Such as: unschooling does not give the child and opportunity to learn something they might never have discovered on their own: you never know what is going to create a spark of wonder!)
The bottom line (for me) is that not all schools are bad and not all homeschoolers are good. (And conversely, not all schools are good and not all homeschoolers are bad.) Parents need to make realistic evaluations of their specific situations (the actual local school and teachers, not just beliefs about schools and teachers) and adequately assess their own child’s individual needs in order to find the best fit. There truly is a world of opportunity out there and some people are fortunate enough to be able to make a patchwork “quilt” of education, piecing together the wonderful and diverse educational models in a way that best suits their child and situation.
Some families do not have the opportunity to homeschool and I think these families and children deserve great public schools. Change is definitely needed (and is happening in some places!).
YES. I think what a lot of commenters are missing is that you can’t apply blanket statements about schooling. Some homeschoolers might be teaching anti-evolution lessons, but I believe that those parents would teach that anyway, even if their kids went to school elsewhere. Some schools are safe, while some are most definitely not. Some schools use a one-size-fits-all approach while others do not. Just because public school was not a good fit for one child doesn’t mean ALL public schools are bad or that the entire education system in the US is broken, or even that another child in the same family will need the same sort of education. A good friend of mine sends her oldest child to public school, but her second child did not do well with direct instruction (my own concern for my child) that was the preferred method of teaching at her school; she now homeschools him, but the older child is doing well at the same public school with the same teachers. We have personally taken some criticism because our son is one day too young for the school cutoff and we opted to wait the extra year and start K at age 6 instead of testing him in to start at the “right” age.
Bottomline, there is no one way to do it. It depends on so many factors–the child, the parent, and the specific school.
Other people have commented about this, but I’ve got a couple of cents to throw into the ring as well.
“I worry that children who grow up under the guidance of the most gentle, patient, loving and inspiring parents without being exposed to teachers who are strict, ineffective, jerks, play favourites, or use coercive methods may not learn how to deal with those types of people before entering the
workforce and may be at a disadvantage.”
Instead of speaking for myself, I’ll let Alfie Kohn do it for me.
The article is not completely relevant to this topic as he’s talking mainly about standardized testing (and how the prevalent mindset is that kids “better get used to it” or BGUTI). But I think his ideas transfer well to any situation where children are exposed to needless coercion or unkindness because, well, life’s like that so they BGUTI.
“In response to a humane and respectful educational practice, they can say, “Yeah, but what’s going to happen to these kids when they learn that life isn’t like that?” Invoking a dismal future, like invoking human nature, can work both ways – to attack practices one opposes and also to promote practices one prefers. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve heard someone respond to the charge that a certain policy is destructive by declaring that children are going to experience it eventually, so they need to be prepared.”
Because the roots of our family’s decision to attachment parent came from research on John Bowlby, who first formulated attachment theory, and my care to maintain “a secure base” for our child, we decided to have our child continue to learn at home with us. I believe that human resiliency (what is needed for dealing with people who are mean spirited or who simply lack the internal resources to be kind under pressure) comes from having a secure base. It begins with the parent-child relationship and, as a child grows, he or she internalizes this feeling of safety and security. A child who is able to continue to feel safe and secure during periods of vulnerability is not going to be weaker or more vulnerable as an adult. He or she will have learned coping skills within the family unit (and the many activities he/she is involved in “out there” in the large world outside school) and because the child has few emotional scars and triggers, he/she is able to successfully handle those stressful experiences as adults. I have had the privilege of knowing many grown homeschoolers and unschoolers. They are, for the most part, confident and competent individuals who are living and functioning well in the real world.
I don’t think you need to worry.
Rebecca – you and Alfie said it very well.
And I have to say, it’s amazing how quickly my “secure base” children are raring to go and get ‘em out there in the big wide “unfair”, “brutal” etc. world.
Rebecca:
I am a fan of Alfie’s writing too. I certainly believe that it is important for me to show Unconditional Love to my children in order for them to have that secure home base and because it is the type of relationship that I want to have with my children.
That said, I don’t think that everyone my children will deal with as leaders, authority figures, colleagues, or friends need to show them that same type of unconditional love. I’m not suggesting I’m going to sign my children up to have a babysitter or a teacher who abuses them because they BGUTI. I am, however, suggesting that a lot of people are going to relate to my child in a different way than I will and I do think that there is an stage at which it is developmentally appropriate for them to start learning how to handle different people/different styles assertively and confidently.
Again, I do think that a lot of homeschooling families do have ways that they expose their children to those types of situations anyway and even if they don’t, it isn’t going to make or break that child’s life. It is a very small issue for me and one that many of you have addressed very well.
Just for clarification, I never said that I thought birth control was a “theory”. And I never suggested that birth control was not an option for my daughter. Becoming a heroin user or a prostitute are also options for my daughter, it doesn’t mean I need to condone them or teach her that they are good choices for her to make. I know the Catholic opposition to birth control is a fringe belief (even among Catholics!) but it is a core tenant of our faith – teaching my daughter that birth control is morally acceptable and something that everyone needs to consider goes against this faith. Really, I was just pointing out that what is reasonable to some is outrageous to others. I don’t expect the schools to teach my faith! Birth control is a pervasive part of our society, of course it is going to be taught in our schools!
There seems to be the assumption that because I want to teach my daughter (and my son) that birth control is immoral, that I am ignorant and sheltering, a broad generalization that is completely untrue. If I chose to teach my children that eating meat was immoral (as many do), I don’t think many would consider me ignorant and sheltering, simply because the majority of our society believes otherwise…
Also, to the comment: “I don’t see how it would be possible, if one subscribed to a faith, NOT to teach one’s children that it is the true faith, and therefore “better” than another.” I completely disagree with this. I do teach my children my “truth” and I truly hope that they will come to share the same truth someday. But I don’t believe that anyone who doesn’t share my truth is “lesser” or damned, that is not for me to judge. Believing in “one truth” doesn’t necessitate disparaging the truth of others. Faith and tolerance can go hand in hand, although I would agree they often don’t!
jennifer:
That is where there is an issue of semantics, I guess. To me “truth” is a fact that has been verified. That is why I have a problem with people presenting their beliefs as truth. If you think there can be multiple truths on the same issue, then I guess we disagree with the definition of truth. I think there can be different beliefs in areas where there is no verified truth.
> To me “truth” is a fact that has been verified.
Every method of verification is subject to perception.
You completely missed my point. I agreed, one could have a faith and yet teach their children to respect the faiths of others, and that all people are equal no matter what they believe. I certainly never suggested anything about teaching children that non-believers are damned, or even that they’d teach their children those people were wrong! What I have a hard time grasping is, if one subscribes to a faith, wouldn’t one believe it was The Truth, and therefore teach their children that? Otherwise, I guess I don’t see the point? That’s a big reason why I’m not raising my children in a particular faith — I don’t believe enough to pass on any one religion. I am however still teaching them that there are many belief systems out there, and that they can learn about those faiths and choose to believe what speaks to them (or not to believe, as the case may be). And always, that they should treat others as they wish to be treated.
I homeschool for ideological reasons, you could say. I live in a county which, in 2002, wanted to have stickers on science textbooks that read:
“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
I homeschool, in part, because I love evolution. I homeschool because I want to make sure that if any of my children are anything other than straight, they already know about the history of the gay rights movement. These are not the only reasons I homeschool, but would I consider them religious or moral issues? Yes.
Since these agree with what you feel should be taught, does that mean my ideological homeschooling is okay, but others is not? Must we have a litmus test as to political beliefs?
As far as hate. I’ve heard far more racist comments from the girls in my former Girl Scout troop, public and private schooled all, except my own child, than from the most conservative, creationist homeschoolers.
(Also, my children have already developed the skill of bowing out of conversation when extreme political differences arise, which is definitely a skill I did not learn in my institutional schooling. Things that make you go hmmm)
This is what I’ve been trying to get at. You can’t choose which ideology is okay to teach and which is not. And as a non-religious person, you can’t personally know how vitally important faith can be to someone. The problem I have with telling people what they can and can’t teach their children is you take away their rights as parents and you take away religious freedom. Fringe Catholic teach that the only acceptable form of birth control is FAM, used within a marriage, to space children. I don’t agree and you clearly don’t agree, but you can’t take away a person’s right to teach their kids that, while allowing someone else to teach a different religious argument. Religious people believe that their dogma IS fact, despite the fact that you won’t find it in any textbook. I’d love it if people never learned that all Americans should be blown up or women should be ruled by their husbands or that alcohol will lead you to the devil and porn. But censoring religious teachings is a sticky issue, and your vision of what children should learn will differ, sometimes drastically, from someone else’s.
Kayris:
With regards to which ideology is okay to teach and which is not:
Canada’s constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but places a limit on it. Incitement of hatred of people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation prohibited. I support this limitation (but it is a contentious one).
Beyond that, it gets more into the realm of ethical/unethical than legal/illegal. I don’t think it is ethical to present things to children as fact (truth) if they are not facts and simply beliefs. What if I am claustrophobic and truly believe that I will suffocate in an enclosed space? Should I tell my children they will die if they go into an elevator? Or should I explain why I am scared, but also tell them that many, many other people use elevators every day without any problem. It wouldn’t be illegal for me to tell my children that they will die if they go into an elevator, but I think it would be unethical to do so. I think that faith, beliefs, and fears are all part of the human experience and are very personal. While I believe in the right to share your faith, beliefs, and fears with others, I think that you are encroaching on THEIR religious freedom when you present YOUR beliefs as truth.
I don’t know if you can make a comparison of claustrophobia with the existence of God. And I’m not going to argue over and over again that for many religious people, there is no differentation between belief and truth. As others have pointed out, what’s the point of believing in something if you don’t think it’s the truth? And as others have also pointed out, it’s possible to present those beliefs as truths without also creating hatred or intolerance. I think there is a vast difference between teaching what we as religious people believe and brainwashing children with there is only one belief system and this is it.
And as others have also pointed out, it’s possible to present those beliefs as truths without also creating hatred or intolerance.
I agree. But it is not possible to present them as THE truth (as opposed to what you BELIEVE is true), without enabling ignorance and ignorance does often lead to hatred or intolerance.
I think there is a vast difference between teaching what we as religious people believe and brainwashing children with there is only one belief system and this is it.
I agree. It involves using phrases that start with “I believe that….” or “I have faith in….” rather than phrases that imply they are presenting factual data.
You said: [I agree. It involves using phrases that start with “I believe that….” or “I have faith in….” rather than phrases that imply they are presenting factual data.]
This is where I think the fundamental disagreement is for me — when I say I have faith in God, what I mean is that I believe that it is a fact that God exists. That’s simply what faith is. Asking me to qualify all of my statements to my children or anyone else is asking me to pretend that my faith is something that it isn’t. It is natural for me to speak with words that reflect the conviction that I have.
Throughout your post and your comments, you yourself state things as fact that other people disagree with. At times I do see that you say “I believe” or “I think,” but other times — when in your judgment something is a fact — you omit those qualifiers. We all do the same thing when we have strong convictions about something. It shows that we stand for something, and I think it’s healthy for children to see that in their parents.
You also said: [But it is not possible to present them as THE truth... without enabling ignorance....]
Am I reading this right — are you suggesting that a child who is taught that God definitely exists is ignorant? Of what would you say he is ignorant?
Laura:
That child, if not presented with any other possibilities or given the opportunity to explore them on their own, is then ignorant of other possible explanations. Believing in God because you have faith is fine. Believing in God because someone told you it is a fact is ignorance.
I differentiate between explaining the belief systems of others and their historical context, and constantly prefacing religious beliefs you consider to be facts with equivocation. Many homeschoolers teach their children about the origins of the major world religions and their tenets, and still say, “Here are our religious beliefs. We consider these facts. Here is why.” It would not make sense for such a person to constantly offer caveats. While that might not be how we ourselves do it, I don’t think we can reasonably suggest that parents ought not to be allowed to do this. I thought Queen Elizabeth was right on when she said that she had no desire to make windows into men’s souls. It’s just not the government’s place.
My husband was homeschooled by his parents for religious reasons and still feels like he was educationally and socially crippled by the experience. I am a graduate student in education and am compelled by the arguments for secular/unschooling: I have 2 young children and worry for their schooling experiences in overcrowded schools with few opportunities for art/music, and standardized curricula. I did/do very well in school and in some ways can’t imagine life without it, but I’m not wild about the whole institutionalization of education. I am not sure what we will do, or what our lifestyle will allow us to do, when the time comes to enroll our kids in school. I think it will depend on where we live and the quality of our local school(s) and the class sizes. Fortunately, if my children are homeschooled, it will be by highly educated, feminist, anti-racist parents !
Wish I could read through all the previous comments… ack. I’ve considered homeschooling for our kids when they’re old enough for it, but I’m honestly just not sure I have it in me. I imagine that to be your child’s teacher you have to have such vast reserves of patience, motivation and drive, and I’m not sure I would do the job justice.
I’m hoping my 2yo can start going to a Montessori preschool in the next year or 2. I would *love* for him to then attend a Montessori elementary program, as well, but that will depend on if such a program is available and if we can afford it. I personally feel that the Montessori approach eliminates almost all of the concerns you listed as negatives about schools.
Marcy, I think Montessori programs are wonderful! Locally, we have a public charter school that has a special Montessori preschool AND elementary program. It is mainly a modified homeschool program where the students come in 2 or 3 days a week for classes together and the parents teach the other days, but they also have a full 4 or 5 day program if that works better for the parents and kids. A friend of mine is doing the 4-day program and loves it! And it’s free!!! If I were not so committed to my Classical approach for my family, that is what I would do… or if I had to return to work. Not sure where you are geographically, but it could be something to look for. I just saw your comment and thought I’d share.
Oh, and also… if you still want to consider homeschooling, I’m sure you could do it! It does require a special brand of patience, I think. I admire “professional” teachers so much more now that I homeschool. It’s humbling. But it also is tons of fun!
great post. I hate to sound snobbish but one of my fears about homeschooling is that the parent isn’t capable of teaching some of the more advanced science and math concepts once kids get to high school age. I really don’t think I would have got my A levels in maths, Chemistry and Biology if my parents had been my teachers, smart though they are. Maybe I’m underestimating the dedication of these parents (or overestimating the abilities of the schoolteachers), but I don’t believe that the averagely educated parent (or even the above averagely educated parent) has the breadth of knowledge to home educate right through high school.
geekymummy:
Do you think you would have been able to teach it to yourself? To seek out resources with the support of your parents to learn it? I’ve learned a great many things in my life that were never taught to me. I taught myself most of the History of Quebec and Canada course that is taught in our high schools because I was overseas during the year that course was taught and I couldn’t have graduated without passing the provincial exam. I taught myself to write Japanese. I taught myself MBA level accounting because the professor was useless.
This concern always kind of boggles me.
The vast majority of the kids I went to school with didn’t learn advanced science and math concepts. They crammed for tests, and learned to regurgitate enough facts/procedures (eg. what steps to follow to solve a certain kind of math problem) to pass the test. Then, they tried to cram a lot of that back in when September rolled around, and then they crammed again. I’m 42 and I remember very little of what I learned in school. The things I remember are the things that I was actually interested in, and reinforced on my own time. *Most* of what I’ve learned in life was picked up from books, conversations, on-the-job training, etc., not from formal education. IME, this is true for many, many people – even some who don’t realize it themselves.
I love this speech called Being Honest About Ignorance and think it is relevant to the discussion here:
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-0507/jhu-commencement-address
It may well make it into a follow-up post on the topic.
I have stayed up almost until midnight reading this whole conversation, and I wish I could thank everyone involved for it…I thank you, PhDip, for your excellent blog post and for acting as moderator here. It saddens me to hear so many religious homeschoolers feeling a need to be defensive in this forum, but that goes along with current U.S. politics. It is great fun to get opinions across many national, philosophical and religious divides this way. When I was in college, there was no such thing as a personal computer. Now look what we can do!
While I’m an alum of a rural public school program that was dominated by the local conservative Christian community, I support public schools. Looking back, I had the most painful social experiences with my evangelical classmates. I don’t think it was their faith so much as their exclusiveness that fuelled their actions (and I’m sure I wasn’t perfect either). But all of it has left me questioning the value of separating people with contrasting beliefs. People who discriminate against gays should know gays so they have some human context. Similarly, able students should know disabled students, Caucasian should know Asian and Christian should know Muslim.
I worry that, too often, homeschooling and unschoolong are used to control the experiences of our children. Rather than raising kids in the community, we are restricting them to our community. We are also investing all of ourselves in our children, often at the expense of our own independence.
So, like I said, I support public schools. If I want to supplement my kids’ education, I’ll do so when we are together through travel, play and social activities.
What do you mean by “restricting them to our community”? My home schooled daughter has had *more* opporunities to meet a wide variety of people than my public schooled son had had by her age. And, if she were going to public school, four or five of her classmates (out of maybe 20-25) would be people she already spends time with in the neighbourhood.
Here in the U.S., and particularly in my state, public schools are not faring well. I am big proponent of public education as a social good. But I think we have long ventured into the territory of the “it’s good in theory” problem.
My 6yo is finishing up his first year in the public school system and I am already so disillusioned I *briefly* considered if we could even swing private school. I don’t think we can… but I think there are a lot of problems with private school too.
I haven’t tried any structured homeschooling, but don’t see that as a good option for my family and believe me I thought about it long and hard.
What I do know is that my involvement in and commitment to pursuing the best education for all my kids is all I can do. It’s all any of us can do.
This is a very interesting topic for me because I’m from Canada but live in Germany and now that my daughter is 4 I wlll be soon facing the whole school question directly and have been wondering if I should move back to Canada just to have the home schooling option because I’ve heard so many good things about it. I’m not sure if I even have it in me to homeschool recognizing how much I have enjoyed having a few hours of the day on my own when my daughter started kindergarten. Also, maybe it’s because she is an only child but she absolutely loves going to kindergarten and is actually disappointed when she can’t go on the weekend. Since starting there she has blossomed socially and after a few months now speaks German almost perfectly as a second language, an education I certainly would never have been able to provide her with at home. On the downside I already see the beginnings of peer influence issues, like wanting to dress like the other girls and eat candy etc. things that weren’t an issue before and I can’t help but flash forward to the high school years and imagine all the other things peers influence each other to do and I realize that who your child spends the most time with is probably just as important as the actual education received and obviously with homeschooling you are much more in control of this aspect. On the other hand I wonder how fair is it to keep a very social only child at home. So yes part of me is interested in protecting my child from negative cultural and societal influences as long as possible but perhaps the best education is to let them be exposed to other ways of thinking but somehow encourage them to be strong enough to find their own way.
Great post & subsequent discussion! One thing that strikes me now and again when these discussions arise is how much our society has evolved. Without having done extensive research, I see the schools in the past as having been there to impart specialized education to the students that the parents could not — including skills as simple as reading, writing and mathematics. How amazing that now our society in general is at the point where much of the population has these skills and, if pressed, could pass them on to children themselves.
For me, that leaves the question — what role does the school now play in society? This is, to some extent, the mirror of the topic and what role homeschooling/home education plays. So beyond having specialized skills that aid in teaching as well as tools to support those skills, where should schools be going? And what support should we be giving them? Should they specialize? At what age? And how should there be some sort of equalization in terms of accessibility, especially with the huge variance in resources between the rural and urban centres?
Gayle – I think you’re asking great questions. I would be wary of any state or district that wanted to “specialize” because I could see children getting tiered into a certain group and then be sent on that track for the rest of their school career. So their entire lives would be dictated by a test that they took at kindergarten entrance, for example, or the beginning of middle school. In my view, that would not benefit the students. Might make it easier on schools, but would not be good for kids.
I’m also not certain that all parents would be able to fully educate their children. Illiteracy rates in the US are still 1 in 7, according to: http://www.livescience.com/culture/090110-illiterate-adults.html
I do love your questions and your forward thinking!
I’m not in the US, but if illiteracy rates are 1 in 7, after generations of public school, that wousl seem to indicate that schools aren’t able to fully educate the children, either.
Good thought, but since that is a measure of the public at large and not a measure only of people who have completed public schooling, it isn’t indicitive of the success or failure of public schools. Keep in mind that there are many who emigrate to America (and educated – or not – in other countries) – so the 1 in 7 rate includes them as well. The numbers are not from a longitudinal study of generations of publicly schooled people, it is a snapshot of literacy rates in America, taking into consideration ALL folks. Many previous generations did not complete public school, either. My grandfather only made it to 8th grade because he was needed on the farm. That wasn’t unusual for his time and place.
One needs to be very careful about how they interpret statistics and what variables they attribute to the findings.
i would say we homeschool 50% for pedagogical reasons but the other 50% is something you don’t mention — lifestyle preference. school hugely affects how everyone in the family lives both daily (e.g., when you have to get up, homework in the evenings) and throughout the year (e.g., when you’re allowed to take vacations).
not sending our children to school allows us to leave less stressful, healthier, closer lives and gives us much more time (all of us) to pursue our interests and spend time with friends and family.
I am not a huge proponent of home schooling for a host of reasons. One of them is that there is a real benefit to having an expert teach your children. That is a broad statement that doesn’t always translate, but there is validity to it.
If we are not talking about values than I wonder about the skills/ability of parents to teach their children math and science. These are important and I’d hate to think that some kids are being sold short on what they could learn.
@Jack -
Above you said that the real benefit of having a child in a traditional school is having an expert teach your child. Let me preface by saying I know wonderful teachers, my spouse was one for years, but I really don’t think someone who has a four year education degree is necessarily qualified to teach my children. Maybe it is because I know so many teachers who have told me repeatedly that what they learned in college was of little use to them in the classroom. Maybe it is because under NCLB many teachers aren’t even allowed to teach like the should or desire too.
Also, this shows your lack of understanding and knowledge about homeschooling. Also the broad statement you have made holds little validity. Let me explain why.
Studies repeatedly show that there is no correlation between the educational performance of the students and the teacher’s educational background. This is why legislation placed on the education of a parent to homeschool repeatedly fail. (shoot me an email and I will provide sources)
Let me quote Dr. Sam Peavey, who has advanced degrees from Harvard and Columbia that has done extensive research in the field of education “After fifty years of research, we have found no significant correlation between the requirements for teacher certification and the quality of student achievement.”
Consistently homeschoolers test above their peers in every subject. Many homeschoolers are at least one solid year ahead, and on standardized testing score on an average in the 87th percentile. Yep, these are kids being taught from home, by their parents!
Let me also add that in most private schools, certification to teach is not needed. In fact, most the teachers I had were retired and did not hold education degrees.
I can assure you Jack that many of us who run across stumbling blocks when educating our children reach out in our community and tap resources so that our children get a well rounded education. It isn’t the homeschooled children you should be worried about when it comes to learning math and science or any other subject, because when push comes to shove homeschooled children score just as well of not better than their traditional school counterparts. I suggest you do some research before making a sweeping generalization about what qualifies someone to teach a child.
I’d hate for my kids to be sold short on what they could learn, too. That’s why they’re *not* in public school. My son, who was in the *gifted* program at public school, didn’t have his times tables memorized until the beginning of 5th grade (there had been a lot going on at home, and his stepdad and I believed his straight As in math, and were stunned when we realized he didn’t know some of the basics). He struggled with all kinds of things that should have been simple, because he had to stop and work them out when he shouldn’t have needed to do so. I was told by a substitute who came in near the end of the year that the whole class was at least a grade level behind on math.
In any case, the kids who think math is too hard, or are just not interested in science don’t really tend to learn very much of it, anyway.
Kim – that is great information and I appreciate your detail. I’m just looking for clarification on the testing part… In my state, homeschoolers are not required to take formal assessments of any kind. So it is difficult to compare achievement between homeschooled children and children learning in traditional settings.
I am a former teacher (current sahm to young toddlers), and every year I’d see a homeschooled child come to school because they weren’t experiencing success at home or the parent was overwhelmed by the homeschooling responsibilities, and the student would be so far below other students in the class. Painfully so. This has been my only experience with homeschooled children (and I realize that I was not likely to see those for whom home education was working well).
I have a little one waking up, but I’ll get back to this in a bit. I’m fascinated by the whole topic.
@Stephanie -
Here is one quick list from HSLDA http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
I don’t think what you saw was uncommon, but I think its a very small percentage. And it isn’t much different than what teachers see in their own school systems. My husband was a teacher for 6-7 years and he had middle school students who could barely read who were “passed” on year to year even though they could not do the work. One year he not only had to teach 6th grade math but he also had to teach 6th grade remedial reading out of field because of how illiterate the kids were. This is where parent responsibility comes in, whether a child is homeschooled or not.
I do know people who have and continue to homeschool irresponsibly. Most do not. There are always going to be bad apples in the bunch.
Thanks, Kim! That is so helpful!
You are staunchly pro breast feeding and anti-formula based upon your own ideology, and the documented research available to you.
Would you consider seeing that some “ideological” home educating parents might have made their choice the same way you (rightly) chose to advocate breast feeding?
Food for thought . . .
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
Thank you for this post. It is encouraging to see so many strong opinions on the subject. I’ve been on both sides of this fence.
As Christians, my wife and I naturally want to share our faith with our children, but we also know that unchallenged faith is not faith. We have both had our religious assumptions challenged over the last decade, and many of our own perspectives have changed. Our reasons for choosing to unschool our children are first social, then ideological (not directly religious). In fact, many Christians consider unschooling to be un-Christian.
We were both raised in a religious system that was fairly intolerant of free thought, and we don’t want to subject our children to the same. As far as religious beliefs go, we would be more concerned about the harmful effects of putting our children into Sunday school than public school.
I was homeschooled in relative isolation through eighth grade, and never was able to “fit in” when I went to public school for my last four years. I spent most of my time trying not to be noticed. Academically I excelled, but socially I was (and probably still am) a misfit. I am concerned about parents who want to move out to the sticks to raise their children in isolation, because I am a product of that approach. At the same time, I don’t think that “fitting in” is a lesson we should to be teaching our children. I want my children to be comfortable being themselves with others.
A few of our reasons for home education/unschoooling:
– We want to raise our own children.
– We believe that the family is the core cultural, economic and spiritual unit, and we have chosen as far as possible to integrate all of our activities as a family. In doing this, we have been surprised to find how little opportunity there is for our family to just be a family. It seems the only place we can go where no one wants to send us each to our separate pidgeon-hole is the community garden.
– We have both seen and suffered from the negative effects of peer culture. We believe that social integration can happen much more effectively in a more generationally diverse setting. By being close at hand when our children face issues such as bullying, we can teach them how to respond appropriately.
– We prefer a more thoughtful approach to education. Our experience with our children is that they have an intuitive grasp of logical and mathematical concepts, but a cookie cutter approach to teaching will subvert their intuition in favor of rote memorization.
Public school.
Are you kidding? I’ve been anxiously awaiting the day I could have a life of my own again. I’m not working a gazillion hours a week just to scrape tuition together and I am NOOOOT homeschooling.
Fortunately, my kids are going to a school full of kids that are, more or less, just like them. Majority white, majority working-class, a lot of military. Those kids will mostly grow up to be people like me and my husband. That school isn’t churning out Nobel prizewinners, but it’s also not churning out lifelong criminals en masse.
I guess if the latter were the case, I’d consider putting up with the hassle of homeschooling.
We unschool. I pretty much agree with your entire post, but wanted to address the issue of being exposed to negative behaviours and personality types as a means of preparing one for the “real world” (eg. the workplace). I disagree with the underlying premise that ability to handle such situations and people is proportional to the amount of time spent dealing with such people as one is growing up. I think most psychologists would agree that a strong sense of self, self-esteem, and feeling confident in who you are is the best defense against any sort of bullying. So rather that expose my kids to that sort of thing when they are young and fragile, I’m raising them in a way that promotes self-knowing and self-confidence. I feel this is the best “weapon” against the sort of bullsh*t they may encounter as they grow older.
I also wanted to say that the whole “duty to obtain knowledge and skills to function in society” sounds a bit strange to me since I consider it a biological imperative – all mammalian young must do this, particularly those in complex social groupings (i.e. primates). So to me it’s like saying all babies have a duty to learn to walk. Most people have never seen children learn as they have naturally evolved to do, so they don’t realize that kids are driven to acquire the skills and knowledge they need to function in their society.
yes!!! agree with you wholeheartedly.
Well put.