Wednesday
May262010
Public school? Private school? Homeschooling? Unschooling?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
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.
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.
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:
I hate that schools:
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.
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:
At the same time, there are things that concern me about home education:
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.
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.
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.
Reader Comments (256)
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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'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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
[...] yesterday, PhD in Parenting had a great post comparing public and home education. And she admits from the get go that she’s not that familiar with homeschooling. That’s [...]
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.
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.
"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!
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.
"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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
S.D.
I'm starting to realize through comments like yours, and the http://wiredfornoise.com/in-which-i-talk-for-hours-on-school-homeschooling-and-religion" rel="nofollow">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.
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.
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.).
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.
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 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.
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.
Jennifer (and others who have stated that evolution is "just a theory"):
I would suggest that you read the article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" rel="nofollow">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).
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!).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Andrea:
I completely agree on the homework issue. On my other post on http://www.phdinparenting.com/2010/05/24/school-right-or-duty/" rel="nofollow">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.
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.
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!
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. :)
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.
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 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).
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.