Public school? Private school? Homeschooling? Unschooling?

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.

Comments

[ysadora]

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.

[ysadora]

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.

[ysadora]

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.

[ysadora]

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!

[Kelly]

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.

[Upstatemomof3]

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 :)

[Laura]

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.

[Saille]

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.

[phdinparenting]

Upstatemomof3:

Perhaps you missed this link in one of the comments: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" rel="nofollow">Evolution is a FACT and a THEORY.

[Upstatemomof3]

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.

[phdinparenting]

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).

[Upstatemomof3]

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.

[Kayris]

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.

[Kayris]

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.

[Brenna]

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.

[phdinparenting]

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.

[frauflan]

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.

[Laura]

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?

[Gayle]

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?

[Stephanie]

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!

[phdinparenting]

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.

[Saille]

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.

[Tia]

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.

[Tia]

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 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.

[Tia]

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.

[Lori]

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.

[Jack]

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.

[Kim @ Beautiful Wreck]

@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.

[Stephanie]

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.

[Kim @ Beautiful Wreck]

@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.

[From the vault: Why haven&#821]

[...] one: “Lots of theories on what WILL happen…” [...]

[April]

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.

[Stephanie]

Thanks, Kim! That is so helpful!

[gunta]

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.

[Katie]

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.

[Katie]

This is a great post. It really breaks down the pros and cons of all of the education choices.

[Tia]

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.

[phdinparenting]

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 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html" rel="nofollow">five major misconceptions about evolution. Evolution is a fact.

[Not Inadequate » Blog Ar]

[...] about the merits of home schooling. Smrt Mama is a regular read for me, and she had a link over to PhD in Parenting, who said this:  I believe more strongly in the child’s right to an education than I do in the [...]

[Lisa]

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.

[Lisa]

"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.

[Lisa]

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.

[Lisa]

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.

[Lisa]

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.

[Lisa]

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.

[Stephanie]

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.

[Jon]

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.

[Jon]

> To me “truth” is a fact that has been verified.

Every method of verification is subject to perception.

[high school dropout in parenti]

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.

[FreeLearners]

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.