Glad to see this.

There's something to be said about not being willing to advocate for all forms of homeschooling and not being willing to advocate for all forms of public (or even private) schooling.

Classical conversations, is in no way a “free-form” homeschooling approach. This is quickly seen when your 5-year-old starts rocking the Latin.

You wrote:
> To that I would say in our case we strive to set a schedule and stick to that.
> Proper behavior during school time is expected and there is structure.

You actually have significantly different behavior rules for your kids during “school time”? Or am I misunderstanding, and you're just talking about things like focusing on the lesson at hand?

(As you'll see below, the phrase “school time” is kind of a red flag for me. I just don't get the whole concept of homeschooling on a rigid schedule.)

> It’s not as rigid as public school, but there are good reasons for a more rigid
> setting when you have the sort of student/teacher ratio that public schools do.

Of course.

> I can say for my part I am a product of public school and also have poor work
> habits and a lack of discipline.

I know there are many such people as well. I'm largely speaking from my own experience, where I believe that the total self-pacing was one reason I never really learned to deal well with deadlines. YMMV.

> Again when you make the decision to home school, flexibility of schedule is
> touted as one of the big advantages and it is, but you must have some structure
> and discipline in order to be successful.

Probably true. And I don't mean to imply that I had no structure either. But it certainly wasn't the sort of structure you'd find in a good school. And I don't think it should be, oddly enough. I think parents should be parents, not schoolteachers. (Note: I deliberately didn't say “not teachers”. I think parents *must* be teachers to their kids. But the parent-child and teacher-pupil relationship lend themselves to different sorts of teaching.)

> To that level of structure Marnen says “if you’re going to be that regimented, you might as well just send the kids to school”. I’m not so sure I agree with that.

Might I ask why not? I know this is a sticking point for some homeschoolers, but I really don't get it. Sure, it's lovely to be able to take a “personal day” with the kids and go berry picking. But does that point outweigh the serious problems with homeschooling?

Frankly, the more I think about it (and thanks for encouraging me to continue to do so), the more I think the answer is no. I'm coming to the conclusion that a parent trying to go into schoolteacher mode with eir kids is analogous to a doctor operating on a family member: it mixes up two dynamics that really should be kept separate. (I mentioned that my parents decided not to do this — except for isolated cases — and I think it was the right decision.)

The rules are certainly not hard and fast. As you know, I'm a professional musician, and when I have kids, if any of them is interested in playing an instrument that I also play, I hope to be able to start them on that instrument, and to pass on whatever knowledge is helpful. But beyond the first few lessons, I would rather send them to a teacher for regular instruction — I think that if I'm giving my (hypothetical) kid weekly violin lessons at 3:00 on Wednesdays, something is actually wrong.

***

I have another concern about homeschooling that I didn't mention in the Orkut thread: if children have only their family as their teachers and classmates, how are they exposed to outside influences? I know it's uncomfortable for many parents to think of their children being exposed to ideas and experiences beyond their direct control, but without that, how does one avoid a “learning” environment that is simply incestuous amplification, turning children into unquestioning, closed-minded automata? (Scott, I'm not saying you're doing this — you seem like you know better. But it's a question worth asking. And I'm not saying schoolteachers *don't* do this — many do. But the good ones don't. Finding those good ones is left as an exercise to the student. )

Which brings me back to the parents-as-schoolteachers question above. What happens to the parent-child relationship when the student needs to ask an uncomfortable question in class? What happens to the teacher-pupil relationship when the parent gets angry over said question?

Yeah I don't think there's just one solution for everyone. It comes down to the kid.

The socialization argument is the one I see most frequently. It's very easy to straw man said argument but stereotypes come from somewhere.

I think Scott addresses this pretty cleanly: “What that boils down to is this, your education is likely to be only as good as your teachers and your materials. That’s why when you decide to home school your children you need to ask yourself if you have what it takes.” How does one avoid a learning environment that is simply incestuous amplification, turning children into unquestioning, closed-minded automata? Easy, the same way you keep it from happening in a public or private school setting. (“easy” was a joke…it's not easy in either setting)

In favor of the “influence control” approach, there is something to be said for your child learning how to interact with adults from someone other than their peers. Likewise can be said of their table manners, grammatical tendencies and entertainment preferences. It sounds like you're arguing against the extreme, and I would argue against the same, but the misapplication of any given thing does not negate it's proper application…unless of course you're willing to say there is no proper application of a home-based education system.

Not significantly different rules, no. Contextually different if that makes sense? Like you say, focus on the lesson at hand.

“And I don't think it should be, oddly enough. I think parents should be parents, not schoolteachers.”

That's a pretty modern notion, not to say that's a bad thing. I'm not arguing that all parents should be their child's school teacher, but you seem to be saying they never should? I definitely agree that parents will always be their kid's teacher. I mean we teach them to speak, read, eat, walk, poop (okay maybe just where to poop). To argue that we shouldn't extend that to school subjects seems weird to me. I mean I was publicly educated but the biggest reason I excelled (I think) was because my Mom busted my sack when it came to some things. She was very much my school teacher, just not from 730-330.

“Might I ask why not? I know this is a sticking point for some homeschoolers, but I really don't get it. Sure, it's lovely to be able to take a “personal day” with the kids and go berry picking. But does that point outweigh the serious problems with homeschooling?”

As I said, based on my understanding of childhood and developmental psychology (I'm trained as a school teacher as is my wife) structure is good, so we provide it appropriately. Just because I believe that x is good and it happens that the school system provides x does nor mean that they should be the ones to provide it. You're getting to the philosophy of why the Roches home school which is a separate post. Let's just say for brevity's sake (I'll be glad to expand on that in a separate post) that a) we believe that we can provide a better education, to a point, than the school system we're a part of. There is a religious component too, though this is a bigger driver for my wife than for me.

“I'm coming to the conclusion that a parent trying to go into schoolteacher mode with their kids is analogous to a doctor operating on a family member: it mixes up two dynamics that really should be kept separate.”

I think that analogy breaks down at some point. I think it's fine for a doctor to treat their children. Surgery might be a different matter since objectivity may be an issue. I couldn't cut into my child, but then I'm not a surgeon. If my child needs a specialist, say for instance a music teacher, then of course I will provide it. But I still fail to see where the problem is with being your child's teacher for a large part of their schooling. The way we anticipate doing it is that once they are high school age it will be more self paced and there will be some level of outside teaching going on, much like what you experienced. I certainly won't be able to provide adequate instruction in Physics or other more advanced subjects for example. But that's not what you seem to have a problem with?

“I think that if I'm giving my (hypothetical) kid weekly violin lessons at 3:00 on Wednesdays, something is actually wrong.”

I confess I don't follow.

Regarding your last two paragraphs, we agree that outside influences are necessary. Playing with other kids and interacting with other adults is important. I will say though that one can take this too far. There are places where I wouldn't want my child to go and influences I wouldn't want them to be exposed to until they are mature enough to handle them. I'm not necessarily talking here about the somewhat typical evangelical fears of “the culture” though let's face it I'll be honest here, there are parts of our culture I don't want my six year old exposed to. if I send them to public school then I can't control that.

Perhaps that's wrong or short sighted of me. But I'll say the primary purpose of public school should be to educate in the “three R's”. The purpose of parenthood in my opinion is also to educate in those things, and to educate in matters that relate to morality, ethics, and the like. That's not in an effort to produce automata, but because we believe certain things to be right and true and we wish to instill those things in our children. Fortunately for us, we can provide them with the basics of education at home and give them a solid grounding in our beliefs. To not do so runs contrary to what we believe are our responsibilities as parents.

So how do we avoid the “incestuous amplification”? (Nice turn of phrase btw.) In our case it happens that my wife and I don't see eye to eye on all matters religious, scientific, philosophical, etc. So there is some challenge there. Here's a question for you. At what age do you believe that one should expose their child to all manner of ideas that run contrary to your own? Ours get exposed to that, to a controlled degree, through television interaction with kids from other backgrounds, and the like. As they get older that will only increase and isn't dependent on a public or private school education.

As far as what happens when an uncomfortable question comes up or a parent gets angry? Well are you assuming that doesn't happen in cases where kids are schooled outside the home or that these instances are somehow worse? I can assure you that with our nine year old both things have happened and we deal with it. Those lead to some awesome learning opportunities in and of themselves. We are family. I pray that there is never a question that comes up that I would rather have my child ask a relative stranger. I also pray that when I get angry at my child (as does happen) that it will pass and that we will both learn the power of grace and forgiveness, qualities not limited to, but hopefully central to our faith.

Man that Scott guy is long winded.

I work for a correspondence school, but I would never home school my daughter. (Yes, I am comfortable with this level of hypocrisy.) I'd rather fill the Concerned Supplementary Educator role than the Primary Educator role. Our local public school system is as flawed as any, but retreating from the broader community to form tinier, more insular ones is almost certain to make those flaws worse, not improve them. I won't speak to the issue of socialization, since I have no hands-on experience with home schooling, but all things being equal, a home schooled child seems to be at some disadvantage. Whether a home schooled child will be more or less disorganized than a non-home schooled one seems unanswerable – too many variables.

> Jon (unregistered) wrote, in response to marnen:
>
> The socialization argument is the one I see most frequently. It's
> very easy to straw man said argument but stereotypes come from
> somewhere.

It may be easy to straw-man it if you haven't been directly affected by it. I think I have. Of course, my homeschooling situation was quite different from that of most current homeschoolers in this regard, so it may or may not be directly relevant.

[...]
>> How does one avoid a “learning” environment that is simply
>> incestuous amplification, turning children into unquestioning,
>> closed-minded automata?
> Easy, the same way you keep it from happening in a public or private
> school setting. (“easy” was a joke…it's not easy in either setting)

True enough. But I suspect it's easier if the family dynamic is not mixed with the school dynamic.

(And yes, this is one of my concerns about private schools as well. At least in the US, there's enough cultural balkanization going on that it seems that it's becoming very hard in some circles to have any meaningful exchange of ideas. Finding a school that suits your values is great. Self-imposed apartheid is not.)

> In favor of the “influence control” approach, there is something to
> be said for your child learning how to interact with adults from
> someone other than their peers.

Peers? Do you mean agemates, classmates, friends by choice or what? (No, I don't like the word “peers” in this context. There are too many unstated assumptions and too much ambiguity.)

Anyway, I wasn't just talking about learning to interact with adults. I was talking about being exposed to ideas that they might not get from their own family.

> Likewise can be said of their table manners, grammatical tendencies
> and entertainment preferences.

Yes. There is also something to be said for not letting the family be the only major influence on these.

These issues, I think, are too important to leave the family out of. By the same token, they are too important to keep exclusively in the family.

> It sounds like you're arguing against the extreme, and I would argue
> against the same, but the misapplication of any given thing does not
> negate it's proper application…

Of course. And it's easier to formulate an argument by using extreme examples.

> unless of course you're willing to say there is no proper
> application of a home-based education system.

I am *almost* willing to say that. As a homeschool alumnus, it is hard for me to conceive of any situation (barring such circumstances as extremely substandard or nonexistent schools) in which there is a proper application of homeschooling. I just think the whole idea sounds great on paper but is, in most cases, a major disservice to the children affected.

***

Something I didn't notice in the blog on first reading:
> Part of that will eventually mean acknowledging that you can=92t do it =
=20
> all. That=92s why you should be part of a coop of some sort. Find =20
> other parents who have strengths you don=92t. Work together and have a =
=20
> good foundation with the materials you=92re using and you can give =20
> your child at least as good an education as the public school system =20=

> can.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. Cooperative/community schooling, if =20=

done right, addresses most of my objections to homeschooling.

Thank you. This dichotomy between Concerned Supplementary and Primary is sort of what I was getting at. (Although I'd say that for some topics, schools are primary, and for some, family is primary.) It seems best to have both roles available to the kid.

> I'm not arguing that all parents should be their child's school teacher, but you
> seem to be saying they never should?

Not quite. On some subjects, parents should be the primary teacher. On others, the school should be primary. Let the better primary teacher be the primary teacher for each subject.

> I definitely agree that parents will always be their kid's teacher. I mean we
> teach them to speak, read, eat, walk, poop (okay maybe just where to
> poop). To argue that we shouldn't extend that to school subjects seems
> weird to me.

And to me too. My argument is a bit subtler than that.

> I mean I was publicly educated but the biggest reason I excelled (I think)
> was because my Mom busted my sack when it came to some things.

This is as it should be. I believe that parents should be actively involved in their kids' education; I just see no good reason for them to be full-time schoolteachers to their kids as well.

> She was very much my school teacher, just not from 730-330.

*Exactly*! From 7:30 to 3:30, let the kids be off with some other primary teacher, learning the subjects that are best taught by that primary teacher. I tend to think they will be the richer for it.

> As I said, based on my understanding of childhood and developmental
> psychology (I'm trained as a school teacher as is my wife)

Hmm. Then you may be in a better position than most homeschooling parents to play primary schoolteacher to your kids. (But you still can't give them a school environment as such, which is the other part of the problem.)

> structure is good, so we provide it appropriately. Just because I believe
> that x is good and it happens that the school system provides x does nor
> mean that they should be the ones to provide it.

Of course it doesn't. But it does mean that it bears thinking about.

> You're getting to the philosophy of why the Roches home school which is a
> separate post. Let's just say for brevity's sake (I'll be glad to expand on that
> in a separate post) that a) we believe that we can provide a better
> education, to a point, than the school system we're a part of.

What do you mean by “to a point”? And why do you think that two parent/teachers and three kids will provide a better education than two parents, a full faculty of teachers, and a class of a couple of decades of kids to bounce ideas off? Looked at this way, I wonder what the point is.

> There is a religious component too, though this is a bigger driver for my
> wife than for me.

I'll admit that this pushes one of my buttons. For reasons related to the cultural balkanization I alluded to in an earlier post, I think that, in general, religion is a poor rationale for homeschooling. But that's another rant.

[...]
> I think it's fine for a doctor to treat their children.

It does happen, but doctors seem to prefer to avoid it. Apparently it tends to get in the way of clinical objectivity.

> Surgery might be a different matter since objectivity may be an issue. I
> couldn't cut into my child, but then I'm not a surgeon.

Nor am I, but oddly enough, if I were, I doubt that I'd have a problem with that part of it. The objectivity seems to be a bigger issue.

> But I still fail to see where the problem is with being your child's teacher
> for a large part of their schooling.

I guess the phrase I'd use would be “undue influence”. You've already got a lot of influence on your kids' life and thought patterns by virtue of them being your kids. It seems to me that if you take the role of schoolteacher as well, you concentrate too much influence in one place and deprive them of the benefit of having someone difference for *that* major influence. Think of it as mental antitrust regulation.

> “I think that if I'm giving my (hypothetical) kid weekly violin lessons at 3:00
> on Wednesdays, something is actually wrong.”
> I confess I don't follow.

Again, I think it comes down to undue influence, but there's more. I don't want the parent-child dynamic spilling over into violin lessons. I don't want the teacher-pupil dynamic spilling over into home life. And the easiest way to achieve that separation is to not have the parent and teacher be the same person.

(Actually, I just realized that I can sort of cite an extreme real-life example here. My mother plays some violin, and for the first few years of my violin studies, she tried to coach my violin practice as is often recommended for young children. While she wasn't my teacher per se, the act of her being my practice coach mixed up the “parent” and “teacher” roles too much, and we were forever getting into horrible fights as a result. We discontinued the practice coaching and got along much better after that.)

[...]
> There are places where I wouldn't want my child to go and influences I
> wouldn't want them to be exposed to until they are mature enough to
> handle them.

Absolutely. No argument there.

> I'm not necessarily talking here about the somewhat typical
> evangelical fears of “the culture” though let's face it I'll be honest here,
> there are parts of our culture I don't want my six year old exposed to.

Of course.

> if
> I send them to public school then I can't control that.

<controversial>And that's the best reason to send them to public school.</controversial>

Let me explain that. Of course, as a parent, you can and should control what your kids come into contact with to the extent possible. That's why we *have* parental relationships in the first place. However, I worry that parents in this day and age are getting a bit overprotective. If you're homeschooling your 6-year-old so you can more completely control the environment, then you're probably doing the kid a disservice.

There's an analogy to be drawn to hygiene. Of course good hygiene is necessary for good health, and it's good for parents to keep their kids clean — to a point. Parents who keep their kids squeaky clean 24/7 don't give them the opportunity to develop their immune systems, because they never get exposed to the microbes they should be developing antibodies to — and in fact these kids are usually the ones who are later in poor health much of the time (I've known a few). There are studies coming out now that seem to corroborate much of this anecdotal evidence; I'll try to find citations if you like.

How does this relate to homeschooling? Well, it seems to me that keeping a kid out of school for reasons of environmental control is rather like keeping a kid squeaky clean 24/7. It seems safer in the short term, but the kid may not learn how to deal with people or ideas that aren't just like what's at home, and of course that will create problems in the long term.

> But I'll say the primary purpose of public school should be to educate in the
> “three R's”.

I tend to agree, provided that we're using a fairly broad definition of “three R's”.

> The purpose of parenthood in my opinion is also to educate in those things,
> and to educate in matters that relate to morality, ethics, and the like.

Yes — although I think discussions on ethics and morality are also quite intellectually stimulating and quite appropriate in a school curriculum. And again, there's the benefit of discussing viewpoints that would perhaps not have been encountered at home.

> That's not in an effort to produce automata, but because we believe
> certain things to be right and true and we wish to instill those things in our
> children.

And so you should, I think. But when does it cease being appropriate parental care and start becoming undue influence? (No, I don't know, and I don't think there's an easy answer here.)

> So how do we avoid the “incestuous amplification”? (Nice turn of phrase
> btw.)

(Thanks. I originally heard it applied to the results of the Bush Jr. administration's practice of surrounding themselves with advisors who all basically had the same views.)

> In our case it happens that my wife and I don't see eye to eye on all
> matters religious, scientific, philosophical, etc. So there is some challenge
> there.

Yeah, that could be a *great* starting point.

> Here's a question for you. At what age do you believe that one should
> expose their child to all manner of ideas that run contrary to your own?

I hesitate to put a number on it — and please remember that I'm not yet a parent, so I may be talking through my hat a bit here. But I'm not sure that asking about an age limit is even the right question to ask. I think that certainly for younger kids, there's probably no reason to seek out alien ideas, but neither is there a reason to insulate the kids unduly. It seems to me that if you *discuss* the alien ideas with the kids and explain why you don't agree with them, that will prepare the kids to do likewise for themselves in the future — which is surely the outcome you want.

(Then again, knowing you, Scott, I suspect that you're actually doing at least some of exactly what I'm describing. I'm speaking more in general principles here than talking about exactly what you personally are or aren't doing.)

> Ours get exposed to that, to a controlled degree, through television
> interaction with kids from other backgrounds, and the like.

Glad to hear it. You had me worried there for a moment.

> As they get
> older that will only increase and isn't dependent on a public or private
> school education.

Yes, which is why I think it's kind of pointless to try to shut it out completely.

> As far as what happens when an uncomfortable question comes up or a
> parent gets angry? Well are you assuming that doesn't happen in cases
> where kids are schooled outside the home

Of course I'm not assuming that?

> or that these instances are somehow worse?

They have the *potential* to be worse. (Whether they are in fact worse of course depends on the particulars of how you deal with it in your family, which I don't know.) I think there is something to be said for having the school, at least at times, be a bit of a “safe space” (for inquiry and investigation) well separated from home life* — and I would suggest that doing that in a homeschooling environment would take a Herculean effort, if indeed it's even possible.

* That's not to say that I don't favor integrating learning experiences into many aspects of a kid's home life as well.

> I can assure you that with our nine year old both things have happened and
> we deal with it. Those lead to some awesome learning opportunities in and
> of themselves.

Then it sounds like you are making the best use of these events. That's great to hear!

Difficult question: are your kids self-censoring on asking questions they think will make you uncomfortable? Are they doing that more or less than they would in school? How would you go about figuring this out? (No, I sure as heck don't know!)

> We are family. I pray that there is never a question that comes up that I
> would rather have my child ask a relative stranger.

Some uncomfortable questions for you. I don't know the answers either, but they're worth bringing up.

* Is a schoolteacher (whom, presumably, your kid deals with every school day for *at least* an entire academic year, if not longer) a “relative stranger”?
* Is it about questions that you'd rather have your child ask a relative stranger? I think not. It's about the questions that *your child* would rather ask of a relative stranger. (Or is that what you meant, and I'm misunderstanding what you wrote?)

> I also pray that when I get angry at my child (as does happen) that it will
> pass and that we will both learn the power of grace and forgiveness,
> qualities not limited to, but hopefully central to our faith.

Well said.

I have to say, I generally like the attitude with which you're approaching homeschooling. My concerns have more to do with my serious reservations on the viability of homeschooling *in general* than with much of anything about the Roche household's approach.

***

Wow, I'm getting doctrinaire and preachy after that much writing. I know that things are generally less black and white than they appear on the page, and that's worth keeping in mind.

You want long-winded, you get long-winded.

I was homeschooled for a few years when I was a kid.

The short version is: attended public kindergarten, homeschooled first grade, attended three months of public third grade and homeschooled the remainder of the year, homeschooled the following year, attended three months of private fourth grade then finished the year at a public school in Switzerland, attended three weeks of public fifth grade then returned to the private school up through eighth grade, attended ninth grade at a public school, then finished the rest of high school at a private boarding school.

So basically, I skipped second grade but made up the time during homeschooling so I eventually rejoined the grade the rest of my age group was in. The only thing I really missed learning was cursive writing, which it seemed was universally taught in second grade in my town, which I eventually taught myself. My two-years-younger brother continuously attended the K-8 private school at which I finished up elementary/middle.

During the homeschooling periods, I attended church & RE classes regularly and was part of the youth choir, did community youth soccer for several years, and my family also was part of a local homeschooling group for field trips, socialization, brain-picking, support, etc. (and my mom was often a chaperone for my brother's class field trips which I would tag along for).

With all that said: public school didn't really work for me, I loved my private K-8 school, and homeschooling was fine. I also have trouble with deadlines and time management, but I don't think that has much to do with my homeschooling. I probably remember more specific things about the non-homeschooling periods because I started to organize my memories based on what grade/classroom I was in and those things didn't so much apply when I was learning at home.

I have a soft spot for homeschooling, and I've considered homeschooling my own hypothetical kids (once the concept that I might have any kids at all didn't fill me with panic/horror); but I'm not sure my affection for the method is entirely rational, so I'm glad kids are several-to-many years away yet. My partner thinks outside school is important for the socialization aspect, and while I don't think she's entirely correct, I haven't been able to marshal pertinent arguments beyond “Well, I was homeschooled and I turned out okay.”

My brother had serious mental health problems in high school and my parents logged a lot of hours in the public high school trying to get him a decent IEP so he would be able to cope with his classes. He eventually ended up at the alternative high school, which only had about twenty students and a few teachers, which he did much better at. I guess my impression from that experience is that with the amount of customization that is sometimes required to make a public school education effective and/or livable for your child, you might as well homeschool.

My knee-jerk reaction to the concept of public education is that for most of the years they are in school children are mostly existing in some kind of holding pen so their parents and society don't have to deal with them until years later, learning how to submit to authority, follow rules, and conform to society's expectations. There are some good reasons for this, I suppose, and I'm sure it's a significant part of what makes American culture what it is (insofar as “American culture” can be considered monolithic, which it isn't really).

Most students don't get to branch out much until high school, and even then not much more in most schools. The only school choice available to me in elementary/middle was French or Spanish; in ninth grade I was able to choose French, Spanish, or Latin and one other class, but art and music were no longer required/standard classes and if I wanted to do choir I couldn't take any of the other electives like journalism, photography, shop; at the next school in tenth and eleventh grade it went back to just a language choice (although Japanese had been added to the possibilities), and in twelfth grade I was additionally able to choose among several science and English options. Although my college course choices were still limited by general education and major requirements, the sudden blossoming of options was quite overwhelming.

I guess with this section I'm trying to question the importance of structure. Yes, learning how to meet deadlines and follow directions is important, and being able to sit still for 8 hours a day can be helpful for some types of careers later on. Structure is useful and not evil in many circumstances. But I would draw an analogy between homeschooling and unconferences. I did learn a lot of awesome things in structured school environments, but I probably do the bulk of the learning I actually retain longer-term outside of class; just as the structured panel settings of a typical conference/convention can be very useful and informative but a lot of times it's the casual conversations in between panels that result in eureka moments. It's not an entirely appropriate analogy because I do believe that there are certain things that are vitally important for people to know and learn: reading, writing, math, science, history, music, art, drama, civics… But I feel like more time is spent on bureaucracy, benchmarks, and conformity in general schools than actually learning these things. I didn't start learning algebra until seventh grade; does it really take six years to teach basic math? (I'm open to the possibility that it does; I'm not a teacher yet.) Are most brains not developed enough to understand algebra until 13? I don't get it. Creativity and out-of-the-box thinking is “valued” in public schools, but not really in my experience, especially when a teacher has 30+ students and has to make sure their students pass a standardized test. I hate the feeling that our schools are stifling creative thought in the interest of corralling youth and stuffing the bare essentials down their throats. (This is probably an exaggeration in many cases, but I only have my own experience to go on in this.)

The way my elementary/middle school curricula were organized seemed much more reasonable to me than the experiences I had in public schools (granted these were limited). Our English and History classes were combined under one teacher as Language Arts/Social Studies/Drama (in eighth grade they were split into two teachers), we had art and music classes every day in every grade, language study started in third grade, every grade did a wide variety of science. Homework and learning was organized around themed projects, and art and music frequently corresponded with what we were studying in LA/SS. When we studied a period or country of history, we would read fiction from or about that culture/period/country and create art and learn music in their traditional styles. There were frequently games associated with the learning; in fourth grade we learned about US geography through a several month-long cross-country road trip simulation, redeeming papers about landmarks for miles traveled; in fifth grade we created our own ancient civilization, complete with artifacts and literature, for the fourth grade class to excavate, research, and rebuild; in seventh grade we basically played Risk with Shogun-era prefectures, redeeming assignments for armies and supplies in an attempt to take over Japan (this unit is incidentally what inspired me to study Japanese for the next nine years). This is actually the kind of thing I think of when considering homeschooling my own hypothetical kids—a mix of self-directed projects based on the kid's interests and integrated projects designed to teach a variety of information and skills. Don't know how practical this is, however; it could just be my educational fantasy, or only possible in a setting similar to this particular school (13 or 14 kids to a class, gifted and talented programming, etc).

As for socialization…having a community is important. Kids need to play, interact with people outside of their families, learn how to speak with adults that aren't their parents, etc. Parents need to have other adults to pool ideas with, etc. Everyone needs exposure to ideas they wouldn't necessarily have within their chosen family.

I get that outside school is great for families where every parent works outside the home, and can be the only option in those cases. The ability to homeschool may be a luxury of 2+ parent households, or where the family makes enough money with fewer than every parent working. If that is the case, your ability to build community may be constrained to others in similar socioeconomic situations, which could indeed create an echo chamber. This is also a problem with private schools; I know it was in mine. I loved my elementary/middle school, but I'm white and so was nearly everyone else in the school while I was there (about 150-180 students), and tuition was like $9k a year and I don't remember whether scholarships were available. It wasn't exactly a hotbed of diversity in terms of attendance, so I can understand this “balkanization” reservation of Marnen's.

I think I've exhausted this most rambling post ever for the moment. If you can get anything out if it, great.

I'm sure I will echo a few sentiments already stated. I don't mean to rehash what's been covered, sorry in advance if and when I do.

I'm a teacher by training, having worked with kids extensively in my early career. I've cared for, taught, tutored and mentored every age from infants to college kids. I've worked in public, private, religious and secular schools. And I am strongly against the notion of homeschooling as a child's primary academic education (yet strongly FOR a parent(s) active and involved support outside of school).

To insist on being a child's sole filter for information on all subjects is creating an incomplete education.

The desire to homeschool seems to come from two places, a combination that varies from parent to parent: a need to shelter children from social evils mixed with an underlying belief that there is “nothing I can't teach my child better than anyone else”.

The fact of the matter is, as the material becomes more complex, there isn't often enough knowledge in one adult to answer the increasingly complex questions. So it becomes a matter of teaching for the test (which arguably happens in public schools, albeit for an different motivation).

This is not a slight against you two, of course. I'm speaking more generally. And perhaps that's the problem with having one lifelong academic teacher (in any situation)… the more “generalized” an education is, the less specific it can afford to be when a troublesome concept arises.

As a private (nonreligious) first grade teacher, I was able to have an amazing degree of flexibility with my class. Beyond the core fundamentals, we touched on everything from philosophy to creative writing to introductory algebra and long division. My class had mastered cursive, even the ones who started class a year ahead of their peers. I say this (mostly) not to brag on those kids, but to illustrate how access to a variety of instructors and perspectives can be beneficial. I hope their next teacher was drastically different. The result might well be “three dimensional” people we all hope to see.

I understand the desire for control that homeschooling might provide, and do believe that the religious reinforcement that is happening here (6 days a week, right?) is a part of that desire. To close off possible non-Christian avenues, or at the least to guide those “dangerous” questions directly and exclusively to mom and dad.

But religious homeschooling is, in a sense, a nursery-style approach to a person's entire childhood. It doesn't evolve as the child's needs and questions evolve. You are keeping their educational programming locked on one channel, so to speak. Even a full curriculum change is still shot through your parental prism.

There is a serious stigma attached to homeschool kids by others (they're Quakers, they're “special needs”, they've been denied entrance to “regular” school, etc.). This happens with kids in a religious private school setting, but surely can only be amplified by experiencing it alone. And of course, this outsider status is most damaging during the teen years when there is already so many challenges to overcome.

To insist on being a child's sole filter for information on all subjects is creating an incomplete education.

Agreed. This is not so much a problem with homeschooling as it is with some people who home school. There are certainly limits in place for our younger children, but as they get older that “filter” opens up as they read more books, interface with more kids/adults, etc. Not all home schoolers do that but I'd warrant most do.

The fact of the matter is, as the material becomes more complex, there isn't often enough knowledge in one adult to answer the increasingly complex questions.

Which is why, in our case and I would say in most cases these days, the older the child gets the more they need access to tutors and enrollment in college classes. No one here is advocating that one parent or family act as the sole educator. We're simply saying that public/private school is not necessarily the best option for our children's education. I actually don't think that the current public education system is a good option for any child, but unfortunately for many it's the only option.

We need more teachers and classrooms like the one you took part in as a teacher. Most public school teachers don't have that level of freedom or the other tools they need to accomplish what you did. If they did I'd be a bigger champion for public schools.

I think perhaps part of the issue that you and not just you but many people have of home school is this notion that home school kids are in this sort of “one room school house” situation. That's not how it works at all. Home school kids, I would argue, get exposed to quite a larger world than public school kids do. Our oldest is reading more interesting books than I did in her grade. She's learning two foreign languages already and will be taking piano soon. Odds are that wouldn't be happening in schools around here.

As for your last paragraph, well in my experience kids are going to pick on kids and usually their reasons are going to be stupid. This would just be one more stupid reason. Hopefully our kids will be mature enough to rise above it and will benefit more from the education we provide them and the friendships they build through their formative years than they will suffer from being “uncool”.

If that last paragraph of mine seemed emotional, well it was. Of all the reasons not to home school, the “it's uncool” seems the silliest. No offense.

I have to agree with SpiritualTramp on your last point here. To my mind, advocating against homeschool for kids because they might be teased is about as reasonable as advocating against GLBT people having kids at all because they might be teased. That's not a problem with the people doing it but a problem with the way society views them. The stigma is never mitigated by avoiding or stifling the practice.

Anything that makes you stand out in any way at all is “damaging during the teen years.” There's only so much you can do to protect your child from that, and some of it they have to learn how to do on their own. That's going to be the same wherever a kid is schooled, and I don't think it's a sound point of objection to homeschooling.

I considered public school the best of options available to me. Private wasn't for religious concerns of my parents, and homeschooling, while periodically threatened by my father*, would mostly have been a means of effecting even more strict control over my life, e.g. it would have completely eliminated social contact as school was the only social contact I was allowed. This does, of course, fall under the point of homeschooling being what people do with it.

* I don't use that term lightly; from him to me it very much was a threat.

DDog and Scott,

My point about the social stigma was not intended to seem silly, or even the least important. It is in fact, an important part of a child's future–his confidence and ability to maneuver successfully in society. It's not just a question of being teased, but a question of belonging.

And in the case of any religious style of upbringing, this is already an obstacle as the “us vs. the world” mentality is already pretty firm. Combining these two influences, a child is significantly distanced from “real world” understanding.

Homeschooling is eliminating a social enviornment from a child's history. Play dates are a great way to build casual social skills. But there is an interaction in the classroom: a benefit of hearing others asking questions. There's also an academic incentive to perform, a positive type of comeptition (closer than the occasional challenges provided by summer camps, etc.). And then there's also a group of (theoretically) close classmates to grow with and eventually “walk the line” with.

I'm afraid all of this is being disregarded by including it in the “uncool” umbrella.

Preventing this opportunity for a child is taking away one of those “universal” experiences that the vast majority of their future peers will have.

I'm all for supplemental education at the hands of the parents. Both “life lessons” and additional academic learning (field trips and even maybe some kind of formal summer “lessons” to keep kids sharp).

But these social aspects of homeschooling, including but certainly not limited to (or defined by) one's “peer reputation”, are indeed detrimental for the would-be social creatures in our charge.

“This is not so much a problem with homeschooling as it is with some people who home school. There are certainly limits in place for our younger children, but as they get older that “filter” opens up as they read more books, interface with more kids/adults, etc. Not all home schoolers do that but I'd warrant most do.”

But can you back this up? (Not picking on you particularly, as you'll see.) There are (literally) a million plus anecdotes about people who have been home schooled, people who knew people who were home schooled, and so on. But in reality the only thing they end up telling us is that there is no thing called “home schooling” as such, since there seem to be nearly as many ways to home school as there are people who are home schooled. Some of it is done in community groups, some just the child and a parent, some hews close to public school curricula, some follows independent curricula or wholly different emphases, etc. The only universal feature of home schooling is that it isn't publicly controlled, meaning there is a great deal of liberty and, as a consequence, variation. We can all talk about how a home schooled kid has been taught thirteen languages, or how one can't socialize with any non-immediate family human beings, but much of that depends upon the particular way they were home-schooled. (Furthermore, their nature as anecdotes also leaves it dependent upon the particular person; a naturally social person will likely survive in the world home schooled or not, etc.) Unless there is a near-universally consistent way in which people are home schooled (which there isn't), or you have recorded consistent trends among those who have been home schooled (which I have yet to see brought up here), you can't really make claims about home schooling that hold water.

(Note: it is unfortunately also the case that describing “public schools” isn't much better. There are very good ones, and very bad ones, and without a measurable trend or something that makes it legitimate to talk about “public schools” all you've got are examples, which may persuade some but do not an argument make.)

Learning how to deal appropriately with social stigma is vital. Avoiding something because it has a stigma attatched is not. Homeschooling doesn't eliminate a social environment from a child's history. It removes one type of social environment, one that more and more children are leaving behond given that the use of home/private/magnate schools are on the rise.

Dave, seriously, we agree that if homeschool = one family being the sole teacher of a child for the entirety of their scholing with no interaction with other children outside of the family can be bad. The majority of the homeshooling families I know (and to Snurp's point everything we're discussing is largely anecdotal evidence wise) don't do that. So for you to keep saying that home schooling is bad because of X is painting with too broad a brush.

There are advantages to going to a public school, sure. There are disadvantages I think you're ignoring. Lock step thinking is encouraged by the very nature of the public school setting. You're not the only one that's been behind a teacher's desk here. As good as “socialization” in public school is in theory, in practice it's filled with cliques, bullies, and other negative social infliuences.

Homeschoolers have academic incentive to perform. There is or can be competition with other hoemschoolers and even public schoolers. We don't do “report cards” per se, but I'm betting home school kids can compete in quiz bowls or projects like Odyssey of the Mind to compete in that arena if they wish. I'll verify that. As far as classmates to “walk the line” with, again my kids and most HS kids I know have that. Not having that isn't inherent in HS, it's up to the individual family as to whether or not to do that.

Tell you what, people have challenged me with this so I'll cahllenge you, find me some studies that say home schooling leads to poor socialization and that will carry some weight.

Agreed, there's not a lot of hard data on this topic. That makes it very difficult to have this sort of discussion. All I can go on is what I've seen, some of which is good, some of which isn't.

There are plenty of advantages to the protection homeschooling gives… but they are simultatneously drawbacks. For example, you protect a child from being bullied, but you also prevent them from learning to deal with bullies.

You said that “as good as 'socialization' in public school is in theory, in practice it's filled with cliques, bullies, and other negative social infliuences.” But dealing with these problems is all the more preparation for the realites of post-school life, outside the protective auspices of mom and dad.

(More to come.)

Not quite. On some subjects, parents should be the primary teacher. On others, the school should be primary. Let the better primary teacher be the primary teacher for each subject.

So who gets to decide who should teach which subjects and when? And why should we limit the primary teacher of any given subject be a traditional teacher in a traditional setting?

*Exactly*! From 7:30 to 3:30, let the kids be off with some other primary teacher, learning the subjects that are best taught by that primary teacher. I tend to think they will be the richer for it.

You don’t find that at all artificial or arbitrary?

Hmm. Then you may be in a better position than most homeschooling parents to play primary schoolteacher to your kids. (But you still can't give them a school environment as such, which is the other part of the problem.)

What is so great about the current “school environment”? Have you been in an average school as an adult? I have and I can say that, by and large and with a wink and a nod to what Snurp said, that they in the main don’t encourage the freedom of thought and good socialization skills that we seem to both prize.

What do you mean by “to a point”? And why do you think that two parent/teachers and three kids will provide a better education than two parents, a full faculty of teachers, and a class of a couple of decades of kids to bounce ideas off? Looked at this way, I wonder what the point is.

There are certainly advantages to the traditional classrooms. We did, after all, let our oldest attend a public magnate school for two years. She benefitted from it. We began this homeschooling journey out of a need to ensure that our son’s needs are met. He has issues that the public school system is incapable, though not unwilling, to address. He is one of those children that would fall through the cracks if we tried a traditional education. We elected to try homeschooling the entire family as a result of that and it was something we were considering doing anyway. So in that sense in our particular case I believe that we are better for our particular children. In no way am I saying that it’s always the better answer.

I'll admit that this pushes one of my buttons. For reasons related to the cultural balkanization I alluded to in an earlier post, I think that, in general, religion is a poor rationale for homeschooling. But that's another rant.

And if it were just that I might even agree with you. In cases where that is the sole or even the primary driver I think some hard questions need to be asked.

I guess the phrase I'd use would be “undue influence”. You've already got a lot of influence on your kids' life and thought patterns by virtue of them being your kids. It seems to me that if you take the role of schoolteacher as well, you concentrate too much influence in one place and deprive them of the benefit of having someone different for *that* major influence. Think of it as mental antitrust regulation.

Then I question your definition of “undue”. If anyone has the right to decide what should be allowed in their children’s life then it should be the parents. I find that the notion of letting the public school system have your children for the lion’s share of the day (eight plus hours out of a waking twelve to fourteen hour day for five days) to possess more potential for undue influence.

<controversial>And that's the best reason to send them to public school.</controversial>

Let me explain that. Of course, as a parent, you can and should control what your kids come into contact with to the extent possible. That's why we *have* parental relationships in the first place. However, I worry that parents in this day and age are getting a bit overprotective. If you're homeschooling your 6-year-old so you can more completely control the environment, then you're probably doing the kid a disservice.

There's an analogy to be drawn to hygiene. Of course good hygiene is necessary for good health, and it's good for parents to keep their kids clean — to a point. Parents who keep their kids squeaky clean 24/7 don't give them the opportunity to develop their immune systems, because they never get exposed to the microbes they should be developing antibodies to — and in fact these kids are usually the ones who are later in poor health much of the time (I've known a few). There are studies coming out now that seem to corroborate much of this anecdotal evidence; I'll try to find citations if you like.

How does this relate to homeschooling? Well, it seems to me that keeping a kid out of school for reasons of environmental control is rather like keeping a kid squeaky clean 24/7. It seems safer in the short term, but the kid may not learn how to deal with people or ideas that aren't just like what's at home, and of course that will create problems in the long term.

I think we agree on that, but I think we disagree with the solution. I don’t think putting my children in a public school for forty to forty-five hours a week is the best solution. Dropping them into what in my opinion amounts to a, well the word cesspool may be over the top, but lets go with that, doesn’t seem to be the best answer. Our kids aren’t sheltered to what we believe to be an unhealthy degree. Some are to be sure. We both agree that that can happen even in the most well meaning households. Perhaps even in ours. I’m erring on the side of caution. I think it’s better, to stick with your analogy, for kids to grow up in a squeaky clean environment and get exposed to some germs as an adult to be exposed to some very bad stuff as a kid and deal with the ramifications of that the rest of their lives.

I tend to agree, provided that we're using a fairly broad definition of “three R's”.

Of course.

Yes — although I think discussions on ethics and morality are also quite intellectually stimulating and quite appropriate in a school curriculum. And again, there's the benefit of discussing viewpoints that would perhaps not have been encountered at home.
True and if you look around here you’ll see that I like to encourage just that sort of debate on ethics/morality. It’s no different with my children. They’re already asking some pretty difficult questions and they’re still pretty young. I don’t discourage those questions. When they’re older they will be exposed to more and more of that outside the home in a variety of places.

Difficult question: are your kids self-censoring on asking questions they think will make you uncomfortable? Are they doing that more or less than they would in school? How would you go about figuring this out? (No, I sure as heck don't know!)

I don’t really know the answer to that. I do know that they’ve asked me some tough questions so far and they’re young yet.

* Is a schoolteacher (whom, presumably, your kid deals with every school day for *at least* an entire academic year, if not longer) a “relative stranger”?

Relative to family they should be.

* Is it about questions that you'd rather have your child ask a relative stranger? I think not. It's about the questions that *your child* would rather ask of a relative stranger. (Or is that what you meant, and I'm misunderstanding what you wrote?)

If my child has a question that they want to ask an adult that is not their parent then they have access to those people through a variety of sources, just not a public school teacher. And I think what I meant is what you said.

I have to say, I generally like the attitude with which you're approaching homeschooling. My concerns have more to do with my serious reservations on the viability of homeschooling *in general* than with much of anything about the Roche household's approach.

I appreciate that. I’m just trying to let you know that there are home schoolers out there who aren’t “bad guys”, not that you think any of them are probably bad people. There are almost as many ways of doing home school as there are home schools and many of the objections you raise are ones that we are aware of. Most home schoolers I know are aware of them too, particularly the socialization questions. We get that one a lot and probably get as tired of that as atheists do of the notion that they aren’t considered moral people. We do what we can to combat that and I think/hope most realize that what we’re doing has trade offs.