s/o Why liberals shouldn't homeschool

[bethben]

Reading this thread and this article has helped me to see what may be the next big argument against homeschooling. We've proved that we can give a decent or superior education, we're proving that homeschool kids have decent social skills, so my guess is that the next big argument against homeschooling is that we're helping to destroy the public schools by taking out the "smart children. From the article:

 

"the uptick in secular homeschooling may be, in part, a backlash against this narrow education agenda—a growing body of research suggests “peer effects†have a large impact on student achievement. Low-income kids earn higher test scores when they attend school alongside middle-class kids, while the test scores of privileged children are impervious to the influence of less-privileged peers. So when college-educated parents pull their kids out of public schools, whether for private school or homeschooling, they make it harder for less-advantaged children to thrive."

 

It's the homeschoolers fault! The reason that public schools are failing is because the parents who would be more involved in their children's school are now homeschooling and those smart kids who are now homeschooled are no longer helping their less-advantaged peers to thrive. Watch and wait.

 

Beth

[Remudamom]

Why just liberals? Are they suggesting that the conservative kids aren't a good influence? 8)

 

I bet you're right, this will be the next big argument. Sacrificing some for the greater good.

[Impish]

Its not a new argument. I've heard it for years. :glare:

[melissel]

Its not a new argument. I've heard it for years. :glare:

 

I have too--just heard it again yesterday, actually! But the easy rebuttal is that people have been sending their kids to private schools for the same reason for decades. Take it up with them instead :glare:

[EmilyK]

I have too--just heard it again yesterday, actually! But the easy rebuttal is that people have been sending their kids to private schools for the same reason for decades. Take it up with them instead :glare:

 

Where I live there's a lot of backlash against private school parents for exactly that, and a lot of guilt among parents who started in public and moved to private. We stuck it out as long as we could in public, in part for this reason -- involved parents and families who value education were needed.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Its not a new argument. I've heard it for years. :glare:

 

:iagree:

[Impish]

What I don't understand about this argument...

 

First off, in a democracy, the individual rights are supposed to be protected...not sacrificed to the 'Machine'.

 

Second, it always strikes me as a 'we don't want anyone having BETTER than...' argument.

 

Everyone should line up like good lil lemmings, and settle for the lower common denominator, never strive for something better, b/c not EVERYONE can do that.

 

I mean, if we put that thought into everything, better disband the Olympics, professional sports, theatre, movies, music...Cause not EVERYONE is that talented, so NOBODY should ever strive to be more than anyone else, right?

[sweetbasil]

I know far more former PSers who pulled their children because they were under-performing, not being taught basics, or not receiving appropriate services, than those who pulled their children because they were too advanced for PS.

[sweetbasil]

What I don't understand about this argument...

 

First off, in a democracy, the individual rights are supposed to be protected...not sacrificed to the 'Machine'.

 

Second, it always strikes me as a 'we don't want anyone having BETTER than...' argument.

 

Everyone should line up like good lil lemmings, and settle for the lower common denominator, never strive for something better, b/c not EVERYONE can do that.

 

I mean, if we put that thought into everything, better disband the Olympics, professional sports, theatre, movies, music...Cause not EVERYONE is that talented, so NOBODY should ever strive to be more than anyone else, right?

 

Amen sister!!

[melissel]

Where I live there's a lot of backlash against private school parents for exactly that, and a lot of guilt among parents who started in public and moved to private. We stuck it out as long as we could in public, in part for this reason -- involved parents and families who value education were needed.

 

That is ridiculous. It makes me sad that we have come to that. Who wouldn't jump at an opportunity to make a better life for their kids if they could possibly do so? And who could begrudge kids that?

[mirth]

Its not a new argument. I've heard it for years. :glare:

 

Sure, but this doesn't make it any less funny!

 

It is the fault of those who are never in the classroom at all. It is the fault of people who pay, but do not play. If it is such a big deal, they ought to be canvassing hard to engage us, scouring public library records for who has the biggest fees. Teachers should want whole roomfuls of us hs'er moms interacting with her daily (hourly!), and telling her our expectations and what we would differently. Funny I don't hear "Recruiting more hs families" as a campaign platform when school board elections roll around.

[wapiti]

Yes, and the same argument has been made with regard to both charter schools and gifted ed. The argument does not hold much water for me. I do not believe that sitting next to Good Student Johnny has a substantial impact on the learning of Struggling Student Bobby. While Good Student Johnny's test scores may make the school appear more successful, that cannot address most of the underlying issues thay may apply to Struggling Student Bobby (starting with Bobby's home environment)

[Tarreymere]

:lol:

We aren't exactly middle income.............

 

 

I guess we're a new breed - trailer park libertarian homeschoolers. I doubt the public schools want us either :D

[MrsBasil]

I heard this from a friend when she noticed I was reading a book about homeschooling.

 

According to that article I don't have to worry though. I'm not college educated and we are barely hanging on to lower middle class. :lol:

 

 

I think the argument isn't so much about not having better than, but having better than on your own time and strengthen your community and your kid at the same time. In other words, afterschool your kids and "give them the best of both worlds". That's the reasoning I've gotten.

[kewb]

Its not a new argument. I've heard it for years. :glare:

 

 

Same here. My answer remains the same. I am not willing to sacrifice my child on the alter of "there may be a chance my child being in school will help peers learn."

[SKL]

When I was a kid, that was the argument against leaving the inner city. Urban flight was the cause of urban blight. If non-poor ("elitist") people would just force their kids to suck it up in the inner city, it wouldn't be so bad.

 

Never mind the fact that kids were being raped and having their penises cut off in the process of trying to get a "democratic" education. The last straw for my family (in 1979) was when a serial rapist tried to abduct my very pregnant mom in broad daylight.

 

But yeah, it's our fault.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I know far more former PSers who pulled their children because they were under-performing, not being taught basics, or not receiving appropriate services, than those who pulled their children because they were too advanced for PS.

 

Part of that is because it considered "bragging" to mention it if your children are advanced.

[Tutor]

That is ridiculous. It makes me sad that we have come to that. Who wouldn't jump at an opportunity to make a better life for their kids if they could possibly do so? And who could begrudge kids that?

 

I have been told that this type of behavior is selfish. Yes, it's good for your children, but what about the children of those families who can't homeschool or afford private school? Why do we begrudge them? If you keep your kids in public school and are an involved parent, you can improve the educations of all of the children.

 

We have friends with a gifted child. The parents acknowledge that homeschooling would probably be the best educational fit for their son but consciously choose to send him to the local public school because they feel that his presence and their involvement there benefit society at large while homeschooling him would only benefit the son (and maybe the rest of their immediate family). I admire their desire to act within their belief system, I just don't agree with their conclusions. :D

[Rhonda in TX]

What I don't understand about this argument...

 

First off, in a democracy, the individual rights are supposed to be protected...not sacrificed to the 'Machine'.

 

Second, it always strikes me as a 'we don't want anyone having BETTER than...' argument.

 

Everyone should line up like good lil lemmings, and settle for the lower common denominator, never strive for something better, b/c not EVERYONE can do that.

 

I mean, if we put that thought into everything, better disband the Olympics, professional sports, theatre, movies, music...Cause not EVERYONE is that talented, so NOBODY should ever strive to be more than anyone else, right?

 

Excellent point! :iagree:

[Crimson Wife]

I have too--just heard it again yesterday, actually! But the easy rebuttal is that people have been sending their kids to private schools for the same reason for decades. Take it up with them instead :glare:

 

:iagree: but since private schools cost $$$$, they are not seen as big of a threat as HS. The wealthy are assumed to have "abandoned" PS long ago but now that middle-class families are starting to HS in much larger numbers, that is viewed as a real threat. At least this is how the argument seems to go :rolleyes:

 

There are also many people who have a bigger problem with HS than with private schools because they believe that both parents should be pursuing high-powered careers full-time outside the home. Private school enrollment allows a woman to have that kind of career, while HS doesn't unless her DH is the one doing it. This argument isn't as often vocalized as the other one, but it is very frequently lurking unspoken in the background of liberals who criticize HS more than private school.

[SKL]

One would think that if homeschooling / private schooling / etc. is removing a certain category of kids from the schools, that would make the schools more homogeneous and they could better focus their efforts on meeting the needs of the kids who are left.

 

FTR, my kids do go to school, but I don't really think their academic knowledge rubs off on the kids sitting next to them. Other things probably do. Certainly other kids' ideas (good and bad) rub off on them. :glare: But honestly, one reason I plan to keep my kids in school is so that my own kids benefit from the group mentality that, hey, everyone is studying half of the day. Everyone is working on math, improving their handwriting, etc. Everyone has to sit and struggle through certain stuff to get to the next level. In my own kids' case, they are more likely to put forth consistent effort over a long time if they do it as part of a group. (I reserve the right to change my mind, considering that they are only 5.)

[StephanieZ]

And, just how on earth would the governments (local, state, & Fed) pay for schools if all of us who currently pay taxes but don't utilize services suddenly moved our kids to ps?

 

Whenever I read of budget woes, I think, "Wow, if the 5-10% of kids who are homeschooled suddenly went to ps, there would be a budgetary disaster." Add in the private schooled kids? Whoa, now that'd be interesting.

 

Personally, I do hs largely b/c I didn't want my kids to be sacrificed on the altar of bringing up the bottom, or bringing op the middle. I want my kids to have an appropriately challenging education, not act as tutors for their "peers".

 

I pay my fair share (lots) of local, state, federal, sales, property, income, and every other tax imaginable. Caesar gets his cut.

 

As a liberal, I find satisfaction in thinking that the, oh, 30k/yr (10k per child per year, so, say 130,000k per kid, so, say $390k over their K-12 education) that I am saving the gov't by educating my OWN kids allows that much more gov't resources to be spent on whatever our gov't chooses to do with it.

 

I'd love it if the governments would direct the saved $$ to improving public education or other liberal causes, but I am also happy enough to simply have lower taxes and/or spend the $$ on other quasi-reasonable government expenditures.

 

In any event, I do not feel the least bit guilty for keeping my kids out of the public system.

 

There are many examples of extremely poor schools providing excellent education to a previously underperforming student body. Using my smart, well behaved (:tongue_smilie:) kids as free motivational models or free tutors is a cop out.

 

Give me a break! If school systems focus on providing an excellent education to EVERY child and respect to EVERY family, and public schools will likely lure back many homeschoolers. If, instead, they decide to continue to scare away more and more informed, educated, and able families to private or home schools, well, that is their bad, not mine.

[happyhomemaker25]

This would not work with some of my kids. They are not self motivated and without the one on one attention and motivation I give them they would be mediocre students at best. They would get away with that in a classroom of 30 other kids. Instead of them pulling other students up my kids would be pulled down.

This argument has been around for awhile and not just fodhomeschoolers. In highschool I went to a public college prep magnet school. A lot of people argued that it was not fair to pull the kids at my school from their neighborhood schools.

My neighborhood school had metal detectors, weapon checks, a dozen school resource officers, and a daycare.

The school I went to had AP classes, colleges actively recruiting us, no metal detectors, one resource officer who we all adored, Pi day, a Shakespeare festival, and I was toward the bottom of my class with a 3.2 GPA.

My parents weren't so much worried about fair back then. The kids at my school all wanted to be there and all wanted the best education they could get. We had the occasional fight, but no weapons and bullying was pretty non-existent.

I'm forever grateful I did not have to go to my neighborhood school to lift their test scores. That, quite frankly, would not have been fair to me.

[mom2scouts]

It's an old argument and I'm not buying it. I've had at least one child in the public school system for the past 16 years. I have been an active, involved parent. It may help to have involved parents, but it doesn't change the system overall. My oldest son who always went to PS and did very well now asks me again and again why I didn't homeschool him. He thinks that being in school held him back in so many ways. My second son is highly gifted and he says he hated every single second he was in school. He tells me that the only advantage to skipping two grades was getting out of there early. My third son is a junior. He likes school, but I am unhappy about how much time they spend watching popular movies or trying to get the teacher off topic. My two youngest are now homeschooled and I don't feel any obligation to put them into PS and become an involved parent who works to improve the system while sacrificing my children's education for the "social good". BTDT and it wasn't worth it. If and when I send my children to PS, it will be for the good of my children and family.

[sweetbasil]

Part of that is because it considered "bragging" to mention it if your children are advanced.

 

I know my experience is only anecdotal, but trust me when I say that it's not a sense of modesty that's providing skewed results.

 

I personally know some families who once PSed but now HS because their children are gifted, but most families I know who pulled their children out of PS thought the schools were failing their typical or delayed learners. The gifted students that I know were far more likely to be HSed from the beginning than to be enrolled in PS.

 

FWIW, I have children on the far opposite ends of the spectrum so I have these conversations quite frequently.

[Impish]

That is ridiculous. It makes me sad that we have come to that. Who wouldn't jump at an opportunity to make a better life for their kids if they could possibly do so? And who could begrudge kids that?

B/c everyone should have the SAME opportunities. Nobody should get more or less, doncha know.

 

It's not fair for some parents to make sacrifices for what they consider the best interests of *their* children if not ALL parents can do the same!

 

Well...it's ok for the rich, who've always been able to afford 'better', b/c they're the ruling class, and the movers and shakers of the financial hiarchy, but the middle class is doing it now too? And some of the 'lower' class?! But, but but...that means their children might not be the cogs we need! They might be...INDIVIDUALS! *gasp*

 

Can't possibly have that! Society needs lemmings! How can we possibly instill 'everyone is equal' w/the elimination of awards (unless everyone gets one) and nobody being allowed to fail, etc?

 

How dare parents utilize their rights to treat their children as individuals?! It should be enough for them to HAVE the rights, they shouldn't actually excercise them! :svengo:

[Jean in Newcastle]

The gifted students that I know were far more likely to be HSed from the beginning than to be enrolled in PS.

 

 

That's true.

[SKL]

BHow dare parents utilize their rights to treat their children as individuals?! It should be enough for them to HAVE the rights, they shouldn't actually excercise them! :svengo:

 

If you are a good liberal, you care at least as much about other people's kids as you care about your own, and you believe if every kid can't have it, your responsibility should be to work toward improving it for everyone's kid, and if you do your job right, it will help your kids too.

 

Extra points if you actually do more for other people's kids than for your own.

 

Funny thing is, long ago, I largely believed in this. I so wanted to put my kids in PS and work to improve the system for everyone. (I was also an education student bla bla bla.) At some point I realized that the problem was just too big for me to make a meaningful dent, and on top of that, there are too many powerful people who have more to gain by keeping people down. And what better way to keep people down than to screw up inner city schools?

[Crimson Wife]

B/c everyone should have the SAME opportunities. Nobody should get more or less, doncha know.

 

It's not fair for some parents to make sacrifices for what they consider the best interests of *their* children if not ALL parents can do the same!

 

Well...it's ok for the rich, who've always been able to afford 'better', b/c they're the ruling class, and the movers and shakers of the financial hiarchy, but the middle class is doing it now too? And some of the 'lower' class?! But, but but...that means their children might not be the cogs we need! They might be...INDIVIDUALS! *gasp*

 

Can't possibly have that! Society needs lemmings! How can we possibly instill 'everyone is equal' w/the elimination of awards (unless everyone gets one) and nobody being allowed to fail, etc?

 

How dare parents utilize their rights to treat their children as individuals?! It should be enough for them to HAVE the rights, they shouldn't actually excercise them! :svengo:

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

So true, but they'd never say that.

[kalanamak]

Its not a new argument. I've heard it for years. :glare:

 

Aside from a couple of socialization remarks, this was the first "what about this if you homeschool" remark if I ever got. It was a from a good friend and only one comment. When I told him the WASL (Washington's standardized tests) was at 27th %-ile at the school kiddo was slated to go to, he said nothing else. His kids were in a very good school area, with involved parents.

[kalanamak]

 

Whenever I read of budget woes, I think, "Wow, if the 5-10% of kids who are homeschooled suddenly went to ps,

 

5-10 % of kids are homeschooled? If they are, I don't see them. I live in a small folksy community, and I've only heard of one other family. I thought it was less than 3%.

[LeslieAnneLevine]

I agree that argument has been around for awhile and has never resonated with me. I really don't think I'd be helping anyone by putting my child in school, nor am I hurting anyone by not sending him. I think it makes people feel better to think they are doing the right or moral thing.

 

I really disliked the article because I think it's ridiculous for anyone to tell such a diverse group of people what they should or shouldn't do, as if they are going to lose their status as part of that group if they don't listen (I would feel the same about an article entitled: "Conservatives, don't send your children to public school").

 

I think they are a little late, anyway. Liberals have been part of the homeschooling movement since the beginning. If they are homeschooling in greater numbers now, then I think the horse has already left the barn.

[kalanamak]

how did that double happen?

[Mimm]

 

I mean, if we put that thought into everything, better disband the Olympics, professional sports, theatre, movies, music...Cause not EVERYONE is that talented, so NOBODY should ever strive to be more than anyone else, right?

 

People are very often more understanding and accepting of being physically advantaged than being intellectually advantaged. It's ok if your kid is amazing at throwing a baseball but people will get defensive if your kid is amazing at math.

[bethben]

This argument is kin to what Christian homeschoolers hear all the time about pulling "good, Christian kids" out of the schools. That it's our responsibility to have our kids in the schools to be "salt and light to the world", etc. I don't buy that argument, and I don't buy the one in the OP, either.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't buy that one either.

 

Beth

[kalanamak]

It's ok if your kid is amazing at throwing a baseball but people will get defensive if your kid is amazing at math.

 

Really? I've seen some rather heated hatreds over competing children. Where do parents punch other parents? On the ball field, not in the library.

[Mynyel]

What I don't understand about this argument...

 

First off, in a democracy, the individual rights are supposed to be protected...not sacrificed to the 'Machine'.

 

Second, it always strikes me as a 'we don't want anyone having BETTER than...' argument.

 

Everyone should line up like good lil lemmings, and settle for the lower common denominator, never strive for something better, b/c not EVERYONE can do that.

 

I mean, if we put that thought into everything, better disband the Olympics, professional sports, theatre, movies, music...Cause not EVERYONE is that talented, so NOBODY should ever strive to be more than anyone else, right?

 

B/c everyone should have the SAME opportunities. Nobody should get more or less, doncha know.

 

It's not fair for some parents to make sacrifices for what they consider the best interests of *their* children if not ALL parents can do the same!

 

Well...it's ok for the rich, who've always been able to afford 'better', b/c they're the ruling class, and the movers and shakers of the financial hiarchy, but the middle class is doing it now too? And some of the 'lower' class?! But, but but...that means their children might not be the cogs we need! They might be...INDIVIDUALS! *gasp*

 

Can't possibly have that! Society needs lemmings! How can we possibly instill 'everyone is equal' w/the elimination of awards (unless everyone gets one) and nobody being allowed to fail, etc?

 

How dare parents utilize their rights to treat their children as individuals?! It should be enough for them to HAVE the rights, they shouldn't actually excercise them! :svengo:

 

:lol:

We aren't exactly middle income.............

 

 

I guess we're a new breed - trailer park libertarian homeschoolers. I doubt the public schools want us either :D

 

I knew I liked you two! I don't live in a trailer park but do live in a double wide! :) I don't know if I am pure Libertarian but we lean that way.

 

We live in a narcissistic society. What one has all should have. It is a bunch of bunk. No one can fail. Everyone has the opportunity for everything. Yea right. If that is the case then why are there people living in ramshackle trailers with beat-up cars? If everyone could do the same thing then we would all be the robots they want us to be.

 

I agree with Imp, they want lemmings. We all need to look the same and be the same. Faceless gray objects.

[dangermom]

Hey Impish, have you ever read that short story, "Harrison Bergeron"? It's online I think, you might like it. :D

[Violet Crown]

Reading this thread and this article has helped me to see what may be the next big argument against homeschooling. We've proved that we can give a decent or superior education, we're proving that homeschool kids have decent social skills, so my guess is that the next big argument against homeschooling is that we're helping to destroy the public schools by taking out the "smart children. From the article:

 

"the uptick in secular homeschooling may be, in part, a backlash against this narrow education agenda—a growing body of research suggests “peer effects†have a large impact on student achievement. Low-income kids earn higher test scores when they attend school alongside middle-class kids, while the test scores of privileged children are impervious to the influence of less-privileged peers. So when college-educated parents pull their kids out of public schools, whether for private school or homeschooling, they make it harder for less-advantaged children to thrive."

 

It's the homeschoolers fault! The reason that public schools are failing is because the parents who would be more involved in their children's school are now homeschooling and those smart kids who are now homeschooled are no longer helping their less-advantaged peers to thrive. Watch and wait.

 

Beth

 

Well the public-school supporters are going to have to get in line to make that argument: Catholics have been hearing it from diocesan bureaucrats, DREs, priests, and the occasional bishop for decades. The first beat-down I ever got for homeschooling was at a retreat, where a priest and diocesan employee informed me at length how the parochial schools were failing because of people like me, and that I was betraying the poor who couldn't afford to homeschool. That Salon article sure brought back memories.

 

What I want to know is, is it the public or Catholic schools that are rightfully entitled to my kids? It seems a lot to ask of a child that she destroy two school systems at once.

[mirth]

I knew I liked you two! I don't live in a trailer park but do live in a double wide! :) I don't know if I am pure Libertarian but we lean that way.

 

We live in a narcissistic society. What one has all should have. It is a bunch of bunk. No one can fail. Everyone has the opportunity for everything. Yea right. If that is the case then why are there people living in ramshackle trailers with beat-up cars? If everyone could do the same thing then we would all be the robots they want us to be.

 

I agree with Imp, they want lemmings. We all need to look the same and be the same. Faceless gray objects.

 

No... I feel it is worse than that. If the idea is "trickle down academics", then there would be more (any???!) outreach to re-enroll high school dropouts. You know -- to help them get their diploma and benefit from the good influences of kids who intend to get their hs diploma. Failure to re-engage dropouts is actually one of the biggest complaints of the NGA (Natl Govs Assoc). No, all this trickle down stuff is self-serving, hypocritical, feeble and flawed. Feeble and flawed because it attempts to effigize a strawman-scapegoat.

 

They need to work on PR a bit more to attract hs'ers if this is anywhere near the goal. Look at it this way... they expend the same effort to engage the most needful and the most "helpful" of students. In a word ... Nothing!

Edited February 18, 2012 by mirth
sp

[Farrar]

I think most of the arguments against homeschooling are utterly absurd. I don't think this one is.

 

If you're coming from a liberal, community perspective, then there is a value in having everyone share the same schools. And there is data to suggest that having kids from socioeconomically well-off families or families that are involved and committed benefits everyone.

 

So it's a fair thing to say to me. I'm not going to mock it (like I mock the socialization nonsense). But I just don't buy it. My kid is more important. And schools don't do a good enough job of doing that anyway in the vast majority of communities.

[Bluegoat]

I think most of the arguments against homeschooling are utterly absurd. I don't think this one is.

 

If you're coming from a liberal, community perspective, then there is a value in having everyone share the same schools. And there is data to suggest that having kids from socioeconomically well-off families or families that are involved and committed benefits everyone.

 

So it's a fair thing to say to me. I'm not going to mock it (like I mock the socialization nonsense). But I just don't buy it. My kid is more important. And schools don't do a good enough job of doing that anyway in the vast majority of communities.

 

I tend to think along the same lines. To me the argument that if good parents opt out schools will be worse off is really a kind of poor way to try to say something that is true at a higher level - that as a society there is something really wrong with the way we are approaching education, and that is something we are all responsible for.

 

So while I can homeschool, my friends around the block can't, and in the area next to my neighbourhood a lot of parents can't and some of the kids would be better off not at home all day. And if i consider myself disengaged from that, I am neglecting my responsibility to the community.

 

Lots of homeschooling parents are engaged that way, but not all of them, and I have heard some people suggest that really we just all should homeschool. But really what we need is those who have some deeper view of education to really engage in these problems.

[Nscribe]

When we finally walked away (I should say ran away) from the public schools, we took with us a huge amount of volunteer time/effort and money. We also took one child who year after year provided exceptionally high test scores (an asset in a No Child Left Behind world).

 

We were not alone, over the years many of our peers and our daughter's peers flocked to other options. They were the mom's I saw at the Room Mother events, the dad's who took the day off to go along on the field trips, the one's who donated and did.

 

Finally it struck me. I can choose to martyr myself, but my child is my charge/my duty and she need not suffer for whatever the cause is. Who would I be helping if I let the one I can most make a difference with fall? My only regret is not fleeing sooner.

 

It may sound cold, selfish...pick your sword...no barb could cut deeper than when I realized I was allowing the one person I cared most in the world about to be hurt.

[Ester Maria]

I think most of the arguments against homeschooling are utterly absurd. I don't think this one is.

 

If you're coming from a liberal, community perspective, then there is a value in having everyone share the same schools. And there is data to suggest that having kids from socioeconomically well-off families or families that are involved and committed benefits everyone.

 

So it's a fair thing to say to me. I'm not going to mock it (like I mock the socialization nonsense). But I just don't buy it. My kid is more important. And schools don't do a good enough job of doing that anyway in the vast majority of communities.

I agree with you.

 

I know some (rich!) folks who are actually consistent within that philosophy. They are not only against homeschooling, but also against private schooling, and they believe that all choice that is to be offered ought to be offered within the public system to ALL, or to the best candidates from those ALL (so, yes to exclusive schools, but not those that discriminate based on parental wealth or where you are zoned, but by academic achievement and performance on entrance exams).

Their kids are in public schools. It is not ideal. They have the means for better. But they firmly see a value in having their kids in those schools. They think that a nation which does not attend a school together - the primary level from where we start - is bound to disintegrate as a nation (and they actually cite examples from countries with longer or richer traditions of private and home education).

 

Sure, those people leg up their kids in other ways. Nearly all of them, although they do not call it that way, "afterschool" in some form; their children travel and learn languages abroad; they are even privately tutored for some extras or receive music education aside. But the bulk of their education their children are receiving in schools attended by everyone, and they think that is how it should be. Their children have friends from all layers of society due to that. Our choice to homeschool, in their eyes, is elitism at best and a severe moral degeneration at worst.

 

Personally, I am messed up. In a way glad that my children were abroad when the decision to homeschool was being made, because I would certainly feel at least somewhat guilty isolating them, in their own country, from its living school culture. We wrestled with that issue when we first thought, before homeschooling was ever an option, whether they would be in the regular system or we would start with an international school. The reactions we got for even considering it were: "Well, yeah, it is a broken system and it is a broken society, on many levels. But you can either be a part of it or not be a part of it, you cannot sit on two chairs by trying to take the best of both worlds. Either they are going to be a part of their nation, for the good and for the bad, or they are going to be cosmopolites with international education hanging in international circles, not truly one of the rest, in some ways strangers in their own country, if you make that choice." For homeschooling, many people reason essentially the same way. If you do not have comparable childhood and youth experiences and milestones as everybody else, with all the school culture and trips and whatnot, you are not 'really' one of us. And for many reasons, I wanted my kids to be a part of that, even if it is a less than perfect system...

 

On the other hand, there are two things in which I am very much like your national doctrine: if I had to prioritize between an individual and a society, I would always prioritize an individual, and if there is an issue which can be solved in several ways, I would always solve it in the direction of greater personal freedoms and choice, not lesser ones. So, in that respect, I cannot possibly be against homeschooling in principle, even if I do agree there is an element of disintegration of nation which does not attend a school together.

And yeah, this attitude alone disqualifies me as a morally sound person in those people's eyes. We simply see values in different things.

 

So, I understand why one would have such an attitude, and I often wrestle with some facets of that attitude myself. I see it all the time as this is a typical litmus test on which I fail as a moral creature in those people's eyes. :tongue_smilie: :( Sigh. C'est la vie. :)

Edited February 18, 2012 by Ester Maria

[momsuz123]

When we finally walked away (I should say ran away) from the public schools, we took with us a huge amount of volunteer time/effort and money. We also took one child who year after year provided exceptionally high test scores (an asset in a No Child Left Behind world).

 

We were not alone, over the years many of our peers and our daughter's peers flocked to other options. They were the mom's I saw at the Room Mother events, the dad's who took the day off to go along on the field trips, the one's who donated and did.

 

Finally it struck me. I can choose to martyr myself, but my child is my charge/my duty and she need not suffer for whatever the cause is. Who would I be helping if I let the one I can most make a difference with fall? My only regret is not fleeing sooner.

 

It may sound cold, selfish...pick your sword...no barb could cut deeper than when I realized I was allowing the one person I cared most in the world about to be hurt.

 

Well said! This was our situation. We tried ps, we tried private school. It just wasn't working. Our oldest dd was bored to tears, our youngest dd class was huge for a kindy, and the behaviour of the class as a whole was horrible (granted, it was the same 8 boys always causing all the trouble, but that is all it takes to turn what could be a good experience into a bad)! Why should my child be subjected to swearing, etc in kindy?! She learned NADA! So, we are at home now, ,and I only have myself to blame now if things don't work out.:tongue_smilie:

[kalanamak]

If you're coming from a liberal, community perspective, then there is a value in having everyone share the same schools.

 

I am vaguely of that perspective, and I think raising my kid to have *crucial* critical thinking skills is the best thing I can do for my country and the world. And him.

[Farrar]

I am vaguely of that perspective, and I think raising my kid to have *crucial* critical thinking skills is the best thing I can do for my country and the world. And him.

 

Yes, I agree. And I think "community" and government don't always go together. I think I said in the other thread that to me, I don't mind the village (helping) raise my child - but I do kind of mind that the government do it. What's best for the community isn't always what's best for the government.

 

I think for me, this has been the most serious argument I've been challenged with (a few people have argued it with me) and I find it to be a worthy debate. I have my position, but I'll engage with someone over it. Beyond an explanation, I won't engage on most of the other anti-homeschool arguments.

[stripe]

I find it troubling that other students are supposed to be imparting all this education on their classmates, rather than, say, their teachers. I also find it troubling that poor students are endlessly portrayed as needing to be rescued from themselves. You know what, poor people can work hard and learn too, and I'm sick of seeing them sold short. This is a particular beef of mine right now.

 

Relatedly, isn't it interesting that girls supposedly do better in single sex classrooms and boys in coed ones. How do we choose who to sacrifice? Or do we actually need to sacrifice anyone??

[Ester Maria]

Well, I guess it comes down to the question:

 

"Does the school exist for my child's benefit, or does my child exist for the school's benefit?"

 

Or is it a symbiotic relationship?

To which they reply, "But the quality of that benefit depends largely on the *people*, not abstractions - and if you take all the quality out, if all good teachers sell themselves to private institutions or people like you, educated and who care, take their kids out... there will not be much left, so because of that you will not send the child in school for their benefit, and so we get a vicious cycle in which you are dam*ed if you do and dam*ned if you don't."

 

I actually hate to admit that their examples are pretty sound ones. Some societies which are considerably less liberal (liberal being defined in economic terms here) actually have greater cohesion and quality of national education system, simply because they limit the choice. So, while you may not attain your *optimum* in those schools, they are never just as bad as the worst schools in "freer" societies, there is less of a socioeconomic stratification in schools, etc. And those people see it is a good thing and find the doctrine of choice to be essentially a pretext for selfishness.

 

It is not a wiser not a more stupid perspective, just... worlds away ideologically.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Ester Maria

[EKS]

I've heard that argument before.

 

I'd put my kid in school if the school would actually give him what I consider to be an appropriate education.