An editorial in the Intelligencer (out of Canada) raises up the “disadvantages” of homeschooling based on the same stereotypes we hear everywhere else. It starts out all right, but quickly moves into the common stereotypes:
A significant example is the amount of time - not to mention money - it takes to prepare and teach daily lessons and organize activities. Parents who chose to home-school would have little time to themselves and would have to pay for most of the resources needed to educate their children. It is unlikely many parents can match the resources offered by a government-funded school system.
Actually, that is an advantage. It takes less time. It takes less money.
Look at all the time children waste in public education (scroll down past the blackness). Look at the amount of money dumped into the system. Look at the reports indicating that learning is going nowhere. And how homeschools, with no federal money and spending far less time on structured learning activities beat them at their own measurements of success. As far as time to one’s self goes, that is sort of a personal matter. I don’t envy the career woman who is continually torn between job performance and the needs of her family. Where does she have time to herself?
But perhaps the greatest disadvantage is the difficulty in developing social skills.
I’ve heard that somewhere before. But what social skills are they learning?
Social skills cannot be learned merely through everyday interactions, such as trips to the mall, church, sports and clubs or visiting with neighbours. It is imperative kids learn how to have relationships with their peers - and that can rarely be accomplished in a home-schooling environment.
Really? They are learned by sitting still in a room with 25+ people who are the same age as you, where you aren’t allowed to talk and have to ask permission to go to the restroom? Many don’t even have recess anymore. Maybe schools are different now, but when I practiced my social skills in school, I got moved to another desk.
Kids need more than book smarts, they also need to learn about real life - with its perils and pitfalls - and develop the skills they need to cope with it. And those skills cannot be learned merely by enroling children in sports, church or community groups.
Ah, so social skills are learned by “real life.” What is “real life”? I can only guess that means swirlies, stolen lunch money and being called “four eyes.” Those kinds of experiences are invaluable to the development of the self-esteem of the child, his general sense of well-being and his ability to interact with his peers.
It is that lack of exposure to the real world that poses a danger for home-schooled children, particularly those who are taught by their parents right through their teen years.
It is dangerous to be safe. I bet all those popular kids in the most elite of cliques are doing horribly in their professional lives today. After all, they were never subjected to “real life”. Unfortunately, those kids who are subjected to “real life” never really grow out of it. And they suffer increased rates of depression and poor self-esteem, even as adults.
When it finally comes time for them to leave the nest to attend college or university, they may not have the necessary skills to cope with the social aspects and pressures post-secondary living entails.
Give one study that supports this oft-touted concern for the secluded, isolated homeschooler who only has church, sports, homeschool groups, the neighborhood kids and other clubs to “socialize” in. Only sitting still in a desk counts, though.
Many home-schooled youth won’t know how to handle the unexpected mixture of freedom and exposure to the parts of life they have never personally faced. Simply hearing about the dangers of life is not a substitute for reality.
Public schooled kids are doing great with the freedom they’ve been given.
What has always been forbidden or mysterious - be it alcohol, drugs or sex - can become too great of a temptation to resist for some of these home-schooled youth who may be intent on taking part in much they’d missed as quickly as possible.
What is freely available and offered under pressure can become too great of a temptation for a young person who has not yet developed the maturity to stand for values which have never been clearly taught amidst the chronic separation of parent and child beginning at six weeks of age for many of our children.
It is far better for our children to learn about the realities of life and how to cope with them while they are young. Then, when it does come time to leave the nest, they can do so with more confidence to handle what life throws their way.
Except it doesn’t seem to be working on any level. What I see in our graduates today is not confidence but apathy. When they graduate.
But don’t take my word for it. If my links above weren’t enough, The San Francisco Chronicle published a very nice article on homeschooling, with further comments by The Daily Goose and Key Words.
homeschooling home school education public school socialization
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
[What has always been forbidden or mysterious - be it alcohol, drugs or sex - can become too great of a temptation to resist for some of these home-schooled youth]
So, if we got rid of homeschooling, we would have a perfect society? This pretty much describes my life from the time I left home until I wasy in my mid 20-somethings and decided to recommit my life to God. I never really got into the drug thing, but the others… to my shame, I did indulge in. I was public schooled and I wasn’t raised in a Christian home so you can’t really blame that either…
[Parents who chose to home-school would have little time to themselves]
Actually Dana, I am living my dream. I have always wanted to be a full time student. I am learning so much and having a great time. :o)
I was a good kid. The temptation of the forbidden held no allure to me. Teenage drug and alcohol use? All I can say for myself is that it was legal at the time and in the place where it occurred.
And I want to know where these roving bands of drugged out homeschoolers hang out, since the temptation surely overtakes them the minute they leave home.
And actually, those who do thing simply because they are told not to are regularly identified as having a form of attachment disorder. Maybe that would go away if kids spent more time at home!
I am so tired of this weak argument. I honestly can’t believe editors are accepting articles from autors with nothing new to offer. They are carbon copies of every other article critical of home education. I’m done with these silly articles that offer nothing but parroted stereotypes. If their biggest concern is whether or not my children are “socialized,” I think we are doing something right.
And BTW, “real life” is interacting with people of all ages and backgrounds, as home educators do regularly, not sequestered with those their same age day in and day out. What can you learn about life from a classroom of children as ignorant as you are about the way the world works? Makes no sense to me.
I wish these people would actually TALK to some home educated kids. They will see our children are more well behaved, are better educated (see colleges seeking out HS kids), and spend more time volunteering in the community than their PS peers (on the whole). But then again, that’s not really what he means is it? It’s really about access to your children.
And I am glad it takes time to teach my children. He cannot really compare a classroom setting with one-on-one teaching, when I have invested my LIFE in my children. I have a lot more at stake than a classroom teacher, and a lot more to gain. A classroom teacher cannot teach to my child’s individuality. A classroom teacher cannot love my child as I do, so that teacher cannot teach with the passion that I do.
…and another thing, because it is an editorial the author can write with no facts to justiry the claims. He is simply discussing his own concerns as if they were facts. How many HS children get into drugs? How many cannot “function” in university? How many go on to have successful families and careers. Come on now, this article is not very “enlightened,” is it?
I can’t believe that the author’s actually arguing that the only place you can “learn” about real life is in a government school. That is such an ignorant statement.
“Social skills cannot be learned merely through everyday interactions, such as trips to the mall, church, sports and clubs or visiting with neighbours. It is imperative kids learn how to have relationships with their peers - and that can rarely be accomplished in a home-schooling environment. “
Can I see a show of hands of the people who only interact with people their exact age? And um, I thought things like clubs and sports in this quote *were* peer interaction. Silly me. I guess the author doesn’t mean *real* real life, just the *real* life within a government school, where you are bullied, promoted without learning and subjected to pressures you are not yet equipped to handle. In that case, no, my children are in no way equipped for *real* life. My kids are too busy learning, growing and interacting with people of *diverse* ages, races and life experiences.
He says that a government school is the “ever-evolving network of teachers, counsellors, support systems and programs is best equipped to help” my child with these vital social skills. There is as much value in my support system of grandparents, friends, fellow home educators and clergy. This arguement is baseless and ignorant. Once again, I point the author back to the source. Talk to 50 or 100 home educators, do some real research and get back to us.
…and another thing, because it is an editorial the author can write with no facts to justiry the claims. He is simply discussing his own concerns as if they were facts.
That is what really gets to me. Just spout off all your stereotypes as if they were facts. But I can’t add to your little rant! Thank you for your thoughts!
Argh… I had written a big long post but Blogger must have eaten it.
To put it in a nutshell, how can you criticize the author on overemphasizing the “dangers” of homeschooling while simultaneously doing the exact same thing to public schooling.
I was public-schooled yet didn’t even come close to facing the prison-like environment you describe where I could get no interaction with my peers and had to sit straight in my desk facing the teacher in still and utter silence all day. I also never faced the bullying you discuss. I had occasional disagreements with my peers but certainly no more so in public school than in the “church, sports, the neighborhood kids and other clubs” that you praise elsewhere. To this day I’ve never done an illegal drug and didn’t have my first sip of alcohol until halfway through college. The only sex I have is within my monogamous relationship of 6 years, which I realize some people think puts me just a step from satan, but I don’t think I turned out too bad. I don’t suffer from depression or poor self-esteem the way you say “those kids who are subjected to ‘real life’” do. In fact I’ve been asked by several people throughout my life where I get the “glow” of happiness they see in me.
I agree with you that the author is exaggerating the “dangers” of homeschooling, but from where I’m sitting it doesn’t look like you have room to talk.
how can you criticize the author on overemphasizing the “dangers” of homeschooling while simultaneously doing the exact same thing to public schooling.
I provided links to back up what I was saying. I’m certainly not saying that everyone’s school experience is this way. But what I am saying is that this environment is not by default better just because it is what we all grew up with.
The kids suffering from depression I cite are not all public schooled children. I defined what I meant by real life. That is not directly what the author says it means, but it is a rather common argument we see…that somehow a child needs to go through this bullying to develop. If you follow the link, it provides evidence of exactly what being subjected to this bullying does to a child. The claim is not that everyone suffers this, and I never said they do.
The point is not that public school is bad. The point is that all his concerns for homeschoolers exist in the public school and are somewhat normal. Normal enough that we have reports of kids with urinary tract issues related to being required to hold it too long (linked above), children are gaining weight and losig recess (linked above), drug and alcohol use, while on the decline, still account for a significant portion of our students (linked above), and those who suffer bullying have lifelong consequences (linked above). Each parent needs to know for his or her own child where their child can best be served. The stereotypes against homeschoolers are a little old, and rarely presented with any sort of basis beyond the authors personal stereotypes or anecdotes of some weird kid they knew.
This sort of reminds me of the mommy wars: working v. stay at home mom.
Why do public school advocates feel the need to put down home/unschoolers and why do home/unschoolers feel the need to bash public schools? I think that each family has to weigh the options for themselves and do what is right. Not all families would be good at homeschooling, not all children would take to it in today’s world. Not all public schooling is detrimental to the child (although I do think the whole system does need serious revamping and restructuring.)
I had one son slip through the cracks in public school very early on and it has affected his entire life and view of learning; I had one son do well in public school and is knowledgable, social, active, engaged in life and community; and I have one who is just not served at all in public school and we are beginning the homeschooling approach to life and learning.
If I had to do over again I may have homeschooled all of them or somehow found an alternative schooling choice. But again, it comes down to what works for each family and each child within the family. I just wish each side could see the positive in the other…and I realize it is the homeschooling side that has more postive to offer, it’s just that walls are up and boundaries drawn.
And the structure of society does not help either side when many families require two parents to work just to make ends meet; when parents have been raised themselves in such isloated family units that they do not know how to reach out to their children’s schools; when parents have been raised in a “me” generation and putting the kids some where during the day is how they advance their own personal selves.
So I have to wonder, is society a by product of our educational system, or is our educational system a by product of our growing and changing society?
Shawna,
I definitely agree that each family needs to make their own choice. I have no issues with families choosing public education, really. I do have issues with the continued attacks on homeschooling based on stereotypes, however.
This isn’t really meant to be an attack on public education, or against anyone who chooses public education, but is a response highlighting that the issues raised by the editorial are not specific to homeschools and are not solved by public education. It is specific to the arguments made in the editorial.
But it is a bit like the mommy wars…that is very true!
So I have to wonder, is society a by product of our educational system, or is our educational system a by product of our growing and changing society?
A bit of both, I think. It was reformers who sought to change society who first took control of education and centralized it, but if society hadn’t sought that itself, it never would have happened.
Great post, Dana, and very well documented. Thanks!
Well, you should at least be aware that your post reads less as refuting arguments against homeschooling as it reads as exaggerating the problems of public schooling.
Point for point, you met each of his objections not with an explanation of why such an objection is invalid with regards to homeschooling but rather with something along the lines of “oh yeah, well public school is even worse!!” The author is presenting worst-case-scenarios to argue against home schooling. While I agree that’s a bad way to argue, can’t you see that you’re doing that to public schools point for point. That kind of leaves the impression that ALL forms of schooling are inherently dangerous to children. What is our other option then?
Per your links, I’m wondering how that is significantly different than “anecdotes of some weird kid they knew.” I have anecdotes of my own experience and the experiences of others that public schooling (and private schooling for that matter as one of your links references a Christian private school) that indicate it’s not actually the hellish place you describe. Why should me (or any reader) believe a link talking about a worst-case scenario over our own experiences.
I’m not trying to be adversarial, just trying to understand why you chose to address the editorial writer’s comments in the particular manner with which you did.
Dana,
I wasn’t meaning you doing the attacking with this post, I just meant in general. There always seem to be article both ways, but rarely any that find the good in either, kwim?
Just a note to add my support to your post, since there’s not much else I can add. Except to bring up academic standards, which, on a factual basis, do not even come close to most homeschool standards. Apparently, people tend to assume that government schools always existed. They must be shocked to find out that historically well-educated people were taught by their parents and tutors.
And I would refer readers such as dolphin to John Taylor Gatto’s site. Check it out.
I just read this post from Mimi’s site: http://www.thegraceacademy.org/homeschooling_news_cafe/why-keep-public-schools-around.html#comment-208
It should offer further insight on this topic.
I’ve left a link to this post on her site.
Can’t match resources? Grrrr. Double grrrr.
I’m going to link, okay? And maybe when I cool off I’ll post some kind of a rational response.
Shawna, I didn’t take it as an attack. I have a lot of respect for you and just wanted to be sure to be clear that, while I do criticize the public school system, I do not criticize those who send their children their. I don’t think we can hope for real change without really looking at the problems, and most of them are well-recognized. A lot of the information I gather criticizing the ps system actually comes from the education sites I read, who ar working in it every day.
Dolphin,
If you don’t see the difference, I’m not sure there is much need to continue and we can just agree to disagree. I do criticize the public school system. It cannot improve if we don’t know the problems. I actually am quite an advocate of the idea of public education, but I won’t get into that at the moment.
But I don’t really see how you can say these two are the same:
Many home-schooled youth won’t know how to handle the unexpected mixture of freedom and exposure to the parts of life they have never personally faced. Simply hearing about the dangers of life is not a substitute for reality.
(Statement made with no justification, reference or even an anecdote to support. Just stated as fact based on what?)
And my response:
Public schooled kids are doing great with the freedom they’ve been given.
OK, alone, that is sort of a sarcastic non-statement. But the link is more than just an anecdote or an isolated circumstance. It goes to statistics from the US Department of Justice where we find a nice table telling us that almost 67% of high school seniors have used alcohol in the last year, just over 45% in the last 30 days, and stats on a host of other drugs.
One makes a statement with no source. The other provides a source.
If you want to discuss any of the actual issues addressed, I’d love to. But I’m not particularly up for a debate about writing style. I said pretty much what I meant. I could have gone through and linked to all the studies out there which show that homeschooled kids are not having these problems. I wrote a 3,000 word article more or less on the topic which I think is still available online over at Crosswalk. But I chose instead to highlight the fact that the issues he raises are issues for public schooled children.
In the absence of any evidence provided by the editorialist, I fail to see how that then means that public schools and homeschools are on the same footing.
This debate goes on even without the facts because schools are afraid to admit that if many parents would try to consider homeschooling, they will have another competition. It’s obvious that their reason is business.
Sherry,
If you think I would benefit from John Taylor Gatto’s site, why not direct me there yourself? Why ask Dana to do it? Since my opinion is not that homeschooling is bad, only that public school isn’t the prison environment Dana describes in her post and that not every public school graduate leave depressed and suicidal, you’ve perked my interest and I’d be curious to see this site and what evidence it offers that all the years I’ve spent happy and well-adjusted since graduating from public schools are simply a figment of my imagination. Somehow I don’t think the site will offer any such evidence. Instead I find it more probable that you are too self-centered to have actually read what I wrote instead of what you wanted me to have written and have assumed because I don’t think public schooling is akin to torture that I somehow disagree with homeschooling. It’s a shame, but when dealing with conservatives I’ve learned to expect that kind of self-centered behavior so I’m used to it.
Dana,
But I’m not particularly up for a debate about writing style. I said pretty much what I meant.
I’m not trying to debate your writing style. You say you said pretty much what you meant but I’m still trying to figure out exactly what that was. You’re post seems to be exclusively an attack on public schooling. You even title it “Public school vs. homeschool.” Sounds like that big fight everybody wants tickets to, no?
Bu then in the comments after it’s pointed out that you are doing the same you’re accusing the author of doing, you’re suddenly not attacking (or even criticizing per your own words) but rather simply defending homeschooling? I’m just trying to figure out the inconsistency between the post and the comments.
I could have gone through and linked to all the studies out there which show that homeschooled kids are not having these problems.
If you had done that then your later comments would have been consistent, because you indeed would not have been criticizing public schools in the post but rather defending homeschools.
What I’m trying to understand is what your point is. If your point IS to do exactly what the author did to homeschooling to public school, then bravo, I got it, good article, you accomplished your goal. If you want some award for providing some links to some evidence to back your attacks on public school, then great, it’s yours. That much I can completely understand.
But when you then turn around and claim that you’re not doing the same thing to public schools that the author is doing to homeschools, you lose me. That’s what I’m trying to understand from you. How can a post that exaggerates the “dangers” of public schooling not be a post that exaggerates the “dangers” of public schooling.
By the way, I said it under a previous post, but perhaps it bears repeating. Comparisons of stats between homeschoolers and public schoolers are meaningless. FAR too many confounding variables to draw any meaningful conclusions. If you want to discuss why I’d be happy to do that, but it’s pretty self-evident and I’m suspect you’re well aware of why (though some of your commenters almost certainly aren’t).
I think this is the problem, Dolphin:
only that public school isn’t the prison environment Dana describes in her post and that not every public school graduate leave depressed and suicidal…
I didn’t say that, nor do I mean that. If you take the description of sitting in a room with 25+ people, needing permission to talk and use the restroom, and with the decreasing use of recess as a prison, that is your conclusion, not mine.
And again, nowhere did I say everyone leaves depressed and suicidal. You are trying to force something into the text that simply isn’t there. The editorialist says kids need to learn about real life “with all its perils and pitfalls. I don’t know exactly what he means by that. So I defined exactly what I meant in my response. I describe children who are bullied and mistreated by their peers. They certainly do not account for every public schooled student, do they?
I’ve never claimed that. Those who have suffered this treatment are the only ones I am referring to in my statement about lifelong difficulties. From the opening paragraph of my link:
“Recent research in the United States and abroad has documented that bullying is a common and potentially damaging form of violence among children. Not only does bullying harm both its intended victims and the perpetrators, it also may affect the climate of schools and, indirectly, the ability of all students to learn to the best of their abilities. Moreover, the link between bullying and later delinquent and criminal behavior cannot be ignored. Although studies of comprehensive antibullying programs are scarce in the United States, evaluation data from other countries suggest that adopting a comprehensive approach to reduce bullying at school can change students’ behaviors and attitudes, reduce other antisocial behaviors, and increase teachers’ willingness to intervene.”
That is what I am referring to.
If you think I am “overemphasizing” fine. But I am not pulling accusations out of thin air and stating them as fact without at least bothering to provide some evidence of my statements.
And the concern for the environment in the public schools happened to be the number one reason parents pulled their children from public school, rating higher than religion in a 2003 survey.
I didn’t say that, nor do I mean that. If you take the description of sitting in a room with 25+ people, needing permission to talk and use the restroom, and with the decreasing use of recess as a prison, that is your conclusion, not mine.
Ok, perhaps “prison” is too strong. It’s not a description of “prison” but it’s also not a description of public schools. I think that’s what’s key here.
I’m certain there are moments when you are homeschooling where you’d like for your children to listen to something you have to say. That doesn’t mean that “sitting there still while a parent squawks at you” is an accurate description of homeschooling, does it?
You cite an article talking about a lunchtime talking ban that one specific private christian school as your evidence that all talking is prohibited at public schools and therefore children can’t develop social skills there? C’mon.
As for the bathroom situation. I think this is the perfect example of how you are taking a worst case scenario and using it to argue against public schooling. Prior to reading the article you linked to, I had NEVER heard of a child developing urinary tract problems from not being allowed to visit the restroom in a public school. Considering millions of children go to public schools everyday and this is not a problem for nearly 100% of them, don’t you think you might be exaggerating to cite it as an example of why public school’s are bad?
The editorialist says kids need to learn about real life “with all its perils and pitfalls. I don’t know exactly what he means by that. So I defined exactly what I meant in my response. I describe children who are bullied and mistreated by their peers. They certainly do not account for every public schooled student, do they?
Certainly not. They don’t even account for the majority of public school children, so using it as an example of why public schools are so bad is kind of silly, no?
As you acknowledge, you don’t know what he is referring to so you simply chose a topic you knew you could argue against and went to town. That’s called a strawman.
Bullying is not a behavior that is exclusive to public schools either. Unfortunately, anytime a group of children (or sometimes even adults for that matter) get together the potential for bullying is there.
As an aside, the most vocal opponents of anti-bullying measures in public schools is the evangelical crowd. I know you don’t like to be lumped in with evangelicals just because you call yourself one and in fact you might not belong lumped in with them as you are the very first self-proclaimed evangelical I have ever met who doesn’t seem to be in favor of a theocracy (which is probably part of why I’ve hung around. You intrigue me). So… I’m not lumping you in with the pro-bullying crowd, just taking note of who they are.
If you think I am “overemphasizing” fine. But I am not pulling accusations out of thin air and stating them as fact without at least bothering to provide some evidence of my statements.
No you are providing “evidence” to back the accusations you’re pulling out of thin air. I suspect that if one did enough research one could find links to back the accusations made in the editorial (there are indeed homeschooled children who suffer from everything he mentions). Such links would not make his claims any more valid toward the homeschooled population in general, and what I’m suggesting is that your links don’t make your claims any more valid toward the public schooled population in general.
I don’t think there is much point in going through this again, but to be clear, the point of my entry is not to attack public schools so much as to point out that every issue the editorial raises against homeschooling is extant in the public school system. It is the nature of public education.
The description of 25 students sitting neatly in their desks, forbidden to talk and seeking permission to use the restroom is the description of most school environments. It isn’t an attack, but simply a reality. But it is a reality that does not exist beyond graduate, unless perhaps you seek work in a factory. And I believe that is part of the premise of Gatto’s book…that the school exists to prepare you for that (it has been awhile…)
Here is is book, if you are interested. It is available online.
As to specific points, I’m not writing a book here. And a lot of these issues are issues which come up frequently in the homeschooling/education blogs I read. They are well-known to my audience, and hardly necessary to continually bring up.
Here is a fun source of information about all the “wonky” things going on in public education, from a public educator in CA. The Education Wonks.
A new one, that I am really enjoying, and am actually beginning to read through the archives, a rarity for me. matthewktabor
And, while I disagree with some of the proposed solutions, Eduwonk does a pretty nice job of highlighting some of the structural problems in education.
I wonder why most people, especially those who criticize home schooling don’t even try to consider the factors before they make their judgment. They should find more proof first before accusing.
I’m use to the critics by now. All of my children have been homeschooled or are still in homeschool. I’ve seen and heard it all. I wonder if the author of this editorial would change his/her mind when they heard how corporations are compromising public school curriculums all over America and Canada. Great post! Thanks!
To the person who went through public school and thrived:
You succeeded because you were among the tiny fraction of students who conformed to the system. You weren’t necessarily the brightest student, you just knew how to play the politics. Your experience is by no means typical.
For me, the biggest drawback to public education is its lack of accommodation to different learning styles. It stands to reason that if you place a child in a room with 25-30 other students with one teacher standing at the front delivering the lecture, he/she will be expected to learn the same way everyone else does. The brighter students become bored to death while the dumber students get left behind.
The solution is abolishing the state monopoly over education. In other words, public schools must go. The free market would do a much better job of allocating the necessary resources needed for education, and over time the cost of educating a child would go down as more suppliers entered the market with the incentive to make a profit.
Homeschooling is the optimal choice because it allows parents to tailor the curriculum to the educational needs of the child. This is impossible in public schools.