What Do You All Think of Homeschooling...and the Homeschoold Kids that are Produced?

[Zenmervolt]

Homeschooling is neither bad nor good per se. I think that homeschooling largely depends upon the people who are doing the schooling. In many school districts, home schooling is a superior alternative to public schools and it allows for a more flexible schedule that can be tailored to a child's needs.

However, there are some (admittedly a minority) who choose to homeschool their children in an effort to prevent the children from coming into contact with the wider world. I have cousins who are homeschooled because my aunt thought that the private, christian, school they had gone to before was "too humanist". In my opinion, this isolation reason is not a good one, and if this is the driving reason than I think it will only hurt the kids.

So, I think that it mainly depends upon the type of homeschooling and the way it's approached by the parents. Like anything else, it is not good or bad in and of itself, but also like anything else, it can be used for the wrong reasons or in the wrong situations.

ZV

 

[ghostman]

When I went to high school, there was a girl that was homeschooled in my calc class. She was socially inept, didn't have friends, couldn't speak properly in front of a class and annoyed the teacher quite a bit. She didn't try to talk to any of the other students much and when she did, it was always related to schoolwork. She was extremely smart (freshman, i think), but even the teacher said to the class (when she was absent that day) that she worries about this girl. So, I don't think homeschooling is entirely without problems. However, I can guarantee that many students in my school were homeschooled and were popular.

 

[Optimus]

Zenmervolt: An excellent post.

Athanasius: Hello old friend! I should have guessed you would likely be involved in Home Schooling as you remind me so much of the great people I grew up around.

 

[Athanasius]

Hi Optimus:

Well, my wife and I got into homeschooling in a back door kind of way. We were in the process of enrolling my oldest son at the local elementary school. We checked out the school. My wife sat in on some classes. We liked it. But then we found out that my son (born late in September) missed the cut off date for enrollment by a couple of weeks. That meant that he couldn't enroll until the next year.

This was a kindergarten class that was focused on number and letter recognition. But my son is very verbal. He was already reading. To wait an entire year and then put him in a class that would be working on number and letter recognition just seemed like a sure way to guarantee that education would bore him to death. Given his temperment, we felt he might become a behavioral problem.

He was ready and eager to learn, so we started working with him at home. So far, the rest have followed in those footsteps. But that could change at any time. We are not wedded to any one approach.

 

[linuxboy]

Ah, Athanasius, good to see you posting again. If I may make some more additional comments for all the naysayers who still seem to think that socialization relies only on being in a setting of 30 people with one-two authority figures in loco parentis.

The "lack of social interaction" critiqiue is frequently leveled against homeschooling. On the surface, it seems quite legitimate. It was my greatest concern before my wife and I opted for homeschooling. But what exactly is this "lack of social interaction"? What is it being compared to? If I compare it to the traditional educational environment, I think that being placed in an environment with 30+ kids all the same basic age of the child is not a model that correlates well with reality. What about interacting with wide age groups and across generational lines?

Not only is cultural continuity and exposure to a wide variety of maturity levels important, I argue that they are VITAL. Immaturity is to be expected and is necessary. I don't expect a child to be able to do symbolic logic within one year. Every period is unique. For that reason, the needs of the child need to be assessed and a program specialized so that the learning is interesting. I'll comment on the scholarly opinions of psychologists later on regarding socialization.

The "role models" and "losers/scapegoats" that are typically created in the classroom setting are often neither one. If a child interacts almost exclusively with her own peer group, she will tend to follow people that maybe she shouldn't follow and scapegoat people she certainly should not be scapegoating. Both tendencies are immature (which is understandable; one expects the immature to be immature.) But these tendencies tend to run unchecked because there is no easy way to check them in the traditional school setting.

Another very good point of control. As a parent, I want the child to have my values and to learn what I consider important, not some packaged view society has.

So, the "social interaction" so prevalent in the traditional school is not necessarily a meme that we should perpetuate.

A good turn (why is it that I can never find holes in your arguments?). Now let me comment more. Socialization with peers is only important for the reason that it gives children a foundation for resolving conflict. If there was no conflict, why would learning be necessary? Everything would be perfect then. It really comes down to coping strategies. Given good parenting, especially like the one you mentioned, the child WILL develop good coping skills, have access to a large pool of community resources with moral guides, advice, personal differences, etc. What's needed is a solid foundation. One must then leave the child be to explore (Piaget's idea) the world and to both gather the outside and also allow material to be drawn out. In effect, a meiutic process.

"Educate" literally means (from the Latin), "to draw out." The education process should draw out of the child that which is best and brightest and exorcise that which is harmful. Homeschooling gives those who know the child best and hopefully love her the most the opportunity to succed in a way that public schools often cannot.

That is a very good point. The best is achieved when interest is maintained AND when the program is specialized. In a classroom, the personal time is severely lacking due to population in the community, in most case.

That is not a critique against traditional schools. My wife has her Master's in Elementary Education and has taught in the public schools. She loved it and may eventually return. Our kids may return. We evaluate what seems best for each of our kids every year. But the "social weakness" of homeschooling is overstated. Where there is lack of social interaction, it can be remedied through group classes, boys' and girls' clubs, scouts, religious organizations, sports, etc.

I want to close off by stating that homeschooling is not neutral, as ZV claims. The current results show that is IS more effective (not by too much) than traditional schooling. Oh and emphasize that traditional socialization of school-age children is not required for proper functioning and healthy psychology.

Cheers !