What is the "liberal" view on home schooling?

[43st]

I always thought the hippies were the ones that stayed in the commune and home schooled there kids. That's the way it was where I grew up. Conservative kids either went to public or private school, kids named "Rainbow" and "Sunshine" were home schooled or in a co-op.

This was rural PA in the 70s and 80s.

Maybe the extemes of both sides do it? The hippy type on left and the militia type on the right. Interesting topic.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Athanasius
Well, this subject has come up a few times on Anandtech.

I am a product of the public school system. My wife has her M.Ed from the University of Maryland and has taught in the public schools. We currently homeschool our kids, with the present thought seeming to be that we will send them to public high school.

So, I can't speak for the "liberal" view on homeschooling but such stereotypes are probably meaningless anyway.

I can say that the "socialization" fear is overblown, assuming that the parents take some steps (co-ops, sports, camps, etc.) to expose the kids to socializing in diverse groups/settings. But I would hardly call the "socialization" that occurs in the public school system an intrinsically good thing.

Socialization is immensely important; it does not follow that the current cultural standard is benevolent. Sticking thirty kids of the same age together in a class setting is hardly real-life socialization. It tends to lead to false standards about who is "cool," false standards about who is a "loser," and therefore harmful behaviors done in the name of "fitting in."

For that matter, it is not hard to see how harmful it can be when the fourteen year old thinks that the seventeen year old is so grown up, brilliant, and, caring, and committed. Such things are not good for the fourteen year old or the seventeen year old.

Before I get flamed, remember that I am not an enemy of the public school system. I came through it ok, my wife has taught in it (and may do so again), and my kids will probably spend a significant part of their education in it.

Good post, Athanasius. Of course, you realize your children are going to become losers, nerds, and abuse drugs and alcohol, once they enter college, according to MonstaThrilla

I think much of the "socialization" in grade and high school is extremely negative. Large, uncontrolled groups of children rapidly become Lord of the Fly-ish. And that's what we have in many public schools. My quaint, middle america public high school had 2 murders while I went there (neither on campus thank god). I witnessed a boy swung around and had his head bashed into a locker, knocked unconscious and was brain damaged. I personally know several girls that were raped. There were 2 suicides. Drugs were everywhere, as were gangs. I hate to think what happens at "the bad schools" where the kids get "socialized". I hate to think what that school is like now that I've been gone for 15 years.

But yet I came out of it OK also. So did my wife. I know plenty of others who didn't. The good news is, we live in a very nice school district, have good private schools available, or the home schooling option also.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
liberals don't care about the actual details of your child's education, just that you pay the appropriate taxes to fund
public education, because the democrats are tools of the teacher's union's. the real question should be, would liberals
support PAYING the parent who does the home schooling (through a tax-rebate, or VOUCHER)!

of course not, it is anathema to them to financially support alternatives to the local public schools.

That's the most hilariously partisan thing I've read all day. It comes down to whether you think it takes a village or if it takes a family. The most social, economical, and technological progress has been made when the former viewpoint is popular.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
liberals don't care about the actual details of your child's education, just that you pay the appropriate taxes to fund
public education, because the democrats are tools of the teacher's union's. the real question should be, would liberals
support PAYING the parent who does the home schooling (through a tax-rebate, or VOUCHER)!

of course not, it is anathema to them to financially support alternatives to the local public schools.

That's the most hilariously partisan thing I've read all day. It comes down to whether you think it takes a village or if it takes a family. The most social, economical, and technological progress has been made when the former viewpoint is popular.

I find even more amusing that you deliver an even more sweeping and broad opposing unsubstanstiated partisan response.

 

[Athanasius]

...It comes down to whether you think it takes a village or if it takes a family. The most social, economical, and technological progress has been made when the former viewpoint is popular.

Why the -OR- in village -OR- family?

Why not a family in a village?

I disagree with your conclusion because I disagree with what amounts to (in my opinion) a false dichotomy. Assuming that the parent cares about the child, no one can compare with the parent in reaching that child. My wife (I help some) teaches four children, knows them all intimately, and can pour herself into them. They all are significantly above grade level, with healthy exposure to sports, music, and socialization beyond the fundamental academics of reading and 'rithmetic.

A caring, well-informed family will outperform a caring, well informed village every time, and then launch children into that village that will help strengthen the village. This is true simple because the family can (in a caring family) invest far more individual attention at a fraction of the cost to society at large.

Unless the parent is found to be unfit, the family is the nest out of which the village is born. The mother and father birds are the ones best situated to determine when the young bird is ready to fly and join the flock. As home schooling grows, those choosing homeschooling become more diverse, and therefore the resources available to home schoolers grow (all of the above things are happening), the evidence suggesting that homeschooling is the best system for some children is only growing more convincing.

Public school might be best for some kids; private school might be best for some kids, and home schooling might be best for some kids. No one is better able to make that decision than the parent (unless the parent abdicates that privilege through abuse or neglect).

Keep in mind, I fully believe the child should and must enter the culture.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Good post, Athanasius. Of course, you realize your children are going to become losers, nerds, and abuse drugs and alcohol, once they enter college, according to MonstaThrilla

I'm just telling you what I've witnessed first hand. You asked for input and I gave it. I'm sorry I told you the truth of what I've seen. I'll refrain from doing it again.

Homeschooled children can turn out perfectly fine. I know one girl who's a sweet nice person. I know more kids though who have a superiority complex due to homeschooling. Yes, they advanced to college earlier than the rest of us, and they usually get better grades. Yes they will get better jobs most likely because of that. There are many great reasons you should homeschool. But realize the consequences of having a child so closely dependent on you throughout his high school years.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
liberals don't care about the actual details of your child's education, just that you pay the appropriate taxes to fund
public education, because the democrats are tools of the teacher's union's. the real question should be, would liberals
support PAYING the parent who does the home schooling (through a tax-rebate, or VOUCHER)!

of course not, it is anathema to them to financially support alternatives to the local public schools.

That's the most hilariously partisan thing I've read all day. It comes down to whether you think it takes a village or if it takes a family. The most social, economical, and technological progress has been made when the former viewpoint is popular.

I find even more amusing that you deliver an even more sweeping and broad opposing unsubstanstiated partisan response.

Its called tounge-in-cheek sarcasm, sir.

 

[Athanasius]

Homeschooled children can turn out perfectly fine. I know one girl who's a sweet nice person. I know more kids though who have a superiority complex due to homeschooling. Yes, they advanced to college earlier than the rest of us, and they usually get better grades. Yes they will get better jobs most likely because of that. There are many great reasons you should homeschool. But realize the consequences of having a child so closely dependent on you throughout his high school years.

I agree with this thought. Intellectual arrogance is harmful to the "village" and is strongly entrenched in those who are more academically gifted.

Many "public schoolers" are less afflicted with intellectual arrogance than private or homeschoolers. No approach is flawless. They all present challenges.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: alchemize

Good post, Athanasius. Of course, you realize your children are going to become losers, nerds, and abuse drugs and alcohol, once they enter college, according to MonstaThrilla

I'm just telling you what I've witnessed first hand. You asked for input and I gave it. I'm sorry I told you the truth of what I've seen. I'll refrain from doing it again.

Homeschooled children can turn out perfectly fine. I know one girl who's a sweet nice person. I know more kids though who have a superiority complex due to homeschooling. Yes, they advanced to college earlier than the rest of us, and they usually get better grades. Yes they will get better jobs most likely because of that. There are many great reasons you should homeschool. But realize the consequences of having a child so closely dependent on you throughout his high school years.

Monsta, I think you are coming around There are clearly pro's and cons to be aware of. But your statements now are a lot less general than they were earlier.
The superiority complex? Because they entered school and got better grades and will get better jobs? Not necessarily a bad thing. The parents probably skipped the "humility" class. In public schools they would have been required to take that class So what you are saying is by "nerds" they get good grades and excel, and by "losers" they hold themselves to a higher standard than their classmates? <tongue in cheek>



P.S. Guess I missed the tongue-in-cheek of your last one heartsurgeon's comment reflects a lot of merit. The Dem. party is heavily funded by unions, particularly the teachers unions. I don't think liberals "don't care", I think they are placing their faith too heavily in a system that doesn't always work and are ignoring alternatives. Refusing to think outside the box.

 

[Tom]

I think there are disadvantages to home schooling, potential lack of social development, diversity of opinion.

But if people want to do it that's ok. Just don't expect to not continue to pay taxes that fund public education.

 

[amok]

I don't necessarily think homeschooling is a bad thing, despite being a lib . While I don't yet have any kids, I have thought about this subject on occasion. Afterall, I taught college physics and math and feel that I could provide a much more useful education than any public or private school, especially considering that I have access to more lab equipment through my company than any high school could hope for. But then I start thinking of what an utter nerd I would make out my child . As long as you can get them to participate in after-school clubs and sports at the regular schools, and provide them with plenty of socialization opportunities I wouldn't have any problem with it. The sheltering issue is important as well, but I'm the type of person who will let a kid fall and skin up their elbows and knees on the blacktop to learn from it, bribe the roller-coaster operators to take my 6 year old nephew on the wildest rides, etc. That wouldn't be an issue for me, but I would warn others about being overprotective.

Despite all that, I would still send my kid to a high school I think. There are certain social interactions that just can't be setup outside of one. They need to have their romances, experiment with their drugs (experiment I said!), and fight through the social interactions (and even get into a fight or two). I would still be active in their lives to guide them through it, but I think gaining some independence is another critical factor of hs.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: alchemize

Good post, Athanasius. Of course, you realize your children are going to become losers, nerds, and abuse drugs and alcohol, once they enter college, according to MonstaThrilla

I'm just telling you what I've witnessed first hand. You asked for input and I gave it. I'm sorry I told you the truth of what I've seen. I'll refrain from doing it again.

Homeschooled children can turn out perfectly fine. I know one girl who's a sweet nice person. I know more kids though who have a superiority complex due to homeschooling. Yes, they advanced to college earlier than the rest of us, and they usually get better grades. Yes they will get better jobs most likely because of that. There are many great reasons you should homeschool. But realize the consequences of having a child so closely dependent on you throughout his high school years.

Monsta, I think you are coming around There are clearly pro's and cons to be aware of. But your statements now are a lot less general than they were earlier.
The superiority complex? Because they entered school and got better grades and will get better jobs? Not necessarily a bad thing. The parents probably skipped the "humility" class. In public schools they would have been required to take that class So what you are saying is by "nerds" they get good grades and excel, and by "losers" they hold themselves to a higher standard than their classmates? <tongue in cheek>



P.S. Guess I missed the tongue-in-cheek of your last one heartsurgeon's comment reflects a lot of merit. The Dem. party is heavily funded by unions, particularly the teachers unions. I don't think liberals "don't care", I think they are placing their faith too heavily in a system that doesn't always work and are ignoring alternatives. Refusing to think outside the box.

I completely agree with you that in many places the public school system is terrible. It needs to be reformed heavily. But I don't think bankrupting it with the use of vouchers and tax rebates is the right solution. I don't think just throwing more money at it is the solution either. As for all government programs, we need a strong system of checks and balances built in to make sure that A) The taxpayers are getting what they pay for and B) Corruption and personal greed are removed from the system. Unfortunately that might be a bit naive, but I think its possible.

How? Public financing of elections. That hopefully abolishes the current two party system (yes both parties are guilty) which has ruined many if not all of our well-intentioned government programs. Of course the ruling parties would never stand for it so we have a problem. I'm still working on a solution to that one...

As for my earlier statements:

Well I never said they were nerds. I said I go to a nerdy engineering school, of which I am guilty of being a nerd myself by going here. So my views on them would be limited to the subset of homeschooled kids that want to be engineers (I never knew any when I was of high school age...and in high school! ). By losers I meant socially awkward or inept. This includes those with the "superiority" complex I mentioned, because many other people are turned off by their attitudes. Of course, there are kids who went through public school and are 10 times worse. But that superiority complex is a trait I find usually present in home schooled kids, and one I personally despise, homeschooled or not. So maybe thats why I look down on it.

 

[alchemize]

So Monsta, does this mean that since at your school you are all nerds, the ones you refer to as "losers" as socially awkward and inept, by your schools standards, are the ones that suck at Dungeons and Dragons? ;:beer:

 

[LunarRay]

I think folks who either Home School their children or don't have any should get a tax credit or the folks that send their children to a school should pay the cost.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So Monsta, does this mean that since at your school you are all nerds, the ones you refer to as "losers" as socially awkward and inept, by your schools standards, are the ones that suck at Dungeons and Dragons? ;:beer:

Hey - my charisma is atleast 3 or 4 Yup - an ugly elf I am. Though my Intelligence is quite high, as is my dexterity

CkG
Edit - change everything to "was" - I haven't played D&D for years Quite a fun game though.

Edit2 - Luny - I agree 100% with your comment

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So Monsta, does this mean that since at your school you are all nerds, the ones you refer to as "losers" as socially awkward and inept, by your schools standards, are the ones that suck at Dungeons and Dragons? ;:beer:

That would be correct.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think folks who either Home School their children or don't have any should get a tax credit or the folks that send their children to a school should pay the cost.

Lunar: the "don't have children" piece doesn't really work. Do people get credits only while during child-bearing years? Is it amortized based on their age? What about gay couples j/k that wasn't an invitation to thread hijack...

By "opting out" of having children, then they don't have the burden of sending children to a private/home school. Interesting thought though...

 

[Red Dawn]

Well from a Moderates POV I think Home Schooling could serve two purposes. One to educate the child and the other to educate the Parent. Now if it is done just to shield the child from the real world I think it would be counter productive.

 

[SuperTool]

I think it depends on how good of a teacher you or your wife is, compared to how good the teacher in the school is. But it's good to tutor your kid, even if you do send him to school.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think folks who either Home School their children or don't have any should get a tax credit or the folks that send their children to a school should pay the cost.

Lunar: the "don't have children" piece doesn't really work. Do people get credits only while during child-bearing years? Is it amortized based on their age? What about gay couples j/k that wasn't an invitation to thread hijack...

By "opting out" of having children, then they don't have the burden of sending children to a private/home school. Interesting thought though...

HMMM... Good Point... Guess we'll have to leave it at ... All parents who have kids and send them to school pay tuition to cover the full cost. Then reduce the burden on the Governments (local/state/federal) reduce taxes accordingly.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think folks who either Home School their children or don't have any should get a tax credit or the folks that send their children to a school should pay the cost.

Lunar: the "don't have children" piece doesn't really work. Do people get credits only while during child-bearing years? Is it amortized based on their age? What about gay couples j/k that wasn't an invitation to thread hijack...

By "opting out" of having children, then they don't have the burden of sending children to a private/home school. Interesting thought though...

HMMM... Good Point... Guess we'll have to leave it at ... All parents who have kids and send them to school pay tuition to cover the full cost. Then reduce the burden on the Governments (local/state/federal) reduce taxes accordingly.

Holy cow I think you've just been converted to a libertarian-conservative

 

[LunarRay]

alchemize,
Nah.. Not converted. Yet!

In order for kids to get a good education folks seem to rely on Private Schools and the parents foot the bill. Most folks have kids, it seems, so maybe if they paid for the education of their kids directly they would have a greater interest in the basic elements of the process and how it impacts their Kids. They may see to it that the schools have proper materials and the rest. I actually think home schooling is the best idea. I know the economy precludes many families from that option and that is a shame. If we lived in Utopia with Moonbeam it would be home schooling for sure.

Another part that irks me about parenting and the education system is seeing folks have a dozen kids but can't afford one. I am a social liberal but the dang fiscal conservative in me says... "you can have what you can afford to have" and this is true in many other things. The government should find the means to provide employment for all. If I wish to be a non parent then I lose that element but why should I have to pay for everyone else's excess.. I had kids and now grandkids and with that should be the cost of educating them. I paid for it twice each generation. I advocate once but not twice and nonce if I opt out.

 

[oreagan]

I went to two public schools (moved in the middle of high school, whee!) and I have to say that it was a very good thing for me. Could I have learned faster in some subjects if I were homeschooled? Sure. The gifted, however, are going to be held back by having just one teacher. I'm sorry, but unless you and your wife are REALLY well educated, you're just not going to be able to teach AP level Physics, Psychology, English Lit., foreign language, Calculus, etc. There's just too much. I took 8 AP classes from 7 different teachers and each of them were amazing educators. I just can't picture many families anywhere in the world with parents capable of combining the skills, knowledge and experience of even just these 7.

Then, of course, are the social aspects. I suppose if you get your kid in sports, clubs, camps, churches, and as many other social aspects as possible that'll help, but day-to-day interactions are VERY important. I was cock of the walk at my first high school. When I moved to the new one, I learned some humility; there were about 5-6 of us at the top of this (larger) class just as smart as I, some more gifted in various areas. Learning to live, day to day, with equals and betters is a worthwhile lesson. Without high school, I wouldn't have had my girlfriend, the cameraderie of my soccer teams (high school is very different from club soccer), my friends. I wouldn't have met people who I sincerely disagreed with, yet respected.

Am I against homeschooling? Nope. My dream for America is a country where every person gets the very best education possible in every way. However that happens, I'm thrilled when it does. I just think that there are probably some important lessons a child learns in public schooling that he just can't get anywhere else.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm just curious on this. My wife is considering home schooling. Home schooling appears to be tremendously successful when you look at test scores, the pace of advancement, etc. Also when there are "co-ops" that combine groups of home schoolers for social activities, and beign allowed to participate in public school events like sports, clubs, etc. the "socialization concern" is diminished.

In the U.S. in 1999, homeschoolers scored about 27% higher than public-schooled children on refereed nationally-normed tests.

My assumption is that libs would be against it, because it certainly takes the power out of the hands of government. And teachers unions. And it makes a liberal brainwashed education more difficult

I'm pretty sure libertarians buy into it And conservatives...so all you pinko lefties out there, argue against it (if that is the view)

Go ahead if you want your child to be socially inept. Public schools aren't perfect, far from it. But neither is the real world, and you are cheating your kid when you don't prepare them properly. Test scores? Christ, under the Bush plan, children with SEVERE learning disabilities have to take the same tests as your kid, so take test scores with a grain of salt. Test scores don't mean jack in the real world.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Test scores don't mean jack in the real world.

You are correct, but what you forget is that PERFORMANCE does matter in the "real world". To not test a child on the level of their learning or to dumb the level down does nothing to "help" the child perform better. Without testing, how does one know the level of PERFORMANCE of a child? I go to work every day and get tested - if I fail(repeatedly) do you think I'll have a job? Would my boss or company lower their standards?

Sorry this was a tad off subject but it goes to the overall mindset of "socialized education" and it's faults. My book should be out in the near future - not only of the current faults - but ways to FIX them and create a better educational system. I've largely tried to steer clear of this discussion because of my quest for "fixes" and understanding of why people think the way they do - but some things really need to be put in their proper perspecitive - testing being a big one.

CkG