To good to be buried in the comments
Ron has yet another response in the comments of this entry, which is so large and valuable, I’m putting it here so you all get to see it. (He’s so smart.) And in discussing some of this with the kids, one has to realize if a twelve year old can blow holes in your logic, then maybe you should re-think your theory.
I feel this also ties in with that news story I linked to last week. Over and above what happened, however much you want to blame the parents for going along with it, it boils down to the fact that they felt they were given two choices: suspension or rock-picking. That is what we’ve been indoctrinated into believing, that there wasn’t a third choice: non-participation.
Ron replies:
“1) You are implying that in public schools children are subjected to a constant barrage of threats and not just a light push.â€Â
I won’t disagree with you in regard to what occurs in some classrooms. However, that is not the coercion I was referring to. The first coercion I was referring to was the compulsory attendance laws which every child (excluding those who have an adult sponsor to intercede on their behalf) is subject to. Moreover, few of those children have any choice in the school they attend, the classroom(s) that they learn in, the material that they learn from, the schedule they learn under, the method by which that learning is evaluated, the people who are selected to be their teachers, who their classmates are and a whole range of other choices that vary from school to school (eg. Dress codes).
The first thing I was trying to draw your attention to is that no one who graduates from the institution you work for, succeeds in choosing freely while resisting the compelling influence imposed by the institution and the state. Therefore, insofar as you defined education in the first quote I referenced in the earlier post, the institution fails to successfully educate. Further to that, it is intrinsically impossible for it to do so (by your definition), so long as compulsory attendance laws exist and are enforced.
Secondly, because the state found that, after the institution of compulsory attendance, children resisted (and some still do) the suspension of their liberty, it created the position of the attendance or truancy officer. It is the duty of these officers to restrain children from exercising their liberty. What most children must develop in lieu of resistance to compulsion I described above is the capability to either surrender to or endure coercion.
Also, none of the homeschooled children I know have to endure any of the following
-A bell which tells them what subject they should be learning (or any other form of strictly regimented schedule)
-A dress code
-Passing through metal detectors to get to their place of learning
-Armed security guard in their primary place of learning
-Video surveillance cameras
-A stranger for a teacher
-Standing in formation
-No choice in material
-Required to share their main learning environment with anyone that biology or circumstance did not place them (i.e. outside of the realm of ‘school’)
-Compulsory attendance in a place where biology or circumstance had not already placed them
I felt this diversion into the world of homeschooling should be included to respond to your various comments which suggest the inferiority of homeschooling. Homeschooling is not about theoretical children or theoretical liberty. We homeschool because we have real children and are interested in real liberty for them. And if we step outside the realm of theory over liberty, the only liberty we have in real life is the choice that we are currently confronted with. And what I have described above is a substantial removal of the opportunity for children to exercise real liberty in exchange for the theoretical liberty you have been contemplating.
“if we felt that liberal society could only exist if people were forced to accept it then liberal society would, by definition, cease to exist!â€Â
I honestly do not think it is necessary to comment on this statement beyond directing your attention to the degree to which children (excluding those sponsored by an adult) are forced to accept it as I described in response to #1.
“However, this does not mean that homeschooling does not have its own deficiencies, based on the danger that parents will prevent their children from access to viewpoints that contradict their own. Even when they allow access, I imagine it is hard for parents to facilitate conversation with such viewpoints; whereas in a good public school education (where such a thing exists) students have the opportunity to debate their viewpoints with their classmates.â€Â
These 2 statements are based on 2 equally false assumptions. First, the assumption that children need adults to initiate and oversee discussions of viewpoints with other children. Second, the assumption that homeschoolers segregate their children from other children socially. For the majority of publicly schooled children, the only children they get to have such viewpoint discussions with are other publicly schooled children who have undergone instruction similar to theirs. However, homeschooling methods and families vary greatly and whenever the homeschoolers meet either as a support group or just socially, the homeschooled children have opportunity to discuss viewpoints from a much wider range of educational experience in situations where the discussion is neither facilitated nor supervised by an adult.
Our children have free social access to many children from home, private and public schooling. And one of the subjects which they have had many free unsupervised discussions about is school (both their own and others). If I were so inclined as to ‘facilitate’ a discussion with my teenage children regarding the 2 statements above, I expect what their viewpoint would include something to the effect that whoever said that thinks they know a lot more about children than they do. I say that because the first assumption I described would be far more obvious to them than it was to me. They know from experience that neither they nor their peers (from any of the educational backgrounds) need adult facilitators for viewpoint discussions.
Finally, I expect my youngest child to be reading at least 2 years before her public schooled peers will be expected to. Her publicly schooled peers will be compelled through a prescribed set of instruction to arrive at said reading skill while she both has and will have freely pursued and acquired hundreds of hours of happiness in the course of acquiring that same skill. Assuming a continuation of the freedom of pursuit, she will arrive at her graduation with a level of expertise in and understanding of both what to pursue as happiness (i.e an extensive repertoire of things that have made her happy) and how to pursue it (i.e. an extensive repertoire of strategies which succeeded in getting her there), that compulsion cannot produce.
What I am saying comes down to the fact that compelling children through an extensively planned childhood to a significant degree deprives them of practice at planning and learning from their own strategies toward their own goals. Whether or not publicly schooled children are provided a wider range of choices, lacking a clear sense of what might make them happy, lacking the skills to plan a strategy that will get them to that goal or lacking the experience to know whether the goal is realistic (for them) will prevent them from getting there until such time as they learn the things about themselves that my children already know about themselves. And I would suggest that a first year university dropout rate of around 40% is compelling evidence that for many young adults at least one of the above is true. Of no less significance is the fact that even if their education did not pose those barriers, children do not learn what problems have been ‘worked out’ of their carefully planned childhood over the last 50-100 years.
‘For every thing, there is a time’, and in the range of the human life, the time when we are provided with the best shelter from dealing with basic necessities is our childhood and youth. So, what better time exists, to work out what will be the most complex and consuming issue we will face in our lives, than when we are children?
10 Responses to “To good to be buried in the comments”
What do you all think about compulsory education for students whose parents are on the other end of the spectrum – unconcerned about their childrens’ education and unwilling to put any effort into making it happen, even if the effort is only getting the kids dressed and out the door in the morning. If education wasn’t compulsory, do you worry that those kids might just slide under the radar and lose out on future opportunities? Or do you think that the parents would step up without coercion? Or that there are so few benefits to a public education that they wouldn’t be any worse off without it?
Sarah,
Are you certain that these hypothetical children would be any more successful in a compulsory schooled environment? In my experience, children are innate explorers and are filled with curiosity about the world around them. These hypothetical children still have the same parents – the same role models whether they are in school or out. And if a child’s role model is demonstrating a disdain for knowledge of such a magnitude that the child ceases to want to learn, I believe this will occur no matter what the situation.
My experience dealing with other kids throughout my years in school was that disabilities aside, the majority of kids who did not succeed in school lacked a home environment supportive of their learning.
That said, I can’t offer any solutions for what to do about this issue. I suppose that in many cases (with people I knew in school), the parents’ issues were caused or exacerbated by everything from mental illness to substance abuse. Perhaps the answer is to work on the root causes of this disinterest.
Another thing that I’ve seen happen often at school and all too often at home is the “uncooling” of intelligence. Smart kids are often picked on or ignored (at best) and often relegated to entirely different classrooms. Nobody wants to be an outcast even if it is for a positive reason. This is talked about most often, I think, when it comes to teenage girls and math and science education.
I guess my point is that I don’t think that homeschooling or compulsory schooling are effective when the parents don’t value intelligence and knowledge.
Thanks, Ron, for an interesting post!
Sarah brings up an interesting question.
Ron, I think you and I are in complete agreement about just about everything, including the problems with public schools. I particularly appreciate your elaboration on the efforts you and your family take to interact with other homeschoolers as a way to allow your children access to multiple viewpoints. You have convinced me that, when this intent exists, homeschoolers find ways to satisfy it.
The one thing I would point out is that perhaps you see me as attacking homeschooling in principle and thus see every statement I make as a generalization. For example, it looks like you think I’m making “the assumption that homeschoolers segregate their children from other children socially” GENERALLY. I have never done so, I have only suggested that such homeschoolers might exist and that this is cause for concern (note that there is a difference between raising concerns and trying to do something about it). So, while what you do with your family is certainly illuminating, it does not negate the fact that there are other homeschoolers who may not be as enlightened. Also, I think it is important to point out that identifying the problems of compulsory public schooling cannot, in itself, constitute a complete defense of homeschooling. Homeschooling can be a far preferable option and still have problems (which one may mention without suggesting that public schools are a better option).
I am in the process of writing a post summarizing what has transpired in different places relating to this general conversation, and I plan on steering people your way.
I liked the line that said we have real children and we want real liberty for them. It’s easy to talk about
educating hypothetical children. It’s harder when these are real children, real people, with hopes and dreams and
desires of their own that a public school system cannot always recognize.
Todd,
Thanks for the response. I am in complete agreement that a supportive home environment is the best predictor of a child’s learning, regardless of whether a non-home school is involved or not. And I’d also agree that children are innately curious, and that parents are important role models for how to go about satisfying that curiousity – but I’d disagree pretty strongly that they are the only role models.
A good school teacher (and yes, not all teachers are good) can help encourage a love of learning in their students. Similarly a good coach can encourage sportsmanship, a good arts teacher can encourage creativity, etc. And for kids who are not getting that encouragement at home, I think those other role models become that much more important.
I agree that plenty of kids who lack parental support do give up on learning – probably even the majority. But I also think there are some great stories of kids who have managed to succeed without it, usually through the support of alternative role models. And the fact that those kids had regular access to those other role models is usually (not always, but usually) a result of going to school.
Just in case it wasn’t clear, I’m not trying to argue that parents shouldn’t be allowed to choose homeschooling as the right form of compulsory schooling for their family. I just worry that doing away with the requirement altogether would deny some kids the opportunity to be educated at all.
Sarah,
Because it’s never been tried, we don’t know for sure how that would or could be worked out. However, it must be unbelievably daunting for a child to face school without the moral support of mom and/or dad. What I believe is that the children who would be helped the most by eliminating compulsary school legislation would be those children who have no support at home. I have 3 reasons: first, if they were there it would be because they wanted to be; second, they would be alot less people there who didn’t want to be; third, children in general would desert the ‘not good’ teachers. I think it would make for a much more positive environment for them.
Jonathan,
Thank you. Now can I ask for a favor.
In the course of discussing this, can you try your best to include the distinction that you described above? After many years of homeschooling I could sum up the general public perception of homeschooling with something we’ve been told more than once, ‘You can’t tell that your kids are homeschooled.’ (i.e. the pervasive expectation that homeschooling makes them obviously different.)
Ron/Sarah,
Perhaps the ideal compromise between our viewpoints would be the following. Compulsory schooling is eliminated but schools remain open as learning centres with classes continuing just as before. Show up when you like, take the courses you like and leave. I forget where I heard this idea (I believe it was either Matt Hern or John Taylor Gatto – maybe Grace Llewellyn) but they used the analogies of libraries. They asserted that the surest way to kill widespread love for reading would be to have compulsory library time. Likewise, despite the fact that we lack compulsory library visits, they remain very successful and important parts of our communities.
I’d also like to add to Ron’s statements that “if [the kids lacking parental support] were there it would be because they wanted to be; second, they would be alot less people there who didn’t want to be” by saying that it was those people – the ones who had no interest in being there – that significantly detracted from the learning experience of the others.
My jury is still out as to what would happen to the kid who didn’t want to learn and instead chose to watch TV for the first sixteen years of their her life. That’s a lot of responsibility for one’s own actions to throw at a group of people several generations removed from that level of personal accountability.
Todd,
What I see as a reasonable compromise is a primary education system that looks likes a community college. Each family / kid can decide for themselves how to mix and match non-compulsary govt. school, community resources, home education, and whatever else a free (as in speech) and open system would think up.
In an ideal world I’d do away with govt schools completely, but that’s not going to happen – so non-compulsary school is probably a decent compromise.
I definitely agree that classrooms full of students who wanted to be there would be a huge benefit. Student interest has such a huge effect on the learning environment, and there’s no question that one or two students with negative attitudes can bring a whole room down. Although, wouldn’t you still have plenty of students whose parents wanted them to be there but who had no interest in going themselves? I’d imagine there’d even be some parents who saw it as free babysitting.
I’m kind of intrigued by the ‘learning center/community college’ model, although there are a lot of details that would need to be sorted out. I do think it would work better for high school (and maybe even middle school) than for elementary, though – I’m not sure how you would separate classes, and I think it might be tough on the kids to have people changing all the time. Unless you have some creative ideas?
I agree with Todd, though (if I’m understanding you correctly) that it’s a little unreasonable to expect young kids to make decisions about whether to take classes or not that will impact the rest of their lives. I suppose you could argue that it’s really their parents making them, but what if it’s not? What about the kids who (in the current system) laze their way through early grades and don’t decide to be serious about school until they’re older and can see the benefits?
Looking at the big picture, I guess there are two main issues here. The first is to what extent society should create opportunities for everyone, even if doing so limits the quality of the opportunities available. That is: how far are we willing to go to help those unsupported late bloomers, even if it has negative impacts on the rest of the kids? The second is what responsibility society has to protect people from their own bad choices, which is obviously a much broader issue than education alone.
Andrea (and Ron), thanks for bringing this up and letting me take over your comments to think aloud. Whether we end up agreeing or not, I think it’s really valuable to keep questioning why we do things in certain ways – particularly in regards to education.
This We Have Learned, Part I
Words cannot describe how gratifying the conversation of the last few days (on liberty and indoctrination as they apply to home and public schooling), has been for me. The bulk of the conversation occurred on this site (the most recent post was this …