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 …

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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!