Homeschooling myths

In response to the discussion on Connor’s blog about homeschooling, I wrote up this response. I recommend reading the other comments in the thread so you have a clearer idea of what I’m replying to. And I’ve learned that I could probably write about education for pages and pages. Maybe I’ll write a book about it… :) Anyway, if some of you who know me personally wouldn’t mind witnessing that I’m not completely socially inept, that’d be nice. Just kidding. ;)

I think a word needs to be said about the prevalent misconception that homeschooling will almost certainly turn your kids into “social oddities,” like some magic potion gone horribly wrong. My guess is that people think that because they’ve met a homeschooling family which was a little weird. And there are certainly homeschoolers who are weird, who don’t quite fit into society.

But don’t forget the other side of the coin: there are plenty of kids in public school who are just as weird. It’s unsound to take one particular homeschooling family and generalize that most or all are exactly like them, just as it’s ludicrous to look at a high school shooting and say that all public schooled kids are going to turn into murderers.

So where does the weirdness or normalcy come from, then? I suppose it’s debatable, but in my experience it stems more from the family and from the innate nature of the child. Dysfunctional families often result in dysfunctional children. There might be a large number of such families which pull their kids out of school because the kids get persecuted there for being weird, but that doesn’t make homeschooling illegitimate, nor does it mean all homeschoolers are socially retarded.

Case in point: I was homeschooled through junior high school, then went to high school (and now college). My younger siblings have all been homeschooled, though most of the high school aged kids have gone to public school for at least some time. As children, we were at home during the day instead of at school, but we still played with our neighborhood friends after school, and I didn’t ever feel particularly left out because I was homeschooled. Right now our home is one of the main hubs for the kids in the neighborhood to play at.

I don’t mean that to come out as a “Look at me, I’m not weird!” For example, I’m not exactly a social butterfly. I don’t care to hang out, and I’m anything but a party animal. My younger sisters are complete social butterflies. We grew up in the same environment, and yet I like my alone time and my sisters thrive on society. It seems inescapable that it’s the nature of our personalities to be outgoing or not. It doesn’t seem to be the case that homeschooling affects this.

Granted, being at home instead of with all the other kids may have slight influence, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as important as people make it. Learning how to function in society is, for the most part, learned in the home. Homeschoolers have plenty of opportunities to operate in the real world. And is isolation always such a bad thing? It can be, if the family is dysfunctional to begin with, but with a normal, healthy family, what’s wrong with being miles from the nearest house? It’s like that out in the country (or at least was), and I don’t think everyone who comes from the country is socially inept.

John: I can understand why you’d be concerned about parents not having adequate knowledge to teach your children. If we’re only talking about parents teaching their own children, then I think there’s nothing wrong with the parents learning as they go. You don’t need to take classes to learn things. They help, to be sure, but teaching oneself is a perfectly legitimate method (and in my opinion, often more effective). And while it’s better for the parent to know as much about the subject as possible, the learning process is not a cut-and-dry, one-time thing, and as such it’s okay to make mistakes, provided that we learn from them. And we all make mistakes, and most of us learn from them.

Frankly, I’m excited to teach my children, and to learn as I go. I am 100% sure that my children will grow up socially normal and will fit into society (in the right way; I most certainly do not intend for them to become mindless drones sapping their very vitality from pop culture, even if that’s the easiest way to fit in these days). I have no worries about my kids losing out on opportunities because they learned at home instead of at school. None. Homeschooling isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than public school. (I’ll add that I don’t consider public school to be 100% evil, either. There’s a lot of good, but the evil is increasing and it’s becoming too dangerous, with too much room for moral failure. I respect those public school teachers who are honestly trying to teach as best they can, and I think they’re a much-needed part of society. But I do think that privatization of education would result in much better quality.)

Ben, you’re not socially inept. :) For the record, neither are your sisters. In fact, they are some of the nicest young women I’ve met.

I’d be interested to see Mary’s response to this–I think she’d have a somewhat different take on things. As for myself, I agree with you on some points, stand neutral on some because I have too little experience to go one way or the other, and disagree whole-heartedly on others. At the moment, however, I’m not going to get into specifics. I will consider drawing up my stance when I have a bit more time.

And… I’ve said nothing. I think this is quite possibly the least substantive comment I’ve ever left on someone’s blog.

I have to agree with Katherine. I’ve been thinking about writing a post on homeschooling lately, but here’s a thought dump.

First, on the social ease aspect: I’m middling on this one. Most homeschoolers I know are fairly normal, not totally inept in any way. However, there’s always that aura of something different about them that you can somehow tell they weren’t raised in the public school system. I’m not certain how to pinpoint it yet, but when I meet homeschoolers I can usually tell before it comes up. I’m not sure if it’s a good thing or a bad thing yet, but it certainly is different.

As for qualifications on teaching on different subjects, I have to agree with you that it would be one of the best parts of homeschooling to be able to learn along with your kids. However, I do worry that it could cause problems if your interests differ from your children’s too significantly. Could a practical accountant who refuses to read books (like my dad) really teach a child who loved literature? Of course, in this case, we have my English major mother to balance it out, but there still is a distinct possibility that your child will love subjects you think useless. What if the parents aren’t motivated to learn the subjects?

But my main qualm with homeschooling is that it seems so selfish. I mean, I realize trying to protect your children from worldly influences and bad teaching is a good thing. However, what happens to the children whose parents aren’t educated? Are they just stuck? It seems like reverting back to older times when your education was mainly based on what your parents knew/could afford to teach you.

A public school system is a huge achievement for society. If all the best and brightest and most motivated go to homeschool, where does that leave children born to those who don’t care? Without those bright children to interact with, is it back to the uneducated slums? Without morally grounded children, will schools turn into dens of violence?

I guess I see it as a social responsibility issue. I am part of society, therefore I must invest myself in it. As Church members, we are not supposed to be of the world, but we are supposed to be in it. If we all leave and go form our Zion without everyone else, we have failed in our purpose, though our own lives become perfect and ideal. As appealing as it might be to do homeschooling (and I admit it sounds like fun to me), I will seek out good schools for my children and do my best to help the local schools succeed. I will campaign for less homework, so that my kids have time to pursue other interests as well.

I just don’t see homeschooling as a viable option for any developed society, and I care too much about what happens to society to abandon it like that.

Here’s my take on the perceived social awkwardness of homeschooled kids.

It seems to me that parents who want to homeschool usually have objections to (a) the teaching in public school or (b) the moral atmosphere/social pressures on the children in public school.

Parents who worry about (b) to the point of not wanting their kids to be exposed to that are already going to be perceived as weird by society. Thus, their kids will be too, because (1) they’re inexperienced, naive, ultra-sheltered versions of their parents, and (2) they may lack social skills if they haven’t been in a traditional classroom setting. Add (1) and (2) and you’ve got yourself someone ripe for ostracision once they make their way back into the public world.

If the parent homeschools primarily because of (a), then the parent is probably more likely to see that their child needs social exposure and experience and will either enroll them in sports at the local public school, get them involved in other youth activities and groups, etc. Which will mean that problem (1) won’t be applicable, and problem (2) will be avoided.

Personally, I think that parents who homeschool primarily because of (b) are entitled, but in error.

There are more factors than all this, but that’s basically what I think. :)

Indulge me to ramble on a bit more. I probably should have posted this first.

Ben, you write:
Homeschoolers have plenty of opportunities to operate in the real world. And is isolation always such a bad thing?

Yes, this is true. But the way the school system (and the world) is set up for the vast majority of children, they spend 8 hours a day with people their own age from around age 5 until at least age 18. From what I can observe of those who I personally know who are regarded as oddities by their peers (not you, Ben), a homeschooler lacks not in the general skills to operate in the real world, but lacks the experience to find his place among his peers (i.e. those his own age).

Adults might consider a homeschooler completely charming, but if he has not been around those his own age he very well may not know how to act, and that’s why he’s an oddity. Reaction to the personality and social skills of a homeschooler will vary by age group. We can probably say that adults are generally more willing and able to act maturely around people even if they are weird.

But kids and teenagers aren’t.

And since the homeschooler will inevitably be “released into the wild” at some point when adolescence is not entirely complete (whether for the last couple years of high school, or in college), if he lacks some of the necessary weapons and skills to survive, he may suffer.

I speak not from experience as a homeschooler, but having known some very odd homeschoolers (again, not Ben :P). It was many little things that made them seem odd–lacking a sense for the appropriate personal space boundary, for example. A neighbor of a good friend of mine was homeschooled, and even into our late teens, when we’d get together and play video games or board games or what have you, he’d put his hands on your shoulders, and was generally more touchy feely than pretty much anyone would have been comfortable with. And little things is all it takes to be the “weird kid” in the class or on the dorm floor, or what have you. Is it possible to be weird like this without being homeschooled? Of course. But sometimes does the homeschooling make them weird in ways that would be avoided if they were exposed to their peers day-in and day-out for a decade or more? I also think, yes.

It’s hard to get by in the world, and the formative years are important enough that any benefits of homeschooling (and there certainly are clear benefits) are outweighed by what appear to me to be unnecessary handicaps. Imagine the kid, like one I know, who at age 16 finally started going to public school, only to be regarded as a weirdo. That sort of thing must be shocking. Heck, I had trouble dealing with it, and I had my whole life to figure out how! :P But throw it all on in late adolescence, though, and worst case scenario, you have a ticking time bomb on your hands. Mommy’s little angel who finds himself a reject in the world at large. That’s no fun for anybody.

I’m being a bit overdramatic there, but I’ll throw it out and see what y’all say.

This is a tricky issue for me because, while my public school experience was really dreadful in so many ways, and I would never wish it on anyone, and I would never want to repeat it, it was also a positive experience. I’ve always been loyal to the Church, but my experience in public school solidified my testimony and taught me to depend on Christ. Having seen some of the worst things “the world” had to offer (some of it blatant, some of it devilishly subtle), I gained a fervent desire to reject it and seek after that which was good.

Now, this isn’t the best argument for public school, I realize. I’m not saying that we should send our children to public school for the purpose of toughening them up spiritually. I’m not even necessarily advocating public school. Each family and each child has different needs. And honestly, had my parents had much of a choice, they would not have sent me to the schools I attended. Had I had a choice, I certainly wouldn’t have gone (and often I didn’t–I must’ve averaged an absence per week my junior year of high school).

I think there are a lot of other important things I could have learned had I gone to schools where I didn’t feel like I was being spiritually and intellectually stifled. Homeschooling or a private school might have been better for me. I don’t know if my public school experience was necessary for my spiritual development–I just know that it was remarkably conducive to it. I’ve often seen a particular sort of maturity in people who’ve gone through a difficult experience in public school (in those who came out of it spiritually intact, that is). Public school can teach children spiritual independence. It can teach them intellectual independence. It can teach them love, charity, and respect for those who are different. It can teach humility. It can demand a more committed application of gospel principles. It’s a refiner’s fire that I’m not sure I would choose for anyone (I wouldn’t have chosen it for myself), but it nonetheless has its merits.

Laura: Thanks. :) Thinking about this reminds me of a very tiny fear I sometimes have, namely that of pronouncing words the wrong way. When you read voraciously, sometimes you don’t realize that you’ve never actually heard a word spoken, and you assume that the way you’re saying it in your head is in fact the right way to say it. For example, a kid in one of my high school classes pronounced “elite” as “ee-light.” And one of my professors a year or two ago pronounced “catechism” with a “ch” sound instead of “k” on the “-chism.” Does it really matter? Perhaps not all that much. But when I hear a word pronounced differently, I always go into a small sense of panic, wondering if I’ve been saying it wrong all these years. :)

Katherine: LOL :) Well, considering this to be a trailer of sorts, I’m looking forward to the real thing. ;)

Liz: I do think there’s somewhat of an aura about homeschoolers, true. More so with those who’ve never been in the public school system. And I have no idea whether it’s good or bad, to be honest. We’ll leave it at different.

As for the problem with parents not being motivated to learn the subjects, most of the time parents who want to homeschool their children will be more than willing to learn the subjects. I don’t think everyone should be homeschooled, necessarily, since there are indeed parents who would be unsuitable at teaching their kids. (But I don’t think social workers should pull families apart unless there is a very real danger, perhaps life-threatening or something like that.)

Getting back to the question, homeschooling doesn’t necessarily mean that the parents teach everything. With children who can do it, self-learning works just fine. When I was eight I wanted to learn how to program. My parents had zero interest in programming, but they supported me and let me learn on my own, and it worked out just fine. Not everything can be learned this way, but I think we as a society have become too fond of the idea that most learning has to take place in a class or else it’s illegitimate.

Granted, not every child will have the motivation to learn on their own. And that’s why parents need to use wise judgment in deciding whether to homeschool, listening to the Spirit every step of the way.

Now for the social responsibility. If all the good children are pulled out — which, let’s face it, isn’t going to happen because not every family is going to homeschool — then schools would turn into dens of violence (wait! They already are! :)) assuming that there are no good teachers left. Peer pressure is important, sure, but it seems like we’re neglecting the adults. It can go both ways. With good teachers, I don’t know if it matters quite so much if most of the good kids have left. Maybe it does.

“If we all leave and go form our Zion without everyone else, we have failed in our purpose.” Well, we kind of did leave and come to Utah without everyone else, remember. :) I see your point, but I don’t think that homeschooling renders itself unviable. Homeschooled kids don’t abandon society for their whole lives, you know. The reason that many (most?) families homeschool is that they 1) want to avoid a cotton-candy education for their children or 2) see that there are many unsavory features in public schools (sex ed — which should be taught by parents and not the schools in my opinion — and anti-God philosophies taught as truth and the whole negative peer pressure thing and all that), and (this is the important part) the early years are when children are most malleable. That’s when it’s most important to make sure they’re on the right track, that they don’t get too influenced by Satan. Sure, not every public schooler comes out having lost all their morals, but you’ll have to admit that parents do take a risk when they send their children there.

The idea then is that if we can strengthen our children at home for the first decade or so, then when they do go out into society — and they surely will — they’ll be better prepared to stand up for their convictions and to make the world a better place. Homeschooling has never seemed to me to be a way to hide from the world, at least not in the long-term. It’s more about creating better citizens, people less influenced by the world (bribes, worldly philosophies, etc.) and more influenced by principles of righteousness. Again, I don’t mean that only homeschoolers achieve that. There are many, many good and wonderful people out there who come out of the public school system. All I’m saying is that that’s the grand goal of homeschooling, at least from my perspective. And it’s a worthy goal. So I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with you on whether homeschooling is a viable option for any developed society. :)

Rikker: Concerning the question of sheltering, I’m still not entirely sure what I think on the matter. On the one hand, we don’t want our children to grow up thinking the world is all a peachy place where nothing ever goes wrong and where there is no evil. But on the other, do we really want to throw them into the furnace prematurely? (Reading is a good antidote for being too sheltered, I think. Everyone should read more. :))

Regarding your problem (2), I don’t think social skills come from being in a traditional classroom setting. The point of my post was that social skills come from the family, for the most part. Not from school. If many homeschoolers seem to lack those skills, perhaps it’s more because those kinds of families tend to homeschool, not because homeschooling inherently results in low social skills. It’s important not to confuse the two.

As for homeschoolers being released into the wild, I suppose it depends (to a degree) on how isolated the kids were, and on how weird (or normal) the parents were. In my case, I played with all the neighborhood kids every day, did sleepovers, etc., so I certainly found my place among my peers. And while I was “different,” if only because I didn’t go to school, I don’t think it made a substantive difference in my relationships with my friends.

But if the family is weird to begin with, and they isolate themselves up, then yes, problems could result. And yet I wonder if sending the kids to public school instead would help or hurt. It could help, yes — the weirdness would get beaten out of them. (I think it’s safe to say that they would get persecuted and picked on for not being normal.) Or it could make them turn into their shells, become even less part of society, or go bad and start killing people.

Katherine M: Good point. I suppose the main question is how much of a risk it is. How many kids come through public school stronger for it, and how many succumb and become lemmings? A lot depends on the child, I think — some children really do need to be homeschooled (because they’re so far ahead of their peers intellectually, or so far behind, and they can’t get much one-on-one instruction when there are thirty or forty other kids to be attended to), but some perhaps shouldn’t be. Again, this is why parents really need to follow the Spirit.

Goodness, this comment has become rather long. :)

Noted: we came to Utah to be alone due to violence and persecution within settled society (sounds like junior high). And almost ever since (transatlantic railroad?), particularly in the last few decades, we’ve been encouraging [almost] everybody else to come here, too.
Not that this comment has much to do with the rest of the conversation. I just thought that it should be underlined…

Anna: I agree. :)

Coincidentally, there’s a story in the BYU newspaper today entitled “Homeschooling Presents Pros, Cons”. A good quote at the end, from professor Stephanie Freeman:

Home schooling doesn’t mean staying at home secluded from the world; you can go anywhere and learn from anyone. You can use any materials you wish. When you’re home schooling, learning becomes a way of life, not a six-hour day at school.

Ben: On the topic of learning outside of the classroom, kids can do that even when they are in school (unless there’s a ton of homework, but that’s another problem all together). The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I know I learned a lot of things outside of school. And it’s certainly a great way to learn, but not at all exclusive to home school. (Though I guess you could make an argument for having more time, but I think even that’s a little weak. I had tons of time for my own pursuits as a kid and I was in an accelerated program with more homework than most.)

However, required schooling can be useful in forcing us to step outside out comfort zone. I’m actually grateful for being forced to take subjects I wasn’t interested in because I never would have learned them otherwise. I probably never would have gotten interested in chemistry or photography had they not been required subjects. (Aside: Out of curiosity, how does that work out in home school? Do you force a child to learn science when they have no interest? What if they hate it? How would you motivate them?)

The reason that many (most?) families homeschool is that they 1) want to avoid a cotton-candy education for their children or 2) see that there are many unsavory features in public schools (sex ed — which should be taught by parents and not the schools in my opinion — and anti-God philosophies taught as truth and the whole negative peer pressure thing and all that), and (this is the important part) the early years are when children are most malleable.

I guess my problem is that I don’t see either of these as valid reasons, except in a few extreme cases. #1 is easily dealt with in the public school system. (I’m assuming by “cotton candy education” you mean too basic, not challenging enough, or not specialized.) I went to a magnet program for elementary school and later chose to go to a school that had the IB program rather than the local high school. Poor teaching at a local school really isn’t a huge problem, at least in cities, because it’s fairly simple to transfer schools. Having no choice is largely illusory. (I guess it could be different in rural areas, but since I don’t ever see myself going rural, I’ll ignore that. And obviously, some whole school districts are irredeemably bad, but these are a lot less prevalent than it is often implied, probably fewer than one per state, if that. Also, I can see a few exceptions for exceptionally bright or behind students, but these are likewise extremely rare.)

As for #2, there’s an interesting contradiction. The objectionable elements you cite (sex ed, evolution, other anti-religious sentiments) don’t really enter the picture until high school or late junior high, yet you say parents are concerned about the formative years. By that point in life, I certainly hope children have developed the ability to discern truth and morality. I’ve never heard of such things being a huge problem in schools during the first decade or so of life, and certainly not on a large scale.

(As to the objectionableness of such programs, I’d say it’s largely blown out of proportion. The sex-ed portions of health class usually have an opt-out option, and even the material provided there is really not that offensive, except in rare cases. I know, I went to them. :D And as for an “anti-God” mindset, I don’t really see it being a huge issue. I know the two teachers who taught me evolution both handled it in a fair and balanced manner. Then again, I was schooled in Utah, so we have might have schools more sensitive to both these issues which maybe others don’t. :D Anyway, I think the “terribleness” of these aspects is largely blown out of proportion because of a few extreme examples. Again, that’s just me. Of course, I largely think I’m right, but that’s my bias.)

I guess my main point about it not being viable for society is that it clearly can’t work on a large scale. I know I was describing an unrealistic doomsday scenario, but the principle is true. I’m not concerned about home schoolers when they grow up. Obviously they have to “rejoin” the mainstream at some point, and as far as I’ve seen, they are fine. They become great adults. Whatever.

What I’m concerned about it what happens to the rest of the kids while the home schoolers are at home. During the formative years for the rest of these kids. If too many people were to home school, I’m certain it would have a negative moral impact on schools. A lot (most? all?) of home schooling families are very upright people. Shouldn’t their kids be out there having an influence for good on their peers? I just think it odd to assume off the bat that the bad influences will outshine the good rather than the other way around. It seems to imply that bad influences are inherently stronger than good, which is backwards of what I believe to be true.

I guess my point is that home schooling should be rare and reserved for special cases, rather than a default option.

Ben,

Just doing the archives thing. This is an interesting subject to me. I raised my children in public schools, I had no choice. For the most part the public school system was very, very good in Spokane. However, after school (theirs and mine) I home schooled my children and it was an intense education. Some subjects were added upon, others erased as best I could. I appreciated the education my children received in the arts and sciences. I required that they all take orchestra because: 1) Good music wires the brains differently – children that play classical music seem to be smarter and collectively have higher G.P.A.s. 2) Children who play classical music are usually more conservative and mannerly, and their parents are usually more involved. Due to the fact that there is only one advanced orchestra class, the kids are usually in the same classes and become their own social group. The end result of this strategy – a pretty good batting average.

Heather went to college for the last two years of high school and only returned to the high school for Japanese and Orchestra. Washington State pays for “Running Start” if the kids can do the work and the professors don’t know that these students are high school students. She had Harvard PhD’s teaching classes of 20 to 30 for her G.U.Rs, whereas at the Y, she would have been in a class of 150 students with a T.A. controlling most of the information output. B.Y.U. accepted her as a Junior at 18 years old which enabled her to take a large number of classes that she would have otherwise not had the time and opportunity to take. She is an avid reader and often “Makes up her own words” so you provided me with a laugh when I read that about you.

Heather is one of the most virtuous, courteous, thoughtful, smart, compassionate, charitable, loving…young ladies that I know. She is a very loving daughter and favorite auntie to 11 nieces and nephews. She tried the roommate thing for one semester and retreated back to the sane harbor of home. Her first two years at the Y were spent as a live-in assistant manager in a retirement community in Salt Lake City and her peer group consisted of 80 elderly people. God is her best friend, I take a close second, and her other best friends are her sisters, her aunts, and her grandpa. I can highly recommend her to God who not only loves her, but can trust her.

I have known some very bad, morally corrupted, socially inept, ill educated, functionally illiterate home schooled children. And, I have also known some very bad, morally corrupted, socially inept, ill educated, functionally illiterate publicly schooled children. Conversely, I have known some extremely good morally sound, socially adept, well educated, highly literate publicly educated children and some extremely good morally sound, socially adept, well educated, highly literate home schooled children. So what makes the difference? An old Marine Commandant once said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that hurts you, it’s what you know for sure that ain’t so.” In the case of the debate concerning home school vs. public school perhaps this quote applies.

I think that a careful examination of the causes of success or failure is in order. I think that it goes to a bigger issue than just the method of schooling. I think the root lies in the family. I have known a lot of stay-at-home moms that have totally neglected their children. I have also seen men put interest over family in the name of church or community service. Neglected children do not usually turn out very well. I have also seen some children that were very protected and over parented that have ended up a real mess. So, what kind of people are in the family? What do they think? What do they believe? What are they? I was careful to get to know and select the teachers of my children in every paradigm. It paid off. I was also very careful to make sure who didn’t teach my children and it paid off in spades.

I have a fairly large collection of books in my home library, many of them carefully selected just in case the need or desire to home school my grandchildren every became an issue. I have a full math series from Kindergarten through Calculus. I have an extensive history collection. Religion, music, art, literature, grammar, chemistry, astronomy, and life sciences are also represented. I have a “How To” section for the basic necessities of homemaking and repair along with the required tools. I required my daughters take a construction class in summer school to learn how to build a home and made sure that they were all expert campers.

When I was raising my children, everyone had a piece of parenting advice for me; I accepted it politely. But, when I wanted advice, I went to the Lord because I knew that he had the owner’s manual for each of my children and they were each different models. I also sought out mentors who were wise, experienced and successful – old sages so to speak. I have some grandchildren that are being home schooled and others in public schools. My future librarian wants a large family and has a tendency towards home school which is why she has been appointed “keeper of the books.” I love Nephi’s opening statement in The Book of Mormon, “I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father.” In some cases, that can be a lot of good, useful, important information. In other cases, well I’ll just say that they are the cause of all the debate.

J: I agree that it does indeed lie in the family. That’s where it all comes down to. And what of dysfunctional families? I can see why social workers want to help out, and in extreme cases I think they’re needed, but at the same time I think they probably interfere in cases where they might not be needed. But I haven’t thought this all the way through, so I probably should just delete this paragraph for now. Oh well. :)

http://janetwalgren.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/on-social-skills-and-home-schooling/

It is time to dust off the home schooling topic again. Ben, did you hear about the California court ruling that essentially requires parents of home schoolers to have teaching credentials to home school their children? The teacher’s association representative said the law was justified because they already have to deal with children who were behind and when you add a home schooled child to the classroom, the burden puts all the other children at risk of falling behind because they haven’t studied the same topics from the same books as public schooled children. (source BBC news report and interview today, 3-7-08)

Yes, I’ve heard about it. ~sigh~ I don’t agree, though. ~bigger sigh~