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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.