Goldstein writes: "Over the past year, there has been a resurgence of interest in homeschooling - not just the religious fundamentalist variety practiced by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but also in secular, liberal homeschooling."
Critics often argue that homeschooling keeps children from socializing with a diverse group of peers. (photo: Getty Images)
Liberals, Don't Homeschool Your Kids
25 February 12
s a child growing up in Arizona and Georgia college towns during the 1980s and 1990s, the filmmaker Astra Taylor was "unschooled" by her lefty, countercultural parents. "My siblings and I slept late and never knew what day of the week it was," Taylor writes in a new essay in the literary journal N+1. "We were never tested, graded, or told to memorize dates, facts, or figures. … Some days we read books, made music, painted, or drew. Other days we argued and fought over the computer. Endless hours were spent watching reruns of ‘The Simpsons' on videotape, though we had every episode memorized. When we weren't inspired - which was often - we simply did nothing at all."
Over the past year, there has been a resurgence of interest in homeschooling - not just the religious fundamentalist variety practiced by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but also in secular, liberal homeschooling like Taylor's. Think no textbooks, history lessons about progressive social movements, and college-level math for precocious 13-year-olds. Some families implement this vision on their own, while others join cooperatives of like-minded, super-involved parents.
Homeschooling is so unevenly regulated from state to state that it is impossible to know exactly how many homeschoolers there are. Estimates range from about 1 million to 2 million children, and the number is growing. It is unclear how many homeschooling families are secular, but the political scientist Rob Reich has written that there is little doubt the homeschooling population has diversified in recent years.* Yet whether liberal or conservative, "[o]ne article of faith unites all homeschoolers: that homeschooling should be unregulated," Reich writes. "Homeschoolers of all stripes believe that they alone should decide how their children are educated."
Could such a go-it-alone ideology ever be truly progressive - by which I mean, does homeschooling serve the interests not just of those who are doing it, but of society as a whole?
In her N+1 piece, Taylor struggles to answer this question in the affirmative. Drawing upon her own upbringing, as well as on the traditions of the radical private school the Albany Free School, Taylor calls on parents and students to "empty the schools," which force students to endure "irrational authority six and a half hours a day, five days a week, in a series of cinder-block holding cells," she caricatures.
This overheated hostility toward public schools runs throughout the new literature on liberal homeschooling, and reveals what is so fundamentally illiberal about the trend: It is rooted in distrust of the public sphere, in class privilege, and in the dated presumption that children hail from two-parent families, in which at least one parent can afford (and wants) to take significant time away from paid work in order to manage a process - education - that most parents entrust to the community at-large.
Take, for instance, Sonia Songha's New York Times account of forming a preschool cooperative with six other brownstone-Brooklyn mothers, all of whom "said our children had basically never left our sides." Indeed, in a recent Newsweek report, the education journalist Linda Perlstein noted a significant number of secular homeschoolers are also adherents of attachment parenting, the perennially controversial ideology defined by practices such as co-sleeping with one's child and breast-feeding for far longer than typical, sometimes well beyond toddlerhood. Meanwhile, in suburban New Jersey, one "hippy" homeschooler told the local paper she feared exposing her kids to the presumably negative influences of teachers and peers. "I didn't want my child being raised by someone else for eight hours out of the day," she said.
Recent reports of teachers and teachers' aides in Los Angeles and New York molesting children only flame the fans of such fears. But these stories make news exactly because they are so rare; there's something creepy about giving in totally to the terrors of the outside world harming one's child. In a country increasingly separated by cultural chasms - Christian conservatives vs. secular humanists; Tea Partiers vs. Occupiers - should we really encourage children to trust only their parents or those hand-selected by them, and to mistrust civic life and public institutions?
Moreover, being your child's everything - her parent, teacher, baby-sitter, and afterschool program coordinator - requires a massive outlay of labor. Songha's pre-K cooperative hired a teacher, but parents ended up putting in 10 to 12 hours of work per week administrating the program. Astra Taylor's father was a college professor, while her mother supervised the four children's "unschooling."
What goes unmentioned is what made this lifestyle possible: the fact that Taylor's mother could afford to stay home with her kids. Yet Taylor bristles against the suggestion that there was anything unique about the ability of her upper-middle class, uber-intellectual parents to effectively "unschool" their children while still helping them grow into educated adults with satisfying professional lives. This critique "implies that most people are not gifted, and that they need to be guided, molded, tested, and inspected," Taylor complains. "What makes us so sure most people couldn't handle self-education?"
What makes us so sure? Reality. More than 70 percent of mothers with children under the age of 18 are in the workforce. One-third of all children and one-half of low-income children are being raised by a single parent. Fewer than one-half of young children, and only about one-third of low-income kids, are read to daily by an adult. Surely, this isn't the picture of a nation ready to "self-educate" its kids.
Nor can we allow homeschoolers to believe their choice impacts only their own offspring. Although the national school-reform debate is fixated on standardized testing and "teacher quality" - indeed, the uptick in secular homeschooling may be, in part, a backlash against this narrow education agenda - a growing body of research suggests "peer effects" have a large impact on student achievement. Low-income kids earn higher test scores when they attend school alongside middle-class kids, while the test scores of privileged children are impervious to the influence of less-privileged peers. So when college-educated parents pull their kids out of public schools, whether for private school or homeschooling, they make it harder for less-advantaged children to thrive.
Of course, no one wants to sacrifice his own child's education in order to better serve someone else's kid. But here's the great thing about attending racially and socioeconomically integrated schools: It helps children become better grown-ups. Research by Columbia University sociologist Amy Stuart Wells found that adult graduates of integrated high schools shared a commitment to diversity, to understanding and bridging cultural differences, and to appreciating "the humanness of individuals across racial lines."
Taylor admits that "[m]any people, liberal and conservative alike, are deeply offended by critiques of compulsory schooling." I suppose I am one of them. I benefited from 13 years of public education in one of the most diverse and progressive school districts in the United States. My father, stepmother, stepfather, and grandfather are or were public school educators. As an education journalist, I've admired many public schools that use culturally relevant, high-standards curricula to engage even the most disadvantaged students. These schools are sustained by the talents of impossibly hard-working teachers who want to partner with parents and kids, not oppress them.
Despite our conflicting perspectives, I agree with Taylor that school ought to be more engaging, more intellectually challenging, and less obsessed with testing. But government is the only institution with the power and scale to intervene in the massive undertaking of better educating American children, 90 percent of whom currently attend public schools. (And it's worth remembering that schools provide not just education, but basic child care while parents are at work.) Lefty homeschoolers might be preaching sound social values to their children, but they aren't practicing them. If progressives want to improve schools, we shouldn't empty them out. We ought to flood them with our kids, and then debate vociferously what they ought to be doing.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Kids don't need regimentation, but they do need the professional guidance towards learning which trained educators are best suited to provide. Parents can supplement but not replace it.
"Kids... need the professional guidance... which trained educators are best suited to provide. Parents can supplement but not replace it."
My reply to both statements is this: what if the parent is a better qualified teacher than those employed in your child's school?
This is hardly a moot point, given the poor quality of teachers we have here compared to those in Finland and other nations (e.g., in the US, the average teacher's SAT scores are below average for all SAT takers!) It is especially relevant in places like my own home town, which has seen the quality of its schools and teachers steadily plummet over the past 2 decades.
Our daughter is in 7th grade, and while her English and Social Studies teachers are good, her Math and Science teachers have impressed us as complacent, lazy, and embarrassingly unskilled and unknowledgeable.
So, our reason for considering homeschooling - at least for math and science - is not to have absolute autonomy over her curriculum, but to actually teach our daughter the existing curriculum well. As a math and science teacher myself, I'm not just sure that I could outperform her current teachers in those subjects, but I'm quite sure most people who'd passed Algebra II and HS Science classes could outperform them as well.
Very few parents have enough education and objectivity to teach their own children, and if there is NO testing we will end up with a poorly educated population.
The religious right will grow even more intolerant and narrow minded.
If very well to do mothers, who can afford not to work, keep their children home, only low income family children and lower middle class kids will go to school, and as stated, they will lack healthy competition with more fortunate kids.
What a mess. We keep going downhill
America sure seems to be going backwards
My three children all went to public schools and they were good students. They were self motivated and they knew what my husband and I expected of them. But we kept an eye on their work, to make sure they were where they should be.
At dinner time we would have quizzes about capitals of the states, and capitals of the world, so learning was a fun thing.
At 23 my son was very successful and had his own business, before he was killed in a plane crash.
Both my daughters are successful also. My oldest has expanded the business I started, and is now the owner. My youngest is a CPA and certified financial planner, and she now has two partners.
So public school sure can do an excellent job of teaching, but parents should always be up on their children's work, and help where needed.
There are few things more urgent than improving our public schools, and getting them out of the corporate stranglehold of testing and more testing. But I wouldn't presume to ask someone else to sacrifice their child to that struggle.
Anecdotally, there may be weird or creepy parents who are home schooling but this is not the norm and the movement should not be judged by the inappropriate behavior of the exceptions any more than public schools should be judged by one creepy child molesting of one or two public school teachers.
On the other hand, our public schools are among the most expensive in the world and produce academically mediocre results.
The public schools are failing to educate. Without blaming anyone, good parenting demands that we take the action necessary to make sure that our kids do not fall into the meat-grinder of the public schools.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Your goal is to make everything in the world FOR PROFIT. It's hard for me to mathematically understand how ADDING the expense of requiring profit, to make things CHEAPER.
billy bob
USA, EARTH
I was "homeschooled" through 8th grade, not due to any religious reason or critique of the school system (and we sure were not wealthy!). We simply had no school accessible to our remote ranch, on a dirt road often impassible in winter (and even summer). So I went to school at the kitchen table, largely taught myself after the first few grades (because my "working" mother was way too busy), and did fine - never got a B in high school.
OK, my native talents are above average, and this experience does not apply to everyone. But what I think does generalize is the importance of education tailored to the individual, and that, above all, is where our system is failing. Stop worrying so much about the philosophy of education (important though it is), and just provide more teachers! Our class sizes are absurd, even in upper-class districts like the one I live in now (Bay Area, CA). Kids are different, and they need different inputs to their education. This is critical, and we are going backward in this respect.
I suppose that a classroom like that is good for that band in the middle that the teacher is focusing on. The bright can coast and develop poor study habits and the students who need more are left stuggling with a sense of failure.
I was terribly bored in school tho blessed/cursed with a passive nature so at least I didnlt annoy my teachers.
My daughter, who had amzingly taught herself to read in pre-kindergarde n, was refused entry into the gifted and talented program since that would upset the "balance" in the classroom and coasted by until she dropped out of school.
Frankly I only wish that I had home-schooled her. She could not possibly be worse off educationally than she is now...
Interestingly, American public school test results have always fallen somewhere in the middle of the pack when compared to other countries, and yet American public schools have produced far more than their share of leaders in science, technology, business, culture, politics and scholarship. Perhaps test scores don't reveal the learning that really matters for success.
Meanwhile, as our social patterns have become increasingly segregated by income levels and we've become socially isolated into like-minded groups, middle-class parents have become obsessively anxious about their kids' success and far too protective of them. Radical individualism of the left and right has been on the ascent for the past 30 years, and that doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
If USA schools were like Finland, then maybe my child would have attended public schools. I thought they would because I have always been and still do support public education.
However, where I live, the science teachers believe and teach the earth is 6-8,000 years old. The schools have a Christmas break, not a winter break. Prayer, Christian prayer only, is encouraged and happens. Books like _The Kite Runner_ are banned. Bullying is ignored and if it is addressed, it is excused because "they will need to learn how to deal with it in the real world".
Read about the schools in Finland, work to make that happen here if you are being honest about supporting public schools and public education. And my homeschooled unschooled child is in college with a GPA of 3.9.
quote source:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/#.Tv4U5PLgu0w.facebook
The flip side of homeschooling is the possibility of the parent/parents injecting far more prejudice and political attitudes than would be found in a classroom. Homeschooled kids, though, can and do engage in social activities and sports outside the home. One of the best learning environments I ever saw was in a community type commune that schooled all children on site. There were maybe 13 kids receiving hands on lessons and an environment that provided an automatic laboratory for leaning science - learning combustion, for instance, by cooking their lunch over a fire and seeing what is involved in that process. And so on.
Education is very complicated, as I have said in a prior thread. Any approach to improve schools, but mainly to educate - period - is worth it.
It is mind boggling how complicated it is and how too many corporations and churches and others, are involved in batting education around. It is also difficult to enforce some policies. We live in a huge country with hundreds and hundreds of schools. You'd think it would be simple.
The national school board used to play a big part in determining curricula. I don't know exactly what their role is now.
http://lewrockwell.com/burris/burris23.1.html
Discover the truth concerning the origins and purpose of compulsory, tax-supported public schooling.
" What makes us so sure? Reality. More than 70 percent of mothers with children under the age of 18 are in the workforce. One-third of all children and one-half of low-income children are being raised by a single parent. "
I think we all should honestly research what reason drives (yes, drives) women/mothers into the workforce. At first, at least with this and the last generation, women wanted careers, to be independent, they met men within the workforce with similar interests and decided to get married (or not). With the personal exposure to the world outside of the 'growing up' home, personal interests and desires changed drastically. Bombardments on the mind by commercial advertisements for a "better" lifstyle, and that with all the gadgets,led first to a "I want, I want" to "I need, I need", and ultimately to "I must have, I must have" and " deserve".
Now all these 'thingies' need capital in the form of money to obtain, which in turn also required to work, meaning to be employed.
The want of children and having them changed some of the outlook on life for women. Some (a few)retired from the workforce and thought with there life experience to be qualified for Homeschooling, others continued to work and did Homeschooling aside.
If just all had less "desires" developed, less employment would have been needed, and the kids would have gotten smarter by being Homeschooled
How many "home schooling parents" have any real wisdom to impart to their issue?
Have they traveled, experienced life, read at any depth or engaged in a wide range of activities by choice, from creative and humanities to math and the sciences and even sports?
Isn't that why we had teachers of many diverse subjects once?
Just a thought for reflection.
Because class sizes are too large locally to give individual attention to students, I've recently done some individual coaching in algebra, geometry and physical science. I've been amazed at the quality of the teachers. and the depth of the material they are covering.
In South Carolina, a parent needs only a high school diploma or equivalent to qualify to home school. How can parents teach what they do not know?
I found that "schooling" public or private suppresses the genius of our children. It is programming the children using the model of education started in India long ago to maintain the Caste System. Read John Taylor Gatto, "The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher's Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling". Knowledge taught to children should be experienced in some way that is safe and real, not just memorized. If it hasn't been applied, it isn't their knowledge.
The problem with this article is that Goldstein relies on her knowledge of 1 family (limited knowledge!) to base her understanding of homeschooling. Not good journalism.
http://jobtalknj.com
RSS feed for comments to this post