originally posted April 21, 2006

I plan to expound on these later, more or less to develop a defense for our choice. If the public thinking I do on the matter helps anyone else to come to this decision, then great. Some things may be italicized as topics for me to go into greater detail on later.

1. The type of education we want for our kids is not affordably available in our area. The two schools closest to our criteria are pricey and do not have the full package. One is not a classical school and the other is not a Catholic school.
With homeschooling we can have all of our criteria met. Why classical? Academic defense of homeschooling ... What do the numbers say?

2. We believe that within the family is where a substantial majority of quality time should be spent during the formative years of life. The most deeply secure people we know were homeschooled and solid family life is at the heart of that security. We further believe that the primary objection offered by homeschool detractors -- that of socialization -- can be readily dealt with, especially in light of the increase in homeschool familes and outside activities available to children and teenagers. So what about socialization?

3. We believe that the primary goal of education is the final goal of eternal life thus religious formation is serious business and best delivered by parents who have a tremendous desire to see the salvation of all of their children attained. What does the Bible say about this? What does the Church teach about this? What about Catholic schools and CCD?

4. We care more for the well being of our children and are more capable of responding to the unique needs of our children than any teacher, or village for that matter, ever will.

5. Kids in school situations suffer from a lack of prolonged contact with nature, especially in the younger years and especially boys. Boys were not meant to sit still in masses of desks for long periods of time. The natural exporation built into young children needs an outlet. Furthermore, at least within public schools, physical education and exercise is becoming more and more limited in order to meet academic requirements dictated by local, state and federal law.

6. Homeschooling kids have an advantage when it comes to knowing what day to day family life is about and how to deal with it when they are grown and have families. Daily living and basic tasks are skirted in the school systems. I know they taught us how to balance a checkbook in public schools but that is about a thousandth of what goes on from day to day in a family.

7. Homeschooling increases family unity. Quality time is undeniably increased. There is no way a school situation can compare. It also creates a habit of helpfulness. The sacrifice of making a homeschool work requires all children in the family working as a team to ensure the continued learning of the other members of the family. In every essay, article or book I read on the topic, the one thing I always come away with is the understanding that sacrifice is involved. This nurtures selflessness and results in adults who are constantly looking outwards (servants of mankind).

8. Physical development, especially in the middle school years, is best kept at home.

9. Bullying is detrimental to proper emotional development. Before criticizing the idea of keeping kids away from bullying, consider the following -- How many bullys do you encounter in the workplace or in everyday adult life? How much of dealing with actual confilct in life is not possible within the confines of typical sibling rivalry? It is not normal behavior and outside of your sphere of influence there is far less that you can do about it. Within the home and within the neighborhood the communication lines are more transparent and things can be done to minimize children spending inordinate amounts of time worrying sick about going to school the next day. School is for education, not for learning how to suck it up.

For that we have sports and sports parents :)

10. Homeschooling allows for flexible scheduling and an increased ability to incorportate extracurricular activites. About all that wasted time in school...

11. Furthermore, extraordinary talents can be developed at the level required to reach the level of mastery. For example, concert pianists do not become great in 30 minutes a day after school.

12. MOST IMPORTANTLY (from a Catholic perspective) - Regular incorporation of sacraments into daily life
- daily mass
- weekly confession
- celebration of feast days
- increased devotional life
The domestic church is allowed to flourish at a high level with this flexibility.

13. You can further immerse your children in languages, fine art, classical music and classic literature than the school system will allow. Greek and Latin are not available at most schools.

14. Homeschooling is conducive to fostering a true love of learning and tailoring encouragement of such to meet the need of each individual child. In my experience, many teachers wanted to get through the day. It was the extraordiary one that fostered that love. I learned more at home than I did in school because my parents encouraged a "lifestyle of learning". Homeschooling is that lifestyle full time. I loved to learn as a child but public education sapped that desire from me until recently. Thank the Lord for my conversion process. I have read more in the past few years than I read in middle and high school combined. I had to regain what was taken from me in school but what my parents imparted to me as a child.

15. (added Oct 19, 2007) Our rights and responsibilities as parents are least infringed upon by the choice to homeschool. See my Parental rights post. A parent who sends their child to school suspends parental rights (control) of their child while in that environment. This opens their child to bad information, poor nutrition etc. This is true of all of society actually but if a parent wants to retain more control of this aspect of their lives in the formative years, homeschooling provides the avenue of least resistance.

Finally

I want to make it clear that this is our decision and we REALIZE that it is not a decision that everyone should make. Taking this path may reveal that we shouldn't either. We do not feel that schooling is such a detriment to a child that it will render him or her incapable of acheiving the final end that is the primary reason for our homeschooling. In our unique circumstances, we feel it is the best option. There are doubtless many people in heaven that went to school. If I thought that to be a fatal blow to anyone I would give up now. School is, after all, my heritage.

This is in reference to birth control being handed out to middle school kids in Maine.

My wife and I put our child in public school for two weeks. The principal got up and said "while your kids are here, we are their mommies". That comment made my skin crawl BUT she is right. They ensure they eat. They make sure they go to the bathroom. They have a nurse on staff to deal with cuts and bruises. They deal with psychological issues. In some places they hand out inappropriate sex surveys and contraceptives and this is all within the law, or so it seems. They assume the role of parent during that time frame and we, by virtue of handing our children over to them relinquish those rights during that time frame. For the law to extend our parental rights is to invent rights that are not in the constitution. It would become a logistical nightmare for the public school system to have to police dictations from the parents on every matter that they consider their right."You cannot teach my kids evolution" ... "You cannot teach my kids about sex" ... "You MUST teach my kids about sex" .. some parents will lose those battles. You can be involved but ultimately your control on some matters is handed over to committees, PTA groups and the system.

Consider the argued right in the Nov 2005 "sex survey" case “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs”

The Ninth Circuits ruling contains the following conclusion

.... We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select.

Now I know the 9th circuit being who they are is easy to dismiss but what shocked me about this case was strong commentary from the other side of the political aisle that could find no real hole in the decision. In fact many people calling themselves "strict constitutionalists" called it the right decision. Their beef was with the 9th circuits selective application of their reasoning.

The court even went through the unusual trouble of rewording the decision to eliminate some of their more extreme statements knowing they have a good chance, should this come before the SC, of standing and becoming precedent for future rulings along these lines. I don't see this as an obscure matter of if. I see it as a matter of when.

Read what Amy Welborn has on her site ...
That 9th Circuit Decision The best comments from that time frame that helped me were

Again, I think that he reaches the right decision based on the law, but I also think that he is disingenuous when he states that the court makes this decision based on law rather than policy preferences. Based on the rank inconsistency in Judge Reinhardt's Substantive Due Process jurisprudence, the only reasonable conclusion is that his decision was predicated specifically on his liberal policy preferences.

I suspect that if this ruling came from the 5th Circuit, the initial reaction here would have been somewhat different.

That being said, I think the court ruled correctly, and, I might add, conservatives should applaud the resistance by the court to once again expand these unwritten rights to privacy. Should schools notify parents when these subjects are being taught? Yes, but it's not unconstitutional if they don't. Vote out the school board members, or explore other options to prevent this from happening again.

This case should be used by conservatives as Exhibit A in the case for vouchers. Parents should be able to opt out of schools where the administration clearly don't care what parents think.

Ultimately we hold the highest right and that is to get your kids out of public schools that do not abide by the wishes of parents. I think that it is of vital importance for parents to understand that their rights *in* the public school system are not as supreme as they think they are.

See also Negative aspects of homeschooling

Thinking out loud here ...

I think, possibly, I have come up with a decent criticism of homeschooling. I realize that most of the arguments against homeschooling (socialization and whatnot) are suspect at best. However, I am starting to wonder if a lack of competition is healthy?

Let me explain (and this is not to brag about me)

In elementary school I was always near the top in the class. My parents decided to try and get me into the magnet program, which is where they take the best students at all of the schools and bus them to two schools collecting the so called academic elite. I got in. When I got to middle school I was an average to slightly above average student. I was actually intimidated by the number of kids who were more intelligent than I was. In high school, the competition got worse. I don't think I graduated in the top half of my class. Bottom line is, I had to deal with the stark reality that I wasn't really as smart as I thought I was. By high school, I realized that if I was going to amount to much, I was going to have to work my tail off. That was a necessary realization for me. There were clearly others who could skirt by on their brains far more than I could. Even for them at some point they have to work hard to reach their potential. This competition was good for me and it drove me to actually work harder. There were people there who performed at a high level and I could see that.

How am I going to approximate this at home? Is it even necessary? I read somewhere recently about a homeschooled boy who started studying special relativity at the age of 13. Stanford took him in a heartbeat because he had demonstrated a drive to tackle hard subject matter on his own. Did he need the competition or did the love of learning drive him to excellence? If he had the competition, where did he get it? I don't know. I might be looking at the competition aspect all wrong. Maybe athletics is a better place to drive home that point rather than in academia. Then again, I know with bowling, competition is ultimately with yourself, however, you are not going to get really good at that without help (actual or competitive) from people who are better than you are.

If any of you homeschoolers are reading this I would like your input. The more the merrier.

this is a work in progress ... I will likely update it in the next few days

This question is raised by every well meaning person who finds out that we are planning on homeschooling.

The idea that there is something wrong with the socialization aspect of homeschooling typically presumes a few things:
1. That socialization of children in age-homogenous classrooms is necessary for normal social development
2. That homeschooled children avoid contact with their peers
3. That adults who were homeschooled are generally unable to function in society

MYTH: Socialization of children in age-homogenous classrooms is required for normal social development

Historically speaking, age-homogenous classrooms are a novelty. Plenty of the most brilliant minds, not to mention socially relevant and historical persons, of the past were privately tutored, raised in one room school houses with children of diverse ages or educated themselves. In fact there is even some criticism from within the school environment related to age-homogenous classrooms. -- See multi-age classrooms -- For this to be a valid criticism of homeschooling, it would require showing that there is something inherently wrong with raising children primarily in a family environment with REGULAR social interaction with other children who happen to be located OUTSIDE of a classroom environment. What is so necessary about a classroom that makes it more suitable for proper social development than social environments outside of the classroom? In fact, it would be easy to argue that students should NOT be socializing in class in the first place. After all, they are there to learn. I spent my entire education in public schools and I can assure you that I did not have a significant amount of time to get to know my fellow students at school. Recess and lunch were the exceptions but that time was still limited. My best friendships, even with those I met at school, were developed OUTSIDE of school time.

MYTH: Homeschooled children avoid contact with their peers

Lets start with some study statistics: "The typical homeschooler takes part in at least five social activities outside the home every week" (Source) "Another study points out that 98% of homeschool students are involved in more than one activity outside the home." (Source)

Part of the seed of this myth stems from the idea that homeschool parents WANT to isolate their children. Let us consider this in light of the most common reasons cited for homeschooling.

The following three reasons are cited as the most common reasons that parents homeschool (Source).

31.2% Concern about environment of other schools
29.8% To provide religious or moral instruction
16.5% Dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools

Initially "concern about environment of other schools" may seem like a bunch of parents hauling their kids into a cave to avoid all contact with the human species. This, however, is not typically the case. The summary of this report (Source) noted that "safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure" were the most often cited within the subset of this concern about the schooling environment. The idea is to isolate your children from negative influences more than from children as a whole. It is a logical fallacy to think that parents would not want their children in contact with other children just because they don't want their kids in contact with bad influences. Bad influences are not "normal society" however they are part of normal society. Not only that, bad influences are unavoidable. Homeschool parents with any sense realize that socialization of their children is necessary. Mine beg for it and it is this oft cited criticism that has resulted in homeschool parents making contact with other children a priority in their lives.

MYTH: Adults who were homeschooled are generally unable to function in society

A study was done by the National Home Education Research Institute specifically to counter this claim. The results of the survey are as follows:

Homeschool adults:

Attend religious services at a higher rate than typical US adults (93% to 41%)
Are more involved in the political process. They

- Contribute money to political parties / candidates at a higher rate
- Work for political causes at a higher rate
- Attend public meetings at a higher rate
- Write editorials / sign petitions at a higher rate
- Participate in protests and boycotts at a higher rate
- VOTE at a SIGNIFICANTLY higher rate (nearly DOUBLE in age ranges surveyed)

Volunteer for service organizations at a significantly higher rate than typical US adults (71% to 37%)

They are also generally more satisfied with life, with their careers and with their financial situations than the average US adult in their age range. (Source)