Homeschooling what-if...

[Vort]

Our societal norm today is that children attend public schools. This is true not only in the US, but across the "Western" world; for example, in Germany, it is literally illegal to homeschool your child. You are required by law to enroll your child in a government-run or approved private school, under threat of jail time and having your children taken away.

How would our society change if, instead, the standard idea was that parents are responsible for educating their own children? Private and even government-run (public) schools would still exist, but the prevailing ethic would be that education was the parents' duty, and the schools existed only as a resource for helping the parents?

I believe such an attitude would have several direct effects, all of them good:

• The parent, not the school, would be re-established as the responsible party for both teaching and disciplining the child.
• Parents would become (to use the pop psychology term) "empowered" to make educational decisions on behalf of their children.
• Horrible school texts would still exist, but many more children would be spared the evil effects of those texts, because the parents would simply choose another.
• Within a couple of generations, ideas such as Creationism and most forms of "intelligent design" would die out as they were rigorously exposed to the realities of educational Darwinianism in higher education.
• Families would be strengthened as parents reassumed their rightful place as their children's educators. (This reason alone would make the change worthwhile.)
• Right now, thousands (perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands) of children get substandard education, and NO ONE is held personally responsible. It's a "systemic problem", or a result of "not enough educational funding", or other such political crap. Under the idea proposed, we would still have children receiving substandard education, but we could immediately isolate the problem (the parents) and offer them real help, not just meaningless platitudes and NEA nonsense.

Many other results, both good and (perhaps) not so good, would surely come about. The main drawback I see is that ignorant parents would tend to produce ignorant children. But, of course, I am not suggesting that all such education be unregulated. Just as we expect parents to nourish their children's bodies and take action against those who grossly violate this standard, while allowing other parents great latitude in how they approach feeding their kids, so we can take action against those who grossly violate their duty to educate their children while supporting a wide variety of attempts by other parents to do so.

[Guest]

I'm not crazy about the underlying criticism I see toward those of us who have not as yet chosen to homeschool our children. Still, I'll play along.

I can see big co-ops forming so that we can pool our strengths to educate our kids together. I can see this being a ward effort.

[Guest]

I also have to say that it's not a fair assumption that if we send our kids to public school, we are not also educating them at home.

[Vort]

I'm not crazy about the underlying criticism I see toward those of us who have not as yet chosen to homeschool our children.

You see an underlying criticism that does not exist, Eowyn.

Thanks for playing along anyway, despite your hurt feelings. I agree with your thoughts on the matter; doubtless cooperative schooling would become a ubiquitous feature of society.

I also have to say that it's not a fair assumption that if we send our kids to public school, we are not also educating them at home.

There is no such assumption in my OP.

[estradling75]

You would need to understand what caused the shift away from parents being the teacher in the first place? Do those pressures still exist? ( If I were to guess I would say yes but I haven't really looked into it) Those would be your big negatives.

[Jennarator]

If I could raise a family, financially, on one income (my husband's) I would stay home, but the fact that it is nearly impossible for many, many families to have a parent stay home, that would need fixed, first. Also, most people really don't know how to teach.

[Vort]

You would need to understand what caused the shift away from parents being the teacher in the first place? Do those pressures still exist? ( If I were to guess I would say yes but I haven't really looked into it) Those would be your big negatives.

As I understand it, the standard theory is that most parents did not educate their children in certain areas deemed "important". As a result, the children were insufficiently literate, ignorant of history and foreign languages, and so forth. Public education was (by this theory) an attempt to bring the benefits of education to the masses, even to those who could not afford -- and especially those who did not understand -- the great benefits of formal education.

Such things can be regulated without resorting to mandatory government-run education, however. Can you imagine if our children were required to go to government feeding programs to make sure they were properly nourished?

Many parents do a pretty crappy job of feeding their kids. No doubt many parents would do an equally crappy job of educating them. But I'm not sure how much worse off those kids would be compared with many public schooling products. More importantly, after two or three generations, I expect we would see a vastly higher educational standard of attainment across society, as the overt politicization of education was subverted by putting the onus back where it belongs: On the parents.

[Guest]

Our societal norm today is that children attend public schools. This is true not only in the US, but across the "Western" world; for example, in Germany, it is literally illegal to homeschool your child. You are required by law to enroll your child in a government-run or approved private school, under threat of jail time and having your children taken away.

How would our society change if, instead, the standard idea was that parents are responsible for educating their own children? Private and even government-run (public) schools would still exist, but the prevailing ethic would be that education was the parents' duty, and the schools existed only as a resource for helping the parents?

I believe such an attitude would have several direct effects, all of them good:

• The parent, not the school, would be re-established as the responsible party for both teaching and disciplining the child.
• Parents would become (to use the pop psychology term) "empowered" to make educational decisions on behalf of their children.
• Horrible school texts would still exist, but many more children would be spared the evil effects of those texts, because the parents would simply choose another.
• Within a couple of generations, ideas such as Creationism and most forms of "intelligent design" would die out as they were rigorously exposed to the realities of educational Darwinianism in higher education.
• Families would be strengthened as parents reassumed their rightful place as their children's educators. (This reason alone would make the change worthwhile.)
• Right now, thousands (perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands) of children get substandard education, and NO ONE is held personally responsible. It's a "systemic problem", or a result of "not enough educational funding", or other such political crap. Under the idea proposed, we would still have children receiving substandard education, but we could immediately isolate the problem (the parents) and offer them real help, not just meaningless platitudes and NEA nonsense.

Many other results, both good and (perhaps) not so good, would surely come about. The main drawback I see is that ignorant parents would tend to produce ignorant children. But, of course, I am not suggesting that all such education be unregulated. Just as we expect parents to nourish their children's bodies and take action against those who grossly violate this standard, while allowing other parents great latitude in how they approach feeding their kids, so we can take action against those who grossly violate their duty to educate their children while supporting a wide variety of attempts by other parents to do so.

This sounds good but this will not work without a HOLISTIC approach to society's care of children.

The Children's Education is a product of overall Societal Culture. Asian cultures, for example, are not big on home schooling. They are mostly for "sending their children to be taught by those better than they are"... with every hope of the child becoming better than their parents.

Therefore, the problem you presented as the culture shift from parents reneging on their duties as educators and handing it to the government/businesses is not really solved by shifting the society's norm to home schooling. The problem can be addressed holistically by a change in culture to put importance on the welfare of children to be of a higher and paramount objective than the comfort/needs of the parents. To do this, you have to instill a culture of FAMILY.

And that's the reason why I believe that the Family Proclamation issued by the First Presidency should be adhered to by THE WORLD and not just Mormons. Shifting to a culture of Family will help solve education problems.

[Vort]

If I could raise a family, financially, on one income (my husband's) I would stay home, but the fact that it is nearly impossible for many, many families to have a parent stay home, that would need fixed, first. Also, most people really don't know how to teach.

1. People "require" dual incomes because they perceive their "needs" as such. People's actual needs are shelter (both clothing and housing) and food, both of which can in most cases reasonably be supplied by a single income. It might mean you can't live in your suburban McMansion or in the cool neighborhood in town. So be it.

2. People don't really know how to feed or discipline their kids, either. But we don't take their children away from them as a result. We expect them to learn how to do these parenting tasks, providing support where we can. No reason not to do the same with education.

[Jennarator]

1. People "require" dual incomes because they perceive their "needs" as such. People's actual needs are shelter (both clothing and housing) and food, both of which can in most cases reasonably be supplied by a single income. It might mean you can't live in your suburban McMansion or in the cool neighborhood in town. So be it.

2. People don't really know how to feed or discipline their kids, either. But we don't take their children away from them as a result. We expect them to learn how to do these parenting tasks, providing support where we can. No reason not to do the same with education.

My husband and I both work and would literally be on the street if we didn't. I know what actually "needs' are.

[Jennarator]

My husband and I both work and would literally be on the street if we didn't. I know what actually "needs' are.

Oh, and by no means do I have a mcmansion. I by clothes and my kids clothes at a second hand stores. If you think that most people can live on one income, you need to open your eyes.

[Wingnut]

I'm not a homeschooler. Mostly it's because I don't have the tolerance level for 24 hours a day with my kids. I'm a control freak who is short on patience.

However, I like this idea of shifting control and responsibility. I personally might still choose to enroll my children in public (or if I could afford it, private) school. If it were three generations from now when my expectations from birth were different than they currently are, I might choose to homeschool. But I do like the idea, and some of the expected outcomes as Vort has listed them.

[Jennarator]

I need to go off for a moment.

I am really tired of people assuming that every mom can stay home. I am sick of the stereotypes that I am putting "my" needs first because I work. I am sick of being judged by LDS people because I can't stay home. If I recall, Vort, when I was struggling with this, you were one of the people that said I should work, given my circumstances. You said you didn't think that I should be paid for by people donating to fast offerings and that people in such situations that can work should. Well let me tell you. Most people t hat i know that get donations have a mother at home that is perfectly capable of working. A very large number of people. I took your advice, and I continue to work, then you just assume that I have a lifestyle that I could just give up for my kids?!?! I wish!!! It just such hurtful assumptions that I am so sick of. It's been a very rough life. and people that make such assumptions just make a person feel worse.

[Jennarator]

ok...I maybe shouldn't have went off, but it's been a guilt filled mother's day. I just don't fit the stereotype. And now I am being told that it is because I am selfish and can't give up my lifestyle. I am doing my best to keep a roof over our heads.

[Wingnut]

ok...I maybe shouldn't have went off, but it's been a guilt filled mother's day. I just don't fit the stereotype. And now I am being told that it is because I am selfish and can't give up my lifestyle. I am doing my best to keep a roof over our heads.

I didn't really have a very good Mothers Day, either, but for selfish reasons. Sometimes you just need to open a vent, though. Hugs to you, Jennarator!

[Anddenex]

How would our society change if, instead, the standard idea was that parents are responsible for educating their own children? Private and even government-run (public) schools would still exist, but the prevailing ethic would be that education was the parents' duty, and the schools existed only as a resource for helping the parents?

I agree; except with #4, but that shouldn't surprise anyone who has read any discussions of mine with others regarding evolution.

What I see in your post is similarities with the Church. The Church is an institution to help parents raise their children in righteousness; however, having a church doesn't negate the responsibility from parents to teach their children. What is unfortunate, the number of parents who do not teach their children in the home and expect the Church to teach their children.

What I found interesting recently, while reading this talk "The Women’s Movement: Liberation or Deception?", by Elder Monson:

This article then went on to describe much of Friedrich Engles’ philosophy. Engles, you will recall, was a colleague of Karl Marx and spoke out with irony and force against much of family life. He referred to marriage as a dreary mutation of slavery, urged its abolition, and suggested a public responsibility for the upbringing of children.

(Italics and bold added)

This is one of the problems, the shift in focus from parent's responsibility to a "public" responsibility.

[Vort]

I need to go off for a moment.

I am really tired of people assuming that every mom can stay home. I am sick of the stereotypes that I am putting "my" needs first because I work. I am sick of being judged by LDS people because I can't stay home. If I recall, Vort, when I was struggling with this, you were one of the people that said I should work, given my circumstances. You said you didn't think that I should be paid for by people donating to fast offerings and that people in such situations that can work should.

Really? I don't recall that. Perhaps you could provide a link. Not saying I do or do not feel that way; I would have to review the situation. Also not saying that I did or did not write what you claim. But I would be very surprised if I had given specific advice about whether a woman should or should not work outside her home.

I took your advice, and I continue to work, then you just assume that I have a lifestyle that I could just give up for my kids?!?!

Where did I make such an assumption? I suspect you are reading far more into my comments than is actually there.

[Jennarator]

1. People "require" dual incomes because they perceive their "needs" as such. People's actual needs are shelter (both clothing and housing) and food, both of which can in most cases reasonably be supplied by a single income. It might mean you can't live in your suburban McMansion or in the cool neighborhood in town. So be it.

2. People don't really know how to feed or discipline their kids, either. But we don't take their children away from them as a result. We expect them to learn how to do these parenting tasks, providing support where we can. No reason not to do the same with education.

Just right here, you said 1. People "require" dual incomes because they perceive their "needs" as such. People's actual needs are shelter (both clothing and housing) and food, both of which can in most cases reasonably be supplied by a single income. It might mean you can't live in your suburban McMansion or in the cool neighborhood in town. So be it.

You just told me to give up my McMansion....I have a very small house and 5 kids, just for,the record.

[Vort]

Just right here, you said 1. People "require" dual incomes because they perceive their "needs" as such. People's actual needs are shelter (both clothing and housing) and food, both of which can in most cases reasonably be supplied by a single income. It might mean you can't live in your suburban McMansion or in the cool neighborhood in town. So be it.

Correct.

You just told me to give up my McMansion....I have a very small house and 5 kids, just for,the record.

Jenn, you need to exercise your critical reading skills. I did not tell you to give up your McMansion. Seriously, you need to react to what's written rather than to your interpretation of what's written.

[Jennarator]

I disagree. "Most" people cannot live on one income. I apologized for going off.....get over it. I still stick my claim. Home schooling is fine, but most people need both incomes. Unless you want even. Ore people on welfare.

[Jennarator]

Correct.

Jenn, you need to exercise your critical reading skills. I did not tell you to give up your McMansion. Seriously, you need to react to what's written rather than to your interpretation of what's written.

Yes, it's been a rough time for me, yes I went all emotional, but I read it literally. You assumed most people can give up that second income. That is wrong. I know you mention it admin general people can give up the McMansion, but I totally disagree. I think most people don't have it to give up.

[estradling75]

More importantly, after two or three generations, I expect we would see a vastly higher educational standard of attainment across society, as the overt politicization of education was subverted by putting the onus back where it belongs: On the parents.

I think your expectations, hope, or ideal... Is very hard to prove and might just be countered by the historical record.

Public education (as we now have it) is historically speaking a new thing. Before that parents were responsible.. They either did it themselves, paid someone to do it, or banded together in small groups to get it done. If your ideal is true then we would expect that educational standard of attainment were better 100 to 200 years ago, but that is going to be a hard case to prove without some kind of objective standard and measurements

[Vort]

I disagree. "Most" people cannot live on one income.

Do you have any data to back up your assertion?

I apologized for going off.....get over it.

Yes, and we see the sincerity of your apology. What, exactly, is it you think I need to get over?

[Jennarator]

What back up do you have to assume most people that have two incomes can just drop one?

[Vort]

I think your expectations, hope, or ideal... Is very hard to prove and might just be countered by the historical record.

Public education (as we now have it) is historically speaking a new thing. Before that parents were responsible.. They either did it themselves, paid someone to do it, or banded together in small groups to get it done. If your ideal is true then we would expect that educational standard of attainment were better 100 to 200 years ago, but that is going to be a hard case to prove without some kind of objective standard and measurements

A very reasonable observation. You may well be right. But whether my expectation is valid or misguided, I still believe that the onus of education must rest with the parents, not with the state.