Tuesday, November 28, 2006

More on Homeschooling

In which Troutsky asks some questions and I attempt to answer.

About homeschooling, which i missed earlier,what sorts of checks and balances do you propose so that these kids aren't used by private Hitlers and lennins?

In a word, none. The threat to turn children into dicators is always present, but I think it very unlikely. The more probable failing of homeschooling is that it could, under certain circumstances, create, not well-rounded adults, but androids, slaves to whatever idealogy with which their heads have been filled.

While this threat is real--see Jesus Camp; the movie made me rethink, but not change, my position on homeschooling--there is nothing that can be done about it for two reasons. First, the State is just as likely to create mindless cretins, and already does so at an alarming rate. I am often embarrassed about my lack of knowledge concerning certain topics, but ignorance, even that which far surpasses my own, is the rule, not the exception. Remember, the goal of "education" is proper socialization. Fools make solid citizens in a consumerist culture.

Second, the reason homeschooling is to be preferred is not because it provides a better education, though there are some exceptions; though this is certainly true. Simply put, children belong to their family, not the State, and it is the duty of the former and not the perogative of the latter to raise and educate them. Mandating that children spend seven hours a day, five days a week, for nine months a year, away from their parents is tryannical. That parents may do an insufficient job in eduating their children is irrelevant; the responsibility still lies with them and not with the State.

What kind of accountability substitutes for school boards, community, state (we the People) or parent oversight?

Barring incidents of abuse, in which case the government would be compelled to step in, there can be no legal oversight, morally speaking. Of course, homeschoolers may wish to allow some governmental oversight so as to establish the proper paperwork--for diplomas and the like--but one must remember that over-zealous oversight may have been the impetus for homeschooling to begin with.

How do our universities remain so filled with public school kids?

Numerical superiority mainly. As an attendee of the university, I don't particularily find them to be that valuable. There are exceptions of course--most degrees in the hard sciences and engineering are rigorous; whether or not they are economically advantageous is another matter--but many people who go to college are not receiving anything akin to a good education; nor do they mind. At times they do not know how badly they are being cheated; other times they do not care.

Also, many homeschoolers come from conservative homes and environments. Rather than spend a boatload of money on a mediocre education via the Ivy Leagues, wherein they will be made excrutiatingly uncomfortable for holding many of their more traditional viewpoints, they often enroll in smaller, sometimes private, colleges. This places them off the radar, but most homeschooled children are far more adequately prepared to enroll in college--and to succeed therein.

How will racial, ethnic equality remain if white(and educated,wealthy) folk pull out of public system?

It won't. But I think most, if not all, people should homeschool. I think the chrisitan churches could and should take up slack to help out people who come from homes wherein homeschooling is not a practical option. No one has a duty to remain in a failing school--pardon the redundancy. If racial and ethnic equality--which doesn't exist anyway--is exacerbated by the homeschooling movement, perhaps the politicians will do something about the schools.

I'd recommend burning them to the ground.

As always, thanks for the questions. I need to do some more research on this topic. Look for more posts to follow.

3 comments:

Spunky said...

Good thoughts, thanks for getting the larger point of homeschooling. A point many others fail to see no matter how hard they try.

Spunky
(A homeschool mom of 6)

troutsky said...

Good defense.I am no great advocate of public schools as they currently exist, (you know my politics) but when I think of needed reforms I generally think of more democratic, collective,reforms, not less.Of course I want to reform the social sphere in such a way that the "home" is radically changed, so in that sense i might be a supporter of "home" schooling.

If I accept that I "own" my children (Im thinking of other stuff I own and see LARGE distinctions)I still do not mind lending them to the state to help out in the process called democracy building. Again ,it needs reform,but the concept is valid.I knowI can walk into any class at any time and check their progress, I can complain, debate, or talk to my children about any aspect of curriculum with which i have a problem,I can even work to change it. Not a perfect system, but one that attempts to be guided by democratic values.

your contention "That parents may do an insufficient job is irrelevent" brings up the question of where insufficient leaves off and where horrible or even damaging, takes up. This requires arbitration ,I presume.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Spunky,

I wish you well. It gives me hope to talk to a homeschooler, and of six! (I come from a family of 8, but my dad is not yet sold on homeschooling).

God Bless.


Troutsky,

Of course I want to reform the social sphere in such a way that the "home" is radically changed, so in that sense i might be a supporter of "home" schooling.

I think anyone who ignores the role of parents in any sort of revolution is a fool. The home, unless it is to be destroyed, must be an integral part of massive societal change.

If I accept that I "own" my children (Im thinking of other stuff I own and see LARGE distinctions)I still do not mind lending them to the state to help out in the process called democracy building.

I wouldn't say that anyone owns children, but as they are insufficient to care for themselves, someone must take up this responsibility. If you accept the help of the state, it should be done willingly.

your contention "That parents may do an insufficient job is irrelevent" brings up the question of where insufficient leaves off and where horrible or even damaging, takes up. This requires arbitration ,I presume.

Physical abuse will necessitate governmental involvement. Insufficiently teaching a kid about, say, the Big Bang Theory, is not desirous, but neither should it constitute a need for governmental involvement.