Friday, March 03, 2006
"The whole system is anti-child."
The link in the headline leads to an article on CNN.com entitled " Homeschooling grows quickly in United States." I felt the tone of the article was mostly favorable to homeschooling. The children and homeschooled parents quoted would leave anyone, I think, with the idea that homeschooling is a viable alternative to institutional schools.
Then, of course, there was the obligatory University Professor--an Education Department Professor out to justify the existence of an Education Department--who seemed to be calling for national oversight of homeschoolers so that we would have "reliable data" on how well homeschoolers are doing. Professor Welner, I value your self-serving opinion on the matter as much as I would value my cat's opinion on the matter. When I was in college, the WORST group of professors I had were in the education department. So what if you can spout numbers about this or that--you don't KNOW about teaching.
I was in one large Ed. class one time, with a professor who spent most of the class time each day simply reading to us from his thesis, but who did occasionally elicit some discussion. I made the comment that I thought we in this country don't really care about children. He was evidently outraged, shouted indignantly, "Yes we do!" and hurriedly went back to his reading. I was flabbergasted.
Isabel Lyman, author of "The Homeschooling Revolution, is quoted in this article. She says of institutional schools that, "It's a factory approach -- one size fits all." And that, "The whole system is anti-child." Her comments made me think of that experience in that Ed. class. At that time, I was getting my teacher's certification. I believed in the value of institutional schools. My comment was not meant as a criticism of institutional schools. I was thinking along the lines of things like criminals serving longer sentences for petty theivery than perverts were for repeated, provable sexual abuse of minors. I was so idealistic back then--I thought of school as a haven for these poor unfortunates, a place of safety for children who suffered. I was going to be their angel, lifting them up out of their various problems through the education, encouragement, and motivation I was going to give them.
And then I started teaching.
I found one student who was so dyslexic that reading was very difficult for him. If called upon to read aloud in class, he would start a dust-up so he could be kicked out, rather than suffer the humiliation of stumbling along like a beginning reader. The school district refused to enroll him in the dyslexia program.
I was at a school where a non-student came on campus and beat a student with a pipe so badly that he was permanently brain-damaged.
I had one student--the sweetest girl, an honors student--come to school drunk because of upset over her parent's divorce. She was sent to the alternative school for a semester.
School was not a haven for these high school students. School was not a safe place for these kids. School was not a place where these kids' individual needs were being met. Who knows what potential the first student had denied to him because he lacked access to dyslexia treatments? Who knows what potential the second student had denied to him because he lacked a secure school campus? Who knows what potential was lost to the third student, who came back from the alternative school with a whole new set of "friends"?
There is no way for a school to meet the needs of every individual child enrolled therein. The best a school can hope for is to meet the needs of many of the students, to come close for many others, and to totally fail with as few as possible. There is no way for a teacher to meet the needs of every individual child in her class, all day, every day, throughout the year. The best she can hope for is to meet their needs every once in awhile. How can that be good enough?
Read or Post a Comment
Here here. Man, if you could only visit our gradeschools here in Richmond, CA. We're not home schooling because it's a wonderful thing. We're home schooling because there is no alternative.
Does the obligatory university professor know that, at least in CA, the home schoolers have to pass a standardized state test every year?
How are we doing? Remarkedly better than his counterparts at Clinton School. Actually a lot better.
Biggles
Hey, Dr. Biggles! Thanks for coming 'round! Your comment reminds me I need to link to you--I'll do that after I finish my comment.
First, the reason I said I thought the professor was espousing national oversight was because he was bemoaning the fact that, for instance, while CA requires tests, Texas does not.
Second, I want to really commend you on homeschooling your boys, especially when you imply it wouldn't necessarily have been your first choice. You made the tough choice anyway and that really says a lot about how much value you place on your kids.
It has always riled me to hear other moms say that they can't stay home with Baby, or can't stay home to homeschool because they HAVE to work. It seems to me that if you are working so you can drive new cars, watch big screen tvs, and live in a McMansion, then you are valuing those things over your children.
I proudly drive my 20 year old car around my working class neighborhood. Why would I choose a new car over a hug from my child anytime I want one?
Hmmm, yeah I've heard the same from parents. It's sad because they shouldn't have had children.
I've met quite a few people wanting to adopt a child, more for an "accessorie" rather than being in a parent/child relationship. While I used to keep my mouth shut when I was younger, they get an earful from me now. Mostly because I'm a card carrying parent who took the path less travelled. One has to be fierce and pull no punches.
Texas needs to have some kind of standardized test. Gotta validate all your hard work, that's how that works.
And speaking of parents and children, I have to leave and go clean my mother's appartment. The network she used to find people to clean has disapeared!
Xo Xo
Well, Biggles, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on the testing bit. I blogged about standardized testing here, but basically I just don't have faith in the ability of a standardized test to tell you much more than whether you are a good test-taker.
For instance, I'm a good test-taker. I've faked my way through many a test in my time. On the other hand, my husband has test anxiety. He can know something forward, backward and inside out, but you wouldn't know it looking at his test results. In neither case would the test result be a reliable indicator of what the test taker knows.
Oh, sure, standardized tests may have their place in the parenting/teaching repertoire, but they should have very little importance. I certainly do not want mandated tests. (shudder)
Just a quick correction -- private schools (including home schools) are not required to do standardized testing in CA. If you're hs'ing through a public charter or ISP, then your student is considered a public school student and will have to be tested.
Man - those education bureaucrats are getting nervous aren't they? Not only have home educators completely blowing them away academically but the 'socialization' issue has been shown to be a bunch of crap too.
I'll have to look around to find the link - it's a study that shows that homeschoolers are more than fine no matter the amount of regulation that they are forced to deal with.
PA (where I live) is a very high regulation state. I think it sucks. What blows my mind is that 'the state' seems to be concerned about the wrong set of people here. The public schools are tanking but who are they regulating? The homeschoolers - who happen to be doing a fantastic job. The politicians cry all the time about how they're 'concerned' about 'the children'. I don't think they give one piece of crap about the children. The teachers unions (very powerful we all know) are worried about the $$$$.
Brenda, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I appreciate your clarification. I know Biggles' kids are in a charter school situation, so I guess that's where the "requirement" remarks came in.
Monica
You said a mouthful! Of course the reason why they are so scared and cracking down so hard on the homeschoolers is because homeschoolers are showing up the public schoolers!
They are winning national contests, scoring at the top of the SAT, getting into universities, etc. Which SHOULD cause people to ask why aren't the public school students right up their with the homeschoolers? Instead, though, people are asking what kind of unfair advantages are these homeschoolers taking? That's what's causing the increased regulation.
"When I was in college, the WORST group of professors I had were in the education department."
Isn't that the truth! I couldn't believe how awful our ed teachers were!
Combine the fact that I have heard that refrain from teachers out of many, many different colleges with the too-short student teaching time, and it's a wonder first year teachers are able to finish the year!
It's really sad, actually.
By the way, Robert, thanks for stopping by!
I am a supporter of home schooling for those who want to home school. I am glad that you find it so fulfilling. But, as a parent who does not home school for what I think are very good reasons, and who is very satisfied with the standard "institutional" setup, it does bother me a bit that the tone this post projects about non-home schoolers is so condemnatory and judgmental. It's as if, somehow, non-home schooling parents either selfish or self-delusional, and regardless are failing their kids. For instance, let's take the title of this posting to its logical conclusion by way of a question: if I send my children to school via the "system," does that make me "anti-child," too? If you want, you can come to my home and tell my seemingly well-adjusted and happy children how much their parents, who love them, are really cheating them and subjecting them to a system that works against their interests. And please feel free to bring whatever home schooling curriculum unit with you that teaches you how to convey this family-subverting message with a wink and a smile.
Jimmy,
Thank you for stopping by and for commenting. I have several comments to make in return.
First, thank you for being a supporter of homeschooling.
Second, you and I have made different decisions regarding our children's educations and will naturally feel that we each have made the best decision. We might even feel defensive and/or superior for making that decision. That's normal.
Third, I think it's wonderful that you are sending your kids to a great school and that you are an involved and concerned parent. However, the vasy majority of parents think they have sent their kids to a great school. That's not possible. By definition, the vast majority of parents have sent their kids to average schools. I taught high school in 5 different schools, towns and socio-economic situations. Only one was an excellent school. In that school, the parents were everywhere, involved in everything, even the prom. In the other schools, the parents were nowhere to be found. They had no idea of the things that went on in school and if you tried to tell them, it was always, "Oh, no, not MY precious, innocent child!"
There are good schools and good teachers, good parents and good students. But there are also bad schools, bad teachers, bad parents and bad students. And in even the best schools, you, the parent, can not protect your child from the bad teachers or the bad students that I guarantee exist even in the best schools. And THAT is why I homeschool.
Karen - I don't feel either defensive or superior; I simply feel that I made the right decision for my children. I think parents should get the benefit of believing this without hearing from others that such a decision is, essentially, "anti-child." All evidence to date indicates that my decision was the right one for my children; but rest assured that, because I love my children and want the best for them, I would not hesitate to yank them from "the system" if I ever found it to be "anti-child" in the way that you suggest.
I understand why you home school. I respect that and know that it comes out of a deep love and concern for the well being of your children. For that reason, I would never think to insinuate that homeschooling is "anti-child." But, let me tell you a few of the more important reasons why I don't homeschool. From what I have been able to discern from homeschoolers, I find that the decision to home school is made primarily out of 2 main concerns, both of which are admirable: (1) a desire to "protect" children from a hostile and inadequate external environment, and (2) a desire to carefully condition the kind of social experience children have and the kind of social reality children are exposed to. Again, both are admirable goals and have a lot of positives to speak for them; but I personally think that homeschooling might actually make achieving these very goals more difficult. In the first place, I believe that the "overprotectiveness" that I detect in some homeschoolers can serve as a disincentive to children to learn to deal constructively and proactively with the reality of a hostile and inadequate external environment when it intrudes, as it inevitably will, in their lives. Second, I think it is important for children to develop an identity and life that is outside of the watchful eye or the managed plan of concerned, loving parents. Even though homeschoolers have very rich social and recreational activities, it is still very much conditioned, planned, and approved by parents. It is, essentially, the parents' conception of appropriate experience and socialization for their children, not the children's. This is not a bad thing, especially at younger ages, but I think it discourages children of crafting their own experiences and learning how to deal with the moral and ethical dimensions of their world and experiences that are truly and exclusively theirs (and not partially mine as well). In other words, I think it is important for children to come into their own, to struggle with issues that mommy and daddy are somewhat removed from, and to have to face their consciences over doing right or wrong especially when they know that mommy and daddy will likely never know how they chose. I'm sure you're aware of these arguments, but they were very important considerations, among many others, in our decision to place our children in "the system," which has much in the way of positives to offer our children (i.e. pro-child).
Jimmy,
Regarding being defensive or superior--I said "we" and was including myself. ;)
Regarding the "anti-child" comments--I think we are using that phrase in different ways. You seem to think I mean that institutional schools are anti-EVERY-child. I thought I was making it plain that I did not mean that when I referenced good schools, etc. There are a lot of kids that schools absolutely do right by. There are a lot more kids that schools at least don't harm.
What the "anti-child" phrase means to me is all the ways that schools restrict choices. (I could expound on that for page after page, but I hope you see what I am getting at.) From when it is allowable to go to the bathroom to what curriculum can be used, schools have to treat all students the same. But "same" is not equal to "fair."
Regarding your discussion of the two concerns about homeschooling--these concerns are probably the most-often repeated, although I must admit, you broached them in the most positive way I have seen! I would answer both concerns in the same way: children do not have the discernment to make wise choices. Today's world is far too dangerous and exposing your child to that "hostile environment" is not merely a matter of learning how to deal with teasing, for instance. In today's world, exposing your child to the "hostile environment" can mean life-altering or life-ending consequences (drug use, rape, pregnancy, gang activity, depression, etc.). I believe I do a far greater service to my child to let him grow up innocent of these hostilities, WHILE equipping him with the knowledge and judgement he will need when he is an adult than I would by throwing him to the wolves, so to speak, and hoping he makes it through to adulthood.
Children need protection versus children need exposure. Everyone believes one or the other and they are so fundamental to one's make-up that I don't believe one can argue another around to their side. I think you and I will probably have to agree to disagree on this aspect.
I also think that you are one of the good parents--you must be to care this much! So, yeah for you and for your kids, whom you love, and for whom you have made the right choice!
Karen - Thanks for a very nice reply to my previous posting.
I agree that children need protection. After all, they are still very vulnerable little people. But I don't see how sending children to a public school is necessarily an absolution of the responsibility of parents to protect their children. It's not an all or nothing proposition. If I ever thought my children were really threatened, I would most certainly intervene to protect them. And my wife and I certainly are involved in the life of the school as much as our time permits, so we do know what's generally going on there. I'm not talking about throwing my children to the wolves, just letting them have a little bit of their own lives decided by them and, at times, kept to themselves. And let's not forget that children still spend a good deal of time at home, too. Sending a child to school is not an abdication of parental responsibility, it is part of it.
I often find that the very admirable parental tendency to want to protect their children (and I have this tendency in abundance) can easily slip into a rather unhealthy overprotectiveness that can infringe upon a child's unique sense of independent identity. Even at young ages, our children are not helpless mini-me's; they are their own persons, completely independent of us, and I think it is important to let them find space to stake out their independent identities truly separate from us. For instance, let me lay out a common scene that takes place at the dinner table of my home, and I think of probably every non-homeschooling family, but which I can't really imagine being possible at the dinner table of a homeschooling family. I ask my daughter how was her day at school. Sometimes I get the full story, told with enthusiasm and joy at being able to surprise me with details about which I'm in the dark. She's, in effect, the agent in revealing her life to me, as a surprise gift, and not the other way around. How do homeschooled children get the pleasure and self-satisfaction to boast to their parents about having won the spelling bee that day, and then get to tell the story to a curious parent of how she worked out spelling the winning word? Or, how she tried to comfort the friend who scraped her knee at recess? Sometimes, however, I get a shoulder shrug and the one-word reply "good" that will have to suffice. I can't say that I particularly like the latter response, but I don't think it's because my daughter's keeping dangerous secrets from me. I think it's either that she's just not interested in talking about it, or, at an unconscious level, she wants to keep her day special to herself. I think that's healthy up to a point.
Also, when you write that "children do not have the discernment to make wise choices," I would take issue with you on a number of levels. First, I think it is a bit presumptuous to sell short children's ability to discern wisely. Sure, they may not possess a completely formed sense of ethics and responsibility, nor an awareness about things that help shape informed decision-making, but children are most definitely discerning creatures and I think we need to trust them at times, even with some sticky issues, to try. To convey to our children that they are somehow incapable of making wise discernments (and, conversely, that parents always are capable of doing so) can lead to a dangerous rebelliousness as well as a lack of an appreciation of our own frailties as parents that become manifest when we ourselves do not "wisely discern" things.
Finally, there is no guarantee that homeschooling keeps the reality of the world we live in at bay - or, as you say, keeping our children "innocent of these hostilities" until adulthood. Personally, I think that's a very nice, ideal, but unrealistic way to think of life. And I'd rather that my children learn to live in the world, as it is, with both its warts and its glories, and not in the idyllic (and impossible, I believe) dreamworld of innocence.
But in the end, I know that loving parents who live out what they feel is best for their children is ultimately all that matters. And in that respect, I know that homeschooled children as well as "institutional system" schooled children who have the benefit of such parents in their lives won't go wrong. So, cheers! And may you and yours have a long and happy life.
Jimmy,
There are so many things in your last reply that I disagree with. I have been ejoying our "discussion" but I feel we are at the point where the discussion can't really move any further. I certainly appreciate your tone, though!
Let me just state the obvious: I am writing from a belief system developed because of my own personal experiences with the public school sysytem, with which I am more familiar than the average parent. I taught high school for 9 years and so I see things from the teacher's point of view. But I also saw my oldest graduate about a year and a half ago and so I see those same things from the parent's view, now.
I get the feeling from your comments that your daughters are fairly young. When my daughter was in elementary school, there were a few things here and there that I was dissatisfied with, but overall I didn't have a problem with her education until she hit middle school.
In any case, I wanted you to know that I was writing from actual experience as opposed to vague fears of "what might happen."
I will certainly agree with your last paragraph! Loving parents who are active in whatever educational setting they choose for their child make all the difference!
I know some really great kids - and SMART! - who have emerged from the public school system. Every one of them had parents who were right in there slugging away at the system and VERY involved with what was happening with their kids.
I have seen every one of my sisters fight for their kids. I would prefer not to deal with any of that crap. We don't have to - we have choices. I know parents who tried in vain to get their kids the help that they needed only to be turned away. Patted on the head as it were - and told to go home and let the 'experts' handle it. That was to the detriment of the kids, but the parents trusted them and believed that the 'experts' really WOULD handle it.
One thing I have noticed with many of the parents of my kids' friends - they almost seem to be on the defensive - as if me making the choice that I have made it is somehow a judgement of them and the choice that they have made to send their kids to public school. I am never sure how to deal with this.
Also - It has not been my experience (with my own kids OR with other home educated kids) that the homeschooled kids are suffering from a 'rather unhealthy overprotectiveness that can infringe upon a child's unique sense of independent identity.' LOL! I'm sorry - didn't mean to laugh. Loads of studies have shown that homeschooled kids have no negative social characteristics - in fact homeschooled kids are more mature and relate well to kids of all ages and to adults as well.
The purpose of homeschooling is not to keep that nasty world out there a secret from them. Our kids live life, experience the world, deal with people of all kinds. We don't live in a bubble and we are not isolated. That's silly to even think that.
Monica,
You make some excellent points. I think parent involvement is KEY, whether in the public schools or out.
I also have seen how willing parents are to "let the experts handle it" and how the schools themselves often perpetuate that, even WHILE complaining that the parents won't get active.
As for Jimmy's remark that you quoted, I did not read that as the old socialization canard, instead I thought Jimmy was getting at something a bit different. He seems to me to think that children need lots of time away from their parents in order to grow up as separate individuals. This is one of the things that I completely disagree with him on. From the moment a baby is born he begins the process of separating from his parents. Children are not clones of their parents--there is no way to recreate them in your own image! Even when a parent and child participate in the same activity they come away with different experiences of it. Ask your child if they saw X, Y, or Z at the activity and they may have totally missed it. Ask them what they thought was the most interesting and they may come up with something you totally missed.
In any case, because I have been the public school route with my oldest I have seen, first, teachers and then, peers, replace me as my own child's most important influence. I reject the Liberal attitudes of the education establishment and despise the acquisitive and overly-sexed attitudes of popular culture (which most teens have absorbed). Why would I send my child to be indoctrinated in belief systems as damaging to him and to our relationship as these?
Ohhhh. Okay - thanks for the explanation.
Just so's I understand it - kids need to be physically separated from their parents. What's the going age now - 5?!