by Jonathan Isaac Taylor, 2005
INTRODUCTION
In our great country, children of all ages are extended the opportunity and privilege of an education. Young generations are growing up accustomed to the repetition and social framework provided by public and private schools alike. Besides providing early cultural experience, the public education system supplies a child with opportunities for a structured lifestyle and a reasonably safe atmosphere for learning; moreover, it’s the sort of communal experience desired by many parents for their kids. I think we would all agree that first-hand experience is, more often than not, the best way to get a feel for life situations; yet it may also appear that social understanding is dominated by the whims of our culture, such as the tolerance of violence, drugs and sex, etc. Though it may not be the subject matter discussed in the classroom that leads parents to question the safety of the system, children are nevertheless taking less and less time to lose their innocence.
It is not my intent to condemn the public school system, or to promote the idea that children should be sheltered completely from public education. Nonetheless, it is my desire to caution parents of young children against premature exposure. Kids are being thrown far too soon into the system in my opinion. They’re being well-educated, true… but some lessons learned are not being taught by teachers. From fellow students, juveniles are not only learning about drugs, alcohol, and other extremely mature practices; they’re being put into positions where they can perform them if they choose. And our society is shocked by elevated levels of crime? Something tells me we’re not just giving children good experience here—we’re handing them a guidebook for life that outlines the fastest road to felony. It is my opinion that this “experience”, though unquestionably beneficial to cultural progression, is premature in our culture. I do not suggest that children should be hidden from the world, only that parents should be more careful of the revelations they receive at tender ages.
Barry Brooks, in his article entitled One Parent’s Experience With Home Schooling, outlined his vision of the danger in public schools. “Some are concerned about the breakdown of discipline, declining academic standards, rising illiteracy rates, escalating violence, increasing teen pregnancy, and the teaching of values antithetical to traditional ones” (1995). Perhaps in this parent’s voice we hear an overly impetuous slant against the public school system. But that doesn’t change the fact that other parents are beginning to share his opinion.
In every form of education established in our culture, there are good and bad influences; it so happens that there is no perfect system. But each fraction of the learning process, especially when applied to younger children still forming their worldview and goals, will affect the rest of the life being influenced. And this is why some parents would rather educate their own children at home. Despite the great commitment with which such a task must be undertaken, some parents would rather not be forced to rely on the quality of worldly scruples or the civic environment in which their children are being taught. They’d rather bear the burden themselves. Needless to say, it’s been proven over the years that such distress is not unfounded. It’s true that the public school system may be fighting to teach kids for the betterment of society, but resulting facts simply don’t support the promised successes. Statistics have constantly disproved the effectiveness and quality guaranteed by the public education system. In addition to failing levels of proficiency, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) attests to the fact that kids are falling deeper and sooner into the pits of low life existence.
CONFIRMATION
The public school system has become extraordinarily prominent in our culture, both in the lives of children and in the realm of economics. As shown by the NCES, the total estimated federal support for education reached 171,033.6 million dollars in 2003. These figures indicate that sending our kids to school isn’t free at all. In fact, American taxpayers end up paying a great deal to support public schools. As opposed to the public school system, home education is proving to be good for the economy. The National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) indicates that the average sum spent on home education per child throughout his education is $450. In addition, families involved in home education are not dependent on public, tax-funded resources. Research has shown that home schoolers save over 10 billion tax dollars per year (NHERI).
According to the NCES, 96.6 % of those between the ages of 5 and 17 were enrolled in school in 2002. Over the years, the majority seems to have spoken, revealing the most popular form of education. It so happens that people favor public schools. Perhaps it’s because they can go to work during the day and forget about their kids, assured that their children are safe in school. Yet statistics have shown that most schools are falling short academically. Students are simply not reaching acceptable levels of proficiency (Bracey, 2003). Among other things, such as bad study skills or lack of interest in learning, perhaps this may well be the result of unqualified teachers. In his article, The Condition of Public Education , Gerald Bracey indicates that ” New York … announced in June that it had hired 3000 underqualified teachers” (2003). What is the fairness in such a fumble? If we value education so highly, should we not be repulsed by such inadequacies? In my opinion, to allow unqualified teachers the right to influence children is a grave mistake.
Gregg Harris insists in his book entitled The Christian Home School that, “It’s not that the educational system in the United States has completely failed. It has, in fact, enjoyed some limited success…but these “successes” make for a stark contrast with the successes educators have continually promised us since the inception of the public schools” (1988). It would seem that American children are becoming the offspring of an indispensable, yet non-patriotic educational system, rather than a God-fearing nation with high standards of morality. So we ask ourselves, what can parents do to ensure their children an education safe from unguided exposure in schools? At early stages, perhaps there is no altogether “safe” place. And perhaps it would not be right, even if there were such a place, to keep a child completely “safe.”
The answer for many parents is found in traditional home schooling. To keep their kids within boundaries of their choosing, parents are electing to educate their kids where they can profit not only from the guidance and wisdom of the teacher, but also from older siblings. A rising minority, home schooling is “enjoying a surge in popularity and success” (Ray, 2003). As shown by the NHERI, home-based education statistics grew from 4000 to 20,000 high school students between 1987 and 1997. At current escalation rates, the estimated number of students home-schooled in the US will exceed 3,000,000 by the year 2010 (Ray, 2003).
However, home-based education doesn’t just offer parents the chance to avoid early exposure of their kids in school; it builds a whole new sort of framework in a kid’s life. Home schooling promotes parental influences that plainly wouldn’t be there, were the child sent to school for 6-9 hours every day. This is definitely a positive detail for parents who want the best for their children; so many parents are forced to deal with rebellion in teenage kids because they failed to establish a proper code with their child at a young age. In simple terms, today’s home instruction is a reformation to a more traditional form of education, which allowed a closer-knit relationship to exist between parents and children, hence promoting the family as a unit rather than as a group of scattered, conflicting relatives. For the last century, we have begun to witness the slow disappearance of this family function from American thought and culture. Considering the high standards of unity endorsed by our country, this is indeed a regrettable thing.
Anyone who has ever been schooled at home has heard the question, “What about socialization?” It may be true that home schooling doesn’t afford a child the same kind of social support that a public school does. When it comes to societal experience, a child is certain to gain more familiarity when placed in a civic arena. In theory, this civic experience may be all a child needs to be successful in life and to deprive him/her of that ability is an unfair cost to bargain in the process of upbringing. Such questions are not unfounded, but rational and good for the development of the system.
Nevertheless, it all depends on how one defines successful socialization—so many people question the outcome, and rightfully so. However, I think the findings of John Wesley Taylor (1987) answer questions about socialization with finality. Using the most reliable self-concept scales available, Taylor randomly sampled 45,000 home-schooled children and found that half of them scored at or above the 91st percentile—47% higher than the average, conventionally schooled child. “Since self concept is considered to be a basic dynamic of positive sociability,” Taylor concludes, “this answers the often heard skepticism suggesting that home schoolers are inferior in socialization.”
Lee Stough, in his book entitled Social and Emotional Status of Home Schooled Children and Conventionally Schooled Children in West Virginia, also maintains that, “Insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children” (1992). Furthermore, the NHERI states that students educated at home have achieved higher than their public/private school counterparts both academically and socially in recent years.
SUMMATION
Based on my own personal experience as a home schooled student, the outcome of a home-based education is not usually an ignorance of social norms; it’s training against them. It’s true that home schooled kids are less likely to relate to the drug culture or violent peers, be fluent with profanity, understand why adultery among national leaders is okay, get married more than once, or ever know the intimacy of gang involvement. If socialization is no more than becoming comfortable with such cultural ailments, we have a socialization problem. But it’s not found at home.
Although I am aware that public school students have the same potential to resist negative influence as home-schooled counterparts, it is common knowledge that rates of crime are higher where crime holds sway. And be assured, rates of crime are increasing steadily in public schools (NCES). While teachers may be devoted to promoting the learning environment for students, they are also willing to promote the public school atmosphere as a safe place, where parents can send their children without fear. This, in my opinion, is a contradiction of reality. Like every other public arena under the sun, public schools can definitely be unsafe for children. And the situation isn’t improving. The truth is that many parents assume that their children are going to learn of the world’s evils anyway, sooner or later. They are, in fact, opting for what they believe is the lesser of two evils. I advise another route.
Why not promote the clear advantages of home education, and in so doing, contain the innocence of our children during their years of naïveté? As stated by Harris, “Home schooling is simply a return to the educational system that made this nation great” (1988). If Americans truly value the freedom of education, why shouldn’t they retain a full measure of the greatness it provides?
In short, it is my opinion that the dangers of sending young children to public school outweigh the benefits. I believe that it would profit our culture to address the issue of juveniles being exposed to R-rated issues while still in grade school.
Works Cited
The National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved February 12, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/98030/3.asp
National Home Education Research Institute. Retrieved February 12, 2005, from http://homeschoolinformation.com/homeschooling/homeschool_statistics1.htm
Ray, B. (2003). Worldwide Guide to Homeschooling: Facts and Stats on the Benefits of HomeSchool. Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Moore, Raymond & Dorothy. (1982). Home-Spun Schools. Texas: Word Books Publisher
Bracey, G. (2003) The 13th Bracey Report on The Condition Of Public Education , Phi Delta Kappan, 0031-7217, October 1, 2003, Vol. 85, Issue 2
Harris, G. (1988). The ChristianHomeSchool. Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt
Stough, Lee (1992). Social and Emotional Status of Home Schooled Children and Conventionally Schooled Children in West Virginia. M.S. Thesis, University of West Virginia [ED 353 079]
Taylor, John Wesley (1987). Self-Concept in Home Schooling Children (Doctoral Dissertation, Andrews University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2809A.
Brooks, B. (1995). ONE PARENT’S EXPERIENCE WITH HOME SCHOOLING, National Minority Politics, 10571655, June 1995, Vol. 7, Issue 6
Comments are closed.