Please read our friend's post
here before proceeding. The format for this post is our friend's statements followed by my rebuttals. Make sure you read his post to get everything in context. If I seem abrupt please know that I love Derek very much.
Derek: Homeschooling is very popular among conservative, fundamentalist Christians.
Me: Any other labels you'd like to apply?
Derek: There is a commonly-held view among them that some things taught in public schools (such as evolution and gender identity) are wrong or that the social interactions with other kids at school are too dangerous. In the true spirit of American individualism, the parents choose to withdraw their children from public schools and either teach them themselves or enroll them in a private Christian school. As a Christian who may someday have children, I can easily understand how keeping my child out of a public school would seem beneficial. However, I keep coming back to the conclusion that doing so would be irresponsible to my child and to society.
Me: The reasons you specify do come into consideration for some homeschooling families, but I think you've overlooked some of the most basic ones. Many people believe that parents are generally best suited to educate their own children, especially at younger ages when the parent's knowledge of the educational subjects is not as important as their knowledge of the child. Many also believe that education is best suited to one on one (or at least one on few) interaction between the teacher and the student(s). The reason they are not putting their kids into schools is because they fundamentally disagree with the concept of a typical American primary school.
Derek: Just as it is impractical for one to build their own roads, sewer system, and power plant, it is impractical for one to take on the duty of a child’s teacher in all subjects for every age level. Technology and human collective knowledge have progressed to the point where we must depend on others to help us out. This includes teaching. I can choose not to depend on the city to provide my water, but my quality of life will be significantly lower, if not outright unhealthy. I can choose to try and teach my son Geometry, but in reality, I will fail and end up telling him to read the book. If he doesn’t understand the book, well, he’s just out of luck, unless he’s a genius. Where does this leave the non-genius children who have inadequate teachers? The homeschooler will argue that there are plenty of under-qualified teachers in the public school system. This leads us to my second point.
Me: I agree, mostly. I would certainly not advise that a parent attempt to teach their child a subject they are not competent to teach. If the parents' competence is solid I think you might agree that everything is fine from this aspect. In my own personal experience my mother felt unable to teach me some of the material I was beginning to encounter starting in eighth grade. At that point my parents decided it was time to send me to a private school.
Derek: Parents need to be involved with their child’s education.
Me: Amen, brother. Preach it. This is what homeschooling is all about.
Derek: For too many parents, school is “daycare with benefits.” Not many are willing to take on the responsibility of keeping teachers personally accountable. They’d much rather have congress whip together a No Child Left Behind Act that institutes ineffective standardized testing and sacrifices deep learning experiences for learning what bubbles to fill in on the test.
Me: All too true.
Derek: An ideal school system would involve parental and student feedback that weeds out ineffective teachers and sets policies for what is taught.
Me: As well as a great many other things, but I certainly won't argue with that.
Derek: Furthermore, it is very telling that the students who typically do the worst in school are the ones whose parents are not involved. The problems with the public school system are not going to be solved by acts of congress, just as poverty will never be eliminated through welfare programs. It requires community participation.
Me: I agree. Problems are also caused by parents who are negatively involved, i.e. defending their child's behavior when they should be punishing them.
Derek: While withdrawing from a social institution may seem to provide short-term benefits, the effects are always negative for all parties.
Me: Watch the absolutes there buddy. Sometimes the social institution is fundamentally flawed. Plus, we shouldn't have a blind allegiance to a social institution just because it currently exists.
Derek: The poor always suffer the most as a result. For example, as middle class white people withdrew from urban areas to live in the suburbs, urban neighborhoods and schools severely deteriorated. They’re caught in a downward spiral of needing investment, but lacking the tax income to provide that investment. The only way out is for affluent neighbors to invest. Similarly, if all concerned parents withdraw from public schools, the majority who are left in the public schools will be left to rot in an unchecked system of under-qualified teachers teaching moral ambiguity. Wait, that’s already happening…
Me: Indeed. I'm not accusing you of saying it, but money alone is NOT going to solve this problem. While it may have been better when richer people were around, it was never perfect.
Derek: Sidebar: It was interesting to me, learning about the run-up to the Civil War, to hear what the was reason for pro-Unionists to keep the South from seceding. Their reasoning went as follows: If the losing political minority withdraws from a system of government every time a law is passed against them, the law will have no meaning because all of those who are opposed to a law are essentially choosing not to follow it. If I am pro-murder, I will just secede from the Union and murder will be legal for me. It’s another example of how institutions fail when no one wants to participate.
Me: Are we comparing homeschooling with slavery here? Splitting a nation with choosing to educate our own children?
Derek: Why do we care about society? The typical right-wing Christian mindset says that we are all sinners and that the world is hopelessly lost to corruption, violence, and poverty. Since there is no hope for society, better for me to live in a shack in the woods where I can read my bible and live a Godly life, far away from the influence of the evil world. I used to hold this view myself. However, it is not what Jesus taught.
Me: The cliched labels are getting old. It is sad but true that many think this way. And it is decidedly not what Jesus taught, especially the separatist part.
Derek: Jesus’ first recorded miracle is actually a clue to us as to what His plan is for us:
On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”
“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.”
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.
This story is very rich in symbolism and John gives us some clues. First, the miracle happened “on the third day.” Second, the scene is a wedding. In the Old Testament, marriage was used symbolically to represent Israel’s (the bride) union and close relationship with God (the groom). Third, wine was used by Old Testament prophets to represent peace, fruitful labor, and blessings - heaven on earth. Essentially, this story boils down to servants bringing heaven on earth by following Jesus’ commands.
This story flatly contradicts the idea that the world is doomed to sinful decay. We have a part in doing God’s will to bring heaven on earth. Jesus initiated the moment where heaven and earth meet - are wedded - and bring hope to a fallen world.
Me: We are definitely called to build up the Kingdom of God and to bring hope and healing to the world.
Derek: Conservative Christians typically focus solely on their relationship with God. They strive to fulfill the first, greatest commandment - to love God with their whole soul, mind, and strength. However they many times miss the second part of that commandment - to love others as themselves. I spent most of my life ignoring that commandment and then most of the rest of my life only focusing on the first part of it. It’s easy to start a “God and me club,” but it’s hard to truly love others as God loves them.
Me: Hmm. I think there are those who would disagree with you about the ease of starting a "God and me club." God calls us to absolutely incredible depths of gut-wrenching change at the heart level. I agree wholeheartedly that it's difficult to truly love others as God does.
Derek: In fact, as you read the bible, you realize that if you are to truly love God, it follows naturally that you will love what he loves - justice, healing, the orphan, the widow, and your pointy-haired boss.
Me: Amen.
Derek: This brings us back to society. What is our mission as Christians who are trying to do God’s will and restore creation to its creator? Do we hide in our homeschools or do we try to help steer society toward what is good?
Me: Please don't make the mistake of thinking that homeschooling and helping to "steer society toward what is good" are mutually exclusive.
My family never hid in our homeschool. We lived in an urban neighborhood and built friendships with dozens of kids, most of whom didn't know Jesus. We were exposed to them and they were exposed to us. We were involved in the community and in community groups. I'm not saying we were perfect (not even close) but I am trying to combat your notion that all homeschoolers are running and hiding and separating themselves from the needs of the world. It's not true. Many, if not most of them sincerely believe that the task of training up a child in the way he should go is the responsibility of his parents. They don't see homeschooling as an abandonment of the needs of world, they see it as an opportunity to shape the character and hearts of their children in ways a teacher with thirty other kids to take care of never could.
I know that homeschooling is not the solution for everyone. I know it's not even a feasible option for most families in their current state. Some of this has to do with poverty, and a lot of it has to do with our materialistic, greedy, consumer-driven, double income middle class culture. There's some labels!
I am confident that if more God-fearing men and women were to start spending six or eight more hours a day rubbing off on their kids, teaching them and living out for them how to love God and how to love their neighbors as well as the usual facts, that this world, that our communities, would not be worse off. Obviously this can't be done in isolation. We need to have some neighbors to love. I think you may be caught up in thinking that the only neighbors we have to love are the ones in the public school system. If so, you're wrong. They're in the house next door, they're just down the block, they're at the park, they're in the babysitting co-op(maybe even in the homeschooling co-op), they're at church, they're sleeping on the street downtown. I don't think it's wrong to love your neighbor by putting your child in the public school system and getting involved in his education. I do think it's wrong to condemn homeschooling based on stereotyped perceptions and a narrow philosophy of loving one's neighbor. I would go so far as to propose that homeschooling has just as much potential to "help steer society toward what is good" as getting involved in the public school system.
