For some reason in today's politically correct world, it's still OK to bash homeschoolers.
First homeschoolers were attacked on the academic front. How could parents possibly be qualified to teach their own children unless they had teacher's certificates? But numerous articles and studies proved homeschoolers had academics covered. One example
Home-Schooled Kids Defy Stereotypes, Ace SAT Test By DANIEL GOLDEN
Jason Scoggins will never graduate from high school, have a class rank or be recommended by his guidance counselor. But Oglethorpe University wants him anyway. Jason, who is 17 years old, was home-schooled by his mother. After he scored 1,570 out of a possible 1,600 on his SAT college-admissions test -- with a perfect 800 in math -- Oglethorpe invited him to compete with other top applicants for five scholarships valued at about $100,000 apiece. Of the 94 prospects in the Jan. 22 contest, eight were home-schoolers, each with SATs above 1,300.The high scores are no fluke. As the movement grows larger and more diverse, evidence is mounting that home-schooling, once confined to the political and religious fringe, has achieved results not only on par with public education, but in some ways surpassing it. Though home-schooling may never be feasible for most families, the data offer little comfort to those who advocate a standardized curriculum as the best hope for improving American education. After all, each home-based pupil follows a unique lesson plan.
Then public school advocates advanced the myth that homeschoolers are social retards, who would be unable to make it in the "real" world. Jeez I wish somebody had told me I was living in an alternate universe, I have been suffering from the delusion that my family was living in the "real" world. Of course the spreaders of this malicious lie never mention famous, successful homeschoolers like
Christopher Paolini (he wrote a best selling novel while in his teens and sold the rights to the book, the movie
Eragon is out now). They also neglect to mention all the studies that prove that homeschoolers are at least as well socialized as their public school peers and in some instances may have the advantage over their public school peers. From the ERIC Digest
Home Schooling and Socialization of Children by Nola Kortner Aiex
Stough (1992),looking particularly at socialization, compared 30 home-schooling families and 32 conventionally schooling families, families with children 7-14 years of age. According to the findings, children who were schooled at home "gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children." The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough 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." This echoes the findings of Taylor (1987). Using one of the best validated self-concept scales available, Taylor's random sampling of home-schooled children (45,000) found that half of these children scored at or above the 91st percentile--47% higher than the average, conventionally schooled child. He concludes: "Since self concept is considered to be a basic dynamic of positive sociability, this answers the often heard skepticism suggesting that home schoolers are inferior in socialization" (Taylor, 1987). From the findings of these two studies, it would appear that the concerns expressed by teachers, administrators, and legislators about socialization and home schooling might be unfounded. Indeed, Bliss (1989) contends that it is in the formal educational system's setting that children first experience negative socialization, conformity, and peer pressure. According to her, "This is a setting of large groups, segmented by age, with a variation of authority figures...the individual, with his/her developmental needs, becomes overpowered by the expectations and demand of others--equal in age and equally developmentally needy."
So after homeschoolers PROVE they aren't damaging their children academically or socially you would think they would leave us alone right? After all their mantra is "we just want what's best for the kids and we know what's best for your kids". But NO, then they attack homeschoolers for being "selfish". We may be giving our kids a wonderful education with numerous academic and social opportunities but what about the "poor" kids stuck in public schools?
Tammy Takahashi at
Just Enough, and Nothing More has a post,
Are Homeschooler's Selfish? , on this very subject.
I find it annoying that these people expect me to sacrifice my children for the "greater good", and exactly what benefit is it to society to prevent children from reaching their full potential? While these proponents of the public school system would shudder in horror at the idea that THEY should live in public housing or receive medical care from the state health department, instead of living in nice houses in "high-end" neighborhoods (so their kids can attend the best public schools) or utilizing private health care, in order to get the best medical care available. They see no hypocrisy in insisting that everyone should make use of the public school system rather it meets their family's needs or not.
Also posted at the
Homeschool Cafe
