Home is no place for school - Homeschool Alert

USA Today Op Ed ^ | September 3, 2003 | Dennis Evans

[Damocles]

Home is no place for school
Wed Sep 3, 6:49 AM ET


By Dennis L. Evans 

The popularity of home schooling, while not significant in terms of the number of children involved, is attracting growing attention from the media, which create the impression that a "movement" is underway. Movement or not, there are compelling reasons to oppose home teaching both for the sake of the children involved and for society.

Home schooling is an extension of the misguided notion that "anyone can teach." That notion is simply wrong. Recently, some of our best and brightest college graduates, responding to the altruistic call to "Teach for America," failed as teachers because they lacked training. Good teaching is a complex act that involves more than simply loving children. Research on student achievement overwhelmingly supports the "common-sense" logic that the most important factor affecting student learning is teacher competency. While some parents may be competent to teach very young children, that competence will wane in more advanced grades as the content and complexity increases. 

But schools serve important functions far beyond academic learning. Attending school is an important element in the development of the "whole child." Schools, particularly public schools, are the one place where "all of the children of all of the people come together." Can there be anything more important to each child and thus to our democratic society than to develop virtues and values such as respect for others, the ability to communicate and collaborate and an openness to diversity and new ideas? Such virtues and values cannot be accessed on the Internet. 

The isolation implicit in home teaching is anathema to socialization and citizenship. It is a rejection of community and makes the home-schooler the captive of the orthodoxies of the parents.

One of the strengths of our educational system is the wide range of legitimate forms of public, private or parochial schooling available for parental choice.

With that in mind, those contemplating home teaching might heed the words of the Roman educator, Quintilian (A.D. 95). In opposing home schooling, he wrote, "It is one thing to shun schools entirely, another to choose from them."

Dennis L. Evans directs doctoral programs in education leadership at the University of California, Irvine.

[RightWhale]

the Roman educator, Quintilian (A.D. 95). In opposing home schooling, he wrote, "It is one thing to shun schools entirely, another to choose from them."

Quintilian's English was pretty good. Unlike the modern public schools, he wasn't trying to destroy tradition. Make way for the new philosophy, half-baked though it is!

[HungarianGypsy]

Thanks for the words of wisdom from yourself and taxchick. I guess I get down, because my husband believes that our son needs to have things a bit more structured. It's when I try to structure things that we have these problems. There is an astronomy lesson he was supposed to do yesterday, but didn't get around to because of the other topics. I'll just lift any misspellings from that.

[LTCJ]

... the misguided notion that "anyone can teach." That notion is simply wrong.

The above statement is true enough. Unfortunately for the author, most of the best examples proving the point are employed as public school teachers.

My daughter teaches in a public school and she will be one of the first to say this. There are many good teachers out there but there are also many very bad ones. Throw in government mandates, unions, and agendas and you have the makings of the disaster we see all around us.

[PMCarey]

I think the most amazing thing about this article lies in the first paragraph. In order to discredit homeschooling he refers to failures in "Teach for America". Now I have no doubt about the failures in "Teach for America", but those teachers were sent into PUBLIC SCHOOLS. So his argument is: Because we can't find anyone who can teach at these public schools in the "Teach for America" program, it proves that you can't teach your kids at home.

Why didn't he simply quote statistics showing the failure of homeschooling? The answer is obvious: the statistics show the exact opposite and the fact that the had to go to the failures of "Teach for America" proves that he KNEW the statistics on homeschooling were against him.

So, not only was his opening argument very poor, it was also very dishonest.

[FourPeas]

My father had a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics. He wasn't considered qualified to teach high school algebra; he was considered qualified to teach elementary algebra, calculus, differential equations, statistics, etc. in college. It's definitely not about knowing the subject matter; it's about indoctrination.

[Libertina]

Yes, and the poor kids are also deprived of socialization...! For instance they are NOT subjected to sexual perversion and innuendo, they don't know the fast, loose popular culture, aren't acquainted hip see-your-b*tt-crack-lowriders, may not know the latest swear words, and haven't yet practiced with a cucumber. Worst of all, they actually PASS their math, science, spelling, writing and reading tests. They don't take birth control pills, have abortins, ot come home with STDs. It's a crime and a right-wing plot to take money away from public schools and must be stopped NOW! /s

[JohnGalt]

Lincoln happened to be President when the undoing of the Constitution took place; he used violence against American citizens to achieve a political end; he supported the policy of his generals to wage war on civilians.

He failed to avert violence in Feb-April 1861. He was a failure of a President in the worst way.

King was a philandering plagerist which speaks to his character; he associated with Marxists (at the least)and he was not above using the specter of violence to secure political power and a racial spoils system that exists to this day. I hardly see him as a model for American 'progress' but an example of its worst excesses in the scope of American democracy. While he did secure power for an elite few to manage the destruction of the black community, he did very little to advance the environment of liberty.

Just my opinion.

[auboy]

Could the NEA have sent a recommended outline???????

Would not surprise me. That these "professional"educators indoctrinators are products of the same liberal education establishment they worship, is also plausible.

[AdamSelene235]

ALL YOUR CHILDREN ARE BELONG TO US!!!

[WOSG]

With that in mind, those contemplating home teaching might heed the words of the Roman educator, Quintilian (A.D. 95). In opposing home schooling, he wrote, "It is one thing to shun schools entirely, another to choose from them."

In the days of the Romans, the privileged Roman student were taught by Greek slave tutors -- at *home*. So the irony is that he is misinterpreting this quote - it is supportive of schooling generally *and* is making the point that choice in schooling is a different thing from denying education entirely. Exactly so - choosing home schooling is not a rejection of schools or education, but a choice, and for many a valid and positive education choice.

The fact that he assumes (wrongly) that social value can only be taught in a socialized setting (why not home, and the church, and other voluntary social arrangement besides a public school?) is a bias against parental roles in educating the next generation. In fact, we have seen the opposite, where the schools have decided to engage in unhealthy indoctrinated of politicized orthodoxies while ignoring true childhood character and moral development. It is a reaction to the failures of schools and their mistaken orthodoxies that parents have been FORCED to engage in home schooling.

[Alter Kaker]

Ending slavery was political goal? How about constitutional goal? For slavery violated American (small-c) constitution. Or do you not believe that all Men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?

he supported the policy of his generals to wage war on civilians.

Southern policy not to wage war on civilians or do you not consider negroes to be civilians? Forcing men women and children to work at gunpoint, sleep with their "owners", and give up their children seems like war to me.

King was a philandering plagerist which speaks to his character; he associated with Marxists

This is true. But it says nothing of fact that he helped to bring end of segregation, effect which will live much longer than those he "associated" with or those he slept with. Or do you not believe end of segregation was good? How about end of slavery?

[WOSG]

The educrats hae a new enemy - the internet - it can expose their biases in minutes. Qunitilian was used as a prop for this man's argument, but was in fact a rhetorician who would completely understand home schooling as that was the common practice for young Roman boys. Quintilian himself was trained by his Rhetorician father before going off to academy at 15. He would very much understand and appreciate home schoolers who want to protect their children from educational malpractice and raise them with high academic standards and good morals.

"I would, therefore, have a father conceive the highest hopes of his son from the moment of his birth. " - Quintilian

http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosophy/sophia/Quintilian/education.htm

[jscd3]

Home schooling is an extension of the misguided notion that "anyone can teach."

For some reason, Mr Evans forgot to add "and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"...

[WOSG]

"He [Lincoln] failed to avert violence in Feb-April 1861. He was a failure of a President in the worst way. "

Uh huh, and I got some DU-inspired propoganda that says G W Bush failed to stop 9/11 and so should be blamed for it.
That's like blaming Poland for Hitler's invasion in 1939.

Bad logic yields bad history.

[WOSG]

Finally, virtue is not found in the inability to discriminate.

Of course, it is the opposite, is it not?

The beginning of virtue is the discrimination between right and wrong

[mil-vet]

You forgot the "BARF ALERT" - LOL!

The isolation implicit in home teaching is anathema to socialization and citizenship.

This insanely ridiculous assumption is used by SO many failed educators to justify their idiot stance against home schooling. In fact, this is nothing but a liberal socialist lie; "The isolation implicit in home teaching is...." should actually read "The isolation which is assumed, erroneously, to be implicit in home teaching is NOT...."

My oldest daughter, who homeschools her three boys, shuts most of her detractors up by informing them she is a certified teacher. Her program involves trips to local libraries, museums, and other area educational resources, along with YMCA and little league athletic programs, etc. Her kids end up interacting with MANY more people, in MANY more settings, than federally subsidized brainwashing (the public school classroom) could EVER provide. Additionally, since her husband is active duty Coast Guard, they get even MORE "un-isolation" by moving around more than others might.

Liberal socialist pondscum have no redeeming social value.....

[JohnGalt]

You cited the Declaration of Independence to prove 'something' about the Constitution or you mean some invented small 'c' constitution?

Case 1 that public schools are working just fine.

State enforced 'Segregation' and slavery are moral evils; using violence, violation of property rights, and war on civilians to achieve an alleged moral good is a liberal concept from the French Revolution, not a conservative concept.

Case 2 that public schools are working just fine.

Throwing starving Irish and Chinese into mills and working them to death is, IMO, on the same moral plane as 'slavery' but at least there are thousands of stories of decent, Christian slave owners and slaves alike who felt genuine human kindness and loyalty to each other.

There was a higher rate of two-parent black families during slavery than there is today; that can only be considered an achievement through liberal glasses.

Case 3.

King used violence to achieve his alleged positive end which has resulted in an even more segregated community or did you not see that the Supreme Court made racial prefernce the law of the land a month ago? He achieved nothing that you give him credit for, apparently.

Case 4.

[biblewonk]

My father had a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics. He wasn't considered qualified to teach high school algebra; he was considered qualified to teach elementary algebra, calculus, differential equations, statistics, etc. in college. It's definitely not about knowing the subject matter; it's about indoctrination.

Isn't that crazy. He shouldn't feel bad, Jesus, Paul, John, John the Baptist, none are qualified to preach in most "Christian" churches today. The world worships college diplomas.

[JohnGalt]

Hitler was not a man of peace and he wanted war. In that sense Lincoln was like Hitler.

You know, Hitler was a big fan of Lincoln's anti-Consitutional consolidationist policy? He even put a nice paragraph in Mein Kampf on the subject:

On page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler clearly expresses the Lincoln/Jaffa view: "[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."

[AnAmericanMother]

Here's the quote, in context. Book Two of the Institutes:

Still I do not wish a boy to be set where he will be neglected. But a good teacher will not burden himself with a larger number of pupils than he can manage, and it is further of the very first importance that he should be on only friendly and intimate terms with us and make his teaching not a duty but a labor of love. Then there will never be any question of being swamped by the number of our fellow-learners. Moreover any teacher who has the least tincture of literary culture will devote special attention to any boy who shows signs of industry and talent; for such a pupil will redound to his own credit. But even if large schools are to be avoided, a proposition from which I must dissent if the size be due to the excellence of the teacher, it does not follow that all schools are to be avoided. It is one thing to avoid them, another to select the best.

Needless to say, this "ejukashun leedership" prof is all wet. Quintillian is talking about placing an older youth (who has already learned his letters at home under a paedogogus or tutor) in one of the famous schools of oratory. He is contrasting the limited opportunities for debate and competition in oratory available to the "solitary recluse" under the instruction of a private coach, and the head-to-head competition (and mixing with the public as one must do in the Forum) of a school taught by a famous orator.

Unless this man is an absolute ignoramus (which certainly is not only possible but probable) he must know that the Roman system of education was completely unlike ours. When Quintillian is talking about "large" classes he doesn't mean the 30 to 40 that inhabit a modern public school class.

If you want to see what a Roman school was like, read one or more of the charming books by Henry Winterfeld - Caius ist ein Dummkopf (translated as Detectives in Togas) Caius geht ein Licht auf (translated as The Mystery of the Roman Ransom). Fun stuff.