I don't know exactly where this comes from but it's attributed to Gordon Neufeld. I saw it on a homeschooling email list, it makes good sense to me:
The prevailing assumption is that the greatest drawback to
homeschooling is the loss of social interaction with peers. Times
have changed however, making peer interaction more of a problem than
an asset. Instead or peer interaction facilitating the process of
socialization, it is now more likely to lead to the premature
replacement of adults by peers in the life of a child. Such children
become peer-oriented rather than adult-oriented and are more
difficult to parent and teach. Furthermore, peer-oriented children
fail to mature psychologically and their integration into adult
society is compromised.
Because of escalating peer orientation it is now the school that has
become risky business. What was once the most powerful argument
against homeschooling is now its most persuasive defense. Contrary to
prevailing concerns, homeschooled children are showing evidence of
being more mature psychologically, more socially adept, and more
academically prepared for university. They have become the favored
applicants of a number of major universities. If current trends in
society continue, homeschooling may very well become a necessary
antidote to escalating peer orientation. We may need to reclaim our
children not only to preserve or recover the context in which to
teach and parent them, but also for the sake of society at large and
the transmission of culture.
The developmental needs of children were never paramount in the
arguments that led to the inception of compulsory education. Indeed,
there was little that was even understood or known about child
development at that time. It should not be surprising therefore to
find that developmental science does not support school as the best
context for children to learn, to mature, or to become socialized.
Although the school has become a central institution in our society,
it is not without risks to emotional health and development.
There are a number of sound arguments that make homeschooling a
child's best bet. The cultivation and preservation of the child-
parent attachment is at the fore of these arguments. The attachment
patterns of children are shifting, largely due to the loss of culture
and the institutionalization of education. This is sabotaging the
context necessary for healthy development as well as eroding the
natural power required for parents to do their job. Attachment is
also the primary context and motivation for learning. When children
are more attached to their peers than their parents and their
teachers then peers become their true teachers. Attachment is also
the primary mechanism of cultural transmission. We cannot inculcate
our children with our values and beliefs if we are not the ones they
get their bearings from or take their cues from.
Another strong argument for homeschooling is the emotional health of
the child. Developmental science is now putting emotion at the core
of learning and behavior, including the development of the brain and
the mind. Children need to have soft hearts, capable of being easily
touched and moved by that which should affect them. When children are
not in right relationship with their parents or are prematurely
subjected to the wounding ways of peer interaction, the resulting
flight from vulnerability desensitizes them. They lose their
feelings, at least the more vulnerable ones. Homeschoolers, because
of their strong relationships to those responsible for them are much
more likely to have soft hearts and therefore much more likely to
realize their full potential as human beings. Research bears this out.
Yet another case for homeschooling is the individuation argument. The
primary purpose of development is for children to become their own
persons capable of functioning apart from attachments, knowing their
own minds and having their own goals. It is no secret that
unsupervised peer interaction crushes individuality and undermines
the emergence of true selfhood. As Jean Jacque Rousseau said over 200
years ago, individuation is not only the prerequisite to true
community but requires a long gestation time in the context of loving
relationship with a parent. Personhood must be homegrown. The womb of
individuation is warm and caring attachments to loving parents. If we
desire our children to realize their true potential as human beings,
we must hold on to them until they can hold on to themselves.
The prevailing assumption is that the greatest drawback to
homeschooling is the loss of social interaction with peers. Times
have changed however, making peer interaction more of a problem than
an asset. Instead or peer interaction facilitating the process of
socialization, it is now more likely to lead to the premature
replacement of adults by peers in the life of a child. Such children
become peer-oriented rather than adult-oriented and are more
difficult to parent and teach. Furthermore, peer-oriented children
fail to mature psychologically and their integration into adult
society is compromised.
Because of escalating peer orientation it is now the school that has
become risky business. What was once the most powerful argument
against homeschooling is now its most persuasive defense. Contrary to
prevailing concerns, homeschooled children are showing evidence of
being more mature psychologically, more socially adept, and more
academically prepared for university. They have become the favored
applicants of a number of major universities. If current trends in
society continue, homeschooling may very well become a necessary
antidote to escalating peer orientation. We may need to reclaim our
children not only to preserve or recover the context in which to
teach and parent them, but also for the sake of society at large and
the transmission of culture.
The developmental needs of children were never paramount in the
arguments that led to the inception of compulsory education. Indeed,
there was little that was even understood or known about child
development at that time. It should not be surprising therefore to
find that developmental science does not support school as the best
context for children to learn, to mature, or to become socialized.
Although the school has become a central institution in our society,
it is not without risks to emotional health and development.
There are a number of sound arguments that make homeschooling a
child's best bet. The cultivation and preservation of the child-
parent attachment is at the fore of these arguments. The attachment
patterns of children are shifting, largely due to the loss of culture
and the institutionalization of education. This is sabotaging the
context necessary for healthy development as well as eroding the
natural power required for parents to do their job. Attachment is
also the primary context and motivation for learning. When children
are more attached to their peers than their parents and their
teachers then peers become their true teachers. Attachment is also
the primary mechanism of cultural transmission. We cannot inculcate
our children with our values and beliefs if we are not the ones they
get their bearings from or take their cues from.
Another strong argument for homeschooling is the emotional health of
the child. Developmental science is now putting emotion at the core
of learning and behavior, including the development of the brain and
the mind. Children need to have soft hearts, capable of being easily
touched and moved by that which should affect them. When children are
not in right relationship with their parents or are prematurely
subjected to the wounding ways of peer interaction, the resulting
flight from vulnerability desensitizes them. They lose their
feelings, at least the more vulnerable ones. Homeschoolers, because
of their strong relationships to those responsible for them are much
more likely to have soft hearts and therefore much more likely to
realize their full potential as human beings. Research bears this out.
Yet another case for homeschooling is the individuation argument. The
primary purpose of development is for children to become their own
persons capable of functioning apart from attachments, knowing their
own minds and having their own goals. It is no secret that
unsupervised peer interaction crushes individuality and undermines
the emergence of true selfhood. As Jean Jacque Rousseau said over 200
years ago, individuation is not only the prerequisite to true
community but requires a long gestation time in the context of loving
relationship with a parent. Personhood must be homegrown. The womb of
individuation is warm and caring attachments to loving parents. If we
desire our children to realize their true potential as human beings,
we must hold on to them until they can hold on to themselves.
My son loved learning and knew how to read when he entered kindergarted, loved life, loved people. The biggest challenge his kindergarten teacher had was to get him to stop hugging people. By seventh grade, he was blank, unreachable. He showed no interest in anything, even reading, his solace. A few months before school was out,he asked me quietly to homeschool him the next year. 18 months later, he's back. He smiles, invents things, wants to be a comedian, and is interested in everything. He often thanks me for homeschooling him, for standing up for him. I agree wholeheartedly with the statements here. Maybe these are some of the reasons why my son is back.
ReplyDeleteI have homeschooled one son for six years and another for a year (only for a year, because he hated homeschooling and desperately wanted to go back to school).
ReplyDeleteThe article above assumes that the parents aren't crazy, neurotic...even extremely stressed. It assumes that all the family members with whom the child spends her/his time are calm, loving, supportive, stimulating.
My happy, social, well-balanced son takes both after school classes and homeschool classes and comes home every day with stories about kids in his homeschool classes who sound completely disturbed and/or traumatized. (I won't recount any of the stories here, because of the possibility that a parent might read this and recognize their child in the description.)
My older son, who has been in protective and protected small private schools throughout his educational career, thought that most of the homeschooled kids he met were asocial and strange and couldn't wait to go back to his small private school (where his friends are definitely individuals--quirky, funny, creative individuals).
Of course, what we don't know is: is homeschooling the reason that many homeschooled kids have such big problems, or did the parents take them out of school because they couldn't function in school with their social oor psychological problems?
About colleges seeking homeschooled children: I'm sure that the most competitive colleges are happy to have homeschooled kids who have won national contests, have perfect SAT scores and are well and broadly educated. If you read the school websites, the universities want documentation that the homeschooled child is as brilliant as their parents think s/he is (AP test scores, SAT scores, samples of work, grades from junior college courses). They're not interested in homeschoolers per se.
About research demonstrating that homeschoolers are more successful in life (and I did survey research professionally)...Think about it: have you heard of a years-long (longitudinal) study that tests (psychological, academic) and documents (jobs held, psychiatrist visits)thousands of homeschoolers? I haven't and I think it's because there isn't one. It would be almost impossible to evaluate whether homeschoolers were better prepared for life than non-homeschoolers: we don't have a WAY to measure something like that.
I'm happy that my older son has been in school and I think I'm happy that my younger son has been homeschooled, although I worry that he isn't getting the breadth and depth of information that his older brother got.
I think it's silly to make grand statements about homeschooling being better or necessary.
It's good for some kids: and it depends upon the child, the parents and the alternatives.