Hot Button of the Day


I couldn't sleep last night. After tossing and turning for awhile, I gave in to the insomnia and logged on to the web, deciding that reading was better than staring at the ceiling. I went to one of my favorite websites, thepioneerwoman.com, and started reading through her archives. I came across a post from several years ago where she revealed that she homeschooled her kids. There were many responses that were supportive and enthusiastic, most of them from other homeschoolers. And there were many people that revealed their discomfort with the whole idea of homeschooling. Being a homeschooler myself, it always boggles my mind why some people find it so repulsive. Sometimes I wonder if we homeschoolers have a sort of brand on our chests declaring to the world that we are strange, socially awkward, denim-jumper-wearing, cult members so they'd better give us a wide berth, because perhaps the weirdness is catching. Last I checked, I didn't have any gross Fringe-style pustules growing on my appendages that could burst and spew abnormalness on those around me, but ya never know.

Anti-homeschoolers always give the same tired arguments too. Homeschooled children aren't socialized. They aren't able to successfully adapt to "the real world". They are too attached to their parents. They are brainwashed. They don't lead structured enough lives. And above all else...they are weird.

Now, I can't argue with the weirdness. My children are weird. My sisters' children are weird. I know lots of homeschooled children that are weird. But, on the other hand, I have yet to meet a child that's not weird. Weirdness seems to be the norm for children. I knew lots of kids growing up that were weird (like myself) and we were not homeschooled. One of my friends ate paper. I knew a girl (in highschool, mind you) that was utterly convinced that animals had eternal souls. My sister had me convinced that the little bubbles in Doritos contained prizes if you bit into them fast enough. In fact, I was probably the weirdest, most socially awkward kid you'd ever meet. A strange mix of shy, talks to herself, talks too much but never talks about anything important, and rather impulsive. And I was never homeschooled. So I would argue that this point, while valid, is also universal. It's kind of like a squid calling a salamander slimy.


The favorite argument is the socialization. Saying homeschooled children aren't "socialized" is kind of like anti-homeschooler's trump card. "I want my children to be well socialized." Now granted, there are families that homeschool for the sole purpose of segregating their children from society, usually for religious reasons. These families have become the stereotype for homeschooling. Thanks, guys. Regardless of how inaccurate this stereotype is, that is what people think of when they hear homeschooled. Nevermind the backlash that would occur if I announced the inaccurate belief that all public schooled children were violent and mannerless and received a sub-par education. It's okay to pick on the homeschoolers though, because they're weird.

Sometimes I wonder if those people have really considered their definition of socialization. By their standards, a child needs to spend time with only their peer groups to be successful. Think about that. They are being taught by their peers, children their own age and own level of world experience, how to converse and form world views. To them, the most important thing is to "fit in" with your peers. Dress the same, enjoy the same sports and hobbies, talk the same, learn things at the same rate. Somehow, this is supposed to develop individuals. This leads to being able to survive in the real world.

I'm trying to remember, now that I'm a member of that "real world", when the last time was that I was segregated with a group that was only my age and my economic bracket. Or when a bell told me when to start and stop working. Or when I had to raise my hand and ask permission to use the restroom.

Yes, peers are important. But they are not the most important part of socializing. It's better for a child to learn how to deal with all people, whether peers or elderly, parents or other authorities, neighbors, people of different backgrounds and cultures, people who are difficult or unkind. It is my sincere belief that, for believers, learning how to interact with people should be fully based in Scriptural principles. How should I talk to people? How can I help people? How do I respond when someone is mean to me? Why should I show kindness to people? The best place to look for these answers is Christ, not a peer. Regardless of where and how a child receives academic instruction, believing parents are the ones responsible for reinforcing social behavior.

Homeschooling is not for everyone, because Christ calls us to different paths in our lives. However, I think a lot of people who claim they could never homeschool are wrong. Most people could homeschool. It's really not as bad as they think. I used to be one of them, by the way. I had a list of excuses. It's too time consuming. I'm too lazy. I'm unorganized. I wouldn't enjoy it. Well, I've learned that the beautiful thing about homeschooling is the flexibility of tailoring education to your child and your family life. It can work, even for giant sloths such as myself. In fact, it is even inspiring me to change some of these areas that I have long struggled with. I have learned that God uses my children to teach me just as much as, if not more than, he uses me to teach them.

I'm still figuring out how our homeschooling experience is going to look. We've really only dabbled in it so far with pre-school and kindergarten for our eldest. I don't know how long we'll do it or what curriculum we'll use. I've made a commitment to never get so stuck in one idea that I have no room for God to move me to something else. For now, God wants us to homeschool. Someday, he might decide something different. Each year, we will pray and re-evaluate to decide what is best for our children.

The things I like best about homeschooling: The flexible schedule, the one on one education experience my son is getting, the freedom to choose what curriculum works best for us, the joy and satisfaction of actually witnessing my son learning, the way I can insert Biblical principles into every subject, the amount of time I get to spend with him (something I thought would be a negative), not having to get up at the crack of dawn and get him on a bus, not having to shell out cash for programs, fundraisers, expensive photos and yearbooks, lunches, etc., not having to worry about conforming to a dress code, being able to do extra curricular activities without sacrificing all of our free time, being able to move ahead in subjects if needed or stay on materials longer if necessary, family field trips....goodness, I could go on and on.

The drawbacks? Umm....having to deal with people who question the validity of my children's education. Apparently, homeschoolers are required to have air tight reasons for their decisions while traditional schoolers can just say "because everyone else does."

I had my doubts when I started this journey, but with each passing year, I'm loving it more. My intention in writing this was mainly to vent (thank you for allowing it). It's not that I want everyone to homeschool like me, because as I said before, as believers we must follow God's path for our lives. But I would encourage the naysayers to lay off a bit. Consider the bigger picture of life, not just your personal experience or bias, before raking us over the coals. We are just doing what we believe is best for our kids, just as you are. Remember, children have been homeschooled far longer than they've been classroomed. It worked for fourteen of our presidents, including the two most famous, Washington and Lincoln. Worked for big names like Winston Churchill, Daniel Webster, George Patton, George Washington Carver, Albert Einstein, Claude Monet, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Mozart, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, C.S. Lewis, Andrew Carnegie, Joseph Pulitzer, and many, many others.

But, I'll admit, they were probably all really weird.


Comments

Nate said…
Not to harp on homeschooling at all, but the majority of those you mentioned (the big names, at least the ones I know about) were "homeschooled" by a professional tutor in the home, which is slightly different than an untrained (I am only meaning untrained in the education standpoint, certainly not in the qualified standpoint) mother doing it. Again, not saying you are wrong in homeschooling in the least, just pointing out that it is a slightly different scenario of homeschooling then as opposed to now.

also, how do you feel about homeschool into upper elementary, middle and high school? (I really am just curious)
sethswife said…
thank you for pointing that out, nate. the ones who came from affluent families probably were tutored.

and i'm not sure what we'll do about upper grades yet. certainly not against it, just leaving it to "let's wait and see". if we were part of a great co-op where others could teach the subjects i could not, i can see us going all the way. but at the same time, i can see us sending them to traditional school too for jr high and highschool. who knows? check back with me in seven years.
sethswife said…
actually, while i agree that there were tutored students among that group of names, i'm not so sure about the "majority" of them being tutored, especially the americans. i'm going to do more research on that.
Amy said…
i'm going to print this off for bryan to read. :) he grew up in the country and the only homeschooled kids he knew were the 'socially hidden, the world is a bad place,' type, and it left a bad taste in his mouth. we are sending noah to public preschool in the fall, simply because he's in desperate need of speech therapy (that we can't afford otherwise), but i'm hoping by kindergarten my hubby has changed his mind.

i loved reading this kathy. thank you for sharing!
Jared said…
I dated...well, attempted to date...a girl in high school that was homeschooled. I say "attempted" because her parents would not allow her to go on a date alone with me. We were 16. Their only reasoning was because I went to a public school. I was a Christian kid who was raised right and would not put her in harm's way in any way, yet they did not trust me simply because of my place of education.

I believe that there are some like these parents that give homeschooling a black eye. There are a lot of parents doing it right. And, usually when the homeschooled kids get into public school or college, they are leaps and bounds ahead of their public school peers.

Now CHRISTIAN SCHOOL kids...don't EVEN get me started.
Anonymous said…
Please post, because you have promulgated disinformation, and it has become your duty to correct this as much as possible. Removing the information is not sufficient, a correction is necessary in my opinion.

Culled from Wikipedia (of which is all sourced, mostly to autobiographies). I know Wikipedia is not gospel; but it is highly sourced and has been shown to be highly accurate for non-controversial material.

C.S. Lewis:
Lewis was initially schooled by private tutors before being sent to the Wynyard School in Watford, Hertfordshire, in 1908, just after his mother's death from cancer. Lewis' brother had already enrolled there three years previously. The school was closed not long afterwards due to a lack of pupils; the headmaster Robert "Oldie" Capron was soon after committed to a psychiatric hospital. Tellingly, in Surprised By Joy, Lewis would nickname the school (and place) "Belsen".[4] After Wynyard closed, Lewis attended Campbell College in the east of Belfast about a mile from his home, but he left after a few months due to respiratory problems. As a result of his illness, Lewis was sent to the health-resort town of Malvern, Worcestershire, where he attended the preparatory school Cherbourg House (called "Chartres" in Lewis's autobiography).
Anonymous said…
(continued)

Independent and rebellious by nature, Churchill generally did poorly in school, for which he was punished. He was educated at three independent schools: St George's School in Ascot, Berkshire, followed by Brunswick School in Hove, near Brighton (the school has since been renamed Stoke Brunswick School and relocated to Ashurst Wood in West Sussex), and then at Harrow School from 17 April 1888, where his military career began. Within weeks of his arrival, he had joined the Harrow Rifle Corps.[4] He earned high marks in English and History and was also the school's fencing champion.
He was rarely visited by his mother (then known as Lady Randolph Churchill), and wrote letters begging her to either come to the school or to allow him to come home. His relationship with his father was a distant one; he once remarked that they barely spoke to each other.

Daniel Webster:
Webster attended Phillips Exeter Academy, a preparatory school in Exeter, New Hampshire, before attending Dartmouth College.

Claude Monet:
On the first of April 1851, Monet entered Le Havre secondary school of the arts.

Albert Einstein:
Their son attended a Catholic elementary school from the age of five until ten.[8] Although Einstein had early speech difficulties, he was a top student in elementary school.

Leonardo daVinci:
Little is known about Leonardo's early life. He spent his first five years in the hamlet of Anchiano in the home of his mother, then from 1457 lived in the household of his father, grandparents and uncle, Francesco, in the small town of Vinci. His father had married a sixteen-year-old girl named Albiera, who loved Leonardo but died young.[10] Leonardo received an informal education in Latin, geometry and mathematics but did not show any particular signs of aptitude.[citation needed]
When Leonardo was sixteen his father married again, twenty-year-old Francesca Lanfredini. It was not until his third and fourth marriages that Ser Piero produced legitimate heirs.[11] In later life, Leonardo only recorded two childhood incidents. One, which he regarded as an omen, was when a kite dropped from the sky and hovered over his cradle, its tail feathers brushing his face.[12] The second occurred while exploring in the mountains. He discovered a cave and was both terrified that some great monster might lurk there, and driven by curiosity to find out what was inside.[10]
Leonardo's early life has been the subject of historical conjecture.[13] Vasari, the 16th-century biographer of Renaissance painters tells of how a local peasant made himself a round shield and requested that Ser Piero have it painted for him. Leonardo responded with a painting of monster spitting fire which was so terrifying that Ser Piero sold it to a Florentine art dealer, who sold it to the Duke of Milan. Meanwhile, having made a profit, Ser Piero bought a shield decorated with a heart pierced by an arrow, which he gave to the peasant.

Wight Brothers:
In elementary school, Orville was given to mischief and was once expelled.
Anonymous said…
I notice it has been pointed out that your list of home schooled persons is inaccurate and yet you have not changed it. In fact, the list you include seems to have been copied from similar unsourced lists on the internet. If this is the research you are willing to put into educational endeavors, one may worry about the intellectual integrity you invest in educating your children.
sethswife said…
you mean i'm supposed to actually look stuff up when i blog? nah, that sounds too hard. i'm too busy teaching my son how to be weird. ;)
Anonymous said…
Your most recent comment is significantly different in tone that the one that was just deleted. Happily you've removed the ad hominems. Your blog still promotes disinformation. It has been pointed out. Please have the intellectual integrity to fix this. Jimmy Wales has taught undergraduates at at least two Universities, certainly qualifying himself to teach his child. I believe everyone has the right to teach their own child - but one should respect their child enough to not make up facts.
sethswife said…
i deleted the previous comment because i remembered the part i wrote about being able to deal with "difficult people". you have decided, without knowing a thing about me, that i am not qualified to teach my child, all because i found several internet sites that listed these folks as being "homeschooled" at some point in their lives. there's really nothing i can do to change your mind, so why bother? plus, you have no idea how stubborn i am.
Jennifer Anne said…
She just said they were homeschooled, she didn't say they were homeschooled through all of their schooling. And I'm not sure why "anonymous" is so worried about this. I'm pretty sure he/she doesn't really care about your children, he/she cares only about being right. Your blog with 5 followers is not going to indoctrinate the world with misinformation and ruin everybody's lives and eat all his/her steak :) Keep doing what you are doing, Kathy. You are a great mom and a great homeschool teacher and this coming from someone who really does love and care about your kids (not quite as much as you do, though).
gwenzicker said…
Sethswife, I would like to acknowledge before your readers my regret for contributing to the hijacking of your comment section (as I have already done privately by email).
Anonymous said…
(to sethswife) I acknowledge that I know nothing about you. I can comment that your posts generally seem pleasant. However, I can certainly say that you know less about me, and have yet intimated that I am a "difficult person". Additionally you have asserted that I believe that you are unable to educate your children. I have no such belief. You assert that there is nothing you can do to change my mind. Your pretense of knowing me feels like we are more than acquaintances. You do not know me, which is part of the point that knowledge of me is irrelevant to the issues at hand. You say you can't change my mind. I say you can change my mind as to your intellectual integrity by changing your blog article, or by attaching an addendum. It is that easy. You describe yourself as stubborn. Stubbornness pales as a virtue when compared to being intellectually honest with oneself.
Anonymous said…
(to JA) Thanks for chiming in, and presuming I don't care about SWs children's education and accusing me of caring only about being right. These are accusations that are difficult to believe are kindly glossed over with a punctuational emoticon. Let me be specific about why I care about people passing on bogus info (or using info in a misleading way - as is the case here, as I believe to mention those famous people in such a way as was mentioned in the blog without attention to detail about time spent homeschooled or the professional tutors involved or the actual schools they attended is disingenuous at best) - passing on bogus info in such a way leads to a conundrum. Certain subsets of different christianities pass on info from unsourced websites that is inaccurate, likely based on that which is desired to be true, in addition to psycho-social issues such as confirmation biases. If you apply this behavior over time (and there is no reason to believe one cannot because it is readily experientially observable) and see early christians doing likewise, the conundrum becomes immediately apparent. I.e. - if subsets of christians today are readily able and willing to pass on bad info based on their desires for what they want to be the truth, how can we be certain this is not what occurred way back when. It's time to burn the resultant dross of these detrimental behaviors. I wish all well.
sethswife said…
so....is your problem with me the fact that i only searched a few websites for famous homeschoolers (and not wikipedia), the fact that i don't feel like changing my blog post because i don't feel like i have to prove anything to you as you have missed entirely the point of my blog...
OR just the fact that i'm a christian (and you feel that invalidates me as an intellectual)?
whatever it is, i do wonder as to why this is such a hot button that you would comment so many times on a stranger's blog in such an effort to prove that i have no "intellectual integrity". i will probably post a lot of things that you don't like on this blog and you are free to take it or leave it. but if it's going to drive you crazy like this, i might suggest you leave it.
Anonymous said…
Seriously, Anonymous. . . do you not have better things to do? Methinks perhaps not. . .that is sad. (sorry to be anonymous too. . .I'm not too great with blogs)
Anonymous said…
(to SsW) Your most recent comment which asks specific questions of me I hope you allow me to answer, for I interpret your questions as genuine, not merely as a rhetoric which allows you to express your beliefs. You present a triple choice option as to what my "problem" is with you. None of the options seem relevant. I have no problem with you. My problem is with the presentation of disinformation casually as fact, as my previous comments I feel make very clear in a precise way - I apologize if they seemed vague. I have found a cavalier attitude toward information can be dangerous, and the world does not take kindly to it. I have no interest in being "right" or "proving" anything. The facts of history aren't mine to be "right" about. They simply exist. I'm not the one proving you have "no intellectual integrity."

(-David.)
Anonymous said…
(to Anonymous) This comment is to the second Anonymous. This is First Anonymous. Let me introduce myself as David. Let me clarify which comments I've made which do not have my name, they are the one's starting:
1) "Please post,"
2) "Independent and rebellious"
3) "I notice it has"
4) "Your most recent comment"
5) "I acknowledge that"
6) "Thanks for chiming in,".

I'm doing this because your post intrigues me. Your word choice and ellipses and parentheticals betray some things. I suspect you have commented on this blog non-anonymously in the past or have frequented this blog previously. I detect multiple levels of disingenuousness in your post. For my betterment, if I am wrong I humbly ask you please alert me to this.

Additionally you ask specific questions of me, so I will address them. Do I have better things to do? I count the curtailing of disinformation as an important thing, I imagine you would agree. To be otherwise would place you in a group identified in their disinterest of the truth. Please don't find this "sad". Of the two groups mentioned I fell the latter to be the one to be "sad" about.

You state you are "not too great with blogs." I will take that at face value for now and say that thus far you seem just fine (I'm speaking only from the technical aspect) - please continue, for with civility the internet is a great place for open forum discussions.

(-David.)