Philosophy in the School Place: Argument for, against, or partial homeschooling

This is an argument for, against, or partial homeschooling.  I must be clear with this point: I am not yet fully convinced on either side.  So this is not an attempt of conversion.  Instead, it is a plea and request from a friend to you, to help me solve my dilemma and perhaps at the same time, we might solidify your educational decision.


I will start by providing some general definitions of terms.  I am certain that as we continue this conversation these terms will require some clarity and tweaking. 


By "public" schooling, I am referring to a system of schooling in which the child is left in a learning institution or facility, for the purpose of learning, without the guidance, attention, and instruction of their parents or guardians while at the facility.  So under "public," I include public, private, charter, and boarding schools, or any other schools that have this kind of quality. 


By "children," I am referring to kids from 3 to 17 years of age, or who generally fit the grades Pre to 12 grades.  So I am excluding those kids who are out of 12 grade or 17 years and older.

By "home," I am referring to an abstract notion of home--not necessarily your house, but a place where your comfort level is heightened (and hence having a sense of home).  This abstract notion of home differs from the general notion of home in that this concept connotes a state-of-being where one's meaning rests and develops, instead of a location where one seeks shelter and rest.  In this sense, home is where life, love, and the world develops a perspective and a reason to be.  Comfort is the undercurrent that allows one's development of meaning at home.  Although a home doesn't necessarily require a locale, a locale satisfies many physical necessities--a place to eat, be nurtured, rest, and have shelter.  In this respect, a physical home may play a role by allowing one to feel more comfortable.  The last aspect of this notion of home considers the people who one is intimately connected with.  This could be any number of groups.  Generally, a family or "loved ones" play an integral part in one's development of meaning because they may provide love, care, compassion, and a particular way of human coexistence. 


I will not expand further on this notion of home because this is not a presentation on this concept.  This definition should suffice for this presentation.


By "home schooling," I am referring to the capacity, potentiality, and activity of a home to function as the primary place of learning.


By "learning," I am including a wide array of subjects that are being acquired.  These include but are not limited to: academic (the sciences and math, literature and humanities, and the arts), social (inter-personal and community oriented), personal (identity, behavior, etc.), physical, and spiritual/philosophical learning.  As we go forth, I intend to highlight, quantify, and value the type of learning that is being taught as a means to determining the worth of the specific learning that is at focus.  I am uncertain whether the combination or aggregation of these types of learning should be a metric as to the quality of a particular type of method of learning or a particular type of institution, but until another metric is determined, I will consider these types of learning very important metrics.


By "immediate world," I am referring to the conventional or day-to-day interaction that one participates in.  This generally includes: pre-work activities (exercising, going to store, reading, getting coffee); work (studies, career, any money-worthy effort in which you expect a compensation of some sort, or any effort that is concrete--but not necessarily material--and valuable); home (abstract or physical) activities (cooking, family interaction, fixing your home, physical fitness, etc.); and homework--work from "home" that is directly linked to the work you endeavor (studying, applying work-related insight for experiential learning).  What is not included (with some exceptions) in immediate world affairs are social interactions outside of the demands of home or work; spirituality or deep contemplation (unless that is your work); and escapism of any kind (vacations, religious practices, outings, or any sort of escapade). 


One primary difference between the general use of the term "real world" and my term "immediate world," "immediate world" is directly related to my notion of "home," in that in our immediate world, our primary concern is developing meaning and perspective.  Therefore, in our immediate world, our home is our main place of interaction (which may or may not include other family members), followed by your work.  The community or citizen responsibility is interconnected with how one manages their home.


Those are the terms that I wanted to clarify in order to be more precise.  Some, after looking at the entire presentation may argue that based on the definitions of these terms, my argument is strong but not in the common usage of the terms.  That might be the case.  Some may elect to stick with the general notions of the terms.  However, the terms, as I understand and value them, are a fundamental part of the analysis of the argument.  I would like to encourage everyone to examine the strength of the terms themselves to see if these terms would be acceptable adaptations to the general notions.


Here is my stance so far: I do believe that there has to be some combination of public and home education.  I am leaning towards some sort of homeschooling paradigm where a group of parents would come together to group teach kids of a range of ages (an idea that came forth in a discussion with Jaime and Amy).  The material, structure, some classes (music class for example, if there are any left), and the necessary goals/tests of the coursework would be provided by our public school system.


Here are some of the reasons why it is I am leaning towards this path (some of you will recognize these points well):


1) The public school system spends too little time on new academic learning. 


In some of the discussions I have had with some of you, we informally examined the actual "coursework" time dedicated in school hours.  We segmented the school time into the periods a high school or a junior high might have (elementary schools tend to vary).  Between the time it takes to settle the kids down in their seats, attendance, announcements, prior lesson review, and homework announcement, every period contains a minimal (relative to tenure of the period) amount of academic coursework.  With very rough calculations (education people can help me out here), out of the 6 hours spent in school, about two to three hours are spent in actual academic material. 


What this makes me believe is that perhaps a person willing to instruct their children may be able to teach the core materials at home.  If it takes about minimum of 2-3 hours to teach coursework, then perhaps we can make the time to teach our kids the material (weeknights, weekends?).


Some would argue that there are other things that kids are learning other than academics.  For example, some kids may learn the "street knowledge" required to survive in the "real" world.  Others may learn to be social and explore their personal identity.  These other types of learning will be addressed later to see if schools are the ONLY place where these qualities can be attained.


2) The public school system's social culture delimits the student's ability to focus on academic, personal,
and spiritual/philosophical development.


Much of the student's spare or free time is spent on superficial social activities--fleeting activities that play no immediate world impact on the child, and escapades of some sort, such as developing a "cool look," attempting to attract or to be involved in cliques, chatting about superficial social activities that occurred at or after school, or going on outings to "kill" time.  This, in-turn requires more time to deal with the emotional results of those activities, and chatting on the phone or net, or “veging” (moping?) at home, dealing.  These superficial activities reduce their time and energy that they would otherwise spend in the application of the coursework, whether it be homework or observation, experimentation, and/or experience.


Some would argue that these social activities prepare the kids to the real world social/cultural arena.  However, in my experience, those same social ephemeral activities hinder our further development at home and at work.  There are many examples in the workplace where social structures hinder the ability of people to work more effectively. 


One common example is the continued usage of the clique or "cool/not cool" structure that started in school and continues in some work places.  These social structures, delimit the potential cooperation and effectiveness of a group of workers by ignoring the potentially powerful input or impact of social "liabilities" or social outcasts in the workplace.  If the social structure that children developed was different, perhaps this problem would be avoided. 


The social culture developed in schools and reinforced in the media is also affecting our social interaction with society.  In a similar fashion as in the workplace, our community gets affected by ignoring the inputs of many outcasts.


In the immediate world, we don't just interact with people our own age.  We interact with people with wide array of characteristics.  Public schools, as diverse as they can be, do not account for the various age/maturity equations of our community and culture.  Children's development should account for this reality.


Instead, we prepare our kids to enter an ineffective social paradigm that obstructs their growth.  For this reason, I believe that social and personal learning and development is better nurtured through the interaction between your parents, extended family, close relations, and clubs or organizations that offer specialized extra curricular activities where the child interacts in an atmosphere more akin to the "immediate world." 


3)  Public schools distance the connection between the student and the "immediate world."


Where the prior claim deals with the problem of preparing the children to assimilate to the community, this claim deals with the physical, psychological/emotional distance we force upon our children when we send them to public schools.


First, the physical distance from our children forces them to leave a possible comfortable environment of the home.  This situation also inhibits children from the potential of what could be one of the most important elements of human coexistence--physical loving and caring touch.  The time spent in school conditions the child to assimilate to a reality where physical touch is used sparingly and most often in inappropriate, uncomfortable, uncaring, and uncompassionate ways.  Physical touch is limited to some close friends (if that), through sexual or sporting activities, and/or through violence, the worst byproduct of the physical distance between the home and your child.


Second, the psychological and emotional implications can be substantial.  When we decide to leave our children to the care and attention of someone else, our children increasingly condition their minds to accept a reality where the home involves the controlling conditions of the public school.  For some, this kind of condition may be enjoyable.  But for others, this conditioning may foment bitter resentment and rebellion towards the home, school, and others, effectively inhibiting their learning, development, and coexisting. 


In a (supposed) Democratic and independent society, we should prepare our children to be free-thinking, critical, and independent beings, willing to question and challenge dogmas, and become pioneers of new and groundbreaking ventures.  Instead, we force them every weekday morning to get up, to go to a controlled environment where "authority figures" tell them how they must behave, what they must eat, when they must "break," what they should learn, when they must learn, and for how long they need to learn it.  One recent movie that is out on DVD, "The War on Kids," has an abundant amount of examples of how our children are being controlled, monitored, and conditioned to "follow directions.”  In an interview with Stephen Colbert, the author of the movie (Cevin Soling) states that schools were originally developed for the military and had intentions of preparing children to join the forces. (http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=256574).  Our children psychologically determine that their parents and society want them to be controlled and administered and their potentiality for independent and critical thought gets subdued.


Some would argue that this country is recognized as the best country that can flourish Democratic values, independent thinking, and a pioneer spirit—that our public schools are the reason for that proclivity.  I am not challenging the common knowledge that this country is recognized as a leader in independent thought, etc.  However, this type of thinking is not developed in public schools but rather in institutions of higher or collegiate learning.  In these institutions, the educational platform enables and enriches the student's potential for innovative and critical thought.  In such environments, independent thought grows.  But even these institutions, with the established course requirements and scores, hinder the geniuses and the best minds (that is why most of them leave school).


It is not hard to acknowledge how the transition from high school to college is very difficult for most of our children.  The public schools condition our kids to follow, be obedient, and to not cause or question problems.  Our colleges and universities, on the other hand, require that their candidates have a solid sense of critical thinking, analysis, and problem solving. 


It is increasingly becoming apparent that our schooling is deteriorating.  I am not claiming that there is only one factor.  However, if one examines this disconnect more carefully, perhaps one can appreciate the immensity of the problem and how this argument has some significant strength.

.....

The prosperity that the US has enjoyed is due, in part, to its political and commercial ideals, its educational system, and military might.  The public school system played an enormous part in all these factors.  After WWII, the industrial activity in the US increased dramatically.  The public school system was enhanced and further developed so that there can be a sufficient and capable amount of WORKERS IN FACTORIES.  Public schools were training our kids to follow instructions, learn basic coursework, and be athletically fit to be effective workers in a wide variety of industries and trades.


On the other hand, the young men who fought in WWII were already trained, or forced to learn (due to the circumstances of war), to follow and take command.  Ironically, the leaders and pioneers of the growing US economic affluence were not the young who were prepared in public schools, but rather, those who followed orders at war, learned to be independent, appreciated freedom, and received the opportunity to go to college after military service (via GI bill).  To this very day, we admire that great generation for its pioneering spirit, work ethic, and appreciation and zeal for the "American ideal." 


This trivial look back at history was meant to highlight the importance that public schools played in preparing an industrious workforce.  It is generally assumed that public schools developed the leaders of this country.  I don't believe that is the case.  The public school system only developed a great order-following workforce for the industrial demands of the 1900s.


As the US flourished, it garnered a decisive amount of command and power in the world.  The rest of the world followed suit and until recent times, developed their own competitive industry and workforce.  Presently, the US public school system has stagnated against changing times.  It has used its overwhelming power and authority to control those in public schools.  As (Marx?) stated, "power corrupts."  The excessive use of power and control of students has corrupted and decimated the ability of the public school system to even produce a solid workforce.

.....

Above, I have presented my reasons why I believe the public school system has not convinced me to indoctrinate my child/children in the system.


I do beleive that the public school system does have some positive functions.  They are as follows:


1) Public schools provide adequate curriculums to prepare students with general academics.  The tests also provide an adequate (but not sufficient) degree of analysis of the students' performance.


Nevertheless, I am apprehensive about the public school's ability to prepare a more concentrated curriculum and tests that can prepare the student for the demands of higher education and specializations.  In an article in the NY times (see NY TIMES, EARLY GRADUATION, SOPHOMORE), it mentions how this project attempts to deal with this public school deficiency.


2)  Public schools also have the potential to provide essential instruction on how to work or cooperate together--it adequately teaches teamwork.  I place emphasis on the "potential" because although I believe that public schools have the appropriate platform and facilities (gyms, music classes and theatres, science rooms, etc.), I don't believe that teamwork is emphasized enough.  There are some levels of partnering, but I would like there to be more.  At any rate, public schools do have a legitimate and strong ability to efficiently teach varied degrees of cooperation.


These positive attributes are the primary reason that I believe that homeschooling alone is insufficient.  Children do require aptitude tests (standardized tests) and they do require the capacity to cooperate on observations, expression, tasks, and jobs.  Therefore, I do not reject the public school system entirely.  However, if we are to analyze the varied subjects, topics, and qualities that our children develop as they grow, we should be able to conclude that perhaps other venues are more efficient than that of public schools.  I will focus on this on another post.