State shouldn't choke off educational freedom for home-schoolers

Spectrum, by Michael Miller

Recently, the Frontiersman ran an editorial on the need of having home-schoolers be supervised by the state. This is the second time I've seen an editorial to that effect, and while I was too lazy to respond the first time, I guess the second time is the charm.

Firstly, I'd like to state that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the editorial team of the Frontiersman (I can see people going "uh oh" already) and the opinion pieces themselves were written in an exemplary fashion -- presenting the situation, then giving a viewpoint and trying to reach a solution that would be amenable to everyone involved. I seriously wish more media outlets followed this course.

However, I must disagree with the piece, and strongly. I'd like to point out what I think are several flaws within the reasoning of many well-minded people who have proposed similar things.

The first assumption made is that without supervision, some parents shall choose to not teach their children at all, and that they shall grow up to be uneducated cave dwellers at worst, or ignorant delinquents at best.

The second assumption ties into the first -- that schools prevent such instances, and that with the state monitoring all children and providing tests to ensure they are reaching appropriate standards, home-schoolers will be prevented from reaching such lamentable lows.

The thing is, I can't think of even one instance of a home-schooler being an unemployed ignoramus, indeed, I'm sure we are all familiar by now with the much-touted fact that home-schoolers are the ones who regularly win national spelling bees, history quizzes, so on and so forth.

Of course, that doesn't prevent the theoretical possibility of some parents ignoring their children's education altogether, thus leading to ignorant and disadvantaged offspring.

Which brings me to my second point, which is that while it is entirely possible that some home-schooled children grow up to have some kinds of serious problems, it is a seriously shortsighted thought to assume that somehow the state will do a better job.

Public schools spew out untold thousands of complete nincompoops every year, kids who are incapable of reading adequately, doing basic math without a calculator, writing without the most atrocious spelling mistakes or even pointing out key countries like, say, Canada, on maps.

The point is, we have only a theoretical possibility of one or two home-schooled children being uneducated, whereas anyone can observe and testify that the school system produces many uneducated delinquents and criminals that wind up on the streets. I hold it to be self-evident that even with monitoring and tests, children can and will walk away with next to nothing in terms of education.

Why? I think it's hardly the fault of the long-suffering teachers and faculty members at most schools, it's the simple fact that you can lead a child to school but you can't force her to care.

What many people overlook is that without the child wanting to learn, actually caring, then precious little can be accomplished. Certainly, I'm not alone in thinking this, I have numerous friends who are teachers or educators of another variety that all express frustration at students who simply don't care, and thus don't walk away with anything useful.

They also express frustration at -- and this is key -- the fact that the parents don't care.

This is the crux of this entire issue; namely, if the parents don't care about their child's education then that child is at a massive disadvantage strictly from their home environment.

It doesn't matter if they are home-schooled or not, poor parenting results in children who have much more to overcome. It's certainly possible for some wonderful children to rise above this, and many do, but any child who wants to learn will do so either at home or at school.

Finally, some pose the answer that regardless, it is better for the state to mandate certain teaching standards rather than ignoring the home-school situation entirely.

But if there is no demonstrable need for such intervention (and I certainly don't see unwashed hordes of home-schooled troglodytes creeping out from the bush), then coming up with laws and regulations for a purely abstract problem is especially silly when many home-schoolers -- valid, dedicated and existing home-schoolers -- would be hindered by this.

There are many families that live in the Bush and have difficulty communicating with the outside world on a regular basis. Their lifestyle frequently precludes any kind of arbitrary schedules or deadlines that the state might enforce.

There can be solid months in which teaching and studying is not feasible, and a family might choose to focus on one subject one year and on another the next. For many, that kind of freedom is precisely the point. Since the results can be shown to be spectacular, to choke off such freedom that is granted by our state, and our state alone, simply for the sake of a theoretical issue would be, to my mind, something of a tragedy.

Michael Miller is a resident of a Lazy Mountain, runs a small business and was home-schooled.