We homeschool our children.
I remember one time standing around with our neighbors outside on a Saturday afternoon when we were young parents still living in this condo complex. One of the other young mothers asks my wife about which school we were going to send our oldest son. My wife replies, “We’re going to homeschool him.”
Silence and blank stares.
Like looking into the eye of a chicken.
After about 8 seconds, one guy pipes up, “What’ya gonna do for their social skills?”
I answered, “Nothin.” The looks of dismay were precious.
Now just so I am clear:
Neither my wife, nor I , have anything specifically against public education. (Though our disdain for the creeping progressive leftism infecting public schools grows on a yearly basis). We were both publicly educated, and I actually graduated high school normal, well-adjusted, and loving my parents and church. And that in spite of the temptation to attend the weekly kegger parties.
My wife even taught 6th and 3rd grade for a number of years before she gave it up to become *GASP* a stay-at-home-mother.
We live in a more conservative than normal area of LA, so our public schools (for the most part) obviously reflect the community conservatism. We have never advocated “homeschool only.” We have a good number of close friends whose kids attend public schools. Some of them even attend LAUSD schools, and we let our kids play with their kids.
We had the conviction to homeschool for a few reasons.
First, we wanted to be the primary influence in our children’s young lives, not some gray-headed lady as sweet as she may be.
Second, we recognized how strong an influence our children’s peers can be. Public school, with their progressive values is bad enough, but parents can combat a lot of what kids are exposed to at home. It’s the peers that can be a problem. If there is one group of boys who are notoriously hateful toward authority, their influence is way more powerful on my sons than some spiteful, anti-Christian 5th grade teacher. Additionally, we didn’t want our kids exposed to junk earlier than we wanted them to be. In our day of instant, hard-core pornography on the internet, any 8-year old with an older teenage brother and the app to download videos onto his Ipod touch, can be scandalizing my kids’ minds before school or at lunch.
Third, schools waste a lot of time on frivolous, stupid stuff like pep rallies and seminars about not smoking, going green, bullying gays, etc. It’s nonsense junk our undiscerning, feelings-driven culture believes is essential for being healthy. In reality, it’s filler to keep the kids in class until a specific time, like baby sitting; and it’s propaganda to teach them to be mushy minded, pliable leftist. The truly important stuff, you know, like reading, writing, adding numbers, could take half a day to complete. With my wife directing the course work of our children, their education stays focused and their thinking isn’t cluttered by silliness.
Fourth, our education is well-rounded, much more so that what is offered in public education. By that I mean our kids will be exposed to ALL points of view and they will be taught how to critically think through those issues.
Kids now-a-days – and I am thinking more along the lines of older, teenage kids – go to class and hear one point of view from a teacher. Yes. I know people want to think a teacher is objective, fair, and centered on the facts of the material being presented, but such is rarely the case. They are imparting their values onto a subject they are teaching.
So, for example, the obvious contentious debate between evolution and creation will be hopelessly lopsided in a public school setting. That’s because the school is forbidden to teach creation and the teacher is typically biased in favor of evolutionary thought. Thus, the kids get a propaganda lecture, and are not taught to critically think through the issues of dissenting opinion. Even more so now with the Gaystapo demanding children be exposed to homosexual perversion earlier and earlier in their education. The last thing I want is 7 year olds told about cross-dressing and sex change operations in their 2nd grade class.
Our convictions to homeschool are shared by many of our friends, and I would imagine the hundreds of thousands of homeschooling families across the United States. However, our convictions are despised by the elites who worship the State “god.” In fact, our convictions are beginning to be considered subversive, undermining the very fabric of our society.
As Big Gay continues to cram their agenda down the throats of families in our culture, and eventually corrupt our laws, any “dissent” against homosexuality being a legitimate lifestyle will not be tolerated. Meaning, homeschoolers, who tend to be Christocentric and in turn confidently teach their children homosexuality is sinful perversion and contradicts simple, biological nature and that it will be judged by God, will increasingly be seen as a serious threat to the secular society. So much so, that any talk of “tolerating” the intolerant for the sake of the 1st amendment rights will be dismissed.
Consider a moment a report written by law professor Catherine Ross,
It is a amazing document to read. She practically argues that homeschoolers shouldn’t exist. Those that do should be hunted down and their kids seized.
Consider some of her more precious insights, (Note my emphasis)
Many liberal political theorists argue, however, that there are limits to tolerance. In order for the norm of tolerance to survive across generations, society need not and should not tolerate the inculcation of absolutist views that undermine toleration of difference. Respect for difference should not be confused with approval for approaches that would splinter us into countless warring groups. Hence an argument that tolerance for diverse views and values is a foundational principle does not conflict with the notion that the state can and should limit the ability of intolerant homeschoolers to inculcate hostility to difference in their children—at least during the portion of the day they claim to devote to satisfying the compulsory schooling requirement. [Ross, 1005]
Homeschooling parents who subscribe to an absolutist belief system are at the base of many legal disputes that arise in schools. They often insist on a closed system of communication—objecting to their children’s hearing or reading about discordant ideas or beliefs. If a parent subscribes to an absolutist belief system premised on the notion that it was handed down by a creator, that it (like the Ten Commandments) is etched in stone and that all other systems are wrong, the essential lessons of a civic education (i.e., tolerance and mutual respect) often seem deeply challenging and suspect. If the core principle in a parent’s belief system is that there is only one immutable truth that cannot be questioned, many educational topics will be off limits. Such “private truths” have no place in the public arena, including the public schools. [Ross, 1006]
I love this line, They often insist on a closed system of communication—objecting to their children’s hearing or reading about discordant ideas or beliefs. I wonder if she would say the same thing about a biology teacher who insists on telling kids how homosexuals, according to the facts of the CDC, are more disease ridden and often die early deaths? And what about those Muslims with their “closed system of communication?”
But I digress.
And in conclusion she writes,
As I have argued, democracy relies on citizens who share core values, including tolerance for diversity. When parents reject these values, the state’s best opportunity to introduce them lies in formal education. Setting aside all of the other issues surrounding homeschooling, the importance of inculcating democratic values is sufficient reason for more rigorous regulation of homeschooling than prevails at present. Whatever the precise parameters of parental liberty ultimately prove to be under the U.S. Constitution, they neither protect the right of parents to homeschool without oversight nor outweigh the state’s interest in the appropriate education of youth for citizenship. [Ross, 1013]
When Ross writes, “tolerance for diversity,” that’s Orwellian new speak for “you must embrace my sexual perversion without question and celebrate it with me.”
I don’t think we can mark this off as the rantings of a bitter homeschoolers anonymous, anti-patriarchy church hater. She represents the growing voice of the “machine” demanding that you conform or be cast out. And it’s more than just long-suffering with sinners: if you teach your kids anything the “machine” loathes, you do so at the peril of you and your family.
I guarantee you. Here in the good ole’ US of A, we’ll soon be reading more of these reports.