The Most Infuriating Article!

[iggaboo]

This is an archived Seattle Times article from 2001. I think it is probably the most infuriating thing I have ever read re: homeschooling.. Just had to share, because it made me so mad..

I know many people don't think homeschooling is a "good idea" but geez, this is pretty harsh.. I've never met anyone who felt like this (that I know of)..

Questioning the motives of home-schooling parents

Yates and McGuckin are, of course, extreme cases and probably demented. But a movement that insists on parents' rights to do as they wish with their children gives cover for the unstable, for narcissists and for child-abusers.

[pamamidwife]

Yep, that's me - I fit in those categories. I also run a meth lab in my home, so I don't want my daughter blabbing her mouth off at school. That's precisely why I keep her at home...

OH, and also the horrible promotion of homosexuality in schools...

oh, yeah, and the fact that I am physically unable to get myself out of bed until 2pm daily.....

of course, that could be due to the large amounts of Jagermeister I drink every night....



/sarcasm



Honestly, wouldn't it be easier to send your kids off to public school for daycare to get them out of your hair if they were such a pain in the ass?

[Kylix]

I am floored by that article. It just kept getting worse and worse.

The author constantly discredits any benefits that homeschooling has been lauded to have--such as high standardized test scores (which to me isn't even impt as grades and test scores aren't my reasoning to homeschool anyway. )

However, the biggest problem with this article is that the person who wrote this does not even remotely understand why people choose to homeschool their children. Yes there are some sickos that want to isolate their children. But you'll find several crazy parents with horrible motives for sending their kids to public and private schools. It's also a red flag when he uses two highly unusual cases to back his claims. It's just a poorly written article

The author's lack of understanding is clear in this statement--

The best way to maintain the sanctity of a family madhouse is to keep the inmates inside. Allowing children to move about in the world could jeopardize the deal.

I am opting to unschool/homeschool because I want my children to have MORE opportunity to move around in the REAL WORLD not the artificial environment that public and private school sets up. I choose this not to isolate my children but to expand their horizons and give them more chances and time to explore a diversity of topics of their interest.

The author INSISTS that the reasoning behind homeschooling is to protect children from the cesspool of bad morals in public school. This is a horrible generalization. Looking around at this board (and while I know we are no representative of all homeschoolers), I have rarely heard anyone here say that is THE reason to homeschool. Lack of morals never was one of my reasons. Promotion of horrible social skills, yes. But lack of morals, no.

Even religious homeschoolers who don't like what is being taught in public school actively seek out ways for their children to integrate into society.

The author assumes that the only means of a child being present in society is through public school. And to me, this is the saddest thought that I find ever-present in every anti-homeschooling slogan. If you honestly think that children must be in school from 8 til 3 five days a week to be a productive and social citizen, then that is just sad. Sad for you and sad for your children. There are a whole host of activities that children can be a part of and do well. Public school is not the end all and be all of integration into society.


Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here.

Kylix

[cottonwood]

Aw heck, I wrote a letter, but now I see that the article is from two years ago! No point sending it the editor, I guess. But you all want to read it, right?

---------------

In her opinion piece “Questioning the motives of home-schooling parents,” Froma Harrop cites horror stories of abuse that happened because children were apparently barricaded in at home and did not have access to outside help. Her anger over such situations is of course justified, and is a serious consideration as far as the issue of regulation. Unfortunately, she seems to feel that the same anger is applicable to homeschooling in general, even when her notions about the nature of homeschooling are apparently based on nothing more than her own limited perspective and experience. She concludes, for instance, that “there is something sad about home-schooled children” after meeting with a homeschooled family in which the children seem to be quiet and shy. I could as easily, of course, come up with unpleasant observations about children I know who spend the bulk of their days in institutions. But I don’t need to rely on such anecdotes to discredit our educational system – it is enough that the problems inherent in it are well-documented in the educational literature. On the other hand, the problems that Harrop claims belong to homeschooling – that the children are generally socially maladjusted and isolated from the world – have not been shown to be a given. To the contrary, for most of history humankind has not been institutionalized from infancy or childhood, yet still individuals somehow managed to gain knowledge, make social contacts, and become socially adept.

I cannot speak for all homeschooling families, but I and the homeschooling families I know are foregoing institutionalized education for our children not because we “can't get along with others,” nor because “the outside world is a cesspool of bad values,” nor because we wish to make them captive, but because we wish for them to experience a life fuller and richer and with more opportunities for growth than that which a compulsory, artificially-devised environment could possibly offer.

[CerridwenLorelei]

I remember this article

I even wrote a letter to author about this part

"there is something sad about home-schooled children” after meeting with a homeschooled family in which the children seem to be quiet and shy. "
SInce the children she was referring to where at a serious social function being quiet and shy was very appropriate. I also went on to point out the she was likely mistaking shyness for politeness and manners and I did go on a bit and do my OWN comparisons...

Since last month I got compliments about the "best children I have ever seen " on all four I think I will go with the lady on the streets observation and our peds about "happy healthy kids"

[chicklet]

A very poorly written article, such ignorance....

How about the "yay or nay" column in "reader to reader" of this month's Woman's Day magazine-

It asked readers to vote "yay" or "nay" on such silly topics as

Colored Ketchup -17%yay, 83% nay

or

The end of summer - 31%yay, 69%nay


Oh, then there's Homeschooling kids - 42%yay, 58%nay

What the heck? I don't see ther relevance of homeschooling in a column asking "What's hot and what's not"

I'm put off enough to not buy the magazine...oh the ignorance!

[cottonwood]

ha! Well, the message to me is that someone's opinion on whether homeschooling is "hot" or not is about as important as their opinion on the end of summer. :