Neo-Anabaptist Scot McKnight has written a response to a recent
Slate article entitled
"Liberals: Don't Homeschool Your Kids." The primary argument of the
Slate article is that
#homeschooling can never be progressive because homeschooling by its decentralized nature cannot serve the needs of society at large.
McKnight counters that a diversity of perspectives benefits a polyglot society more than the monolithic perspective a 100% compliant public school system would foster. He writes,
Aren’t we better off in a society that draws on folks who got different sorts of education? Some progressives seem to think a diverse society is one where every 14-year-old in America arrives at school, pledges allegiance to the nation’s flag, takes out an American history textbook shaped by panels of bureaucrats in California and Texas, and proceeds to be guided by a teacher with a state issued credential in how best to pass a standardized test. Who is celebrating diversity, the champions of putting every kid in the education wonk’s vision of the ideal classroom, or the folks who want some kids to start their day interacting with multi-ethnic classmates while others start their school day praying and still others learn about raising backyard chickens?
It is interesting to me that liberals/progressives generally claim a monopoly on embracing diversity, when my understanding of conservatism (based largely around the local agrarian insights of a Wendell Berry or, dare I say, Thomas Jefferson) is based precisely around preserving specific instances of diversity.
As McKnight summarizes,
"society as a whole requires people who challenge the prevailing system if it is to identify the few who can offer new insights." Clipped from its context defending homeschooling as one choice among many (and McKnight emphasizes that it may not be the best choice), this could be part of any progressive mantra.
What do you think? Who has the corner on diversity? Is either homeschooling or its eradication more likely to benefit society as a whole?
-NDSR
Comments (6)
I think the distinction is becoming less clear as the right wing has opened up its arms to minorities. I find the homeschooling blurb kind of absurd in nature though.
Honestly I don't think homeschooling or eradicating it would have a hell of a lot of impact on society. I think both "regular" schooling and homeschooling have so many issues, and they both have pros and cons that should be considered. Homeschooling correctly is hard. Teaching for a full classroom correctly is hard. Unless we overhaul the entire education system (yes, please), what happens to homeschooling is pretty irrelevant to society in general. Sure eradicating it would effect those that homeschool or were homeschooled, but as for affecting society? I just don't see it.
No one has the corner on diversity (at least not when considering home school vs. public school). However, even if they did, so? I think diversity for diversity's sake is overrated.
Regardless, idc which benefits society more. It's not society's decision what students learn, and they don't get to trump individual rights in the interest of "the greater good."
A number of my nonreligious peer moms have taken the un/homeschooling approach, also tending to choose not to vaccinate their kids, and then been surprised to realize that they - who tend to lean far left - are in homeschooling groups with Christian conservatives. I must admit that I have never found either choice: to refuse to vaccinate or to refuse public education to be liberal choices, they have always seemed to me to be incredibly selfish choices. They elevate and isolate one's own children relative to the community. They presume that children can't be themselves within a school system and rather than invest in attempting to change the system in a way that would benefit all kids, they exert their privilege to opt out of the system entirely.
I may be feeling this a little strongly, since I just came out of a school meeting for my daughter's special needs, and I am, as usual, so touched by the dedication and effort these incredible people put into understanding my daughter and ensuring that her learning experience is as appropriate to her as it could possibly be. I know that in advocating for her, I also bring attention to other kids whose needs are similar, and together we keep on improving the schools - for all the kids. Sure, I suppose I could be doing this in my own little home and then blogging about it - but in reality I do think the most liberal choice is to get out there and bring about real change in the places where kids whose parents can't advocate for them are (hence the vax parallel - because a community that is largely vaccinated can protect those few individuals who can't be.)
My response speaks more to the original Slate article than to McKnight. His point of view - that an adult population is more diverse by merit of having home/unschoolers in the mix is undoubtedly true. As well, our adult population also is benefited by having people educated in various school systems around the globe - indeed we also benefit from interacting with the illiterate and people whose life conditions have kept them from school entirely. The key problem here may be that the Slate article seems to define "society" as including our community's families and school systems and McKnight seems to define it solely as a post-school world. Maybe neither is exclusively true.
I'm not sure there's much difference between home-schooling and school-homing as a practical matter. The advocates of neither of them seem interested in true diversity, because exposing children to true diversity means being willing to let them encounter thousands of things you find morally wrong, and many parents simply aren't willing to do that or would not be willing to do it if they understood the consequences.
@stuartandabby - Couldn't have said it better