The Anti-Homeschooling Post
A friend of mine wrote a post lately where she spoke out against California’s ruling that homeschooling is a crime. Since I know she and her husband enjoy a good debate, and this issue is something my wife and I talk about pretty often, I have decided to chime in.
My wife and I have some acquaintances who are either homeschooling their children, plan to homeschool, or have been home schooled. Let me just say right off the bat that even though we disagree with those decisions, we love them all and do not think any less of them.
Homeschooling is very popular among conservative, fundamentalist Christians. There is a commonly-held view among them that some things taught in public schools (such as evolution and gender identity) are wrong or that the social interactions with other kids at school are too dangerous. In the true spirit of American individualism, the parents choose to withdraw their children from public schools and either teach them themselves or enroll them in a private Christian school. As a Christian who may someday have children, I can easily understand how keeping my child out of a public school would seem beneficial. However, I keep coming back to the conclusion that doing so would be irresponsible to my child and to society.
Just as it is impractical for one to build their own roads, sewer system, and power plant, it is impractical for one to take on the duty of a child’s teacher in all subjects for every age level. Technology and human collective knowledge have progressed to the point where we must depend on others to help us out. This includes teaching. I can choose not to depend on the city to provide my water, but my quality of life will be significantly lower, if not outright unhealthy. I can choose to try and teach my son Geometry, but in reality, I will fail and end up telling him to read the book. If he doesn’t understand the book, well, he’s just out of luck, unless he’s a genius. Where does this leave the non-genius children who have inadequate teachers? The homeschooler will argue that there are plenty of under-qualified teachers in the public school system. This leads us to my second point.
Parents need to be involved with their child’s education. For too many parents, school is “daycare with benefits.” Not many are willing to take on the responsibility of keeping teachers personally accountable. They’d much rather have congress whip together a No Child Left Behind Act that institutes ineffective standardized testing and sacrifices deep learning experiences for learning what bubbles to fill in on the test. An ideal school system would involve parental and student feedback that weeds out ineffective teachers and sets policies for what is taught. Furthermore, it is very telling that the students who typically do the worst in school are the ones whose parents are not involved. The problems with the public school system are not going to be solved by acts of congress, just as poverty will never be eliminated through welfare programs. It requires community participation.
While withdrawing from a social institution may seem to provide short-term benefits, the effects are always negative for all parties. The poor always suffer the most as a result. For example, as middle class white people withdrew from urban areas to live in the suburbs, urban neighborhoods and schools severely deteriorated. They’re caught in a downward spiral of needing investment, but lacking the tax income to provide that investment. The only way out is for affluent neighbors to invest. Similarly, if all concerned parents withdraw from public schools, the majority who are left in the public schools will be left to rot in an unchecked system of under-qualified teachers teaching moral ambiguity. Wait, that’s already happening…
Sidebar: It was interesting to me, learning about the run-up to the Civil War, to hear what the was reason for pro-Unionists to keep the South from seceding. Their reasoning went as follows: If the losing political minority withdraws from a system of government every time a law is passed against them, the law will have no meaning because all of those who are opposed to a law are essentially choosing not to follow it. If I am pro-murder, I will just secede from the Union and murder will be legal for me. It’s another example of how institutions fail when no one wants to participate.
Why do we care about society? The typical right-wing Christian mindset says that we are all sinners and that the world is hopelessly lost to corruption, violence, and poverty. Since there is no hope for society, better for me to live in a shack in the woods where I can read my bible and live a Godly life, far away from the influence of the evil world. I used to hold this view myself. However, it is not what Jesus taught.
Jesus’ first recorded miracle is actually a clue to us as to what His plan is for us:
On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”
“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.”
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.
This story is very rich in symbolism and John gives us some clues. First, the miracle happend “on the third day.” Second, the scene is a wedding. In the Old Testament, marriage was used symbolically to represent Israel’s (the bride) union and close relationship with God (the groom). Third, wine was used by Old Testament prophets to represent peace, fruitful labor, and blessings - heaven on earth. Essentially, this story boils down to servents bringing heaven on earth by following Jesus’ commands.
This story flatly contradicts the idea that the world is doomed to sinful decay. We have a part in doing God’s will to bring heaven on earth. Jesus initiated the moment where heaven and earth meet - are wedded - and bring hope to a fallen world.
Conservative Christians typically focus solely on their relationship with God. They strive to fulfill the first, greatest commandment - to love God with their whole soul, mind, and strength. However they many times miss the second part of that commandment - to love others as themselves. I spent most of my life ignoring that commandment and then most of the rest of my life only focusing on the first part of it. It’s easy to start a “God and me club,” but it’s hard to truly love others as God loves them. In fact, as you read the bible, you realize that if you are to truly love God, it follows naturally that you will love what he loves - justice, healing, the orphan, the widow, and your pointy-haired boss.
This brings us back to society. What is our mission as Christians who are trying to do God’s will and restore creation to its creator? Do we hide in our homeschools or do we try to help steer society toward what is good?
P.S. I take no credit for that little sermonette. It was lifted directly from what I remember from one of Rob Bell’s and from the book Walking With the Poor.
