thoughts since my last post

I had some interesting responses and discussion generated by my last post, both on and off the blog. It makes me think and reevaluate, and that is a good thing. Here is some of what I learned from the discussion.

For one thing, I will concede that there are some good reasons behind children entering school when they do, rather than an earlier or later age. Like I mentioned in my last post, this age does correspond with a stage of development in which the child becomes able to focus on and enjoy learning and find satisfaction in the accomplishments it provides. Furthermore, like my friend Kelly pointed out, the research indicates that 90% of the connections in our brain are formed by the time a child is three years old. So, the first three years of life are the most critical for introducing and reinforcing important neural pathways in the brain, including the neural pathways for forming secure attachments with primary caregiver(s), connections which provide a framework for further emotional and social development later. (This is my understanding from the little bit of reading I have done on the subject, anyway. There are many more articles and books I'd like to read.) So, if you have a classroom education in mind, I can see why around age six might seem a good time to begin.

In light of this point, perhaps "attachment" was not the best word for me to use to describe my concern about my children being away from me for the majority of their waking hours. Maybe it would be more appropriate to speak in terms of the priority of family life or the influence of the family in a child's life, as opposed to a primarily peer-influenced, peer-dependent childhood? I am still working some of these ideas out in my head and trying to articulate what it is I really feel or believe about them. I know many of my friends maintain the priority and influence of family in their children's lives even though their children attend all day school. I am not saying home schooling is the only way to do this! It does seem to be a simple way to accomplish it, though, at least at this stage in the life of our family.

I also continue to question the number of hours in a school day for young elementary. I see that children this age may be ripe for learning and ready for the curriculum, but I don't see that spending seven hours a day in this pursuit is either necessary or the best use of the hours in their day at this age. I see how the current strategies work well for a classroom full of children, in order to reach the students at various levels and with their different styles of learning, and how seven hours a day would be required to implement these strategies and methods. Yet, as long as I am able and willing to teach Jacob one-on-one at home, we can cover the material from the school day in much less time. I'm not saying that the children whose parents choose to send them to all day school for whatever reason are experiencing any harm by being in school for as many hours as they are. However, if by teaching him at home, I can free up more hours of my child's day for other pursuits, then that seems like a good thing.

The objection that someone might bring up at this point is that although I can cover the material more efficiently at home, I don't have the training or experience that a certified teacher does. However, I would counter that although I don't have experience teaching a classroom full of children, I do have the advantage of having experience with my particular child and the way he learns best. I do strive to educate myself regarding the best teaching methods and curriculum choices, and I have instructor's guides to help me stay on track and cover the material effectively. I think the fact that I can tailor his education to his particular needs, interests, and pace can outweigh the benefits of receiving instruction from an experienced classroom teacher who is balancing the needs, interest, and pace of twenty or more students.

Although I know many who read my blog already see some of the benefits of home schooling and are not totally opposed to the idea, I know there are a few who read that can't fathom why I would not simply choose the public schools. Many see the public schools as one of the great opportunities given to those of us lucky enough to grow up in America, an opportunity anyone would be crazy to forfeit. After all, we get a better education than most of the rest of the world, and we get it for free! Yet, some of the aspects of public education that might be espoused as virtues or accomplishments by this camp are the very things that concern me. The idea of creating a certain type of citizenry through public education, or encouraging certain state sponsored values, concerns me. This is all well and good as long as they are values I share, but what happens when they aren't? I am thankful we are not required to submit our children to public school teaching if or when it contradicts our values. In addition to this is the concern that our children would be conditioned to merely take in and regurgitate material for a test rather than eagerly exploring a range of material and ideas and learning to examine them logically and critically. This kind of teaching and learning "to the test" can cause students to burn out and become uninterested in learning and eager to be done with it, as opposed to our goal of helping our children to remain eager, life-long learners and to become critical thinkers.

The final concern some of my friends and family have posed is that despite whatever advantages there may be to home schooling for the child, those advantages don't merit whatever it costs me personally. I guess the only way to answer that is that for now, I'm still willing to pay the price personally and for now, at least, the advantages that I perceive we are gaining seem worth whatever it may be costing me. But as you can see, I am not criticizing any one else's choice for the education of their child, and we are keeping our options open should another option become necessary or prudent for our family.