Abandoning the public schools

Many people believe that homeschooling means abandoning the public schools. If the involved and motivated parents leave the schools, doesn't this weaken public education? Shouldn't these involved parents stay and fight for better schools?

Involved parents can't actually do very much for public education except fundraise, act as chaperones, and pull up the test score averages. Do they influence curriculum? Do they increase creativity in the classroom, or improve lesson plans? Do they counter administrators by insisting on teacher autonomy? Do they fight against the incessant use of carrots and sticks, of extrinsic motivators? Do they successfully reduce "kill and drill" in favor of science and history? Do they increase art and music instruction? Do they influence policies on recess, "silent lunch," or busing?

No, an "involved" parent is basically a parent who kisses the school's butt. In contrast, a parent who has the temerity to demand change is simply a troublemaker. And for all their efforts, such a parent is extremely unlikely to successfully change the school. They may win concessions for their own child, but they rarely change the institution.

The reforms that do occur (led by educators and politicians) have not altered the basic structures of school which impede learning, such as age segregation, learning on a set schedule, and short class periods. They have not resulted in interesting textbooks, nor reduced bullying and sexual harassment. We're going backwards in terms of administrative overhead, with twice the number of administrators per teacher than we had 50 years ago. And NCLB is a giant leap backward. Graduation rates are at a historical low, literacy rates are still lower than before compulsory schooling--

In short, reforms have never been particularly successful. Not only are they not parent-led, but they consistently strip away students' and teachers' autonomy. They consistently add to the bureaucratic burden of schools, and they consistently shrink the breadth of information taught.

This is a situation where we do not need reform. We need revolution.

Revolution, though, requires some vision of what education could be. Of what it might be if we invested this much money and effort in a system not designed by Henry Ford, Frederick Taylor, the robber barons and a bunch of fascist Prussians. How are we going to create that vision, when people have no faith in natural learning and abhor giving children autonomy? People mostly believe that education is inherently a difficult, fraught, unpleasant process. They don't believe children can learn reading and basic arithmetic in (as John Gatto claims) under 100 hours of instruction. They don't believe that handwriting, typing, spelling and most grammar can simply be absorbed by avid readers and writers. They're scared by the idea that different children might learn different things, that one might know about internal combustion engines and another about fossils. Such children cannot be compared and ranked, nor is it usually obvious which is the more "important" knowledge. For two centuries the elites have strictly defined the "important" knowledge; they aren't going to give up control easily.

The only way to convince people that an alternative path is possible is to live one. I don't think "school at home" fulfills this role, personally (though it's still better for the kids than school). But as an unschooler, I would hope that the example of my kids learning with extremely little coercion or adult direction would cause people to question our system of schooling.

My family is a living example that there are other ways. And I think that's the best thing I can do for education, though it's certainly inimical to public schooling as we know it.