Home Education Unburdens Students from Educationally Ineffective Schooling Paradigms

One of the great joys of home education is detangling our children’s education from what I have come to call educationally ineffective schooling paradigms (EISP). So, what are EISPs? In short, they are the necessary elements of institutional schooling that are implemented for efficiency and pragmatism, but which do not substantially contribute to the furtherance of an individual child’s education. d’Escoto & d’Escoto (2007) described these as “ineffective schoolish ways” (pp. 13-14). You can think of EISPs as the processes of educational industrialism which facilitates the smooth output of a standardized product. That product is government schooling graduates, millions each year. However, as home educators, we do not necessarily want the standardized product of public schooling, and I would dare say that most of us want something wholly different.

?

The following, certainly not an all-inclusive list, are the EISPs which I believe home educators can avoid if they intentionally choose to do so.

When to Start Formal Academic Instruction

Our society has established, varying somewhat from one locality to another, that children need to start formal education at about the age of five or six (NCES, 2017). All states have compulsory attendance laws mandating school attendance at a given age, and some states have implemented programs to make education eligible for children as young as three or four, if not younger. Some state legislatures have even tried to lower the compulsory schooling age to reach these younger years under the force of law.

Why is this an EISP? As far back as the 1970s, Dr. Raymond and Dorothy Moore (1975) made a clear and convincing argument that “the normal child’s brain is not ready for sustained learning programs—until he is 8 to 10 years of age” (p. xi). Many education texts acknowledge that every child varies in the way they learn and how they process academic information, so how can we presume that a given child is ready for instruction by an arbitrary age? Home education allows those that are ready to learn at an earlier age to do so, and those that are not ready until later can learn through other means until they are ready for more formal instruction. ?

The Grade-Level Paradigm

A pragmatic necessity of institutionalized schooling is the compartmentalization of instruction in definable levels to determine progress and completion. It is an inherent part of any schooling effort, but this does necessarily contribute to academic attainment on an individual student level. In any given class of twenty or thirty students, only one or two can be truly average (simply by definition of “average”), so the instruction must be aimed at the “average” student, which means that for the upper quartile of students the teaching is well below their level (they are probably bored), and the lower quartile are being taught far above their level (meaning they are probably lost in the instruction). Even the most capable and motivated teacher cannot possibly tailor instruction in a classroom to meet the needs of every student in the class.

Home educators can completely avoid this restrictive paradigm of institutional schooling and gain freedom as a result (d’Escoto & d’Escoto, 2007, p. 19). I can give a personal anecdotal story as I have a special needs son, whose cognitive abilities are not consistent across a single grade-level of material. At this moment, his course work ranges from 6th to 9th grade level. He needs to work each subject at his appropriate level, home education enables this. Another special aspect of my son’s education is that he is an “out-loud” learner, which is to say, he learns best when he is able to verbally articulate what he is learning and receive instant feedback from me when necessary. Imagine trying this in a class of twenty students, even if only four or five needed to verbalize what they are learning. It would be chaotic, and those children would likely be labeled with some sort of disorder and moved to “special needs” classes which expect very little of students.

If you ask many home-educated children, “What grade are you in?”, you might get a deer in the headlights look. To be quite honest, to many of us, it doesn’t matter, and it shouldn’t matter because attaining a certain grade level is not specifically correlated to attainment of knowledge. Truesdell (2020) emphatically and succinctly declared, “Grade levels don’t matter” (p. 189).

Being Ahead or Behind

Along the same lines as grad-levels, is the EISP of being “ahead” or “behind.” Because institutionalized schooling has as its goal to get the masses of student through the predetermined curriculum within their years of compulsory schooling, there needs to be some metrics of progress to determine how students are progressing. This presumes that most students in a given cohort will progress at substantially the same rate and require the same instruction. This presumption is what leaves outliers such as advanced students languishing compared to their potential, though they look excellent on paper. It is also what leaves other students “behind” in comparison or even forces them to be relegated to low achievement expectation “special education” classes. ?

Home educators can avoid this EISP by determining not to see their children as “ahead” or “behind.” Truesdell (2020) stated, “There is no such thing as ‘behind’ in homeschooling…It’s so common to worry about ‘getting behind’ because we have been trained to think in terms of grade levels, test scores and benchmarks” (pp. 187-188). This topic comes up in social media forums regularly and I consistently witness veteran home educators encouraging those who are bound to this EISP to release themselves from the bonds it brings, because it is in their power to do so. ??

Comparing Themselves Among Themselves

Institutionalized schooling recognizes the completion of standardized levels of schooling, via the grade levels, but also via individual course grades, and even student ranking in graduating classes. The pits every student against every other student in a game of who can come out on top. Some would say that competition is good, and it forces some students to excel. Perhaps that is the case for some, but with differing God-given talents, not all students are on the exact same trajectory. Those who come out on top are the ones who have learned to play the game (Robert Fried cited in McDonald, 2019a, p. 2).

II Corinthians 10:12 admonishes us that comparing ourselves among ourselves is not wise. Home educators have no need to do this, although they may choose to do so if they desire. I tell my children all the time that the only person they should be competing against is themselves to accomplish the most that can in accordance with that which glorifies God. We record scores to show progress, for record keeping, and to challenge them do their best, but without the competitive stigma if one student doesn’t accomplish as much or more than another.

Labeling Children by Accomplishment

Something that follows the comparison of students among themselves, is the labeling of students by their ability or lack thereof. For years there have been categorizations of students who excel in one or more academic areas, and students who face learning challenges. Unfortunately, an economic incentive exists in public schooling for categorizing children as having learning deficits or disabilities (LD), and this had expanded exponentially in recent decades (Collins and Tamarkin, 1982, p. 111; d’Escoto & d’Escoto, 2007, p. 18; Friedrichs, 2021, p. 64). Expanded funding, generally from the federal level (Wayne, 2018, p. 134), accompanies any student labeled LD in any respect. Kerry McDonald (2019b) calls this overdiagnosis a “epidemic” that is rooted in schooling and not a problem with children.

Home educators can take each child, regardless of advanced ability or challenges, and help them progress at their ideal pace and in their ideal way to achieve the most. Because these labels often lead to stigmatization (Truesdell, 2020, p. 56), home educators can avoid this EISP altogether. Under home education, every child can be educated via a tailored program of instruction with a goal of maximizing potential, regardless of any label that schools would otherwise apply. Social media forums on homeschooling “special needs” student often address the issue of “Individualized Education Plans (IEPs),” which are another EISP of institutionalized schooling, but strictly speaking, every home educated child has an individualized education plan, even is not formalized as would be done in school.

As someone with a child who was labeled as LD in the early years of his education (rightfully so, given a significant medical condition), I can attest to a serious limitation of “special education” in public school. Many special education teachers are well-intentioned, but they are also limited by pragmatism. There is only so much one teacher can do if assigned to numerous students, and most are assigned to many. Additionally, the standard of “success” with a special education student is very low, so there is no motivation for schools to help students to achieve all that they can, but only that they make some progress forward, no matter how little. When we pulled our “special needs” son from this public special education program his progress increased exponentially. In our estimation, the greatest factors for this increase were the reduction of student-teacher ratio and the dedicated academic engagement time (Pietersma, 2021a). ??

Inflexible Model of Instruction

Pushing millions of children through the government schooling pipeline requires an industrialization model. Industrialization may have been a great step forward when Henry Ford pioneered the assembly line model to innovate mass production of his vehicles, but children are not cars. Unless you want a standardized citizen prepared for the purposes of the state, and I would argue that is exactly what the public schools intentionally produce, then there needs to be something more flexible for the maximum accomplishment of individual students.

The very model of institutional schooling is an EISP, and the track record of state education casts serious doubt of the efficacy of that system. Conversely, home education is showing much promise (McDonald, 2019a, p. 59; d’Escoto & d’Escoto, 2007, p. 29; Ray, 2005, p. 4), not to mention the fact that it coincides with the biblical authority God has given exclusively to parents (Deuteronomy 6:4-10, Proverbs 22:6, Ephesians 6:4). In my zeal for supporting home education, it is often assumed that I stand in opposition even to Christian schools. Please allow to me to be perfectly clear in saying that I do believe a discipleship-focused Christian schools have a place for reaching those who do not have home education available to them. However, I also encourage Christian schools to look at their programs for those EISPs from which they can unburden themselves for the benefit of all their students. ?

A Set Curriculum

To establish a specific set of information that every child should learn, regardless of their individual, God-given purpose, and without consideration to their unique strengths or challenges, is patently absurd. I have never met a person, even those who are advocates for government schooling, that wouldn’t agree with the uniqueness of individual students, but the system still treats every student the same in respect of expectations and comparative accomplishments.

Not only is having a set curriculum (or curriculum standards) an EISP, but it is also dangerous to allow any government to establish this expectation. It is the antithesis of liberty and contraindicated to freedom. This is what happened, subtly and almost imperceptibly, from the establishment of common schools until ultimate banishment of God, the Bible, and prayer from public schools, which was the death knell of any true education in government schooling.

Home education gives families the ultimate level of flexibility (Taylor, 2005, p. 121) in what material to use in the education of our children. It can be tailored to keep the focus on things of the Lord, to maximize a student’s God-given skills, and help them advance in areas where they have challenges. Parents of any faith tradition can, and in my opinion should, make sure that they pass on their faith to their children. After all, education is discipleship (Anderson, 2016; Sproul, 2004, p. 21). There is no religious neutrality in education (Cox, 2003, p. 382; Garris, 2016, Chapter 2, para. 11). It is impossible to separate religious instruction from secular academic topics, because all truth originates with God and His Word (John 17:17).

Completing the Entirety of a Curriculum

Another EISP is that once a student starts a curriculum or course, they are bound to complete it. I would simply ask, why? If a student shows mastery of a topic because they are advanced, then why can’t they move ahead? If a course of instruction is not functioning for a particular student, why push through just to get it done? Why not find an alternative? Of course, in an industrialized schooling system, there is no option but to start and finish the established curriculum on a predictable schedule regardless of whether a majority of students are comprehending at the anticipated level. ??

Even home educating families can fall into this EISP, but there is no need to do so. Following the indicators that a parent can easily glean from the low student-to-teacher ratio, which home education allows, education can be adjusted to specifically maximize that student’s achievement. In home education, advanced students can accelerate their learning and challenged students can take as much time as they need to learn concepts before moving on to the next level of material in that subject.?

Completing Exactly the Credits Required by a State

Each state has its own requirements for what is required for high school graduation, but by-and-large, home educators are not specifically bound by those exact standards to declare their children a high school graduate. Again, letting the government set this standard is a dangerous precedent. Amazingly enough, from what I have seen, leaving these decisions in the hands of parents tends to produce students who accomplish much more than the state would otherwise require. I must offer this disclaimer: I am not a legal expert; therefore, I recommend home educators reach out to a legal counselor who is an expert in the laws of your state. There are several organizations who do this, and my personal recommendation is the Home School Legal Defense Association (www.hslda.org).

Again, research your own state laws, but I am confident that most home educating families are not restricted to the state credit requirements. If a student is leaning towards a vocational track, then they can and should be able to incorporate educational opportunities that prepare them specifically to achieve their goals. By way of personal example, I have a child who is leaning towards a business track in her post-secondary years, so we have tailored her math to place an emphasis on personal finance and business math, rather than higher level math courses like calculus and trigonometry. Part of her education is actually an entrepreneurial apprenticeship, where she works alongside me in our home-based business, including some work for pay and other work simply for experiential purposes. We also have a child in our home who is both cognitively and physically disabled, yet even though we are several years out from needing to make concrete decisions, he seems more likely to pursue and academic career in his post-secondary years. Even with some limitations, he also has some great strengths on which we can capitalize to springboard him forward towards the goals he is setting for himself. He will need to complete certain requirements to help him progress into college, yet his coursework can be tailored to utilize his interest to strengthen his weaker areas, as well as advancing in areas of strength.??

Attaining High Scores on Standardized Tests

Many institutionalized schooling students are literally studying to the test, specifically the state or national achievement tests, the ACT, the SAT, or similar college entrance or achievement test. Government schools are teaching to the tests to demonstrate achievement levels which will highlight the school’s progress and accomplishments. However, this does not truly evaluate the achievement of individual students in comparison to their maximum learning potential. It is pragmatically impossible for schools to do this on an individual student basis.

Home education has the advantage of having the same individual oversee a student’s education and academic progress through the course of many years, perhaps over their entire K-12 academic career (if they choose to even use grade levels). That level of knowledge about an individual student is unattainable in institutionalized schooling where students are pass from teacher to teacher, and school to school as they progress. In the end a student will be like his/her teacher (Luke 6:40). In home education the parent is the teacher and mentor in matters of faith, while the child is the student and disciple. In public schooling, there are multiple teachers: the curriculum, the assigned teachers, the peer influence, and the cultural ambiance are collectively the teacher and mentor, and students subjected thereto are discipled, overwhelmingly to the detriment of any family or faith-community discipleship efforts.

Peer-Group Socialization

Socialization has been the most prominent concern of home education, primarily from those outside the homeschool community, and has been called the “granddaddy” of all objections (Sproul, 2004, p. 134). However, there are some underlying assumptions when home educators are questioned on this issue. There is an assumption that age-segregated, similar-intellect peer groups are the ideal context in which students should be socialized. All one needs to do is to read news report of violence, drugs, and other vices to see that there is something not right about this type of socialization. Burkard & O’Keeffe (2005) call this “the most unnatural social construct imaginable” (p. 237). Besides, how did societies socialize their children before compulsory education became nearly universal? One could easily argue that our founding fathers were well socialized without the advent of compulsory government schooling.

Home educators know that, for the most part, there is no socialization issue among home educating families. Home educated children are generally able to communicate well with others well outside of their common age bracket (d’Escoto & d’Escoto, 2007, p. 27). Research shows that on average home educated students participated in the same number of social activities as their traditionally schooled (Duvall, 2005, p. 154). According to Ray (1989), home educating families sometimes find that they must scale back on socialization activities in order to “achieve the objectives they have for their home schooling (p. 6). As far as I am concerned, socialization is a dead issue (Pietersma, 2021b), but the corpse just won’t go away.

Disassociation of Education from Real Life

In an extension of the unnatural socialization that institutionalize schooling provides, it also establishes an unrealistic expectation for life after school. At what point in adult life do we find ourselves surrounded primarily by those who are close to our same age and intellect? For most, I suspect the answer would be “never.” Burkard & O’Keeffe (2005) postulated, “These days, most children suffer from a lack of contact with people who are not their own age” (p. 237).

A huge advantage for homeschooler is the opportunity to socialize with multiple age groups, often time simultaneously. In the home learning environment, students interact with their parents and siblings, observing life in all its daily realities. At homeschool community gatherings they interact with even more people from the broad spectrum of ages. Anecdotally, a supermajority of all homeschooled children with whom I have interacted are generally excellent at interacting with those of any age. I suspect this puts most homeschooled children a step ahead of their traditionally schooled counterparts when they enter adulthood from a social interaction perspective.

When to Finish Formal Academic Instruction

The first EISP I discussed was when to start academic instruction, so it seems fitting that I end with when to finish formal instruction. Just as it is unwise to set an arbitrary age for starting academic instruction, it is equally unwise to expect all children to finish school by another arbitrary age. In ages past, there was no such thing as adolescence meaning a transitory time of no responsibility between childhood and adulthood. Schooling facilitated the development of this transitory time of little or no responsibility, which is why I label it an EISP.

When home educated students are ready to move on to the next stage of life, they can do so. It is not up to the government, society, or any other institution to make that determination, only parents are needed for this decision. In the home education environment, parents can intentionally develop adult life skills in conjunction with any academic instruction determined by the parents as necessary for the student to accomplish their God-given calling.

Conclusion

It is clear from conversations in social media forums, that many parents are still tied to these EISPs, and I even find myself unconsciously tying myself to these superfluous holdovers from my own upbringing in school. Some parents may have a reason to hold on to one or more of these elements, but I suspect that the majority simply are doing what they have become accustomed to do through their own experience in schooling. I believe if we critically evaluate these things, there are likely ways that our own children’s education can be streamlined to maximize efficiency in accordance with each child’s God-given abilities and interests. ?

?

References

Anderson, C. M. (2016). Education is discipleship: So who’s really discipling your kids? Phoenix, AZ: For It Is Written Ministries.

Burkard, T., & O’Keeffe, D. (2005). Homeschooling: The case against compulsory school attendance laws. In B. S. Cooper (Ed.), Home schooling in full view: A reader (pp. 167-177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Collins, M. & Tamarkin (1982). The Marva Collins’ Way: Return to excellence in education & quality in our classrooms. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Cox, W. F. (2003). Tyranny through public education: The case against government control of education. Fairfax, VA: Allegiance Press.

d’Escoto, D., & d’Escoto, K. (2007). The little book of big reasons to homeschool. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Duvall, S. F. (2005). The effectiveness of homeschooling students with special needs. In B. S. Cooper (Ed.), Home schooling in full view: A reader (pp. 151-166). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Friedrichs, R. (2021). Standing up to Goliath: Battling state and national teachers’ unions for the heart and soul of our kids and country. New York, NY: Post Hill Press

Garris, Z. M. (2016). Thinking biblically about education: Why parents should abandon government schools and take back control of education [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

McDonald, K. (2019a). Unschooled: Raising curious, well-educated children outside the conventional classroom. Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press.

McDonald, K. (2019b). The ADHD Overdiagnosis Epidemic Is a Schooling Problem, Not a Child One. Retrieved from https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/adhd-overdiagnosis-epidemic-schooling-problem-not-child-one/

Moore, R. S., & Moore, D. N. (1975). Better late than early: A new approach to your child’s education. New York, NY: Reader’s Digest Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp

Pietersma, D. J. (2021a). Homeschooling Special Needs Students: Parents Are the Perfect Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.thehomeschoolmagazine-digital.com/thehomeschoolmagazine/2022x1/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1746661&app=false#articleId1746661

Pietersma, D. J. (2021b). Beating a Dead Horse: Why Socialization is an Insignificant Issue for Homeschooling. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/beating-dead-horse-why-socialization-insignificant-pietersma-ed-d-/

Ray, B. D. (2005). A homeschool research story. In B. S. Cooper (Ed.), Home schooling in full view: A reader (pp. 1-19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Ray, B. D. (1989). An overview of home schooling in the United States: Its growth and development and future challenges. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute.

Sproul, R. C. (2004). When you rise up: A covenantal approach to homeschooling. Philipsburg, NJ: R&R Publishing

Taylor, V. L. (2005). Behind the trend: Increases in homeschooling among African American families. In B. S. Cooper (Ed.), Home schooling in full view: A reader (pp. 121-133). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Truesdell, N. (2020). Anyone can homeschool: Overcoming obstacles to home education. ISBN-10: 9798675326532

Wayne, I. (2018). Answers for homeschooling: Top 25 questions critics ask. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.