On Homeschooling

The most common argument against homeschooling is that homeschooled children—since they are isolated from their peers—will never learn to socialize properly. This argument is false for at least one reason, and it is dangerous for at least another. It is false because children will learn to socialize much more quickly—and much more thoroughly—by watching their parents do it rather than by watching their peers, since their parents are (more often than not) fully socialized adults, whereas their peers (save for the rare 1 or 2 percent) are only semi-socialized adolescents…. This argument is also dangerous because it persuades parents to send their children to a place where they are likely to learn a whole host of antisocial behaviors; for public schools (and even many private schools) are full of children who—in addition to putting absolutely no effort into learning—also ?drink, smoke, take drugs, have sex, and join gangs, to name just a few of their many sociopathic activities. And since children who attend public schools are propinquant to their peers at least as much as they are propinquant to their parents, they are more susceptible to “peer pressure” than are homeschooled children who spend most of their time around their parents and their parents’ grown-up friends and relatives. Allow me to use myself as a case in point. Although in grade school I had an IQ of 140 and stood academically in the top fifth percentile of all students in California, by the time I reached high school, I was a chain-smoking meth addict who was a million times more interested in being the lead singer in a punk band than being a successful, college-ready student. And this is what troubles me most: Even though my parents must have known that I was different from other children (for I was writing books of poetry and philosophy at the age of 11), and even though they must have known—since they themselves were experienced California teachers—that public schools were spiritual and intellectual wastelands (prisonlike institutions that do more harm to their inmates than good), they chose not to home-school me. And so I wonder to this very day: Did they make that choice because they simply did not have the time to teach me themselves? Or did they make that choice because—as employees of the State of California—they did not want their pro-State colleagues and superiors to know that they had little faith in the government-run educational bureaucracy that paid their salaries? All I know is this: If I had been homeschooled instead of being thrown to the hyenas (“lions” would be too respectful a word), I almost certainly would not have become a drug addict, I almost certainly would not have received F’s instead of A’s in my English classes, and I almost certainly would not have attended any but the most prestigious universities. I will say this, however: Public schools have a clear advantage over home schools in one important respect: namely, that they test a student’s moral character and inner strength—just as war and prison do—by pushing him to the psychological breaking point. If the public-school student can survive the crucibles of Junior High and High School (I am tempted to them gauntlets), she will be stronger in the end, though her scars will never let her forget. And while I almost certainly would have become a tenured professor of English if I had not attended public schools, there is nothing on this Earth—no wasteland, no peer, no institution—that could ever have prevented me from becoming what I am today, which is—Myself. And if I had to choose between being a wealthy professor and being a poor philosopher—well, it’s obvious what I would choose, is it not?