Home schooling, A legitimate substitute

Since the establishment of public schools in the United States’ education systems in the nineteenth century, almost all Americans have officially developed their edification in schools.

However, beginning in the late 1970s and extending to the present, many families have converted their homes into a learning hub in what has become known as the “homeschooling movement.” Though reliable data on homeschooling was impossible to obtain, the state priority on education statistics estimated that about 1.5 million children, or 2.9 percent of the school-age population, were schooling from home in 2007. There are many challenges facing homeschooling and this makes the system not a legitimate alternative to public schools. From the onset of homeschooling in the 1970s, there have numerous limitations to the system which include

Social challenges

A homeschooling child usually suffers a huge amount of isolation from his peers. Research indicates that the homeschooling children often have challenges interacting with new people, understanding social principles and even knowing what is trending among their peers. Minimized socialization contributes to the child being shy which even affects his future life as an adult. In homeschooling socializing activities are very minimal (Davies 150). The children are only lucky to interact with age mates few times monthly usually at sports, music practices field trips and family gatherings.

Unqualified tutors

Tutoring in homes is usually conducted by parents or by a hired tutor who often has insufficient knowledge and skills to handle the children unlike in public. Teachers are highly trained and always on sponsorship by the government to acquire relevant training. In public and private schools the teachers have the privilege of receiving both technical and emotional support unlike in homeschool where the tutor is all alone. Research also indicates that children taught by their loving parents usually have a challenge relating to other authority figures.

Wasted opportunities

A child’s potential is often discovered in their school years, discovering the child potential and helping them to nature it will help the child to best reach self-actualization. In homeschooling parents force their will to the children who are a problem to the children. Although parents are aware of what their child is capable of; assessment is often inaccurate. Children spend most of their time in homes hence limiting their chances to showcase their talents. In schools, children have a platform to have they’re potential natured by some else who ends up becoming his/her mentor other than the parent. It’s the government’s assignment to guard each against painful loss of psychological improvement due to their parents’ decisions hence a move to abolish homeschool will work best to their duty (Romanowski 86).

Promotes separatism

From research by the government researchers from the year 2003 up to 2007 the percentage of pupils in the U.S. whose parents gave morality or religion as the motive why they selected to school rose from 72% to 83% (Aurini and Scott 465). This fact automatically implies that the students are instructed with a single view of the world that has the chance to go fully unopposed throughout the growth of the child. This fact is clear that homeschooling negatively shapes the child and alters the way the child relates to fellow citizens. Homeschooling does not only separate the child physically from the public but mentally too. Homeschooled children mature up believing that there was something evil about the rest of the population that was going on which necessitated withdrawal from. If people do not invest in their fellow beings decision cannot come about to benefit the majority in the society.

Counterargument

The opponents of schools as the best mode of educating a child argues that when we say the school is the best place to learn about how to socialize they refute. They say that school is the deadliest place to learn how to socialize as there are no lessons taught about how to socialize (Gable, Lyndal and William 7). They also say the school system is one that cast children in the midst of 25-30 children often with one adult present. They say that the children are inexperienced to train each other on how to treat each other.

Rebuttal to the counter argument

In refuting the opponent’s counter argument of public schools, I would say that they lack sufficient evidence to prove that there are no lessons on socializing at any one time in the public and private schools. The ability for many children to have a chain of friends from school is a clear indication that socializing took place to initiate the friendships. (Lubienski 210)

Conclusion

The life and future of every child are significant when education is concerned. The government always has the best foot forward in providing quality education for its children; therefore, the parents should leave matters education solely to it. Parents should support government initiatives on education by taking their children to public schools which are government approved and licensed. The government must protect each child’s potential, and I believe the best way would be in abolishing home schools where a lot of potential goes undiscovered and uncultivated.

Works Cited

Aurini, Janice, and Scott Davies. ”Choice without markets: Homeschooling in the context of private education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 26.4 (2005): 461-474.

Romanowski, Michael H. ”Common arguments about the strengths and limitations of home schooling.” The Clearing House 75.2 (2001): 79-83.

Gable, Robert A., Lyndal M. Bullock, and William H. Evans. ”Changing perspectives on alternative schooling for children and adolescents with challenging behavior.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 51.1 (2006): 5-9.

Davies, Don. ”Parent involvement in the public schools: Opportunities for administrators.” Education and Urban Society 19.2 (1987): 147-163.

Lubienski, Chris. ”Whither the common good? A critique of home schooling.” Peabody Journal of Education 75.1-2 (2000): 207-232.