Dominic Bnonn Tennant (the B is silent)

6 very strange reasons to send your child to school

tl;dr

Six exceedingly odd yet equally common arguments for sending your child to a state school (instead of homeschooling). Refuted, obviously.

The positive case for homeschooling is fairly straightforward—read Deuteronomy 6, and just do it as written:–

And these words that I, I command thee this day, shall be upon thine heart; 7 and repeat thou them to thy sons, and speak in them in thy dwelling in thine house, and in thy going in the way, and in thy lying, and in thy rising. Deuteronomy 6:6–7, my translation

Hence Ephesians 6:4 commands fathers to nourish their children in the discipling and instruction of the Lord. This is what education is: discipleship. A child cannot serve two masters; if you send him to be discipled for most of his days by other people who despise your God and all his ways, then you cannot expect to successfully disciple him yourself. Everyone when fully-trained will be like his teacher (Lk 6:40). If the thought of your children turning out like their teachers concerns you, what are you doing?

That said, in my time as a homeschooling father, I have been challenged about the wisdom of God’s method by many. Below I consider the top six most popular concerns.

1. Children need a school environment to develop proper social skills

Another way of putting this—and it often is put this way—is that homeschooling creates a restricted, artificial social environment, hindering social development, and making it harder for children to integrate into the “real world” as adults.

But, assuming we should want “optimal integration” with the real world, how does school prepare children for this? Here are some of the more prominent rules of socialization children must conform to at school:

  1. Only socialize with people your exact age. This is built into most schooling systems. Indeed, socializing with someone a grade below you is regarded as something we adults call a faux pas—in kids’ terminology, it makes you a loser. But where in the real world do we find this? I’m not aware of any examples. So rather than preparing children for integrating into the world, age segregation at best fails to prepare them at all in this respect, and at worst makes it more difficult for them to interact normally with people of different ages. (This is obvious if you observe how much more comfortable and fluent homeschooled kids tend to be when interacting with adults.)
  2. Society is divided into castes. School is strongly segmented into various social castes—so much so that we have cliched names for them: jock, geek, cheerleader etc. Children are divided by an instinctive social pecking order, largely due to innate characteristics like physical appearance, intelligence, and interests. These groups seldom socialize with each other, and even more seldom do so amicably. In fact, the higher castes routinely victimize the lower castes. But where in the real world do we find this? India, perhaps, with their Unclean. But in Western society, this is considered antisocial behavior. So school at best fails to prepare children for integrating into our society, and at worst undermines their ability to do so by entrenching antisocial habits.
  3. People who are smart and work harder are worth less. In most cases, the more academic and studious a child is, the more he is ostracized and abused by the “ruling caste.” But where in the real world do we find this? Studious and academic people are generally well respected and earn the highest wages. So again, school seems to model the reverse of the real world—and does not prepare children for healthy socialization at all.
  4. People who are strong and beautiful are worth more. This is the corollary of #3. Social status in schools is largely determined by physical attributes. But where in the real world do we find this? Perhaps you’ll find it in some areas of the entertainment industry—but even then it is far more attenuated. More importantly, most of us would think it was a bad thing. The only other obvious example that comes to mind is prison. So if school is really preparing children to integrate into society, it seems to be preparing them to be image-obsessed personalities and/or criminals—not the kind of people their parents would prefer.
  5. Going to the authorities to redress a wrong is pointless and a sign of weakness. “Go cry to the teacher,” is a common taunt on school playgrounds. It’s a taunt of contempt because in the school caste system, having to rely on outside authority shows that you can’t stand up for yourself (regardless of how impossible that may be) and are therefore of less value as a person. It is also a taunt of mockery because bullies know very well that in most cases, abuse is dealt with inadequately by teachers, if at all. But where in the real world do we find this? Certainly authorities like the police are never perfect, but the only truly similar examples I can think of are, again, among the criminal element—in gangs or prisons. So school seems to be preparing children for antisocial roles in society, rather than for productive ones.

I think if you assess the social environment common to schools in a fair-minded way, you can’t help but conclude that it is not healthy, and in many cases is actively harmful. Just because school is considered a normal part of our society does not mean that its social environment is normal, or that it prepares us for normal social interaction.

But here’s something very interesting: despite all the social disadvantages of school, most people who went to school still manage to become normally-functioning members of society. So even if homeschooling has social disadvantages of its own, shouldn’t pro-schoolers expect homeschooled children to also adapt into society as easily as they did?

2. Bullying makes children stronger and teaches them to deal with adversity

People usually defend this by saying something like, “Well, bullying made me a better person, so while I would give my kids all the support I could, I wouldn’t want to remove them from that.” But even assuming you can know that bullying made you better—and how could you, not having access to the alternate reality in which you weren’t bullied?—do you apply this logic consistently?

There’s no difference in principle between these analogies and wanting your child to be bullied. Sadly, recent findings show there may be no difference in practice either: bullying has almost identical effects to physical or sexual abuse. Bearing in mind that secular research is often presuppositionally flawed and ideologically biased, it is still worth considering that studies seem to show that bullying causes permanent psychological damage in many children. According to the Crime Victims’ Institute, bullying is linked with both physical and psychological health issues—violent behavior, alcoholism and substance abuse, sleeping problems, and even suicide; and people who were repeatedly bullied as children are nearly twice as likely to suffer from emotional or mental conditions as adults, nearly three times more likely to suffer from eating disorders, and over three times more likely to be homeless. Maria Koeppel, Leana A. Bouffard, “The Long-Term Consequences of Bullying Victimization,” Crimes Victims’ Institute (2012). https://web.archive.org/web/20210225073012/http://www.crimevictimsinstitute.org/publications/?mode=view&item=32.

Similarly, according to findings published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, bullied children have increased symptoms of depression, anxiety, and other psychiatric disorders—in fact, emotional abuse from peers turns out to be as damaging to mental health as emotional abuse from parents. See for instance Emily Anthes, “Inside the Bullied Brain” (November 2010). https://web.archive.org/web/20220524184227/http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/11/28/inside_the_bullied_brain/?page=full. This may be partly because it physically affects the brain:

Of course, some children physically abuse themselves as a result of bullying (one of my friends used to cut himself); and a growing percentage of children kill themselves to stop the bullying permanently.

What kind of parent would argue that the risk of these documented outcomes is worth the “character building” that bullying supposedly produces? What kind of parent would argue that his children should be abused? I think actually, on some level, the people who make the “bullying builds character” argument realize that it is abusive—which is why they support efforts to eradicate bullying in schools. If bullying were indeed a positive feature of school, like a rite of passage, they would encourage it instead.

N.B. Note that I am specifically assessing bullying in state schools. I am not arguing that any form of conflict is going to have these effects. One of the benefits of being homeschooled is being grounded in a relational security structure that grants emotional resilience to children, so they can handle social adversity without it rising to the level of trauma.

3. Children learn best when taught by a professional

On the face of it, this is actually quite reasonable. It is certainly the least strange of the six reasons in this article. But when you stop to consider how much direct tutelage children have under homeschooling, and how carefully and lovingly their education can be tailored to their learning style—and then compare this to school—you’ll realize it is quite a strange reason.

But don’t take my word for it. According to the many studies of how homeschooled children perform compared to “normally” schooled children, the evidence is decisive: academically, homeschooled students trounce publicly-schooled students. Here’s a sampling of the results:

Incidentally, many homeschoolers do receive at least some of their educations from professional teachers. Tuition is often “outsourced,” especially in subjects like music, or science and math at higher levels. And many homeschooled teenagers take night classes or attend university classes for some subjects.

4. Children can only grow up properly and learn independence away from the home

Or put more bluntly, homeschooled kids are likely to have an unhealthy dependence on their parents. If this is true, I know of no evidence to show it. Young children in general can be quite dependent, but that doesn’t strike me as unhealthy—it’s a normal part of the parent/child relationship at that age.

Anecdotally, of all the young children I’ve met, some of the clingiest have gone to school, and some of the least clingy have been homeschooled. I don’t necessarily attribute those characteristics to the kind of schooling they’ve received, since I have no certain evidence that it is the deciding factor; nonetheless, if you have been a parent for a while, you know that prematurely putting children into intimidating social situations and leaving them without support does indeed make them much more anxious about being abandoned or alone.

I’ve also met a good number of homeschooled teenagers, and none were unhealthily attached to their parents. Indeed, for the most part they were confident and assured for their ages, and had unusually good relationships with their parents, compared to state-schooled teenagers I’ve met. This was presumably more to do with the fact that their families were stable, being grounded in God’s ways; nonetheless there can be no denying that it is considered “normal” for state-schooled kids to be rebellious and undisciplined. Why would it not—when parents explicitly put their kids at arms’ length, farming out their discipleship to strangers, of course they will stop respecting parental authority and customs.

5. Children can only adequately learn to deal with opposing worldviews in a school environment

To which I reply, “Say what?” In fact, the opposite is true:–

According to a study by Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, 75% to 85% of public school children from Christian homes abandon their faith as adults. However, less than 10% of homeschooled children leave the faith as adults. Similarly, the Nehemiah Institute found that 80% to 85% of public school students from Christian homes have secular humanistic worldviews. But, only 3% of students attending schools that intentionally teach a Christian worldview have secular humanistic worldviews. Clearly, how we educate our children makes a difference. Julie Roys, “Are Public Schools Teaching Your Child An Alternate Religion?” (January 2016). https://web.archive.org/web/20211027102450/http://julieroys.com/are-public-schools-teaching-your-child-an-alternate-religion/.

Do homeschooled children have less immediate experience with alternative worldviews? Probably. But why think that is anything except a good thing? They have their entire adult lives to rub up against unbelief in its various forms. Cultivating their own faith first, in their formative years, rather than being exposed to the gross immorality I know from experience characterizes public school, seems like the better course.

Notice I’m not suggesting isolation from the world. I strongly oppose overly strict discipline, “protecting” children from even knowing about “unapproved” practices like sex, drugs, alcohol and some music. What I’m suggesting is that homeschooling is a more controlled environment from which children can encounter the world, and see that the various promises it makes about the pleasures of sin are entirely without merit.

6. Children need to be missionaries to non-Christian students in schools

Tim Challies, for example, has given this as one reason he sends his kids to public school. Tim Challies, “Why I Do Not Homeschool (Part 2)” (December 2006). http://www.challies.com/articles/why-i-do-not-homeschool-part-2.

Honestly, I find it really hard to believe Challies is being sincere. This is not only a strange reason to send your kids to school, but a profoundly stupid one. If evangelism is spiritual warfare, then sending your kids to state school is spiritual child soldiery. This explains the absurdly high mortality rate (75–85%) noted under section #5 above.

The great commission is not directed at children. It is not even directed universally at all adults equally. It is directed primarily at the disciples. Unless you think your children should be baptizing and teaching people, you are inconsistently applying Matthew 28:18ff.

This is corroborated by the fact that Ephesians 4:11 speaks of the “evangelist” as a kind of office, given to the church in the same way as apostles, prophets, shepherds and teachers.

The only thing the Bible seems to require of all Christians is that they be ready to give a response for the hope within them (1 Pet 3:15)—not that they go out and evangelize to unbelievers. Of course I fully support Christians who do evangelize, and if, say, a teenager felt convicted that he should be witnessing in a school environment then perhaps that would be appropriate. But generally speaking, expecting young children to take on the task of a specific adult role in the church seems, at best, an unjust burden on them. At worst, a good way to damage them spiritually. Why do you think they are qualified or called to be evangelists in the first place?

Now, you can retort, “Imagine what schools would be like if there were no Christians there.” But so what if public schools were to lack any Christian influence from students? How is that a problem, and how is the problem your responsibility to such an extent that you’re willing to place your child at grave risk to solve it? Bearing in mind all the harm I’ve shown is inherent in schools, let’s take this logic a bit further with another example: Should we encourage our kids to join gangs, so the gangsters can benefit from a Christian influence? If you think there is something wrong with this idea, then perhaps there is also something wrong with the idea that Christian children must be salt and light to schools. If you want to influence non-Christian kids with Christian values, start with their parents. Don’t send your children to do the job of the church.

Has my work helped you?

Buy me a coffee