An article in the University of Maryland’s Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly argues the evils of homeschooling. It states:

The husbands and wives in these families feel themselves to be under a religious compulsion to have large families, a homebound and submissive wife and mother who is responsible for the schooling of the children, and only one breadwinner. These families are not living in romantic, rural, self-sufficient farmhouses; they are in trailer parks, 1,000 square foot homes, houses owned by relatives, and some, on tarps in fields or parking lots.

Izzy Lyman offers an excellent rebuttal at the website Big Journalism.

                                                          — Comments —–

Lisa, a homeschooling mother, writes:

Such a sore spot! We do not live in a trailer park or receive government assistance, but since neither my husband nor I grew up with any training in family living or residence maintaining or homemaking, we feel like struggling pioneers in many ways. We were groomed to be successful in the military/industrial complex, and as rebels to that system, we often feel we are foundering on the verge of failure as far as having an immaculate lawn and farm, always well-dressed and groomed children, perfectly homeschooled youngsters ahead gradewise in every subject, a smooth schedule, and the door open to a tidy house, ready to hospitably receive any drop-in company. Our children see our shortcomings in relation to other non-homeschooling families in a given area listed above without seeing the benefits they have enjoyed, and sometimes I feel they do not realize the whys of our opting out of standard American culture since we are only semi-competent at it. Not that others aren’t doing perfectly well in those areas, mind you, and not that our family isn’t blessed with excellence in other areas.

Laura writes:

Lisa seems to be saying that there is some truth to the image of scruffy homeschoolers. From my observation, homeschoolers are more likely to be wearing hand-me-downs and home haircuts. Many live in very modest houses. I think there is some class snobbery at work here. People label them as “fundamentalists,” but I think often this is code for poor or lower class. Given the size of their families and the fact that most rely on a single income, homeschoolers are not rich; some even poor by today’s standards. There seems to be no truth, however, to the claim that homeschoolers are living on “tarps in fields” or “parking lots.”

Lisa writes:

I know homeschooling families who live in what some see as less-than-optimal housing (trailer homes, an unfinished house, etc.) and without exception, it is because they have chosen to remain debt-free. Since our generation’s parents’ additional income has been siphoned off by a growing burden of taxes, social security withholdings (double for those of us so entrepeneurially inclined), “retirement fun,” and debt, they are not in a position to help grown children in ways taken for granted a few decades ago.

Lisa adds:

I find it amazing that on one hand large homeschooling families are being criticized for their “large carbon footprint,” yet at the same time they are criticized for not “keeping up with the DINKY (Double Income, No Kids) Joneses” in suburbia. The carbon footprint (if it matters at all) of the average homeschool family member is a third or a fourth (or even less) than that of the stereotypical greenie driving a hybrid vehicle and shopping at Whole Foods Market and vacationing in Vail each ski season. There is nothing wrong with those activities; it is just ironic that large homeschooling families come under scrutiny by opposing liberal factions for the same “reasons.”

Laura writes:

Given the low divorce rate among homeschooling families, their carbon footprint should be quite small. It’s interesting that the increased energy consumed by divorced families with two functioning households is rarely brought up as an environmental issue. 

Please follow and like us: