I am a mother who has chosen to educate my children in my home. I shudder at the arguments against home schooling presented by Carolyn C. Gelder in her Dec. 6 column. The "fallacies" she lists are issues to which she presents only one side, downplaying the legitimate concerns of thousands of good parents.
Personal tutoring has many advantages. If one approach does not work, I am free to try something else until I am satisfied that my child understands the subject matter. This flexibility is not available in the public classroom, where children who do not understand are often left behind.To suggest that enrichment activities are the preferable alternative leaves out the time factor. When my children were in public school, each day seemed to be a footrace. There was simply very little time left.
I did find one absolute fallacy in the article. "The only way children can learn social skills is by being around other children." How absurd to believe that the generations previous to the onset of public school were devoid of social grace.
Schoolchildren are notorious for introducing their peers to bad habits and foul language. At the school, my children were beat up on the playground, ridiculed by their classmates and subjected to a rigid expectation of conformity. We are still dealing with the damage done to their self-esteem and the rebellious behaviors that arose from what I consider a hostile social climate for a child who does not fit the mold.
My children are not in a social vacuum. They have interaction with other home-taught children, relatives, members of our church and friends in sports and arts programs in which they are enrolled. They see potential friends everywhere and don't limit themselves to a narrowly defined peer group. These environments are carefully selected and represent diverse cultures, age groups and perspectives.
The writer says that withdrawing children from school to protect them from what she admits are real problems of crime, sex and drugs will somehow handicap them when they meet the challenges of the real world. I say that insulating a child from these influences in his or her early years is the sanest approach possible. This buys time to teach skills that enable wise decisionmaking and allows children to become more mature before having to deal with the evils of the "real world."
Home-taught children are on the whole a well-adjusted, mature and inquisitive group. Since they have been nurtured in the discovery of individual talents, they often have a head start toward their chosen career. If this is the alternative a family chooses, then the best result can be obtained through support from the surrounding community, not destructive and unfounded criticism.
Diana J. Oaks
Salt Lake City