Homeschooling Q&A: Abandoning the other kids?

My response to the ‘ungenerous act’ would have to be that each parent is responsible for their own children and, while I sympathize with others, I must make decisions based on that fact. The argument you put forth is socialist in nature in that if some are suffering, all must suffer and none are allowed to rise above. (This was luminous to me in your example as we look at the way our country is headed recently – oops political comment!)

As for the salt and light, well children are not able to be salt and light before they are strengthened in the home. What is that example of the small tree I’ve heard before? Nor would I put my child out on the mission field alone; which is essentially where they would be. I can go on and on with this one, but I’ll let others chime in here.

Blessings,

Cindy

Q1: I’m not responsible for anyone else’s kids but my own.

Q2: Jesus began his ministry at age 30, not 6 (Luke 3:23).

Well, this response will be a little different from the ones already posted here. I have been reading the book “When Children Love to Learn” by Elaine Cooper. Susan Schaeffer Macaulay wrote a chapter entitled Broader Application of Charlotte Mason’s Teaching Principles. In reading this I have had a subtle shift in my thinking.

In the section titled “Outreach”, Susan writes, “we must not, may not, ignore the plight of all the others in our communities. The PNEU ideas and insights are just exactly what they need. Perhaps no one has built a successful relationship with them before, and/or perhaps the world around them is a blur. Can their lives be reshaped? Simple measures such as homelike food, eating routines, personal warmth, caring attitudes, strong clarity about right and wrong – all these are excellent and go far to accomplish that needed reshaping.

….Marion Berry took such children into her home and garden to teach and introduce them to elements of a rich curriculum that seemed right for them.

…If we will not take over an entire school, or even a classroom, we could do something along the lines Marion Berry writes about – after school activities in a home-like environment?”

Ok, so the reason why this struck a chord with me is that we have one neighbor girl who I have been struggling with how to deal with her. She is a few years older than my oldest daughter. She has a sweet attitude and disposition, but she come from a completely different family life and has different ideals.

As an example, I read the book “My Father’s Dragon” to my daughter and when she told this girl, she pulled out her Dragonology books to show my daughter. Anyway, I have been trying to think of how to limit this friendship (that we have allowed) just because I’m not sure what she’ll expose my daughter to. I thought, why not include her in some of our studies? We could do our read-alouds and discussions and help to show her a more excellent way.

Anyway, my point is, I’m sure that you have some natural relationships that are already around you that could be enhanced by sharing our ideals with them. Not in any contrived way or by setting up programs, but just as opportunities present themselves – in a fluid, organic way.

I don’t think we must “stay in the system” – I have not wanted my children to attend public school ever since I went there, but I also see the danger of separating ourselves entirely from the world where we have no influence to help others.

This can be a tough one because at first glance it does seem like such an ungenerous act.  I can see the reasoning behind such an argument and I agree with everyone else here who has stated that as parents our responsibility is ultimately to our own children as God has given them to us.  In the same breath, however, I see a great need to be beacons of sanity to a world gone mad, a city on a hill that is easily seen from the darkened distance.  When folks run to this argument I like to point out the fundamental flaws of the established system of institutionalized schooling.  I bring up the work of folks like John Taylor Gatto and Charlotte Iserbyt as a spring board into the subject of cumpulsory schooling.  This is usually quite an eye opener and people end up getting a history lesson that leaves them at a loss for words!  Woodrow Wilson, when he was president of Princeton University in an address to the New York City School Teachers Association stated, ” We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”  This is one of the fundamental purposes of public schooling so unless the heart of the issue is addressed, I see no good reason to sacrifice my children’s hearts and minds for the sake of reforming a system that consistently refuses to look at the most basic factors of the dilemma.  Bloom’s Taxonomy, an essential educational doctrine when many of us were being ‘schooled’, has a core purpose ” to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.”  This stands in stark contrast to the values that many of us are trying to instill in our children, and many teachers feel it is their duty, even their right to challenge those values!  I LOVE the fact that Charlotte Mason championed giving even the poorest child a liberal education, it pretty much flies in the face of the philosophy of Bloom, Wilson and others like them who had/have the human power to create educational policy!  Rachel