I have no prejudices against home schooling but it takes quite a leap of faith to take a kid out of regular schools and start with it. Particularly if the school is 'good enough' such that the kid is doing well, even though it's plainly obvious how inefficient the schooling is.
The big issue for me is the vast difference between learning rates and attitude between kids, but the insistence on keeping them together on an arbitrary set of calendar dates of birth, rather than aptitude or interests.
Some (most?) parents plainly don't care and are just happy to get the kids out of the house and in someone else's care. These kids are generally disruptive and are destined to have a low level of education. I see the need to keep trying with them despite the low achievement rate, yet at the same time I see the need to let motivated learners race ahead at their own speed.
Throw in the murky issues of government funding, political interference in curriculum and entrenched power structures like teachers unions and school boards and it's not clear to me how a better model emerges from it all.
The big issue for me is the vast difference between learning rates and attitude between kids, but the insistence on keeping them together on an arbitrary set of calendar dates of birth, rather than aptitude or interests.
Some (most?) parents plainly don't care and are just happy to get the kids out of the house and in someone else's care. These kids are generally disruptive and are destined to have a low level of education. I see the need to keep trying with them despite the low achievement rate, yet at the same time I see the need to let motivated learners race ahead at their own speed.
Throw in the murky issues of government funding, political interference in curriculum and entrenched power structures like teachers unions and school boards and it's not clear to me how a better model emerges from it all.