A few months ago I reviewed the very important results of the Cardus Education Survey as they related to homeschooling. The findings weren’t pretty. Homeschoolers in the survey didn’t do well academically, failed at marriage, have checked out of politics, and feel that their lives are adrift.
Yesterday Jedd and Rachel Medefind posted on the Cardus site an interesting editorial that builds on these findings. The Medefinds begin by explaining how modern life since the Industrial Revolution has been increasingly centrifugal–leading to separations between people and between aspects of life that should be connected. Homeschooling, they contend, can amplify this trend when it serves as “a driver of division and isolation.” On the other hand, it “may also hold the greatest potential to work against fractionalization. Homeschooling offers and unmatched forum for helping children to understand and experience more integrated lives, and ultimately to become menders of a torn social fabric for the broader community as well.”
The rest of the piece explains how the divisive and isolationist sort of homeschooling is perhaps behind the poor results of the Cardus survey (along the way the authors give some important and very helpful qualifications to the original data that were not in the report itself). It then explains how a more integrative sort of homeschooling allows children to connect to older and younger people (rather than being segregated by age in school), allows for work and leisure to blend into learning, provides time for community service and for exposure to “the foreign” through such things as long trips overseas.
As I was reading through the editorial it seemed to me that much of the “good” kind of homeschooling the Medefinds recommend is more about social class and political orientation than about homeschooling as such. The Medefinds (who homeschool their five children) value this rich integrative form of homeschooling because they’re well educated, civic-minded, politically moderate or even perhaps liberal people. To use the stereotypical shorthand, they’re Blue Americans. Their kids are growing up in a home that values diversity, encourages critical thinking, deliberately exposes children to a wide range of views, and so forth. The kind of homeschooling the Medefinds associate with the poor results of the Cardus Survey is Red America homeschooling–narrow, fearful of outsiders, culturally isolationist. Longtime observers of the homeschooling scene will not find this division surprising. It’s basically the distinction between “ideologues” and “pedagogues” coined by Jane Van Galen in 1986. It’s “believers” and “inclusives” as described by Mitchell Stevens in 2001. It’s “open communion” and “closed communion” from my own work. The Medefinds are pedagogues, inclusives, open communion folk, and they recommend it here.
is the first scholarly book-length treatment of its theme. It is available for purchase
from 
“Red America” (ie those who vote conservatively) homeschoolers are narrow, fearful of outsiders, and culturally isolationist.
Oh, kay then. I needed to cull down my blog reads anyway. Cheers!
Linda
Linda,
You understand I hope that I’m only summarizing the Medefinds’ argument here, not making pejorative claims myself. The Medefinds seem to me to be trying too hard to distinguish “good” and “bad” homeschooling. Why? So they can exonerate their own efforts in the face of the negative findings of the Cardus Survey. I’m just the messenger.
Hello Milton,
I enjoyed your post and appreciated your analysis of the article in Cardus on pursuing more “integrated” lives through education. You captured well the vision Rachel and I desired to convey. I sense that you and I would have a great time discussing these issues over hot coffee or cold beers. The one caveat I’d add–at risk of disappointing you–is that by many measures, my wife and I fall into the Red State category if such categorization in unavoidable. We care deeply about vital human need issues, from global AIDS to foster care. We desire to cultivate in ourselves and our children a vibrant, sacrificial Christian faith. We also believe that growing government beyond its core functions tends to squelch the best things in society, from philanthropy to entrepreneurship to civic engagement. We don’t see these three values as conflicting with each other, but ultimately as deeply intertwined. And although I’d definitely affirm that there are many heartless Republicans (and, for that matter, heartless church-goers), there are also a great many “Red America” conservatives who share this constellation of values. I’d also affirm wholeheartedly that I’m confident that you and I share much in common as well, and would enjoy the opportunity to explore that in person someday. I just thought it’d be important to mention all this to break down some of the assumptions and categories–and to build common cause in things we share.
Respectfully,
Jedd Medefind
Thanks for the comment Jedd! The cues that led me to peg you guys as blue types were your link to that humorous youtube clip that distinguished “the homeschooled,” (good, normal) from “homeschoolers” (weird, reactionary), and your mention of how your children listen to NPR. Perhaps red and blue aren’t the best analogies. The spirit I get from your text though is quite different from what I read on, say, the Vision Forum website. Sounds from your comment like you’re keeping faith with compassionate conservatism. I wish you well.
Thanks, Milton. I definitely appreciate the thoughtfulness of your analyses (and this response, too). I hope we’ll have a chance to cross paths in person down the road. In the meantime, all the best to you in the ongoing work.
Jedd