Survey of Adult Homeschooled Students: Better in Almost Every Way

CGF66Homeschooling has been misunderstood and maligned for many years, but critics are running out of bad things to say about this educational option in the face of mounting evidence of the advantages.

Homeschooled students out-perform their public school peers academically in most areas and have for a long time.  This has left defenders of the educational status quo able only to criticize more intangible things like socialization and such.

While most homeschooling parents (my wife and I included) actually consider the reduced “socialization” homeschooled children receive an advantage, (less exposure to immoral practices and peer pressure by their classmates, less exposure to institutional derision of religious values, etc.), considerable evidence has been compiled which shows no dearth of real socialization either.  Our oldest, my daughter, has been involved in Girl Scouts since she was five, group activities with other homeschooled students, Sunday School, AWANA, swimming lessons, marital arts, playing with neighbor children, and so forth–and our family is no exception among the homeschool community.

But since homeschooling in any sizable number has only been around since the 1970s or 1980s, there hasn’t been much actual research that shows how these children do once they become adults.  As the Washington Times points out, the 2003 study titled “Homeschooling Grows Up” has until now been the only study of adults who were homeschooled.

But the Times reports there is now a study from Canada on adults who were homeschooled called “Fifteen Years Later: Home-Educated Canadian Adults.”

The article has this to say about the study:

When measured against the average Canadians ages 15 to 34 years old, home-educated Canadian adults ages 15 to 34 were more socially engaged (69 percent participated in organized activities at least once per week, compared with 48 percent of the comparable population). Average income for home-schoolers also was higher, but perhaps more significantly, while 11 percent of Canadians ages 15 to 34 rely on welfare, there were no cases of government support as the primary source of income for home-schoolers. Home-schoolers also were happier; 67.3 percent described themselves as very happy, compared with 43.8 percent of the comparable population. Almost all of the home-schoolers — 96 percent — thought home-schooling had prepared them well for life.

You can read the synopsis here or the full report here.

The report says there was a 1994 study of homeschooled children, and about 800 families indicated they would be interested in participating with a follow-up study.  A total of 285 of those families were recently located with 281 agreeing to participate in the new study.  Researchers received 226 completed surveys back representing people from 128 families. Respondents were between ages 15 and 34, with the median age being 23.

These are some of the findings:

  • Homeschooled students were more likely than the same age group of the general population to have attained undergraduate degrees, and were equally likely to have attained a graduate degree
  • Homeschooled students were more likely to be involved in political civic participation
  • ” less likely to be in unions
  • ” more likely to be involved in sports
  • ” more likely to be involved in cultural activities
  • ” far more likely to be involved in religious activities
  • ” roughly equally involved in community and service activities
  • For sources of income, homeschooled students were much more likely to be self employed and making money from investments, and less likely to be employed by the government
  • Homeschooled students were more likely to be satisfied with their work (96% versus 88%)
  • Homeschooled students were more likely to have read a newspaper, magazine or book in the last 12 months
  • ” more likely to have visited a zoo, professional concert, historic site, conservatory or nature park, an art gallery or museum, or a classical music performance
  • ” were more likely to have married, were less likely to be divorced or living in “shack up” arrangements, were less likely to have 1-2 children but more likely to have 3 or more children
  • Most believed homeschooling prepared them well for further education, with the overwhelming majority believing it prepared them well for life and gave them an advantage
  • Few believed it limited their educational or employment opportunities.

Isn’t it interesting that these grown-up homeschooled students are doing better than their peers in almost every area, and were educated for a fraction of the cost?

Such results throw a bucket of cold water on all the liberal and union clamoring for more money to be thrown at our failing public education system.  In fact, if our leaders truly cared more about the welfare and success of America’s children than they care about power, politics and union backing, they would not only open up school choice to all of America’s students, they would include homeschoolers in those tax rebates or other forms of school choice empowerment.

Of course, when you’re dedicated to shielding a failing Big-Government edifice, the thought of allowing homeschool parents to spend more than peanuts on their children’s education (and how much more they might excel with more funds) probably scares the daylights out of them.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • corinneteacher
    I have never had a problem with home schooling although I suppose I would be considered one of those "liberal" types. At the same time I also get offended by those who think homeschooling is the breeding ground of religious "whackos". For some students, home schooling is the best alternative. I am a teacher and believe that the system has to be changed. The climate of schools in the US where teachers are teaching to the test is ridiculous. I believe that schools need to be accountable but this isn't going to help the situation. When the education system was set up hundreds of years ago, it fit with our society. Unfortunately, even though society has changed, our education system hasn't. The money isn't being used efficiently because many people who control the purse strings have no idea what they are doing. What they need to be doing is looking at successful programs and see how they are working. Kids today are dealing with all sorts of things in their lives and have a lot more emotional issues. Also, many parents do not support their child's education. We have to come up with something fast because the education system in this country needs to be changed - NOW!!!
  • Brian Rutledge
    Corinne First of all, thank you for your service. I guess that anytime there is a movement, like the homeschooling movement, there is a reason. Let me ask you something. It seems like we are in an era of streamlining where the 'median' gets all the attention. Median test scores for schools etc. It is the air of political correctness where studnets must all be taught at the same pace . We don't want to offend a child who learns less rapidly than a quick learner, so both lose out. You know, it the ' everyone gets to play in the game no matter the talent level ' syndrome.

    That isn't how the real world works however. It leads many to believe they deserve things that they have not earned. The 'privileged' ideology or the 'I deserve that' ideology. I learned very early that math was a strengh of mine and literature was not. I had to work extra hard in English just to make a B or C. I never felt inferior etc, but learned early that some people do some things better than others.In elementary and in Junior high ( showing my age not saying Middle School), we were divided into classes according to our abilities and moved up and down as needed. I never felt injured by this. It was just the way it was. We once had a vibrant 'technical school' curriculum and now it seems we ignore the fact that some excel in these types of fields.

    Is this not a societal issue where we are so afraid of 'injuring' a child's psyche, that we coddle all to mediocrity ?
    Why aren't we just honest and realise we are NOT all the same
  • corinneteacher
    I agree with you 100% that kids learn differently. That is why the system is failing so many kids. There are new methods being taught at teaching colleges but it will take awhile for us to see this in the system. Big classes make it impossible for students to get the attention they need. However, someone decided at some point to treat everyone the same -- and the masses followed. In some schools, they make it very hard for teachers to fail kids. What is that teaching them? I feel very torn on my views of education. I believe in a lot of the new ideas but I also think we are not doing kids any favors by passing them from grade to grade because their self-esteem might suffer if we fail them.
    The whole reason I got into teaching is to try and make learning fun for kids. It can't always be exciting but the challenge of teaching is finding a way to hook the kids in. As a teacher I can only do so much, parental responsibility is also a big factor.
    In some ways we looked after the individual more in the past although teachers can do things in the classroom to try and reach out to them. Unfortunately many school districts have teachers focusing on other things rather than what they should be doing - teaching.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob You feel you have the right to homeschool your child. In other words, education is a right. But many good people in the lower socio-economic rung simply can not do it if both have jobs or a single parent is raisIng the child.But we agree that a good education is a right.

    Then you say that this study in the article should throw cold water in the face of those liberals clamoring that we should throw more money into a failing school system. Well then, what are we to do with those who must go to these failing public schools? Don't they have a right to the best education they can get ? Do we just give them a minimum or moderate amount of funds ?

    I don't know how much money is the right amount, but it seems like just boldly stating 'quit throwing money at them' is ignoring that something has to be spent. It is easy to say quit spending so much, when you don't propose a better solution. Tossing out simple solutions like school choice sounds good, but our county has over 300,000 kids in public schools and what if half of them want to go to the biggest and newest school on the block. Okay, we spend to much on this failing system- what do you propose we do to help educate our kids who must attend these schools?
  • You don't have to be rich to homeschool. Lord knows I'm not, and there are a LOT of homeschool families we know who have income even lower than ours. It's a matter of priorities.

    Throwing more money at the public school system in order to "make it better" has been laughably proved indefensible. D.C. spends more than any other district in the country (something north of $14,000 per student) and is 51st in performance.

    Homeschooling excels because it isn't about the money. Rather, it's about the quality of the education (some of which has to do with spending more time on real academic subjects and less on training how to put on a condom or environmental nonsense) but also about parental involvement.

    Some educational choice in the form of vouchers or tax credits would enable even more parents to send their children to private schools or homeschool (or in our case, to homeschool even better since everything we spend comes out of our pocket on top of the taxes we pay toward public education). And with some healthy competition, the public school system might finally be forced to get its act together and ditch the nonsense and wasteful overhead so it can concentrate on what's important: academics. Right now the near-monopoly the public education system has enables it to be arrogant and sloppy.

    By the way, rights are opportunities you are entitled by God to exercise, not something you're entitled to rip somebody else off to pay for.
  • dcm
    Boy, if only my kids could be homeschooled. But in my circumstances it's absolutely impossible; I have no choice but to send them to public school.

    Anyway, I think the reason this study is needed & relevant is that many people protest homeschooling on the false grounds that "the kids aren't getting a good education, they're not getting socialized," etc., when what they really have a problem is that the kids are getting raised in a Christian environment rather than getting indoctrinated in secular humanism.
  • Brian Rutledge
    dcm I think you are right in saying many think kids raised in a Christian environment at home is a bad idea. You feel kids shouldn't get a secular humanist indoctrination that public schools force feed kids. My personal feeling is that both extremes are wrong and I would like to see all ideologies taught at home and pure empiric knowledge taught in schools.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I can accept all that you say. Even if we had school choice,tax credits, voucher systems, charter schools and more homeschooling, due to the vast,vast number of school aged children in the U.S., many, many students would still be found in our public system.That is why I always question when someone just throws out ' quit spending so much on them'. We need a transition for sure and a reduction of wasteful overhead etc, but it will take time like you say. But in the meantime, simply reducing funds to public schools may even make them more pathetic.The transition will take years and do you want years or decades of students exposed to an even worse education until the transition takes place. Remember transitioning tens of millions of students will take time and money as well..
  • I don't think the relatively small reduction in funds available to the public school system--going to parents who put their kids in private school or for additional homeschooling funds--would be a detriment to the public school system. As I said and I think you agreed, we're wasting a lot right now, and I'd go so far as to say we're considerably OVER-funding them and have been for some time in a desperate attempt to improve academic performance.

    However, the generation of competition--while not causing a serious loss in funds to the public system--could start the ball of competition rolling that, maybe within 5-10 years could start generating real reform and positive change within the school system.

    One thing I do know (make that two, really): the status quo of throwing more and more money at the problem is never going to generate an improvement, and I (and thousands of other parents) cannot in good conscience put our children in the public school system right now, even if it means driving a 15-20 year old vehicle (which I did until a few months ago) and foregoing other niceties.
  • Brian Rutledge
    If I read you correctly, you are advocating that some of your tax burden be lightened if you choose to send your child to private school or homeschool them.Why would that be any different if you and your block neighbors decided privately to fund re-paving your own street. Should a portion of your taxes be reduced or tax credits given there as well ?
  • Streets are public infrastructure that everyone has access to for use equally. There is also no compelling or legitimate reason for private funding of a particular street. Your example seems to be a bizarre stretch with no correlation to the issue of our failing and toxic public education system.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob Well we all have equal access to the public schools as well, so I don't get your first sentence at all. Again you missed the point. Tax relief for those who homeschool or choose private schools is important to you. It isn't to me and either is paving my street. But saying you want tax relief because you homeschool is analogous to me saying I want tax relief for any particular government funded program I don't use. You want to pick and choose the one that is important to you. A federally funded bridge in California is like schools-its available to all- but if I don't use it ever, why shouldn't I get tax relief from it.Thats called picking and choosing depending on what is relavent to you. Can you imagine that system being in place to all citizens who get to decide what they will or won't use, then claim tax exemption ?
  • I think there's an argument to be made for taking the public education system out of government hands altogether, or at the very least, returning it to local taxation and control where there can be better held accountable.

    On the other side of the coin is the argument that public education is, like streets and highways, of importance to us all, because an improperly educated young person will grow into a person ill-equipped for most areas of life (e.g. not fit for employment, more prone to delinquency, more prone to crime, etc.).

    However, our children and their education cannot be directly compared to infrastructure. Some of the reasons include the fact that infrastructure can be relatively easily repaired, whereas if you screw up a person when they're young, it virtually takes a miracle to straighten them out later; you simply can't compare dynamic, organic human beings in any reasonable way. If your road has potholes, you have a bumpy ride; if your child gets a lousy, degenerate education, you have a life that that will stink, cost the taxpayers even more, and very likely influence that person's eternal destiny.

    Unfortunately if government insists on refusing to fix this pathetic system (which it has continued to do for decades), the next most reasonable action is to return a portion of the taxpayer's wasted money to them so they can put it to good use (something these union-beholden politicians refuse to do).

    In the end, this issue provides one more illustration of why our system of government was designed to be a very limited one with control over as much as possible kept at the local level where heat (i.e. accountability) can be turned up when government goes in the wrong direction.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob You make some very good points and since I plan on running for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education next fall, I am on a crash course. If we did go to a system of local conrol and taxes to fund schools, how would we rectify the great inequities that would occur between the wealthy districts and the extremely poor ones. I don't know about the Dakotas, but in Texas this type of system would allow some areas to hire the finest of teachers with small student/teacher ratios while other areas couldn't.
  • We struggle with similar issues here in South Dakota, and unfortunately I don't have a good answer for it. South Dakota is sparsely populated with our biggest centers in Sioux Falls and Rapid City, with a few other cities spread around...but the vast majority of the geographical area of the state is wide open with a lot of ranch territory. Certain parts of the state, you can travel a considerable distance without seeing a single house. It makes dividing things up wealthy/poor and urban/rural a real challenge.

    It's wise of you to start thinking of things like this well in advance, especially the tough questions like this one. In my experience, a well-thought-out set of guiding principles can be your best help when there simply don't seem to be any great or easy answers.
blog comments powered by Disqus