When it comes to the books we read, the neighbourhood we live in, the religion or philosophy we practise, the food we eat, the people we associate with, in fact, in most areas of our lives, we highly value our freedom of choice. Yet, when it comes to one of our most precious resources--our children--parents are not permitted to exercise this necessary freedom. State interference with and control of education is greater than it is in almost any other area of personal choice.

Parents are starting to realize that "fuzzy" math courses (variously called "whole math," "new math" or "new new math") are producing kids who can't do arithmetic, much less algebra. The U.S. Department of Education responded last October by officially endorsing ten new math courses for grades K-12, calling them "exemplary" or "promising" and urging local school districts to "seriously consider" adopting one of them. The recommended programs were approved by an "expert" panel commissioned by the Department of Education. But many parents believe that the "experts" are subtracting rather than adding to the skills of schoolchildren.

Most education officials publicly claim that teachers need special “qualifications” in order to be effective. As a result, public education organizations often promote legislation or an interpretation of the law which would require home school parents to have one of three qualifications: 1) a teacher certificate, 2) a college degree, or 3) pass a “teacher’s exam.” Although this seems reasonable on the surface, such requirements not only violate the right of parents to teach their children as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but virtually all academic research documents that there is no positive correlation between teacher qualifications (especially teacher certification requirements) and student performance.

It is sometimes said, by public school supporters, that if some children are taken out of the system to go to other schools, the public schools will deteriorate. And so, the thinking goes, parents have a "duty to society" to keep their kids in the public schools, even though they have already deteriorated almost beyond recognition. How absurd that the government schools think of the children as serving the schools' or society's needs instead of the other way around. It's not the school system that needs saving, or even reforming. It's the children who need to escape from the failing government schools and be allowed to home school or attend successful private schools, without the penalty of paying twice -- once with taxes and again for tuition.

Children naturally love to learn. They want to know everything. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "Why can't I see my back?" "Why are those dogs doing that?" "Are we there yet?" And so on and so on. Then we send them to school. And all desire to learn is methodically destroyed. Many of today's citizens are products of the schools of the last twenty years, during which time the trend has been to adopt a more and more socialistic posture. Most teachers have never spent their lives anywhere except in classrooms, and their vision of the world is so much at odds with the real world of business and industry as to be virtually a different society.

Americans are increasingly aware that government education specialists in charge of K-12 government schools are lousy educators. This awareness is prompting parents to act rationally in a way that provides the best evidence yet that education bureaucrats cannot educate namely, more and more parents are homeschooling their children.

Success in school--and in life--requires an active and independent mind. It would be nice if that came easily, but quite the opposite is true. And what's worse is that today, without realizing it, we are training and encouraging our children to become just the opposite--passive. As parents, we can teach our children social skills. This is not the job of our schools.

Just suppose for a minute that in addition to our education, government officials suddenly took it into their heads to control what we eat? Some of the big wigs figured that we common ignorant folk were not capable of making good nutritious meals, so they formed a plan and with a huge chunk of our tax dollars, built government run cafeterias (Food Distribution Centers). Sound depressing? Well, take heart, because the American people would never stand for anyone telling them what they can and cannot eat. But wait a minute....isn't this exactly the approach the government has taken with education?

Isn't it amazing how many five year olds go off to school as bright, curious, trusting ("gifted and talented") kids, and in a year or two become dull, angry little aliens? Parents who expect the government schools to provide high quality academic education for smart children will always be frustrated. It's simply not offered. Those parents need to understand that the public schools are intended to offer only a minimum level of academic learning -- nothing more. In fact, the employees are not even academically oriented beyond the minimum level.

This essay was written for the Harper's Magazine forum, "School on a Hill." John Taylor Gatto discusses how public education cripples our kids and why.

This website offers an alternative look at standardized testing. Students Against Testing was created to be a strong force against the score-obsessed education machine known as standardized testing. At the same time, SAT also exists as an advocate for bringing positive, creative and real-life learning activities into the schools.

Beverly K. Eakman explains how, as a teacher, she saw that public schools are places where bad ideas are legitimized. She discusses the evolution of educational policy thought and the psychologizing of the educating process. This is a fascinating look at the state of the educational system today.

Much of the time, public school initiatives and regulations do not affect homeschoolers. The “next big thing” in public education, called Common Core education standards, already is, however, and that influence will grow. There are three major ways this nationwide initiative affects homeschool families: curriculum, testing, and student data tracking. There are some positive things about Common Core for public school students. For homeschool families, it largely represents an intrusion into their education freedoms.

Parents who homeschool their children have three basic complaints against public schools: the lack of academic rigor, the number of maladjusted graduates, and the anti-religious atmosphere. Homeschool advocates claim that homeschooling overcomes these problems. They argue that no matter whether the educational philosophy one holds is that schooling prepares for life or schooling is life, the homeschooled do better. Proponents also claim that private schools are nearly always similar to public schools, so the fundamental criticisms of public schools apply to private schools also, although to a lesser degree. There are two ways to look at the arguments for homeschooling: by personal case histories and by scholarly analysis. Although the true merit of homeschooling probably is best told as a series of case histories, this paper will examine the many studies done on various aspects of homeschooling.