Harvard, Homeschooling, and Educational Autonomy

Not long ago, I came across an article announcing that “there’s a new path to Harvard and it’s not in the classroom.” Chris Weller’s article spotlights not only the growing trend of homeschooling as an educational alternative in America — he cites a statistic showing that the population of homeschooled students grew by 61.8% between 2003-2012 — but also that leading colleges and universities such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard, Stanford, and Duke all actively recruit homeschooled students.

Harvard? Stanford? M.I.T.? Apparently so.

To a culture that is often mistaken in its assumptions and judgments about homeschooling, such a report must be rather surprising, if not shocking. But Weller points out something that all of us homeschooling parents and students already know too well: the popular perception of homeschooled students as “shut-ins” — that is, as sheltered adolescents who lack the social skills necessary for success in the “real world” — is in fact a gross misconception. Homeschooled students regularly achieve integration within their communities and interaction with people of various ages and backgrounds that conventionally educated students rarely experience. Weller writes that “homeschoolers learn to become active participants in their neighborhoods and soak up the etiquette of adult life in the process.” This integration provides homeschooled students with an edge when it comes to succeeding outside the classroom – something elite colleges and universities consider a top priority.

So far so good.

But the “meat” of Weller’s article does not concern the benefits of social integration, however important that may be. This is because the main reason for the success of homeschooling is not that homeschooling itself is on the rise, but rather that a particular form of homeschooling is catching on – an approach that Weller calls “progressive homeschooling.”

The basic idea of progressive homeschooling (sometimes called “student-centered learning” or “unschooling”) is that the student, not a group of professionals or educational experts or even parents, is in charge of his own learning. The student sets his own pace, his own goals, his own methods. The following quote from a parent that Weller includes in the article is indicative of this approach’s key principles: “I wanted [my daughters] to be in charge of their own education and decide what they were interested in, and not have someone else telling them what to do and what they were good at.” This same parent shares that if her daughters “don’t like the subject, then they move on to something else.”

Fair enough. Far be it from me to question the right and authority parents have to design their children’s education, even if that means a designless, structureless education in which the only act of parental authority is to surrender that authority to their children. But I do have other questions.

First, does Weller show that it is progressive homeschooling in particular that is the leading cause of homeschooling success in the eyes of top-tier colleges and universities? I do not believe so. The article demonstrates three logically independent points: homeschooling in general is on the rise, progressive homeschooling is on the rise, and elite colleges are actively recruiting homeschooled students. The best we can gather from Weller is that the unique social experiences of homeschooled students are part of what colleges are finding attractive (regardless of whether such students come from progressive homeschooling backgrounds). He needs to do more to prove that the progressive approach is also part of the attraction.

Second, we might ask if “progressive” is the most accurate term for this approach to homeschooling. If we are to rid ourselves of this loaded term, which carries meanings beyond the realm of education, and seek a more literal understanding, I might suggest we think of the approach as “educational autonomy.” In all fairness, what we are discussing is an approach to learning that is autonomous in the basic and literal sense of the term: the student is a “law unto himself.” And if this revision makes sense to you, then I imagine my third question will as well: As Christian homeschooling families, do we believe that educational autonomy is an approach to learning that coincides with biblical principles?

I suggest we think about this the following way. If man were not fallen in his basic nature, if our children were not born with an already present sinful nature, then what type of education would make the most sense for a “good-by-nature” individual? My response: educational autonomy. Such a noble child, naturally oriented to the good, the true, and the beautiful, would be capable of setting his own educational priorities, capable of managing himself, capable of arranging an educational program that centers on the meaningful and substantive things of life and eschews the frivolous and the empty (if such things would even exist in a sinless world). He would be concerned, above all else, to see that his education is aimed ultimately at cultivating his love of God and love of neighbor. I could imagine no better model for learning in such an idealized world than educational autonomy. But it is an educational model for the world as we wished it to be rather than the world as it actually is. “If men were angels,” James Madison once wrote, “no government would be necessary.”

By contrast, the classical approach to Christian education is designed for man as he is, with all of his stunning potentiality along with his fundamental and, apart from grace, unalterable sinfulness. The very meaning of the term “education” is suggestive of the approach we must take, whether we like it or not: to “educate” is to “call out” or “lead forth” and has most often been used in the sense of “to train up.” As Christian parents, we must “train up our children in the way they should go.” The book of Judges relates what naturally occurs with the absence of intentional and goal-oriented education: “[A]nd there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord or the work which he had done for Israel.”

Bear in mind that the classical Christian approach does not understand “the way they should go” to mean a certain career track, or a certain college. The goal is not practical and vocational, though such considerations are important. The purpose of educational structure and authority, rather, is to provide a context in which we might see the development of the human being according to the purpose and law of God and for the glory of God. And this purpose remains, regardless of whether Harvard finds such an approach appealing.

Dr. Tom Vierra teaches courses in The Great Conversation, Logic, and Rhetoric and is part of the administrative staff at WHA.