At Issue: A Place for Opposing Views

In an interview that appeared in the Summer 2000 issue of Paths of Learning (see Resource sidebar), author and educator Herbert R. Kohl explains that, while he has great respect for some people in the home schooling movement, he believes that three major groups of home schoolers, whom he calls fundamentalist Christians, post-hippies and people interested in their own children to the exclusion of others, are abandoning public education and threatening democracy in the process:

"You can destroy public education in several ways," Kohl says. "One is by having lousy schools. But you can also destroy it by removing people who don’t have to go there from the public schools. Then we have no public fabric. We have no real understanding of human rights, the Bill of Rights, the whole existence and meaning of democracy."

Kohl’s comments angered some home schooling readers, but editor Richard Prystowsky, who home schools his two younger children with his wife, Charlie Miles, wrote in an editorial that Kohl’s views "provide a necessary challenge to all of us in education."

"It’s very important that people outside of the mainstream of public education don’t become isolationist," Prystowsky explains. "Herb is a well--respected author and teacher, and he has decades of experience of work on behalf of the disenfranchised."

The mission of Paths of Learning, Prystowsky says, is to deal with and honor the many paths of learning that are available, without advocating any one path, and to honor a commitment to civic and global responsibility. The magazine has featured alternative public school programs as well as home schooling and non-public teaching and learning options.

Until their recent move, Prystowsky and Miles were long-time members of an inclusive support group, Riverside Area Home Learners, of which Miles was a founder.

They stress that respectful discussion of ideas and differences of opinion is essential for a support group too. Miles says that a strong mission statement helps.

"Our mission statement said we believe our group was enriched by the diversity of its members, and that it was founded on respect for everyone, despite their age or political views or religious orientation," she says.

"So when disagreements came up in the group, we always tried to go back to the mission statement and use it to try to accept differences."

The real issue, says Prystowsky, "is not about whether people agree. It’s about whether they get along."