The anti-homeschooling mind virus

The familiar objections to homeschooling sound automatic. This article looks at what they miss, and how a personalized system can answer the real concerns.

By Andrew Garber, founder of TheHomeschoolingCompany. Reviewed August 12, 2026.

The Anti-Homeschooling Mind Virus

There's a script that runs whenever someone mentions homeschooling. You've heard it. Maybe you've felt the urge to run it yourself.

The objections often arrive before anyone asks about the child. Socialization. Credentials. Studies. Cost. Those are worth discussing. What bothers me is when they function as automatic vetoes, while the school a child already attends gets a pass simply for being familiar.

The answers depend on what the family is proposing. Here are the objections I hear most, and the distinctions I think they miss.

"You're not qualified to teach your own children."

This is the big one. It sounds reasonable: teaching is a profession, professionals have training, therefore you need training to teach.

Subject expertise matters. So do clear explanations and useful feedback. But a parent choosing an education does not have to personally supply every part of it. Schools hire teachers; homeschoolers can use courses, tutors, and other people who know the subject.

A parent can therefore assess an algebra course without claiming to be an algebra teacher. They need to know who supplies the explanation, how questions get answered, and how the work is checked.

Credentials do not solve the underlying problem. Completing a program and passing tests does not guarantee that a fixed, group-paced system can meet one specific learner where they are.

There is also a question of fit. A capable teacher still has a class to teach. One child may need another week on fractions while another is ready for algebra. The family needs a way to respond to that difference.

Homeschooling gives a family more freedom to change the pace, seek another explanation, or spend longer on a subject. That freedom is valuable when somebody uses it. Taking a child out of school does not automatically produce good instruction.

Our curriculum supplies lessons and projects starting at a placed level. The mentor sits beside that work, answering questions about any passage your child highlights and offering help when they seem stuck. Every submission is graded as soon as your child turns it in, so you can see what they were asked to do and how each piece was graded without assessing it yourself. That is more useful than asking whether a parent could have written the course alone.

"What about socialization?"

A child needs friends, regular company, and somewhere they belong. That is a real requirement. The school label does not tell you whether it is being met.

Being surrounded by children is not the same as having friends. A school can provide lasting friendships and a community a child loves. It can also be a place where a child is isolated or bullied. The actual experience matters.

Homeschooling changes where those relationships happen. It can also remove the easiest source of daily company. A family needs a specific answer to that before withdrawing.

School is one place to find that company. Sports, music, neighborhood friends, co-ops, and community groups can provide others. They take time, access, and regular attendance. Listing possible activities is only the beginning.

Before you change schools, put actual people and places on the calendar. A promise to find activities later leaves the hardest part unresolved.

"Where are the studies?"

There are two different questions here: what do we know about homeschooling, and what do we know about this particular curriculum? Evidence for one does not establish the other.

We do not have long-term outcome evidence proving that our curriculum produces better results than a school. A trial can show you the lessons and your child's experience; it cannot establish a future college result.

Both choices deserve scrutiny. It is reasonable to ask an alternative for evidence. It is also reasonable to ask whether the current school is teaching this particular child well.

Look at the work. Can the child explain an idea they struggled with? What happens after a wrong answer? Does the next lesson build on what they understood? Those questions apply wherever learning happens.

Our lessons, reading checks, and feedback are available to inspect. We should be judged on that work and on the limits we state, not on a promise that a new tool must be better.

The same questions belong in both conversations. Otherwise familiarity gets mistaken for evidence, and a family never reaches a comparison of the actual instruction.

"Public education is a right."

Every child should have access to an education. I agree with that principle. It does not settle which setting will teach a particular child well.

A public system can remain available while a family chooses another route. Defending that choice does not require denying the value another family gets from its school.

The child is the reason for the institution. When a parent asks whether another education would serve their child better, "but this is the public system" does not answer the question.

"It's too expensive. You'd be paying twice."

Homeschoolers already pay twice. They pay taxes that fund public schools they don't use, and they pay for their own materials. This has always been true. The question is whether the self-funded portion is affordable.

The curriculum price is easier to calculate than the family's time and supervision costs.

School in a Box is $149 per month per child; Single Subject is $49 per month. Those are curriculum prices. A school budget pays for a building, staff, transport, and other services too, so the two prices are not a comparison of equivalent packages.

A monthly subscription covers the academic work. It does not cover childcare, activities, or income a parent might give up. Those belong in the cost comparison too.

"You have no credentials."

True. I don't.

I was a homeschooler. I left public school because I was bored, because the one-size-fits-all curriculum wasn't built for how I learned or what I cared about. So I started building tools to create something better for myself. Those tools became The Homeschooling Company.

That experience explains why I built it. It does not prove the curriculum will work for your child. The work has to stand up to inspection.

Read a lesson. Look at the task, the answer your child gives, and the feedback they receive. Ask what the product handles and what it leaves to you.

That lets you make a decision about the course itself, with my experience as context rather than proof.

The Pattern

The reflex I object to is treating a familiar arrangement as the default proof of quality, then demanding that every alternative justify its existence before we even look at the child.

Supervision, friendship, cost, and teaching quality are real questions. Each deserves an answer. None is answered by assuming that the institution a child already attends must be the right one.

A family may investigate those questions and choose to stay. Another may find a better fit elsewhere. The investigation matters more than defending a school category.

The mind virus is the automatic veto. It keeps a parent from considering an alternative before they have looked at what it could mean for their own child.

A serious conversation starts with the child and the proposed arrangement. That leaves room for objections to change a plan, rather than end the discussion before there is one.

At TheHomeschoolingCompany, we build personalized curriculum for homeschooling families. Any subject. Any interest. Built for your kid, not the average kid.

An example algebra lesson

Your parent dashboard

See today’s plan, completed lessons, grades, and feedback. Attendance is saved when your child checks in each day, and a weekly summary shows how the week went.