What Christianity Today Gets Completely Wrong About Public Schools
Education has been a fiercely debated topic among Christians for decades, with ongoing discussions around the merits of public schooling, Christian private schools, and the growing homeschooling movement. These debates are often tied to deeper concerns about the nation's cultural direction, as parents grapple with how best to safeguard their children’s values and faith. The recent rise of homeschooling, co-ops, and university-model schools has been particularly striking, especially in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. While many expected that children would return to public schools once pandemic restrictions were lifted, a surprising number of families opted to stick with alternative education, recognizing the benefits it offered both academically and spiritually in a world increasingly hostile toward Christianity.
And it is this last point in particular that made me perk up when I read Christianity Today’s recent article that made the bold claim that, “some recent research has shown that vitriol towards religion generally and Christian specifically declined over the last decade or so.” To be fair, I’m sure that’s true for the at Christianity Today. But for those of us who live outside the elite bubble, the reality on the ground feels quite different. In fact, the cultural challenges facing Christians seem more pronounced than ever, and perhaps most in the area of education.
Author Stefani McDade touched on several themes in her piece: the ongoing debate among Christians over schooling options, research demonstrating how regular church attendance influences faith development, and how parents’ decisions are often shaped by a sense of God’s sovereignty. Many others have rightly pointed out numerous problems with such dismissive hand waving, noting that children are the mission field, not the missionaries; that being indoctrinated for eight hours a day versus one hour a week does influence a child; and that children should probably not be sent out to the front line of battle unaccompanied by their parents.
But one notable point emphasized in the article - one which I think is worthy of response - was the importance of exposing children to challenges early in life. Putting aside the fact that, given the current cultural landscape, it seems many of those challenges are increasingly designed to erode Christian values rather than strengthen them, the author overstates her point. Homeschooling isn't about sheltering children, and contrary to popular belief, public schooling often limits real-world risks and challenges. In a recent tweet, she exaggerated her stance once again, stating,, “Wow, so much fear in these comments…How do these folks plan to protect their kids from the world forever? Never let them leave the house?”
Well, I’m glad you asked.
First, the notion that public schools offer students meaningful challenges seems increasingly disconnected from reality. In today’s ‘participation trophy’, ‘safe-space’ world academic standards have been lowered, reading assignments diminished, and schools often fail to provide the necessary challenges for students to thrive. The stereotype of public schools coddling students is now almost a given. Recently we even heard of some schools even installing litter boxes in bathrooms to accommodate children identifying as furries—a bizarre attempt at inclusion gone too far.
Yet, the author focuses less on academic challenges and more on social ones. She states:
“Now, I know I did myself no favors in how I responded—due to my strong personality, deeply ingrained convictions, and ministry upbringing—but it was bullying all the same. It was, at times, rather miserable. But it was also motivating….And though bullying is terrible, and no parent wants their children to experience it, keeping children out of public school doesn’t guarantee they’ll never be bullied”
The idea that bullying, though admittedly bad, somehow fosters personal growth feels more like an excuse than a valid point. The author is correct in suggesting that adversity builds resilience, but implying that enduring bullying is a necessary part of a child’s development is a stretch. There is a difference between preparing children for hard social experiences, which is essential, and intentionally placing them in harm’s way. Furthermore McDade then concedes that homeschooling doesn’t guarantee an absence of bullying, weakening the claim that public schools are essential for exposing children to such apparently character-forming harassment. If bullying can happen anywhere, why insist that public schools—with their unpredictability and inherent social pressures—are the ideal setting? There are countless other ways to build resilience, from structured challenges to the freedom to make mistakes, that don't require exposure to such toxic environments.
McDade then gives a false dichotomy between the two options, saying, “That may feel risky, but the alternative—keeping them sheltered, then letting them be exposed to everything all at once when they leave home for work or college—is risky too.”
I understand why the stereotype of the sheltered homeschooler persists. It’s a familiar trope. But in my experience, homeschoolers—or those raised in a similar manner—often gain more real-world experience than their peers who sit in a classroom for eight hours a day. After all, if a homeschooler finishes their academic work in 3-4 hours, what does the author think they are doing for the rest of the day? Watching cartoons? The assumption that homeschoolers exist in a bubble, sheltered from the world, is misguided. In my experience, while homeschooling parents of course protect their children from unnecessary harm, it’s far from reality to suggest that homeschoolers are shielded from all risks, trials, and challenges—they just face them differently.
In fact, homeschoolers often have greater freedom to take real risks. They meet friends throughout the week in a flexible, unstructured environment, building forts, settling disputes, forgiving one another, and letting their imaginations run wild. They receive mentorship from older generations, developing self-motivation and discipline in ways that go beyond rigid bell schedules. Homeschoolers interact with multi-generational groups, learning to communicate with both adults and peers in natural settings rather than being confined to a classroom of those of the same age. In other words, they’re not sheltered from social adversity—they’re actually encountering real-world scenarios earlier. Co-ops and university-model schools further enrich this experience, offering apprenticeships and internships that prepare students for the workforce.
Take, for example, my nephew. He spends his weekends at a cabin by the river with his father and their friends, fishing, building fires, and inventing games. He’s learning problem-solving, responsibility and social skills in a way that public school simply cannot replicate. I’m not saying public school children don’t have similar opportunities at times, but homeschoolers undeniably have more frequent opportunities like this and more freedom to take risks and face real-life challenges in a way that traditional schooling often limits.
Children need independence and freedom to grow. The stereotype that homeschoolers lack social experience is not only exaggerated, but it also overlooks the fact that a certain amount of independence is necessary for personal development. In his book 10 Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child, Anthony Esolen, echoing the satire of C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, paints a bleak picture of modern education:
“They get up very early in the morning to board a bus which stops every hundred yards to take new passengers. This ensures that no child has very far to walk, and that the ride takes an hour or so in the morning and an hour or so in the evening. That will mean nearly two hours ripped out of every child’s life…day after day for twelve years–a significant achievement. Then they are shipped to what is called a ‘home’ room…An alarm rings, and all the children move from ‘home’ room to one of the classrooms…Please note that this movement from room to room is of the utmost importance. It develops certain automatic responses in the child useful for his adult life, when he will also move from room to room at the sound of an alarm. It is happily made necessary by the scale of the school, hundreds or even thousands of children crated and uncrated in one place every day, and hardly ever a single one lost. The anonymity of the place – since it is impossible for anyone to know everyone there by name or face – prepares the child for a world of anonymity. If the schools were kept small, there might be the great danger of a sense of home…Children might come to suspect that a rational being conceals a universe of wonder.” (52)
He continues:
“After six or seven hours of this, I say, interrupted by a few minutes for cramming calories down to refuel the machine, the child is conveyed back to the bus, for an hours ride to what is, again with delightfully wry humor, called “home”...He turns on a television to watch a program he has not the slightest interest in” and then spends 2 hours after a long day doing his homework.”
What Esolen suggests is that the rigid structure of modern education deprives children of the freedom to stimulate their imaginations, make guided mistakes and form meaningful connections, leaving them to navigate a mechanical system until they turn 18—at which point they’re suddenly expected to embrace the freedom that was stifled during their formative years. Contrast this with the idea of having large blocks of time to build things, play outside with peers, create imaginary kingdoms, and scrape their knees—using nature’s medicine (dirt) to heal them. Life is homework.
McDade concludes her argument by vaguely appealing to Divine providence, saying “I trust God’s sovereignty far more than my control over my daughters future.” While I commend that this factors into her thinking and rightly provides comfort, this is a misguided understanding of God’s sovereignty. Just as trust in God’s mighty hand while we drive a car should not prevent us from wearing a seatbelt, trusting in providence does not excuse unwise decisions around a child’s education. God’s wisdom in fact states, “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty,” (Prov 22:3) and a Christian parent witnessing increasing hostility to Christianity in public schools and viewing that as a danger to their child may rightly decide that there are other prudential options at their disposal.
There are many Christian children who emerge from public schools as well-rounded adults who love the Lord, obey His commands, and achieve success in their respective fields. Additionally, there are dedicated Christian teachers in public schools who, despite institutional challenges, strive to impart truth to their students. I think of my father-in-law, who taught Biology and English in public school and consistently preached the Gospel to his students. But it's important not to overlook the recent proactive secular shifts and the decline in the quality of education at the institutional level. While exposing children to a broad range of experiences can seem virtuous, it’s unlikely that young learners are as spiritually grounded as we might hope. Homeschooling, co-ops, and Christian private schools often provide a more realistic environment, allowing children the freedom to explore and develop their imaginations under careful guidance. This approach offers a gradual exposure to various ideas and values, in contrast to a government-mandated curriculum confined within four walls.