I'm sure there are exceptions but I think it is a pretty bad idea for several reasons. Most parents are not qualified. They're not teachers. They don't have training or experience and there is a risk that the education could be inadequate or uneven. School provides a structured environment that allows for focus. When a kid is home, there are a lot of distractions. The parent is distracted with all of the other errands they have to do and the child is more likely to be distracted with all of the other things they can be doing at home - playing with the dog, videogames, etc. Also, you miss out on the opportunity to develop your social skills and facility with meeting new people and interacting with them. I could complain about all of the schools I went to and how they could be better. An INTJ is a rare duck in grade school and the SJ teachers are instructing for the average. Still, it's better than staying at home.
I'm glad you've brought some of these issues up, highlander, as they are frequent arguments made against homeschooling and are worthy of being examined.
Firstly, there is nothing magic about getting a degree in education. As with any other profession, there are great teachers and abyssmal ones, and generally it is a direct result of how passionate they are about what they do and what experiences shape them (and how they respond!). The world is changing enough these days, that even when people take training, in the course of a career, many people's jobs will morph into something almost unrecognizable from where they began. They are saying that today students must be prepared for an average of five different career changes.
During the course of my five year double degree, I did not receive any classes dealing with the practical basics of teaching: integrating students with special needs, communicating with parents, proactive classroom management, looking at root causes for behavioural concerns, organizing a classroom, getting along with difficult co-workers, etc. Must like WestJet's policy of looking for the type of person they need and then training them in the specifics of their job, I believe that most good teachers are not a product of their training, but rather are the right sort of people for the profession. Many teachers coming into the profession now see it as a 9-3:30 job, a second income to help pay for student loans, but they are not passionate about what they do. There are an appalling amount of teachers in the profession, who neither read for pleasure (or professional development) nor do they have basic spelling and writing skills themselves!
Therefore, you are correct that parents need to be the sort of people who have patience to deal with their children, are lifelong learners, and can take on an appropriate leadership role and that does not encompass everyone. I would argue though that the reason it doesn't encompass anyone has to do more with personal qualities and choices, and less with a piece of paper.
Secondly, consider that parents have a lot more context than the average teacher for understanding their child. They have insight into their child's character, learning style and personality that a teacher isn't likely to gain until much later in the year. If they are doing what they ought to as a parent, there should already be a support system of people in place to provide a balance in perspective and access to additional knowledge and skills that the parent does not possess. They also will seek out advice and input of others who are involved in their child's life in a way that a teacher does not have the same access or motivation to do. On the other hand, you are quite right that someone who is parenting poorly at home will also make a poor teacher for the child.
As far as there being too many distractions at home, that does not have to be the case. The home offers a wealth of natural learning opportunities in a context that is practical and easy to take advantage of without a lot of trouble. Of course, somebody who is parenting poorly outside of school will also teach poorly in school. The important issue is that you make a distinction between the two types of educators, rather than attributing all good or bad to a mere
vehicle for education, which is in and of itself neutral. It is like arguing about whether an SUV or a compact car is best. Each have unique attributes and drawbacks that will suit certain purposes better than others. However, damage done by a particular vehicle has much more to do with the operator of it than with the vehicle itself.
Finally, this issue of socialization seems to be a sticking point for many. It seems to me that in life, you end up socializing with a much broader range of people than those who are exactly your own age. Therefore, it stands to reason that when we are considering how children should be socialized, this is one of public school's great drawbacks! It isolates children so that they are only together with others of the same age at a variety of maturity levels and whose basic identity is not yet formed. Therefore, it is difficult for those who are emotionally immature to retain their sense of individual behaviour, attitudes and opinions when put into a group setting with others who are also emotionally immature. They become succeptible to wherever the group tide takes them, which is often negative (insecurity makes people particularly vicious and lack of experience and hindsight prevents people from understanding the impact of their actions at that stage).
During this "wet cement" time of a child forming their sense of what they are good at, how to relate to people etc, it seems to me that it would make more sense to expose them to a cross-section of the population, which is more balanced and which will offer more appropriate guidance and direction at that stage. In many homes there is no longer time for parents to juggle two parents working, children's activities, schoolwork, and housework. Therefore, the only socialization the children receive is at school or online. There is not time to have company, to be part of family events together, to get together with extended family and so on. Homeschooling frees up time for some of these kinds of interactions, which I think can only contribute to a child's life and to their sense of how to successfully relate to the rest of the world around them.
In addition, a homeschooling family who is involved in various activities is not going to completely isolate their child from others of the same age. They do however have more control over what kind of social group their child is spending their largest chunks of time with. Again though, this is dependent on the "operator" of the educational vehicle, rather on the vehicle itself.
I am a public school teacher and have endeavoured to expose my kids to a variety of people from the school and the community and to teach social skills in an active way. However, I am not fooling myself that were I to be doing the same thing with one child and I had time and freedom to go on field trips with ease, the child would receive an even better social education.
I would be the first to say that it really depends on the parent and the circumstances for this to be effective. Good points raised though!