PREAMBLE:
First of all, because many people will quite likely feel that it is a highly relevant factor, I want to make it clear that I am not a parent. I would very much disagree with anyone who thinks I am therefore unqualified to offer my opinion on this topic, and would politely suggest that they revise their opinion. I am perfectly willing to concede that my views might not be as worthy as those of (certain) parents, and that I am perhaps less qualified than others to speak on the topic - 'less' is the operative word however. As someone who has 'been through' and 'endured' the system (i.e. institutionalized education*); as a 'thinking observer' (as opposed to a 'non-thinking participant' - i.e. most parents , mine own included, who never question the merit of the current educational/learning system); and as someone who has personal experience of the virtues of self-motivated and non-enforced learning, I still think my opinion is as worthy as most. If it weren't for the relative paucity of debate on the issue, I - as a lesser-qualified individual - would perhaps be content to sit back and let the parents do the talking. As it stands however, I have encountered little discussion on the topic, either in real life or on the internet - so I felt compelled to offer my two cents (plus a little extra!).

WHY LEARN AT ALL?
I think it is reasonable to say that: before energy/effort is expended on something, a reason should be offered as to why it be expended, and it is sensible to question whether the ultimate aim is being achieved in the most efficient manner - i.e. do we really need to spend all this energy to achieve what we want to achieve? I think it is wise to occasionally remind ourselves of the purpose of our efforts, perhaps by asking ourselves questions such as 'why are we doing this again?' - especially if the endeavour is taking up a lot of time and energy, which is certainly the case with education and learning as they are currently undertaken.
To further relate this to learning and education, we could ask: what is the purpose of learning?
why set out to acquire knowledge in the first place?
To me there are three reasons:
(i) The knowledge acquired could potentially be used for a useful purpose.
(ii) Simply because you have a desire to learn; you are curious; you find it interesting; you feel like it.
(iii) To develop one's 'mental faculties'.

Do these reasons marry with the motives behind school classrooms? Does today's educational system really coincide with what the process of learning should be all about? Can conventional schooling claim to exist as a facilitator for the achievement of these purposes ( - of acquiring information for a useful purpose; for satisfying one's innate curiosity; for 'sharpening' one's mind)?

Beyond the three R's - reading, writing and basic arithmetic (which I think most people would agree are put to a 'useful purpose' in the course of an average life) - isn't most of what we learn forgotten shortly after it carries us through the end-of-year exams?
Do children glean lessons from history class? And if they do, is the knowledge acquired in those lessons ever applied in reality? I don't think so. The people who have a chance to apply 'lessons from history' are in the minority - they include politicians and perhaps legislators referring to precedence. But not the average person!
How often does the typical person use advanced algebra, trigonometry or differentiation/integration? Never I would say!
How about the information we acquire in geography or chemistry class - do we ever apply that for a useful purpose? - not often is my guess. I think it's safe to say that a great deal (perhaps even most) of the information we acquire in school is never applied for any useful purpose whatsoever.

But so what? Don't children find these topics interesting? Don't they have a desire to learn? Aren't they curious? I think children are naturally curious, and that they do have a desire to learn, but they want to do it on their terms, at a time that suits them. They want to choose the topics, and they do not want to have learning forced on them.
As someone who began learning QBasic of my own accord while a young teenager; as someone who voluntarily approached the writings of Michio Kaku; as someone who taught myself to play the guitar - I find the notion that children are incapable of directing their own learning to conflict with my personal experience; as I do the notion that they need constant external motivation and orders. I consider myself an example of the fact that children and teenagers are naturally curious, and perfectly capable of directing their own learning. And I don't need to rely on myself for proof (in fact, compared to alot people I'm quite a pathetic guitarist to be honest. But I have reached a level of competency I am content with, and that's what matters).
Andres Segovia, at a young age, wriggled his way out of the piano lessons his parents wished for him to receive, and began to teach himself the guitar (actually against the wishes of his parents according to some accounts I have read). He later became one of the world's finest-ever classical guitarists - a beautiful example of what a self-motivated learner can achieve! There are many other examples of self-taught musicians - all you have to do is search for information on them.

Thirdly, doesn't schooling develop a person's mental faculties? Absolutely not in my experience! Rather I would say that it dulls them. I would also strongly suggest that, perhaps with the exception of events such as 'The Young Scientist Awards', that it inhibits initiative and creativity; and that it prevents a person from applying their mind to what they really have an interest in. This has been not only my own experience but that of many others. I never really thought about alot of the things that matter most to me until I had free time from formal education. I would also say that my 'mental faculties' are considerably sharper now (a good while after I have left the 'system'), and that what I have learnt in the interim is far more valuable than what I would have learnt (in fact, probably more valuable than anything I ever did learn) during an equivalent period back in school.

I believe that most, if not everything, worth learning can be learnt through self-motivated learning.

FREEDOM
I hope it is understood that I am by no means opposed to the idea of seeking tutelage or guidance from teachers, when it is voluntarily chosen by the affected persons! What I am opposed to is the idea of it being forced upon a person. Nor am I implying that people shouldn't be encouraged to learn - perhaps even as much as possible! I'm all for encouraging them, and facilitating them, and helping them! Again, what I am adverse to is coercion.

I think it is important to respect children's autonomy. I don't believe a parent, guardian or teacher is justified in forcing a child to do anything more than is necessary for it's welfare. In my opinion, they are not justified in doing what they deem 'best' - merely what is 'necessary'. Not always an easy distinction to make admittedly, but to a reasonable and reflective person it will be obvious in most cases.
A well-known libertarian (whose name I won't mention here for what I hope are obvious reasons) once said that he considered himself justified in stopping a child from crossing the road if it was going to be run over by a car, for example. I agree; the child isn't mature enough to realise that it is unquestionably not in it's interest to walk out in front of an approaching car. Similarly, alot of people would argue that, just as it is necessary to prevent an infant from walking out in front of a car, it is also necessary to teach them the alphabet, and the basics of reading and writing etc.. Some people might say this isn't even necessary, and I'm not going to bother arguing. To be honest, I don't think it's particularly relevant, because I think a person will motivate themselves to learn these things once they realise the enormous advantage of doing so.

SOCIALISATION
An argument often raised against the concept of taking children out of institutionalised education is the supposed lack of contact it has with other children. But are humans, with all our intellectual ability, incapable of devising new forums in which children could meet and 'socialize'? Are we incapable of encouraging and enabling children to make greater use of the forums already available - e.g. playgrounds, sports grounds, all sorts of clubs and societies? Frankly, I think the argument that 'school is the only place where children can meet other kids' is an unimaginative cop-out, and quite pathetic to be honest.
If a parent is unable to look after their child during the daytime - due to work commitments for example - why not allow the child to meet his/her friends at the soccer pitch instead of sending him/her to a building which in many respects resembles a prison? Why not send it to the house of a friend who also has children and has the time to look after them? Oh let me guess, because school is where all the other children are to begin with! Well, I hope you can understand why I would dismiss that as 'circular reasoning'! Or maybe you would be worried about the lack of supervision? Well why not search for people who could carry out the supervisory/protective aspect of a teacher's role, while forsaking the coercive and authoritarian aspects? Someone who could simply keep an eye on things, but who wouldn't be prescribing pointless assignments that sap the joy out of a child's life. I hope the radical nature of what I am suggesting doesn't hide from you the fact that the organization of such an affair would be within the capabilities of I suspect even someone mildly retarded.

An inevitable product of the educational system is the pallid, wearied child, who has never properly learned to think or reason for his or herself, who doesn't have much experience of relating to people who are not his or her own age, and who - if they have gone to a single-sex school - won't even have much experience of communicating with the opposite sex. This implies a very narrow definition of 'socialization' indeed, in my opinion. And it has been pointed out by some that schools and classrooms are a form of 'age segregation', and sometimes gender segregation as well.

I'm perfectly aware that this isn't going to gain a whole lot of currency in this forum. But if I sow some seeds in the minds of a few libertarians, or at least initiate a rational debate on the topic, that would be enough. Then again, maybe someone can sway my views by drawing my attention to the merits of conventional education - I must have missed them!

RESOURCES
Learn in Freedom (http://www.learninfreedom.org/) - this site contains a list of colleges/universities which apparently accept home-schooled children.
Alternative Learning (http://www.alternative-learning.org/) - excellent site. I suggest you read 'Unschooling Adventures' in the articles section - it's wonderful stuff.
Unschooling.com (http://www.unschooling.com/) - haven't actually read much on this site, but it's about unschooling, so it has to be full of good things.
There are myriad resources available on the topic at this stage - just do a search on them if you want to know more. A prominent writer and thinker in the homeschooling movement was John Holts - it might be worth searching for information on him as well. Finally, here (http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html) and here (http://learninfreedom.org/notable_quotes.html) are lists of quotes by famous people on the topic (or at least related to the topic) if you're interested in that sort of thing.

* please interpret 'institutionalized education' in this context to exclude university/college/third-level education, where people usually have far more choice over what they are learning, and which is usually attended on a far more voluntary basis.

You should look up Summerhill, a school in England devoted to voluntary learning. The students were not required to do anything they didn't like. Most of them got bored after awhile, and wanted to learn something. As a high school kid (17 years ago), I was fascinated by this philosophy. It sounded like paradise compared to my own education.

OK, I couldn't resist. I looked it up, and they're still around!
Check this out:

Summerhill School (http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/index.html) is a progressive, co-educational, residential school, founded by A. S. Neill in 1921; in his own words, it is a 'free school' though this does not mean, alas, that it is state funded. The freedom Neill was referring to was the personal freedom of the children in his charge. Summerhill is first and foremost a place where children can discover who they are and where their interests lie in the safety of a self-governing, democratic community.

There are two features of the school which people usually single out as being particularly unusual. The first is that all lessons are optional. Teachers and classes are available at timetabled times, but the children can decide whether to attend or not. This gives them the freedom to make choices about their own lives and means that those children attending lessons are motivated to learn.

Many people suppose that no children would ever go to lessons if they were not forced to. At Summerhill, it is rare for a child to attend no lessons at all – at least, after the initial shock of freedom has worn off.

The second particularly unusual feature of the school is the school meeting, at which the school Laws are made or changed. These laws are the rules of the school, made by majority vote in the community meetings; pupils and staff alike having equal votes.

These two features are central to the school, but they fail in themselves to capture its essential nature. Needless to say, epithets like 'the school where kids do what they like' similarly miss their mark. What they omit to say is that Summerhill is a community. It is a community where most of the 100-odd members are children, so teaching is a part of it; but it is not the most important part. The most important part is building and maintaining an environment where members of the community can co-exist in harmony and in personal freedom.

I think this is a EXTREMELY important subject indeed.
i don't think parents--mine didn't anyhow--generally realize just what they ar subjecting their children to in allowing them to HAVe to go to schools, which in reality are indoctrinating factories, and open-prisons

They indoctrinate the child-victims to HAVEt to fit into industrial fascism, with all its viscious business ethic, social darwnin ethic. In other words THE breeding ground for bullyng on all levels

all THAT surrounds the child, who doesn't even know the game being played! (many adults don't). So child can be utterly overwhelmed. with the expectations of parents and society to 'suceed' and may having to deal with ever more viscious bullying from other seriously pissed off in-mates. DISASTER. and this can destroy LIVES, not 'just' childhoods.

Here in UK, parents are threatened with prison--several HAVe been imprisoned--if their child plays truant from school too many times. So this is even MORE pressure for children. even I didn't have that shit, though i feelt very stressed all through my schooling years. i LOATHED school totally. it was a complete blight on my childhood.

What this school factory nighmare does--like it does with its 'workforce' and food and all it fukin shit, is create a MONOculture, where all children are supposed to fit in pre-subcribed brackets. there is no exploring a child's CAPACITY--what she/he wants to explore and learn (as threadstarter points out). so of course resentment sets in. child soon realizs the score--not necessarily the deeper underlying fascism ruling the culture, but knowing that school is shit

of course some simply LOVe it and fit in. so...good for them if they like that. but many are suffering. are bullied, and lives made a misery. when complaints are made school denies it, and it all gets ugly, and absurd. know why? cause bullying is INHERENT in the very fukin SYSTEM! so kids who are marginalized are looked at as being 'losers'. not good enough for this hard business ethic, war mongering world

If parents REAALLY loved their children, they would get together to put an end to this fiasco calling itself 'education'. but to do that THEy need to wake up to it, and the sad fact is many of them are victims being bullied to work, hating work, and struggling to survive. that is the game i mean

there does exist here a thing called 'Not School' for marginalized kids. but trying to communicate with these poples --based at Anglia University seems impossible. i have tried and been ignored.........?

Wow, just my area of expertise. Not my only area of expertise, of course, but one that I have a little more personal standing with.

My education was almost entirely self-motivated. I say almost entirely because as a very young child my mother did do some actual teaching of reading and math skills. I'm not sure whether her interference was necessary or not, but at any rate I didn't mind it since even when I was needing help with learning I loved every moment of it. Since then I have educated myself, on the topics that I either enjoy or that I know I ought to learn more about. I imagine I will go on that way for the rest of my life, since I feel that life itself is meant to be educational.

Advantages:
1. If you can find an emotional bond to what you're learning - which is essentially what self-motivation is - you are far more likely to remember it for many years, if not the rest of your life. Forced learning may teach people well enough that they can pass the next test about it (more on test-taking later) but in my experience it with surprising frequency causes their minds to throw it out once it becomes 'unimportant'. Since this is about education, not the inner workings of the mind and the way that memory is stored, I won't go into great detail about the science behind this process; I feel confident that everyone will grasp the basic idea without me ranting about it.

2. Self-motivated (and self-chosen) education is actually more likely to be relevant to later life, especially in the teenaged years when interests are getting more refined. People ideally wind up with a career that is connected to their interests, and the topics they chose for education is therefore likely to come in handy with their dream career; not only will it help them be good at it once they have it, but it can often help them get it. I, for instance, have always loved literature and other book-related subjects, and therefore liked to spend time at the library; subsequently I started volunteering there, and I now have a job there which I love and which if I so choose I can keep for the rest of my life (I may not choose, since I would really rather live somewhere different than I do now, and also since if possible I plan to make a living as an author... but in the mean time it's a great job.) Most of my life people encouraged me to stop reading so much and learn more math and such, but I think that so far evidence has shown that they were wrong.

3. I have never in my life experienced stress about any factor of my education. Honestly. Taking tests (especially multiple choice, probably just because they're easier although aside from that there is something I love about the elimination process) is something that I do for recreation, and even when I'm taking a test for serious reasons I don't stress out about it like some people do. This may be just a part of my personality, but I think a lot of it was my education. There were never any serious consequences if I hadn't learned something properly; I just had to try harder. My education focused on learning things and enjoying it rather than not failing the class, and therefore that is the way I think of things. I know that with any question I either know the answer or I don't, and I can conclude which it is and deal with it appropriately when the time comes.

4. Self-education is bound to be much more unique than public school educations, and therefore promotes diversity in thought and encourages children to stand up for their beliefs.

Socialization, friends, and other commonly raised issues: my views
I feel that too much socialization can be a bad thing. Group mentality is rarely a healthy thing, yet in public school it's hard to avoid that. Children spend all day with children their own age, all of whom want to fit in so that people will get along with them (a reasonable desire, but a decision that children shouldn't be forced to make.) Wouldn't it be far better if children could spend a moderate amount of time with people of all different ages, and either listen to what they have to say or actually converse with them? That would allow them to get used to associating with other people, while understanding that it's all right to have your own opinions about things. Children don't need to spend a lot of time socializing in order to have good social skills. School doesn't even teach good social skills, it teaches how to have petty grudges and jealousies. Likewise, children don't need to be forced to make friends. As long as a child is given enough opportunities to meet people roughly their own age, they will make friends if they encounter one with whom they can have an enjoyable friendship. They may not have as many friends, but I for one would far rather have a few great friends than twenty mediocre ones. Homeschooled children, like adults, make friends through circumstances other than school.

Other issues raised - how will they learn to raise their hands when they want to talk, how will they learn about standing in line, how will they learn to respect authority, how will they learn to share, how will they learn to get along with people who are different than they are, et cetera - are explained by a point I made earlier: Life is educational. Some author (I believe it was Robin McKinley, but I'm not sure) said that the only thing she learned from high school was how to go to high school... I think in many cases that is true. The majority of non-curricular things learned in school are either unnecessary or you will learn in later life. Standing in line is very self-explanatory, and they will probably learn by going places with their parents where you have to stand in line. Raising a hand when you want to talk is not something that comes up a lot of out of school, but regardless most children do learn about the practice and realize when it is appropriate to do so. Respecting authority is something they will learn from their parents, and therefore will probably realize in later life that rather than blindly respecting authority it is best to respect anyone who you feel is worthy of your respect (although they will still have an understanding of what authority means, and therefore won't get themselves into trouble by ignoring it.) They will learn sharing with friends and siblings, not that the concept is one that takes a lot of drilling in; even without a lot of contact with other children they could pick up the habit from books and such, the same source from which I'm pretty sure I got most of my personality. The accepting differences argument makes no sense, considering the fact that in school children often seek out a difference between the majority and a specific child in order to give them some bullying amunition. Children are more likely to learn about accepting differences from adults who set a good example and from not having those differences pointed out at an early age.

Conclusion
Self-motived self-education not only works, but can (in my opinion) prove to be an asset in later life. Children, when not pressured to do otherwise, always have an interest in learning. Schools, although in most cases well-meaning, are often counterproductive to actual learning; not only do children feel the need to rebel from the authority of the teachers, they feel compelled to dislike it in order to fit in with the rest of the students.

With that, I call my somewhat insane rant to a close. Apologies to all; this is an issue that touches me very personally and as a result I can never resist the urge to talk about it.

Spidergoat: I think I had heard of Summerhill before. I searched for more information on it since you mentioned it anyway. And yes, it definitely seems to be miles better than the typical school. They seemed to have had some conflicts with the (or some) authorities a few years ago however - over being 'too liberal' as far as I could gather from the few snippets I read. A pity (but I guess almost inevitable)! But they still seem to be going strong, and adhering to their original principles!

One thing that concerns me about Summerhill, from the little I have read about it so far, is that it's founder - A.S. Neill - seems to have had anti-homosexual views.

duendy: Good job on highlighting some of the very ugly aspects of conventional schooling. I might say more later, but I'm in a bit of a rush now.

Beryl: Initially, I was quite impressed by your post, and was happy of the fact that someone who is almost entirely self-taught was actually offering their opinion. And then I looked at your profile, and it claims that you were born in 1989! Is this true (if you don't mind me asking)? If so, I think your post goes a considerable way towards vindicating the methods of learning I have been arguing for. Beryl (if the birth date in his/her profile is correct), is a sixteen year-old with a command of English that would put a lot of people on these forums to shame. Off the top of my head, I can't recall reading such a well-written post very often around here.
And then there is the strong personality which he/she seems to carry. It makes sense to me that someone who has been free to learn, and live their lives according to their own desire (within limits of course) would have a healthy and strong personality. Conventional schooling attempts to fit all recruits into the same mold, which inhibits their natural development and stunts mental growth. I might say more later.

P.S. Beryl, if my using you as an example makes you feel uncomfortable, or if you want me to change certain references for any reason, please accept my apologies. Just say the word, and I'll promptly edit my post.

Yamayama: Yes, that really is my date of birth. Thanks for the compliments :)