The idea that school is the best place for children’s socialisation deserves thoughtful reconsideration. It reflects a narrow and outdated view of childhood, one that often overlooks the many ways in which children develop socially outside the formal boundaries of school. In fact, many aspects of the school environment may be more limiting than enriching when it comes to preparing children for participation in a diverse, democratic society.
Unnatural peer grouping: In few other contexts are we grouped exclusively with individuals of the same age and developmental stage. Real-world socialisation occurs in mixed-age, mixed-ability environments where people learn through intergenerational interaction, collaboration, and difference. Lev Vygotsky's theory of social development (1978) highlights the importance of learning from those with different levels of experience—a dynamic often missing from age-segregated classrooms. Moreover, even within these age-based groups, children are further subdivided into so-called ‘ability’ sets or groups—structures that research by Becky Francis (2017) has shown to reinforce social inequalities, limit children's self-perception, and restrict peer learning opportunities. Francis argues that ability grouping often correlates more with socio-economic background than actual potential, exacerbating social stratification under the guise of meritocracy. Rather than promoting diverse interaction, these systems compound division, competition, and stigmatisation.
Institutional design and control: Michel Foucault's critique of institutions (1977) draws attention to the ways schools mirror prisons and factories, prioritising surveillance, standardisation, and discipline. Schools tend to reward compliance over creativity, and silence over meaningful dialogue. This has serious implications for the kind of citizens we hope children will become. Importantly, this is not accidental. Schools were historically designed during the industrial era to meet the needs of a growing capitalist economy, mirroring the structures of factories to produce orderly, efficient workers. Exploring this history reveals that schooling was never solely about nurturing the individual, but also about creating a manageable and compliant population. Understanding this origin invites us to consider whether the goals of 19th-century schooling align with the values we hold for childhood and society today.
Limited exposure to diversity: Schools are often socioeconomically and geographically segregated. Many children grow up surrounded by peers with similar life experiences. This can limit their capacity to understand, empathise with, and relate to people who are different from themselves—something essential in a globally connected world. More than demographic diversity, home education fosters diversity of thought. In most schools, children are taught to identify the ‘right’ answer, write a persuasive essay, and defend a single position. Yet when these same children reach higher education, they are suddenly asked to embrace complexity, nuance, and competing perspectives. As a university lecturer, I have seen time and again how this transition proves difficult for schooled learners—but not for home-educated students. These children are often raised in environments where questioning, dialogue, and critical engagement are embedded into everyday life. They learn to explore multiple angles of a topic, appreciate uncertainty, and weigh contradictions. They are socialised into intellectual openness, rather than rigid certainty—a skill of profound importance in navigating democratic, pluralistic societies.
Children as citizens now: The sociology of childhood, as developed by scholars like Allison James and Alan Prout (1997), teaches us to view children as active agents, not simply adults-in-training. As Jens Qvortrup reminds us, children are human beings, not human becomings. From a rights-based perspective, children deserve opportunities to participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their lives. When children are treated as capable contributors in the present—not just as future adults—they build confidence, form clearer self-identities, and develop a sense of political and civic agency that lasts into adulthood. These benefits extend beyond the individual child: societies are enriched when children are supported in becoming engaged, thoughtful, and participatory citizens. Yet, as Lundy (2007) argues, schools often fall short of enabling genuine participation. Children’s voices are frequently ignored or filtered through adult expectations, limiting opportunities for authentic agency and mutual respect. In contrast, home education has the potential to foreground children's rights and agency, positioning them not just as learners, but as co-constructors of their educational and social worlds.
Play and informal learning: Much of children’s social development occurs in informal, unstructured contexts—through play, in the community, and with family and peers. In school, such spaces are increasingly marginalised by a focus on academic metrics and time-on-task. Yet play is not trivial; it is foundational to learning. Research shows that play enhances communication skills, cooperation, conflict resolution, and emotional regulation (Ginsburg, 2007). Notably, countries such as Finland and Denmark, often ranked among the happiest and most educationally successful nations, embed project-based and play-centred learning well into primary years. These approaches value social cohesion and wellbeing as central to educational success.
Controlled friendships, social development and agency: In schools, children’s opportunities to socialise are heavily shaped—and often restricted—by institutional routines. Adult-imposed rules, fixed seating arrangements, strict timetables, and rigid behaviour systems control how and when children can interact. This managed social environment frequently suppresses the formation of organic, interest-led friendships and limits the development of social agency. Furthermore, the school context can give rise to toxic dynamics—bullying, social exclusion, peer surveillance, and competitive hierarchies. These are often treated as developmental rites of passage, but their long-term emotional toll on children is well documented. Crucially, children rarely have the autonomy to remove themselves from harmful interactions or shape the norms of their social world. From the perspective of the sociology of childhood, which emphasises children’s competence and their right to shape their own social realities, such constraints can be deeply damaging. Likewise, from a children’s rights standpoint, these dynamics undermine dignity, inclusion, and the right to be safe and heard. Home education, by contrast, tends to support more child-led social experiences. Children are often able to form friendships based on shared values and interests, participate in settings where respect and inclusion are modelled, and take part in resolving conflicts in ways that respect their voice and agency. These practices promote relational security, emotional wellbeing, and the skills to build and sustain healthy social networks—benefits that ripple outwards into wider society.
Surveillance and lack of autonomy: In many schools, children are constantly monitored—by staff, CCTV, or both. Opportunities for privacy, self-direction, or trust-based interactions are rare. Yet autonomy and privacy are foundational to developing trust, confidence, and mutual respect. Moreover, research consistently shows that this surveillance is not experienced equally by all children. Studies such as those by Gillborn (2008) and Archer (2019) demonstrate how children from minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to be subjected to disproportionate disciplinary action, are perceived through deficit-based lenses, and are more harshly judged by teachers. For example, black Caribbean boys in the UK are significantly overrepresented in school exclusions and are often stereotyped as disruptive or academically inferior, regardless of their actual behaviour or performance. This racialised surveillance contributes to a hostile learning environment where trust is eroded and self-worth is diminished. Rather than offering a safe and nurturing space for exploration and growth, schools can become sites of control and misrecognition—particularly for children whose identities fall outside the dominant norms. In contrast, educational environments that centre trust, respect, and child-led agency—such as many home education settings—can support the development of a strong, positive sense of self and foster respectful, reciprocal relationships grounded in equity.
Standardisation and exclusion: The school system is largely based on uniformity and rooted in the assumption of a universal child—a supposedly neutral subject who learns, behaves, and develops in predictable, measurable ways. This construct has been heavily critiqued by scholars in the sociology of childhood for erasing the actual diversity of children's lives. James and Prout (1997) and Moss and Petrie (2002) argue that when education systems operate with a one-size-fits-all model, they fail to recognise the plurality of childhoods shaped by culture, ability, gender, and socio-economic status. Children who do not conform to the standardised image—whether because they are neurodivergent, come from minoritised backgrounds, or develop at a different pace—are frequently labelled, marginalised, or even pathologised. This exclusion is not incidental; it is structural. From a children's rights perspective, such an approach violates the principles of equity, inclusion, and the right to education that reflects and respects the child's individuality. Rather than nurturing each child's unique way of being in the world, the dominant school model often forces children to adapt to the system, rather than adapting the system to support the child.
Real-world preparation: Schools operate on norms, rituals, and behavioural expectations that are far removed from how adult life functions. From raising one’s hand to speak to asking permission for basic needs such as using the toilet, school routines can condition children to expect authority-led decision-making in nearly every aspect of their day. While these practices may promote order, they do not necessarily cultivate the autonomy, critical thinking, or collaborative problem-solving that democratic societies rely upon. In fact, many of the structures children are immersed in at school can train passivity, conformity, and compliance—traits that may hinder their ability to navigate complex social or professional environments later in life.
Socialisation should not be about moulding children into one normative shape. It should be about learning to live well with others, navigating difference, understanding oneself, and contributing meaningfully to society. If we truly value these goals, then we must be willing to broaden our understanding of where and how socialisation happens.
So, what are the social benefits of home education?
Diverse relationships: Home-educated children interact daily with people of all ages—siblings, parents, teens, elders, neighbours, teachers, facilitators, staff, and mentors. This mirrors real-world social life, not only in terms of age diversity but also in terms of power relations. From a sociology of childhood perspective, these relationships allow children to be recognised as competent social actors, capable of contributing meaningfully to interactions with adults and peers alike. Home education settings, by their very nature, invite children to engage in horizontal, rather than purely vertical, relationships—nurturing empathy, adaptability, and emotional intelligence.
Freedom to form friendships: In contrast to the artificial peer groupings of age-based classrooms, home-educated children often choose their friendships based on shared interests, values, and mutual respect. These friendships are typically formed in contexts of voluntary association, which research suggests contributes to stronger relational bonds. From a children's rights angle, the ability to choose one's social companions is an expression of agency and autonomy, both central to the right to participate fully in one’s own life.
Active community engagement: Home-educated children are frequently immersed in real-world settings—from science workshops at museums to volunteering at food banks, attending community events, or participating in creative arts groups. Such involvement provides continuous exposure to collaborative, intergenerational environments. Rather than withdrawing from society, many home-educated children become embedded in it, engaging in public spaces where their contributions are visible and valued. This aligns with the UNCRC’s emphasis on participation and inclusion.
Confidence and communication: The confidence seen in many home-educated children is not coincidental. Without the pressure of rigid peer hierarchies or performative classroom settings, children often grow more comfortable expressing their views, asking questions, and articulating their thoughts. This supports findings by Shyers (1992) and Medlin (2013), which show higher levels of self-assurance and communication skills among homeschooled children. It also reflects the sociology of childhood’s understanding of children as meaning-makers capable of expressing complex ideas when given the space to do so.
Independence and responsibility: Greater flexibility and autonomy in home education enable children to make choices about their learning and social lives. This supports their development of responsibility, intrinsic motivation, and time management. From a rights-based lens, this autonomy reflects the spirit of Article 12 of the UNCRC, which affirms children's right to express their views and have those views given due weight in matters affecting them.
Cultural openness: Home-educating families often engage across a broad range of cultural, religious, and philosophical contexts—particularly in multicultural urban areas or international communities. Children regularly encounter difference in ways that encourage respectful inquiry and understanding. This nurtures the kind of intercultural empathy and critical consciousness that formal curricula often aim to foster but struggle to embed authentically.
Real-life learning: Socialisation through real-life tasks—such as negotiating prices at a market, helping plan a community fundraiser, or caring for younger siblings—enables children to take on socially meaningful roles. These are not simulations of real life; they are real life. This active participation is at the heart of both childhood sociology and children’s rights theory, which value children as capable of contributing to and shaping their environments.
Balanced relationships: Home education can facilitate a healthy ecosystem of relationships. Close familial bonds are nurtured without excluding external friendships, which often arise from shared experiences in clubs, sports, or local initiatives. This blend of intimacy and independence can foster social resilience and emotional security.
Respect for boundaries: With greater choice over their social environments, home-educated children are often more empowered to set and communicate personal boundaries. They are less likely to be forced into socially uncomfortable situations and more likely to develop an internal compass for respectful, consensual interaction. This upholds the dignity and agency of the child in ways aligned with a children’s rights framework.
Rights-based socialisation: In home education settings, power dynamics are often less hierarchical, making it easier for children to be heard, taken seriously, and involved in decisions that affect their daily lives. This is consistent with Article 12 of the UNCRC, which enshrines children’s right to participate and be heard. Such environments allow children to practise citizenship in real and immediate ways.
Recognition of diverse childhoods: The sociology of childhood emphasises that childhood is not a universal, one-size-fits-all experience. Home education allows for the flourishing of multiple childhoods that reflect individual, cultural, and social identities. For children who experience racism, ableism, or other forms of marginalisation in mainstream settings, home education can offer a refuge where their identities are affirmed and their voices empowered.
None of this is to say that every home education experience is ideal or that schools are inherently harmful. Children thrive and struggle in both contexts. There are powerful examples of creativity and connection in schools, just as there are challenges in home education. The point here is not to declare one model universally better than the other. It is to challenge the deeply embedded assumption that school is the only—or even the best—place for children to be socialised. It simply isn’t. Theory, research, and lived experience all show that socialisation is broader, deeper, and far more complex than the school bell schedule suggests.
Many home-educated children form deep friendships, build strong community ties, and develop confidence, empathy, and a clear sense of self. They navigate real-world social environments that are often more diverse and more empowering than those found within institutional walls. What matters most is that we remain open-minded. That we ask better questions about what childhood needs and what socialisation really means. That we listen—truly listen—to children. And that we allow space for multiple, valid, enriching paths to social growth.
Because neither school nor home education is inherently good or bad. Both can nurture. Both can harm. But if we are serious about centring children's wellbeing, rights, and development, then we must be willing to look beyond tradition, and embrace the full range of environments in which children learn to belong.
Reference List
Archer, L. (2019) Race, Class, Gender and Schooling: Social Inequalities and Education. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
Francis, B. (2017) 'The identities and practices of high-achieving pupils: Negotiating achievement and peer cultures', British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(3), pp. 423–440.
Ginsburg, K.R. (2007) 'The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds', Pediatrics, 119(1), pp. 182–191.
Gillborn, D. (2008) Racism and Education: Coincidence or Conspiracy? London: Routledge.
James, A. and Prout, A. (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. 2nd edn. London: Falmer Press.
Lundy, L. (2007) '“Voice” is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child', British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), pp. 927–942.
Medlin, R.G. (2013) 'Homeschooling and the question of socialization revisited', Peabody Journal of Education, 88(3), pp. 284–297.
Moss, P. and Petrie, P. (2002) From Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces: Public Policy, Children and Childhood. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Qvortrup, J. (1994) 'Childhood Matters: An Introduction', in Qvortrup, J. et al. (eds.) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics. Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 1–24.
Shyers, L.E. (1992) 'Comparison of social adjustment between home and traditionally schooled students', Home School Researcher, 8(3), pp. 1–8.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Comments