If you wait until you're 18 before interacting with more than 1 or 2 trusted people, you'll definitely find it difficult to adapt once you move on to an environment like, Walmart, the Army, College, etc. Being home schooled is an unfortunate necessity for some children due to their physical or mental conditions, but in general and for your normal every day kid I'd recommend a fully interactive and social environment. I suppose a home school kid could just read "How to make friends and influence people" but why read what you can practice instead? There's no doubt in anyone's mind that hard physical practice is important to learning any skill - it'd be like trying to read a book on dating and then wondering why you can't get laid.
That's not to diss all home schooled students. I'm sure you'll find a few that turned out perfectly normal. And normally one would eschew personal evidence when debating... but I can't help it. I've known several home schooled kids and they were all wack jobs, lol. At the very least they become super dependent on closed social interactions such as the internet. Focusing all their social needs to one monitor and keyboard, they end up shuttered in, unable to cope with the simplest of excursions, such as going to a friend's birthday party (if indeed they even have such a friend to call upon.)
As they say...
"All I really need to know I learned in Kindergarten." -
Robert Fulghum
Puberty, dude. Puberty. During puberty kids are less focused on ... well everything, really, but academics also, and more focused on their junk and how their junk fits into other people's junk. It's almost amazing how any 13 year old can even really get by in school when they're surrounding by so many hormone crazed others. I'd even go so far as to say that 6-8th grades may be better off home-schooled, except that the public school approach has been tirelessly formatted to ensure that students take all that extra... energy, and focus it on hands-on things. Most public school systems introduce vocational concentrations at this time, wood and metal shop, home economics, etc. Also sports become bigger, as do most after school clubs and activities. As the child grows, literally, so too does their capacity to expand their repertoire of activities.
Well yeah I can agree that it would be difficult to adapt if you only interact with 1-2 people, but there's nothing about the scenario that suggests that would be the case if you do away with public school. The micro-environment can still involve interaction among other people just as your scenario of maintaining the public school does.
Social interaction can come from extended family, family friends, parks, recreational facilities, everydayness, etc. Public school isn't necessary for providing essential social interaction. I see why this is easy to assume, but like I said there is no evidence for it. (No scientific studies that I can find. Could you possibly show me other wise)?
Personal "Evidence": I know only a bit of children who were home schooled, but none of them seem to have had a problem adapting to broader social environments once leaving home. Three children in my family (my cousins) have been home schooled. One went off to the military, one to college (and is quite successful there with a nice group of friends. He joins clubs and is pretty actively involved with campus-like activity).
I recently found out a classmate of mine was home schooled until entering our college. She personally classifies herself as an introvert, however, she is very social. She is always one to raise her hand in class, speaks clearly and loudly and is just not shy at all. She's the kind of person you want when you have to preform a group presentation. A group of us once went out to do Kareoke and she was at the forefront all night. And I hardly ever see her without friends. I was utterly shocked when I found out she has been home schooled all her life.
Like I said, I just think it's an easy (though not accurate) assumption to make that home schooled children grow to have more issues interacting with others than those who go to public school. Or at least that the home schooling is the cause of it.
-Perhaps the people you knew were wack jobs because they type of parents that usually home school their children tend to be wack jobs? Perhaps they were home schooled
because they were wack jobs.
At the very least they become super dependent on closed social interactions such as the internet. Focusing all their social needs to one monitor and keyboard, they end up shuttered in, unable to cope with the simplest of excursions, such as going to a friend's birthday party (if indeed they even have such a friend to call upon.)
The funny thing is, this sounds like me, and I've been going to public school all my life. I just happen to be both introverted and shy.
Historical Evidence: Public school was invented or rather became mandatory only after many years of human existence. There doesn't seem to have been a problem with the social interaction of our ancestors before today's format of public education came into place. Here's some lists of famous (past & current) people who have been home schooled.
Historical peeps who have been home schooled.
Modern famous peeps who have been home schooled.
And also some information on the history of the American school system:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/innovators/index.html
I'd definitely say all these people have done just fine in society.
Another thing I would like to add against the importance of public school for your child is how the internet is becoming more and more prominent in education. In schools and out. Education is becoming a lot more personalized and virtual. One can now earn a degree though online courses, find the most advanced college lectures on youtube, and general education on sites such as Khan Academy and Sylvan. I just don't think public schooling in the micro environment is necessary at all when personalized/private schooling is starting to become quite common outside of that environment.
------------------------------
Basically what I was getting at in the second quote is why the premise of physical growth is relevant to why that time should be when the child focuses on making a decision for continuing into academic schooling or vocational schooling. But I just realized that probably wasn't what you were getting at, but rather they will have to make that decision any way so they may as well focus on it at some point (and that's the point/duration you chose). Er correct me if I'm wrong.