This impressive letters thread is nearing the end of its natural life, but I couldn't resist one more foray, for anybody that's still here. Thanks again, everyone -- even those I have pissed off.

On that note, let me address the two most inflammatory passages in the article, which both (I think) look worse out of context. First, there's this:

The real purpose of all this formal schooling is to get the kids out of the house and train them to stand in line and follow instructions while mommy and daddy get back to their ultra-important lives as economic production units.

In context, I believe it's reasonably clear that I am expressing an opinion about the trend toward formal, "academic" full-day schooling ever earlier in childhood: pre-K and kindergarten, specifically. The comment is intentionally provocative, but its intended target is not K-12 public education in general, and certainly not parents. What I meant to be sardonic commentary about the social-engineering goals of the educational system seemed, at least to some readers, as sarcasm directed at anyone whose kids attend public school. I regret that. No doubt I could have phrased that with more precision and finesse.

Next up is this one:

We're not ready to surrender our kids, and ourselves, to a 10-month-a-year, all-day institution whose primary goal, at least at this age, seems to be teaching kids how to function within a 10-month-a-year, all-day institution.

Again, I'm expressing a view here about the dominant ideology in public-school kindergarten -- "at least at this age" refers to my children, who are 5 years old. Maybe this seemed like piling on after the comment above. But I notice that amid hundreds of comments here, not one person has come forward to defend the all-day "academic" tendency in kindergarten, where play has largely been banished and homework is assigned every night. I'm well aware this isn't universal: In well-funded suburban schools, many charter schools and most private schools, the kindergarten pendulum has already swung back the other way (because those educators are aware of the latest research on this topic). At our local zoned school, the principal actually boasts about the fact that kindergarteners don't have blocks, toys or craft supplies in their classrooms. "We did that in pre-K," he told a group of parents. "In kindergarten we're here to work."

Many of the responses here made me reflect further on a remark I made in the piece, that to some people it appears that Leslie and I have violated the social contract (or are trending that way) by not sending our kids to public kindergarten. I think that's a central factor in the culture clash and mutual misunderstanding over homeschooling, and I must admit to some pangs here.

For many Americans, especially liberals and moderates, public education -- however flawed it may be in practice -- remains a central institution of democracy, and trying to engage it constructively is a civic responsibility. That's certainly what I was raised to believe. I feel 100 percent supportive of parents who are struggling to get their kids the best possible education in a somewhat-screwed-up public school, while simultaneously struggling to make them better for other people's kids too. I can understand why it seems to some readers that our decision was a weird, selfish abdication.

Deciding, even temporarily, that some aspect of the social contract is broken and you're not observing it is a heavy-duty thing. I understand that too. In some people's eyes, homeschooling will always be linked to fringe anti-government phenomena like teaching six-day creationism or refusing to pay taxes, and it must further seem that liberal urbanites who homeschool are fellow-travelers or dupes of the Christian right. But homeschooling is growing fast among a wide range of otherwise ordinary, secular folks, and one of the main reasons I wanted to write about it was to explore why and how that's happening.

As I hope to illustrate more clearly when I discuss the specifics of our homeschool kindergarten, our decision was and is multifactorial and contingent. My wife told me today that she'd be surprised if both kids wound up going all the way through high school as homeschoolers, and I agree. It isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. If we'd gotten lottery slots at a well-known Brooklyn charter school with lefty-hippie roots (local parents will know the one I mean) it's entirely possible we wouldn't be homeschooling now. If we had sent our kids there, nobody would dream of criticizing us for opting out of our screwed-up and depressing neighborhood school and pursuing an option we believe will be more stimulating and engaging for our children and our family -- which is, after all, exactly what we're doing.

Wonderful letters for the tail-end of the thread. So many people with so much experience have shared so much. Those who observe that my family's homeschool experience is minimal are right, of course.

And an extra big thank you to "Snowflake," as far as I know the only actual, living, present-tense homeschool student in this entire discussion!