My kids currently learn at home. There are a lot of misconceptions about this choice, and I've grown tired of explaining it from my perspective honestly.
That said, a lot of kids are really failed by the process. For many it was an excuse to simply stop learning and do more in the hall or church. I do have friends whose education ends at about 8th grade, and it is obvious in their choices to this day.
WRT to not reading by age 7, sometimes that reflects a neglect on the part of the educators. However, there is an entire school of thought (popularized through Waldorf philosophies) that supports delayed reading. The concept is similar to that of crawling. At one time parents were proud of kids who walked so early they never learned to crawl. Over time science told us that there is truly a benefit to crawling and having a period of time where one is limited to that mode of movement. Now, we encourage children to crawl before they walk. Some assert that whole language and literacy can actually be stunted by premature reading. In the end, I highly doubt there is a big difference at the college level between a child who learns at 8 and a child who learns at 5.
I suppose what I am saying is that what might appear from an uninformed perspective as neglect can often be a well educated decision. Maybe not the decision you would make, but informed none the less.
My kids are self directed learners, and we currently use a constructivist approach. I don't present information to them to learn, I assist them in acquiring information they seek. My 4 yo reads 3 and 4 letter words and my 6 year old reads chapter books. By creating an environment that answers their questions without presenting information, they've learned this skill as naturally as a young child learns to walk, learns their colors, or learns to eat with a spoon. My kids are about 2 grades ahead in math as well.
As far as them being poorly socialized...eh, hogwash. I often consider public education and we're probably not life long home learners, I certainly have nothing against public school. However, my personal thought is that while children are young and growing socially, it is best to have them learning from a variety of ages instead of surrounding them with peers of the same maturity. My kids have Judo twice a week and their class has children 5-12. They have a 2 hour art class each week where they do more than "handprint turkeys". Stained glass, pottery, watercolors, etc. The kids again range from 5-12. The have yoga as well with adults and children. They have a park day every Friday, the children there range from K-12th. Then of course they learn real life socialization through just living a REAL life. For one, there are three of them and we discuss social norms and ideals all day. They go with me to the grocery store and learn how to let someone with one item go ahead of us in line, to open doors for people behind us, to wait patiently to fill their bag with apples, to say excuse me when they reach in front of someone, etc. They go with me to my friends houses and not only play with other children, but learn to interact and converse with other adults as well.
To suggest that a child who isn't in a formal school setting can't be socially well adapted is really a sheltered perception of the world. There are many ways to achieve many things. Rarely is there one right path to any end... and education is not an exception to this truth.
