NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?

Only if your kid is going to kick me/run away/threaten other students, forcing me to abandon a class to restrain the little bugger until the office can come pick him/her up. Then yes, please homeschool your child.

What do you think about homeschooling?I think quite a bit, could you be a bit more specific? In general though homeschooling is a good alternative for SOME students, not all. And it also depends a great deal upon the teacher(s) (Parent(s)) of that student.

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations? Yes, within reason. I feel that certain standards should be met, and any curricula should at its base match the local school district, just to make sure that the education given would be recognized by colleges and employers as valid as normal public school education.

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?
So widely ranges that it would be hard to give a yes or no answer. My personal feeling is that they USUALLY do not receive either a substandard education or social training, but I do worry about lack of certain opportunities that cannot really be adequately met by most home school situations.

I don't know, it probably isn't a good idea for most kids, but for some I'm sure that it's a better learning environment for the kids. They don't have the same social skills as kids who go to regular school, so they start out with that disadvantage, but if the parents haven't done any irreversible damage to their kids they should be ok.

I think quite a bit, could you be a bit more specific?
I was just wondering what the general feeling towards homeschooling would be on this forum. I sort of expected a strong anti-homeschooling current. I mainly wanted to see what common arguments are presented against homeschooling.


Let's see. Some background. I was homeschooled from grade 6 through highschool. My mom just decided to do it because she always wanted to try it out. At the beginning of highschool, I was given the choice to go to public school or remain homeschooled, but like most teenagers, my choice was largely based upon my friend base, the majority of which was homeschooled.

I am about to graduate from college in 2 weeks. I really didn't experience any academic struggles, and actually found homeschooling gave me an edge in college, as I was already used to self-teaching and studying on my own.

As for social skills, no one knew I was homeschooled until I let it slip during the second semester of my freshman year. I hadn't mentioned it before then because there is often a strong bias against homeschoolers.

The cons? I didn't get to experience any laboratory work until college-- and I'm a science major. I also feel I missed out on AP classes or other such opportunities, including sports or clubs.

I don't think I would homeschool my kids, unless there was a definite need.

I was just wondering what the general feeling towards homeschooling would be on this forum. I sort of expected a strong anti-homeschooling current. I mainly wanted to see what common arguments are presented against homeschooling.
It's a mixed bag around here. We have a number of posters who were home-schooled and loved it, a few who were and hated it, a few posters who are for, even though they were not nor would home-school, at least one home-school teacher, and a few anti. I think it's rather telling through that the public school teachers (Myself included) tend to agree with the notion for some students and have defended it in other threads

The cons? I didn't get to experience any laboratory work until college-- and I'm a science major. I also feel I missed out on AP classes or other such opportunities, including sports or clubs.
That's the main thing that worries me about homeschooling is kids missing out on them. Socialization of course can happen in other settings such as scouting or home-school groups.

For most kids? No, I think it's not a good idea. Most parents aren't competent enough to be teachers. (Note, I don't mean this as an insult to them-- they're educated to do their own jobs, not to be teachers, generally.)
Also, many parents who opt for it do so because they want to indoctrinate their children with idiocy like Creationism.

However, I think with proper regulation, to insure that the child receives a proper education, one at least on par with public education(even if that is a low bar to set in many places...), I think it's fine, and even great for certain people.

Of course, ideally, I think we should strive to improve public education to the point that homeschooling isn't necessary as often. How? I suppose that's a complicated issue, but I'm sure that it could be done if it weren't for so many people opposing the idea of changing anything.

Homeschooling gave me an academic edge. I tested out of Eng 101 & 102 for college, and I could have entered Calc 1. I elected to take precalc just to get accustomed to the college class atmosphere and make sure I knew all the core concepts. I taught myself for the most part from grade 5 on, and I enjoyed taking the courses at my own pace.

For socialization, I had several home-schooled friends and participated in programs like Young Marines, the monthly home school association events at the roller skating rink, weekly skiing in the winter (I only went about once a month at the most, but it was available more often).

There were science fairs, history projects, and some local parents with special knowledge in certain areas would pool their resources. One year took a science class with about a dozen other kids from a science buff who had the necessary lab equipment. Sodium+water=fire doesn't have the same impact as seeing water burning in the test tube.

It's a good idea if it's practical to the parents. Most parents who homeschool are well-educated (often moreso than school teachers) and well-prepared. And kids, of course, are going to socialize and play no matter where they spend their classroom hours - any perception of homeschooled kids as socially maladjusted isn't based on reality.

Is public school a good idea?

Its a good idea for students who wont or cant accept normal schooling, i.e suffer from a disorder like aspergers or is just plain anti social.

Its a method of customizing the education system for a minority, if this allows otherwise noneducational children to learn, then its a good idea.

Is public school a good idea?

Now there is a much more black and white question, with a much more black and white answer.
No.

Is public school a good idea?
Are public schools a good idea? Yes, very much so.

Are public schools a good idea? Yes, very much so.

Source?

Source?
For the United States?

65 million school aged kids spread over a large chunk of North America ranging from densely packed cities to tiny towns, and public education sees to 80+ % of them and has provided the workforce for the largest economy on the planet.

I'd say that's pretty good, wouldn't you?

For most kids? No, I think it's not a good idea. Most parents aren't competent enough to be teachers.

Most teachers aren't competent to be teachers either.

As for if homeschooling should be banned or not, no I know a some people who I am friends with and they used to live on a farm the nearest school was an hour and a half drive away or two hours if they took the school bus. Thus they were home schooled, As our parents were friends I have know them since we were kids, and they never seemed dumb or stupid. When they came of high school stage they were sent to the boarding school, but had no problem with their social skills nor on an academic front, in fact they say in some cases they were ahead of the class.

Homeschooling may not be for everyone but I fail to see a major problem with it, provided the parent has some decent education then they will be able to teach.

if this allows otherwise noneducational children to learn, then its a good idea.


I think you mean 'non-academic' children rather than noneducational. ;)
Personally, I think that it would benefit academic children more, at least in the UK. The problems with our schooling system are:

They attempt to cater for everybody but manage to exclude large minority groups of people through the teaching techniques. For example, a LOT of our lessons are spent doing things for kinesthetic learners (those who tend to be not very academically capable but make up the majority of the student population), which does not help me AT ALL.
Although the entire organization of the school is meant to be designed for education, in reality it often fails that purpose - due to a lack of funding, equipment, capable teaching staff etc.
Discipline is a major problem in schools, it often disrupts the learning of the entire class, especially in mixed ability sets, where an entire hour may be wasted due to the disruption caused by one or two individuals.
Some of our two year courses if I was left to my own accord, I could probably learn in about two weeks, a lot of which are subjects I am not even doing, due to having to chose a small selection from a short list which is not at all exhaustive of the options that the school could offer, but do not due to staff availability, funding etc.
Travel to and from school wastes about an hour and a half of my day every day for a week, which adds up to about seven and a half hours per week.
Travel to and from lesson is another fifty minutes of potential lesson time per day, which is another four hours wasted per week.
We also waste a lot of time 'registering'. This wastes a further five minutes per day in the morning, fifteen minutes per day in the afternoon, which is another hour and a half per week wasted. Approximately another 5 minutes per lesson for every lesson of the 25 periods I have a week are also wasted. That's another 2 hours and 5 minutes a week wasted.
When the teacher is not at school (and some teachers may be on sick leave for weeks, depending on their 'condition'), classes barely ever learn anything, hours may be wasted and an entire class may not learn a course.
Class sizes are far too large. Thirty people being taught by one person is often unrealistic and limits the types of learning available.
The teachers often force the class to 'learn' when it is no longer of any point. For example, I have already finished my entire IT class and got an A, but my teacher, demands that I continue learning the course even though me and my friend have found a use for a time which would be much more beneficial in the long run.
Bullying. Not only bullying by students, but from teachers also. This is self-explanatory.
Equipment tends to be based on what the school choses or decides to be best - a lot of the time to cut costs. Some of the books we use are horrible to attempt to use, especially revision guides etc. but cost a lot less than the books which are much better so are in use.
Lunch times and 'break' times - We have another hour and a quarter here, where I don't do anything of any significance (Don't bother with lunch, canteen here is crap.) If I had this hour and quarter at home I could find much better uses.
Time of day. MOST people do not work best in school hours. I'd personally do best in the early hours of the morning.

For the United States?

65 million school aged kids spread over a large chunk of North America ranging from densely packed cities to tiny towns, and public education sees to 80+ % of them and has provided the workforce for the largest economy on the planet.

I'd say that's pretty good, wouldn't you?

But private schools are soo much more elite. >.>

Homeschooling can be far more effective than public schooling. Given attentive parents (at least making sure the student is completing all assigned work), a structured curriculum will be just as effective (if not moreso) than having a single teacher looking over hundreds of students each week.

Social skills can be just as developed as a public-schooled student, assuming that the child is not a complete shut-in, and is exposed to social situations on a regular basis (homeschooled study groups or outings if nothing else). At the same time, it doesn't require the student to be exposed to harangues and the social dysphoria associated with cliques and bullies. While adversity is a factor of life, constant daily harassment and enforced exposure to idiocy is not neccessarily a good thing, especially when peer pressures might cause the student to adopt the current lowest-common-denominator pastimes, leading to the rise of the kind of idiocy that has allowed people along the lines of Britney Spears, Marshall Mathers and Fifty Cent to achieve some form of popularity.

Homeschooling tends to produce intelligent, free-thinking, eclectic individuals given that these urges are given the chance to flourish, rather than being ground down into mindless conformity.
I'd really like to see what would happen given a full generation allowed that kind of social freedom.

Social skills can be just as developed as a public-schooled student, assuming that the child is not a complete shut-in, and is exposed to social situations on a regular basis (homeschooled study groups or outings if nothing else). At the same time, it doesn't require the student to be exposed to harangues and the social dysphoria associated with cliques and bullies. While adversity is a factor of life, constant daily harassment and enforced exposure to idiocy is not neccessarily a good thing, especially when peer pressures might cause the student to adopt the current lowest-common-denominator pastimes, leading to the rise of the kind of idiocy that has allowed people along the lines of Britney Spears, Marshall Mathers and Fifty Cent to achieve some form of popularity.

There are just no substitutes for being thrown naked out of a locker room. It's a valuable life lesson. *nod*

Don't bluff LG. That's not what happened to you.

There are just no substitutes for being thrown naked out of a locker. It's a valuable life lesson. *nod*

Fixed. :p

Homeschooling tends to produce intelligent, free-thinking, eclectic individuals given that these urges are given the chance to flourish, rather than being ground down into mindless conformity.
I'd really like to see what would happen given a full generation allowed that kind of social freedom.I've noticed the opposite trend.

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?

obviously depends entirely on the "home". which is both its strength and weakness.

academic standards could best be served by sending homeschooling parent-educators the same standard testing and metrics as are received and utilized by public education and acredited private schools.

not that they would manditoraly have to fallow mainstream curricula, but as a means of measuring where, what, they are accompleshing in relation to the greater educational context.

i'm not suggesting this would insure anything, only that it would be a VERY good idea.

parents who home school obviously have pretty strong ideas about what they have in mind, but it still would likely be useful to most of them, to have some way of charting what is being achieved in that larger context, if, as i imagine most would, they so desire.

=^^=
.../\...

I don't have kids, so my opinion probably isn't worth much.

A well-educated parent with the resources of the 'net at hand can surely provide a better education for one, two or three kids than a trained teacher can for thirty or more at once.

I think it would be particularly efficacious for very bright children, whose curiosity is often stunted long before they have an opportunity to attend a selective school, which generally comes at the High School level.

There's a danger the kids can be isolated from other kids of their own age, so home-schooling parents should probably network to get their kids together for some social "in-school" activities and group work. They might also want to look at specializing, and teaching each others' kids as they move beyond the elementary level.

Now I go read the thread. I'm sure it will be interesting ... :)

Don't bluff LG. That's not what happened to you.



Fixed. :p

That was supposed to be our secret. :mad:

What do I think about homeschooling?

I think that in order to be done well, the parent or parents need to do a good bit of research and have more than a passing familiarity with the material -- honestly, I think someone with a college education could certainly teach kids and teens. To be done right, they really ought to have a cooperative arrangement with other homeschool parents -- if one is a wiz at teaching maths and one not so much, guess who the kids should learn maths from?

There are regulations -- the parents have to follow the state's curricula for the subjects, I believe, and at least in NY state, the children must pass the state competency exams to graduate from high school called "The Regents Exams." We often have to, at the public school, grade homeschooled students' papers for this purpose.

I don't believe that homeschooled students necessarily receive inferior academic training -- it's to do with the individuals teaching the material.

I don't believe that homeschooled students necessarily receive inferior social training. I spoke at length with one former poster here who seemed pretty darned well-adjusted and was, if I recall correctly, sitting pretty as regards entering college.

Depends on the parents, depends on the child. To homeschool children, parents needs to be able to give them the time and the attention and have adequate education/access to resources. For most families this is not realistic, especially if both parents work. Some children will also do much better in a home school environment (academically gifted and those with specific conduct issues requiring a lot of attention for example) whilst others will flourish in public schools.

However I do feel that there should be some sort of regulation, maybe biannual visits by Local Education Authority (or equivalent) inspectors just to check that the child is getting an appropriate education. It may not be needed in most cases, but it will ensure that those kids being homeschool for the wrong reasons or who just don't get on with it aren't falling through the cracks in the system.

In this country (and I admit I have no experience of it's education system pre-A-Levels), I'd say homeschooling kids to GCSE level is fine, although ideally they should then take their GCSEs as having the qualifications is important. At A-Level, I personally feel a lot of children will benefit a lot from going to a sixth form college, especially if they are science based, as the courses go a lot more in-depth and they would benefit from lab access. Also sixth forms tend to be a lot more geared towards self-study (certainly if you find a good one, I know our college was) and can present a valuable stepping stone between school and university.

Ideally a public school system should offer enough oportunities for all students to flourish, realistically though you can't personalise it for everyone, so homeschooling may be necessary for some. But it shouldn't be because the public education system is a poor quality.

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?

1) I loved it but I can say it is not for everyone.

2) There are regulations. It is left up to the states.

3a) I didn't 3b)don't go there.

Most teachers aren't competent to be teachers either.

Because of course there are no state or country-wide certification tests, nor are there colleges devoted to training people to be educators, nor are there any courses one must need to pass, nor are there regular observations of the teachers by their superiors nor by outside sources to make sure they are, in fact, competent to be teachers, nor are there ongoing requirements to take courses after certification in order to keep their knowledge current.

Dee Dee Dee! (http://www.carlosmencia.com/content/videos.php?id=66)

Because of course there are no state or country-wide certification tests, nor are there colleges devoted to training people to be educators, nor are there any courses one must need to pass, nor are there regular observations of the teachers by their superiors nor by outside sources to make sure they are, in fact, competent to be teachers, nor are there ongoing requirements to take courses after certification in order to keep their knowledge current.

Dee Dee Dee! (http://www.carlosmencia.com/content/videos.php?id=66)

I totally agree with you, but... who are they going to prom with?

Because of course there are no state or country-wide certification tests, nor are there colleges devoted to training people to be educators, nor are there any courses one must need to pass, nor are there regular observations of the teachers by their superiors nor by outside sources to make sure they are, in fact, competent to be teachers, nor are there ongoing requirements to take courses after certification in order to keep their knowledge current.

Dee Dee Dee! (http://www.carlosmencia.com/content/videos.php?id=66)

Duh. They just take random people off the streets and throw them in front of a class of kids.

Because of course there are no state or country-wide certification tests, nor are there colleges devoted to training people to be educators, nor are there any courses one must need to pass, nor are there regular observations of the teachers by their superiors nor by outside sources to make sure they are, in fact, competent to be teachers, nor are there ongoing requirements to take courses after certification in order to keep their knowledge current.


What? Teachers might actually be well-qualified and well-intentioned individuals trying to do the best they can within the restrictions of the system and with the limited funds available.

Lies I tell you!

On a more serious note, I do have the utmost respect for anyone who choses to go into teaching. The pay is lousy and appreciation tends to be lacking from all quarters. Not to mention the difficulty of actually teaching the children and in some cases acting as the parental figure they may be lacking at home. I know I couldn't do it. I find it hard enough teaching undergraduates and they tend to be there because they actually have an interest in the subject (and at our university are generally academically advanced).

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?
I think homeschooling is an appropriate choice if there are not solid schools available for the kid(s). I think homeschooling a kid when there's a perfectly viable public or private school for them to attend is a bad idea in most cases.

It also depends somewhat on the age of the kid. Homeschooling a 2nd grader isn't such a bad plan if you can afford to do it, but a teenager should not be spending every school day with their parents.

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?The ordinary parents are just to dumb to give any kid a proper education. Even those parents who could be called smart.
Homeschooling should be illegal, because it deprives kids of a real chance to learn and the danger of parents indoctrinating kids is too great.

Because of course there are no state or country-wide certification tests, nor are there colleges devoted to training people to be educators, nor are there any courses one must need to pass, nor are there regular observations of the teachers by their superiors nor by outside sources to make sure they are, in fact, competent to be teachers, nor are there ongoing requirements to take courses after certification in order to keep their knowledge current.

Dee Dee Dee! (http://www.carlosmencia.com/content/videos.php?id=66)

I never said all teachers are poor, there are plenty of teachers which are excellent at their job an have vast knowledge not only on topics they are teaching but on other topics. Some teachers actually have a strong desire to teach their kids and put a lot of effort into their lessons and preparation.

There are some teachers and these are the ones I am referring to, have little knowledge on the topic they are teaching and only getting their info from the textbook and so can provide no further insight into the topic at hand. some teachers have little interest or cannot teach due to poor skills and have no interest in ensuring their kids increase their knowledge.

Now this is experience from my own time at school, my sons teachers and friends of mine who have become teachers. And some of these people are not the brightest bulb in the box, one of my friends who has become a teacher is still (despite showing her on a map) that Norwegians come from a country called Norwegia. Yes they managed to pass the course and gain the accreditation, but that does not mean they are going to be good teachers they can be incompetent at teaching their kids and can be quite stupid, this happens in all occupations, there are engineers who have a degree but are poor at engineering, nurses who are terrible at nursing, accountants who aren't that great at accounting.

So you see Kat (if may call you that), before you decide to point out that my statement is complete and utter crap I have seen it for my own eyes on how bad some teachers can be, and I don't know how it works in the US so I can't comment specifically on them, but in Australia there are teachers who are terrible when it comes to the classroom and they have been teaching for a long time and still have their jobs, they may have moved schools but they are still teachers. So perhaps I shouldn't have said most teachers are not competent at being teachers, I should have said , most teachers are poor at teaching. They have the certificates and have passed the competency standards but they cannot teach either because they lack the knowledge or they lack the skills or they don't care. I am aware that there are funding issues and overcrowding but that is when you see the good teachers shine through as they continue to put their best effort in and they can still teach and still have the knowledge


Ifreann, I don't know if you are trying to be funny or not but I am sure that some people could be pulled off the street and teach just as well if not better than some teachers.


Eofaerwic same goes to you that's not really funny, I know some teachers are well qualified and some are well intentioned and these are usually the good ones, but some while they have the basic teaching degree don't give a rats arse if the kids learn anything or not and just rock up smack some overhead up (copied out of the textbook) tell them to write it out and that is that, no discussion on anything more insightful, usually because the teacher knows nothing more on the topic than what the textbook says.

I have respect for teachers who want to teach and attempt to teach kids even if it seems like they are banging their head against a brick wall sometimes. I have no respect for teachers who are only teaching because they need a job and don't care much about it and have found themselves in this job because they can't do anything else

Homeschooling should be illegal, and the danger of parents indoctrinating kids is too great.

Unlike some teachers

*SNIP*
Wow... MOST teachers then, huh? You've met most teachers in Australia then?

Homeschooling may not be for everyone but I fail to see a major problem with it, provided the parent has some decent education then they will be able to teach.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA
*snort, sputter* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

You're funny.

Content knowledge does not equal the ability to teach.

Eofaerwic same goes to you that's not really funny, I know some teachers are well qualified and some are well intentioned and these are usually the good ones, but some while they have the basic teaching degree don't give a rats arse if the kids learn anything or not and just rock up smack some overhead up (copied out of the textbook) tell them to write it out and that is that, no discussion on anything more insightful, usually because the teacher knows nothing more on the topic than what the textbook says.


Yes, there is an issue with teachers being asked to teach topics that are beyond their knowledge base, it shouldn't happen but it does. But I also know a significant number of people currently going through teacher training and it is very difficult. It's difficult to get on the course, it's difficult to complete the course and all of them are doing it because they really want to teach (all have Uni degrees, some even have MPhills/PhDs, they could do other things if they wanted to). Yes, you do get bad teachers, this is unfortunate. But in my experience this is not the majority you seem to imply it is.

Unlike some teachers

You see at school, kids are exposed to lots of different teachers. Sometimes they even have different teachers for the same subject over years. Thus unless teachers are all indoctrinating the kids into the same thing (at which point, I have to say you may be straying into consipiracy theory territory), children have a chance to be exposed to different views which can only help them in making informed choices.

Wow... MOST teachers then, huh? You've met most teachers in Australia then?

Sampling my friend the minimum amount to get an accurate sample that will be evenly distributed and a fair representation of the population is 30, and I have met more then that, so I can say that most of the teachers I have met are like that.

I could also change it to some teachers, which means that more than one is like that, and yes that is true so my statement still holds true, see how that works I can make a weak statement and have a strong argument. In order for you to prove me wrong you have to meet every teacher in Australia, in order for me to prove my point is show you more than one teacher that fits in what I was saying, which if you asked me and I wanted to would not be hard at all.

Sampling my friend the minimum amount to get an accurate sample that will be evenly distributed and a fair representation of the population is 30, and I have met more then that, so I can say that most of the teachers I have met are like that.

I could also change it to some teachers, which means that more than one is like that, and yes that is true so my statement still holds true, see how that works I can make a weak statement and have a strong argument. In order for you to prove me wrong you have to meet every teacher in Australia, in order for me to prove my point is show you more than one teacher that fits in what I was saying, which if you asked me and I wanted to would not be hard at all.

And teachers that you have encountered are necessarily representative of the norm? Have you taken care to avoid any sort of statistical bias? I mean, 1,000 people won't always give you a good sample. For example, if you were to take a poll in the middle of a University library asking "Are you still in school?" you might find that 90% of the population is composed of college students.

In the same way, the sample that you have may be biased in some way.

Yes, there is an issue with teachers being asked to teach topics that are beyond their knowledge base, it shouldn't happen but it does. But I also know a significant number of people currently going through teacher training and it is very difficult. It's difficult to get on the course, it's difficult to complete the course and all of them are doing it because they really want to teach (all have Uni degrees, some even have MPhills/PhDs, they could do other things if they wanted to). Yes, you do get bad teachers, this is unfortunate. But in my experience this is not the majority you seem to imply it is.

First of all may I ask where you are from? After all the difficulty in the course and the entrance may be different to Australia.

In Australia it is not difficult to get into a course provided you have the final year 12 mark which at times has been low for a number of reasons (low demand for the degree, lowered in an attempt to get more people into the teaching profession in an attempt to fix the teachers shortage). Some may really want to teach but do they have the skills to teach, you can pass a uni course but not be great, all it means is that you have at least passed the minimum requirements.

I know some could do something else far better than teaching my Year 10 science teacher who was also my Year 11 and Year 12 chemistry teacher had an IQ of 162 and could have gone worked in industry making big bucks, but he decided to teach because he wanted to and he enjoyed it, he was one of the best teachers I ever had. I had teachers who were dumb asses no other way to describe them and I had a lot of them. some were middle of the road, had some idea what they were doing but really didn't always know the material well, or their teaching method wouldn't work for the students they had.

And teachers that you have encountered are necessarily representative of the norm? Have you taken care to avoid any sort of statistical bias? I mean, 1,000 people won't always give you a good sample. For example, if you were to take a poll in the middle of a University library asking "Are you still in school?" you might find that 90% of the population is composed of college students.

In the same way, the sample that you have may be biased in some way.

Well if the population you wanted to take that study on was University students then you have picked a good sample, but if you want the population as a whole then no it wouldn't. In this case I only want the population of teachers so I would only sample teachers, these teachers come from 5 different schools in various locations

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA
*snort, sputter* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

You're funny.

Content knowledge does not equal the ability to teach.

Perhaps you should teach me, rather than laugh I may come to your side, I don't pretend to know all there is about homeschooling I have only based my knowledge of a small group of people I know who was home schooled, which doesn't mean that is really what it is all about

First of all may I ask where you are from? After all the difficulty in the course and the entrance may be different to Australia.

In Australia it is not difficult to get into a course provided you have the final year 12 mark which at times has been low for a number of reasons (low demand for the degree, lowered in an attempt to get more people into the teaching profession in an attempt to fix the teachers shortage). Some may really want to teach but do they have the skills to teach, you can pass a uni course but not be great, all it means is that you have at least passed the minimum requirements.


I'm based in the UK, here to do teacher training to teach secondary level you need a degree, related to the subject you want to learn to teach (although technically you can then teach any subject with your certificate). The teacher training course includes a significant amount of practical work including, I believe, two relatively long placements in schools and a probation year as a NQT (newly qualified teacher). Yes, you still get bad teachers and there is an issue with teaching to the test but personally (and of course this will depends on schools) most teachers are trying to do the best they can within the system.

Sampling my friend the minimum amount to get an accurate sample that will be evenly distributed and a fair representation of the population is 30, and I have met more then that, so I can say that most of the teachers I have met are like that.
N for a quarter of a million people is far more than 30, and unless you got that sample by moving all over Australia, I can and will call bull-shit on your statement.

I could also change it to some teachers, which means that more than one is like that, and yes that is true so my statement still holds true, see how that works I can make a weak statement and have a strong argument. In order for you to prove me wrong you have to meet every teacher in Australia, in order for me to prove my point is show you more than one teacher that fits in what I was saying, which if you asked me and I wanted to would not be hard at all.
No, for you to prove that MOST teachers in Australia are incompetent you would have to show me an actual N beyond some vague number you've created and hard data that shows said teachers are indeed incompetent. You have said most, that puts your bar at least at 51%, if not much higher than that. If that were actually true, you'd see the effects on Australia's economy and people coming through the school system. Since Australia, last time I checked, is still ticking away nicely, I have more than enough reason to doubt you.

Ball's still in your court.

The ordinary parents are just to dumb to give any kid a proper education. Even those parents who could be called smart.
Homeschooling should be illegal, because it deprives kids of a real chance to learn and the danger of parents indoctrinating kids is too great.

Meh. Tight regulation would be enough: like here in Italy, the kids who are homeschooled must pass a state exam every year. If they fail to keep up with the statal school programs, the parents must send the kid to statal school (or to a private school that's certified as following statal programs).

Perhaps you should teach me, rather than laugh I may come to your side, I don't pretend to know all there is about homeschooling I have only based my knowledge of a small group of people I know who was home schooled, which doesn't mean that is really what it is all about
If you have ever had a professor who was top of his or her field of study but couldn't teach you would see my point, that is why content knowledge does not equate teaching ability.

Teaching is much, much more than just knowing your subject, it also needs methods, theory, child development, planning, and communication ability. Are there parents who can do the job? Of course there are, the above is not given to JUST teachers, but just saying, "I graduated from college! I know all that I need to teach!" is fooling yourself and WILL get you into trouble.

Ball's still in your court.Don't be silly, NERVUN, being trained in teaching is much less of a qualification for teaching than the ability to procreate. It's simple logic. =P

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA
*snort, sputter* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

You're funny.

Content knowledge does not equal the ability to teach.

Neither does a teaching degree.

There's a danger the kids can be isolated from other kids of their own age, so home-schooling parents should probably network to get their kids together for some social "in-school" activities and group work. They might also want to look at specializing, and teaching each others' kids as they move beyond the elementary level.

Most homeschooling families do this. There are home-schooling suport groups all over the US.

The ordinary parents are just to dumb to give any kid a proper education. Even those parents who could be called smart.
Homeschooling should be illegal, because it deprives kids of a real chance to learn and the danger of parents indoctrinating kids is too great.

Hmmm. Despite the fact that the vast majority of home-schooled children are academically ahead of their public-school counterparts, people still say they don't learn. I suppose there are a few hillbilly hippies who don't really teach, but I've never seen that. "Indoctrination", you say? There are many subjects where I could explain at length why I hold a view that differs from yours, and you would say, "That's not what they said at school! You're wrong!" and base your entire view on what you were taught without a second thought. I won't even try such a discourse here due to the flaming on this forum.

Another poster said that it was bad for a child to spend so much time with his parents. How is it better to spend 90% of your life without parental involvement? Public school culture enforces conformity. "I wanna be myself. I dress this way/ listen to this music/ act like this/ etc. so I can be who I am!" is the rallying cry of the kid who wants to be unique by acting[/i] just like everyone else at school[/i].

Most home-school curricula come with a lesson plan. For example, Saxon Math is structured so all you need to do is finish four lessons and one quiz per week. If a book is x pages long, divide x by the number of school days in the year for a target. Then round up and you're done with that subject early or have some extra schedule lenience. The only advantage to a formal school is the higher probability of the teacher being competent enough to help explain when you get stuck, but a teacher instructing 30 students hasn't the time for one-on-one assistance and is therefore little better than no teacher. If a parent is going through the course with the child and remembers anything from school, they are likely able to help solve the problem.

I liked the question about the necessity of public schools. here's what I see: "Government needs to do this for us! wait - it's not being done very efficiently. More money! There's massive failure rates, incompetent teachers who cannot be fired, and students who don't want to be here! We need funds to fix it! Drugs and bullies and teen sex are everywhere! More money, please. Test scores are falling! Send us more tax dollars!" And so on and so forth.

Perhaps, however, I'd rather pay fpr my child to attend public or private school. That said, anything would be better than a comprehensive.

If you have ever had a professor who was top of his or her field of study but couldn't teach you would see my point, that is why content knowledge does not equate teaching ability.
**points at self**

I'm a grad student. I've been studying in my subject area for years. I am very knowledgeable.

I am a shitty teacher.

I'm fine in a lab setting, but make me stand up and lecture and I will confuse the hell out of any person who manages to stay awake long enough to hear my spiel.

This is why I don't teach. :D

I'm fine in a lab setting, but make me stand up and lecture and I will confuse the hell out of any person who manages to stay awake long enough to hear my spiel.

This is why I don't teach. :D

If only more lecturers of that type would recognise their "abilities" aren't up to the task

I liked the question about the necessity of public schools. here's what I see: "Government needs to do this for us! wait - it's not being done very efficiently. More money! There's massive failure rates, incompetent teachers who cannot be fired, and students who don't want to be here! We need funds to fix it! Drugs and bullies and teen sex are everywhere! More money, please. Test scores are falling! Send us more tax dollars!" And so on and so forth.

Public schools are necessary to ensure that *everyone* has the opportunity to receive a decent standard of education. Homeschooling may work for some, but honestly how many parents nowadays have the time (or more importantly can afford the time) to spend with their kids? How many can afford to send them to private school? And that's the parents who want their kids to learn, what about those who don't value/don't care about their education?

I'm not saying the system doesn't have issues including an over-reliance to deal with issues that realistically should be dealt with by the parents but many of which can probably be fixed without necessarily the need for more money.

I don't have any problem with homeschooling, provided that the curriculum meets local standards, the kid takes the required standardized tests, and the parent has a proper education of their own (ie college degree). There should be regulation, but not a whole lot.

Kids with learning disabilities could benefit from homeschooling. In my case, getting accomodations from teachers was sufficient. But I did go to private school (thanks to my parents, who had high-paying jobs and worked their asses off).

If only more lecturers of that type would recognise their "abilities" aren't up to the task

Unfortunately a lot of academic positions contractually require them to do some form of teaching and (depending on your subject area) it's relatively difficult to get a pure research job.

Homeschooling is a good option for some families. My children are homeschooled.

In studies homeschoolers on average have tested at least one if not three grade levels ahead of their age. This means some are not doing that well, and some are doing better, just like public school. If you are in an area with a good public school system that can properly accommodate your child, it's also a good option.

I do not think homeschooling is for everyone, nor do I think public school is for everyone. There are reasons for both.

As far as regulations I don't really see the need for many, but that's probably because I live in a state without them. I do test my kids each year with the same standardized test the school uses, so I make sure we are covered. If there were to be regulations I wouldn't mind, I would just do what needed to be done to keep homeschooling or move to another place where I could. As it sits right now we are able to meet the standards in any state in the US, something would have to get much more stringent for us to have to change our homeschooling.

One thing I see a LOT is people who think parents aren't smart enough, prepared enough, educated enough, or trained enough to teach. I only teach my children 2 subjects, they get the rest from the local college, from other parents with degrees in those areas or from private tutors. People really have to get away from the idea that children that are homeschooled are chained to the kitchen table while mom plays "school". Because my children are homeschooled we pick out the curriculum together, and I facilitate that learning, that's pretty much it. I can't teach my 6 year old computer programming, so she goes to the community college for that. I can teach her literature, so I do, if she didn't want me to teach her literature we would find someone she liked to do it.

As far as socialization, my children actually have more opportunities for it than most public school children. My children are active in 3 co-ops, in sports and choirs, orchestras and foreign language clubs. Homeschool children are allowed to dual enroll in school here, if my child wanted to do that we could, she could go to highschool science and take chemistry or AP English, or go and play on the highschool soft ball team. My children have friends of all ages, they have friends of diverse backgrounds,, and are comfortable talking to just about anyone. (the 4 year old is afraid of medical people, but that's because she had a bad hospital experience before)

I don't see any problem with my children getting into college, we have already talked to two local colleges who are interested in early enrollment for my 6 year old. (she's not interested yet, so that's fine)
From what I understand they want a portfolio of work, a transcript, some test scores and some letters of recommendation. It's just not a big deal.

My husband's boss was homeschooled, he has a masters degree and never had trouble getting a job anywhere. His children have chosen to homeschool, except for his oldest daughter who is attending highschool. She homeschooled until she was 13 and went into public school with no problem at all. She is set to graduate with honors next year.

Unfortunately a lot of academic positions contractually require them to do some form of teaching and (depending on your subject area) it's relatively difficult to get a pure research job.

Well quite. We have some geneuinely awful, and genuinely exceptional, lecturers, in history. More of the former, of whom Katy Gibbons (reading monotously and continuously for one hour) is the worst, but some, like Simon Johnson, and, to an extent, Guy Halsall, are excellent.

What do you think about homeschooling?

Homeschooling is an excellent fit for many students, but extremely less than awesome for others. It is particularly well suited to independent minded and inquisitive students, who are exceptionally bright. Further, they would need to be either slightly introverted or extremely extroverted, for homeschool not to be a harm. It is not well suited for the children of fundies, who are going to be handed a book with pictures of people and dinosaurs living next to each other, which they are going to take as gospel truth until they die.

I am against homeschooling unless their is a psychologial reason for why your child must be home schooled.


Otherwise I believe it should be illegal. I find people homeschooling their children because teh ebil public schoolz teach them bout evolution and teh sex educationz to be an unacceptable excuse. Not to mention kids whom are home schooled in my experiance have a good chance of being socially awkward.


Yes, I am a facist when it comes to education. I dont think you should have the rights to homeschool a child unless there is a physical or psychological reason the child needs an alternative schooling environment.

I am against homeschooling unless their is a psychologial reason for why your child must be home schooled.


Otherwise I believe it should be illegal. I find people homeschooling their children because teh ebil public schoolz teach them bout evolution and teh sex educationz to be an unacceptable excuse. Not to mention kids whom are home schooled in my experiance have a good chance of being socially awkward.


Yes, I am a facist when it comes to education. I dont think you should have the rights to homeschool a child unless there is a physical or psychological reason the child needs an alternative schooling environment.

you know you misspelled a lot of words there?

you know you misspelled a lot of words there?
Heh. Owned.

you know you misspelled a lot of words there?

Facist is without a doubt the funniest misspelling ever.

Facist is without a doubt the funniest misspelling ever.

I was trying to figure out if he had a face fetish or something, but it didn't fit well with the context of the uninformed rant. I read it again and figured out his education probably didn't include spelling class. I'm a little bit of a spelling nazi because that's what I teach kids in one of my homeschool co-ops. I teach creative writing in another, and in the third we talk about politics and government.

I don't know... where would you find the time and the money, as a parent?
I remember distinctly my mother spending hours every day just helping us with the homework, checking vocab, etc. And those where the 70s, where a stay-at-home mom wasn't the incredible luxury it would be for most families today...

So if you're rich and have too much time on your hands, maybe. Otherwise I'd go for a regular school any day.

I am against homeschooling unless their is a psychologial reason for why your child must be home schooled.So a physical reason, like "walking to school is flirting with death", does not count?

I don't know... where would you find the time and the money, as a parent?
I remember distinctly my mother spending hours every day just helping us with the homework, checking vocab, etc. And those where the 70s, where a stay-at-home mom wasn't the incredible luxury it would be for most families today...

So if you're rich and have too much time on your hands, maybe. Otherwise I'd go for a regular school any day.
Home schooling basically requires that you have at least one parent who is prepared to make (unpaid) childcare their job.

Both of my parents had careers that they loved. Neither one would have been happy giving up their own career to stay home with the kids. I'm glad neither of them did so, because 1) we'd have killed each other if we spent that much time together, 2) unhappy parents don't make particularly good teachers OR good parents, and 3) we could never have afforded to live a middle-class lifestyle on one salary.

I am against homeschooling unless their is a psychologial reason for why your child must be home schooled.


Otherwise I believe it should be illegal. I find people homeschooling their children because teh ebil public schoolz teach them bout evolution and teh sex educationz to be an unacceptable excuse. Not to mention kids whom are home schooled in my experiance have a good chance of being socially awkward.


Yes, I am a facist when it comes to education. I dont think you should have the rights to homeschool a child unless there is a physical or psychological reason the child needs an alternative schooling environment.

I think this post highlights the reason that so many people think they have a problem with homeschooling. Like so many other groups, home schoolers are judged by their worst. There certainly are parents who choose to home school as a way of trying to shelter their children and keep them from being exposed to outside ideas. I think we can all agree that this is a bad idea and that it is detrimental to the children to have parents who home school specifically to keep their children from being taught science or from being exposed to society.

I also think that any of us who think about it for even a little while will realize that such parents are probably the minority of those who home school.

Home schooling basically requires that you have at least one parent who is prepared to make (unpaid) childcare their job.

Both of my parents had careers that they loved. Neither one would have been happy giving up their own career to stay home with the kids. I'm glad neither of them did so, because 1) we'd have killed each other if we spent that much time together, 2) unhappy parents don't make particularly good teachers OR good parents, and 3) we could never have afforded to live a middle-class lifestyle on one salary.

slightly off topic, I had rare feminist hilarity lately with my girls.

The 6 year old was in line to be knighted at the medieval faire and this boy told her "girls can't be knights" to which my daughter replied "down with patriarchy!!!" and then waited in line until she got to be knighted.

The 4 year old wanted to play Lego at a friend's house another parent (who we don't talk to much) tried to steer her to where the girls were playing Barbie saying that "blocks are boy toys" to which my 4 year old replied "do they have penises?" the shocked mother said "no" and my 4 year old said "then I don't think they are boy toys"

slightly off topic, I had rare feminist hilarity lately with my girls. Speaking of feminist hilarity... Bottle, have you noticed the "feminazi view on Firefly" thread yet?

Well I was home schooled and I think it's a very good idea :).

The 4 year old wanted to play Lego at a friend's house another parent (who we don't talk to much) tried to steer her to where the girls were playing Barbie saying that "blocks are boy toys" to which my 4 year old replied "do they have penises?" the shocked mother said "no" and my 4 year old said "then I don't think they are boy toys"

That is fantastic.

Of course, being a working parent, and sending your kids to public school doesn’t stop you from doing any of the things that homeschooling parents do. In fact, some of us do those things and encourage our kids to self-direct their own learning as part of our normal parenting.

Of course, being a working parent, and sending your kids to public school doesn’t stop you from doing any of the things that homeschooling parents do. In fact, some of us do those things and encourage our kids to self-direct their own learning as part of our normal parenting.

Absolutely! I can't believe I didn't mention that. Any child will do much better academically and socially if they have parents who are involved and care.

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?

Most homeshoolers have far better educations. The government school has become PC and political, not concentrating on education but social promotion.

It should be highly sought after and vouchers follow the child. Since the government is not interested in the child, they have a problem with it. Their interest lies in the tax money.

I think this post highlights the reason that so many people think they have a problem with homeschooling. Like so many other groups, home schoolers are judged by their worst. There certainly are parents who choose to home school as a way of trying to shelter their children and keep them from being exposed to outside ideas. I think we can all agree that this is a bad idea and that it is detrimental to the children to have parents who home school specifically to keep their children from being taught science or from being exposed to society.

I also think that any of us who think about it for even a little while will realize that such parents are probably the minority of those who home school.

True, although they do present an argument for at least a level of regulation, even if it's only ensuring the kids take the relevant standardised tests for their level and/or annual/biannual inspections.

True, although they do present an argument for at least a level of regulation, even if it's only ensuring the kids take the relevant standardised tests for their level and/or annual/biannual inspections.

what kind of inspections?

what kind of inspections?

Someone having a look over materials/workbooks or give tests to measure progress. I'm thinking in particular of how they do it in France which (according to wikipedia at least and memory of a couple of articles I've read) have inspectors come round binannually to deliver maths/french (or English if requested) tests to ensure the child is progressing from year to year and actually being educated.

I do feel that, despite the majority of home-schooling parents providing a very good education, a safety net does need to be there to catch the children of the minority that does not.

Someone having a look over materials/workbooks or give tests to measure progress. I'm thinking in particular of how they do it in France which (according to wikipedia at least and memory of a couple of articles I've read) have inspectors come round binannually to deliver maths/french (or English if requested) tests to ensure the child is progressing from year to year and actually being educated.

I do feel that, despite the majority of home-schooling parents providing a very good education, a safety net does need to be there to catch the children of the minority that does not.
ah, do the public (government) schooled children in the area receive the same inspections?

ah, do the public (government) schooled children in the area receive the same inspections?

Well yes, standardized tests (or related progression tests) within a public school system and regular school inspections (these happen regularly in this country, I don't know if they do elsewhere). There are mechanisms within the public or indeed private school systems to ensure a child is being educated and measure their progress.

Well yes, standardized tests (or related progression tests) within a public school system and regular school inspections (these happen regularly in this country, I don't know if they do elsewhere). There are mechanisms within the public or indeed private school systems to ensure a child is being educated and measure their progress.

I think as long as it's the exact same as public school then it's fair. Some people talk about home visits and taking children away from parents if they aren't scoring "high enough" on tests. Public school children are never subjected to home visits or taken away from their parents unless they are being abused. If a public school child scores low on standardized tests repeatedly pretty much nothing is done. Homeschooled children are often held to a higher standard all the while being talked about as being "subpar" it's a weird double standard.

It's amusing to see so many refer to public schooling as "normal". Honestly, I can't think of a thing less normal than sending your child into a cattle herding facility to be force-fed information by someone who's being told what to teach by an unfeeling conglomerate whose only true interest is the currency of power. To me, that can't be normal.

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?
Homeschooling can be said to be the teaching of a child by persons uniquely concerned with their welfare (parents), and therefore a good thing which should be encouraged.

Poor California... There should be regulations (yearly testing or evaluation works nicely and helps the family to see where they are), but they should be minimal. To get into college, homeschooled students have to take the same tests public or private schoolers do- it's perfectly fair.

Social training, like academics, varies by household. I will say that superior training in both respects is available to the homeschooler through their group, co-op, clubs (4-H, scouts of all shape and color, etc.), and programs in their community and church, among other things. Something few people seem to realize is that homeschooled students (at least in my state) are permitted to join their local school's sports teams and clubs. There's also dual enrollment with colleges to those wanting honors classes.
Homeschoolers have a vast amount of opportunities available to them.

My opinion humbly submitted.

slightly off topic, I had rare feminist hilarity lately with my girls.

The 6 year old was in line to be knighted at the medieval faire and this boy told her "girls can't be knights" to which my daughter replied "down with patriarchy!!!" and then waited in line until she got to be knighted.

The 4 year old wanted to play Lego at a friend's house another parent (who we don't talk to much) tried to steer her to where the girls were playing Barbie saying that "blocks are boy toys" to which my 4 year old replied "do they have penises?" the shocked mother said "no" and my 4 year old said "then I don't think they are boy toys"

Desks for your kids to work at: $75.
Home-schooling supplies: $300.
Textbooks: $200.

"Do the blocks have penises?": PRICELESS.

Being one who has tried both homeschooling and public schooling, I say that I prefer homeschooling. In my experience other "kids" were unpleasent to know; filthy-mouthed ignoramuses who would pester me because I did not eat meat, and because I was not a Christian. Being home schooled also taught me not to think with the crowd.

However, I think children learning by the preferable method should still take an accredited course which provides them with a diploma. I, myself, took one through the mail.

homeschooling is a good idea because you avoid the terrible public schools and all the brainwashing rubbish that schools force feed you.

I think as long as it's the exact same as public school then it's fair. Some people talk about home visits and taking children away from parents if they aren't scoring "high enough" on tests. Public school children are never subjected to home visits or taken away from their parents unless they are being abused. If a public school child scores low on standardized tests repeatedly pretty much nothing is done. Homeschooled children are often held to a higher standard all the while being talked about as being "subpar" it's a weird double standard.

From what I can tell from the French system (which seems actually quite a nice model), the child is compared to their own scores rather to any norms/standards. It is more to ensure they are progressing in comparison to their previous performance rather than in comparison to a state school kid.

Kids shouldn't be taken away from their parents for simply not scoring highly enough on a test, but I think there is an argument for insisting the parents send them to a regular school or make better provisions (eg hiring private tutors, teaming up with other/different homeschool parents if they don't already) if they are not providing an adequate education for the child. Yes it's difficult to define what is adequate but I think progression related to their prior performance is a good benchmark (as it helps take into account the child's abilities) and when their older, a good breadth of knowledge (at least the level you'd see in the local/national curriculum). These being the sorts of things that school inspectors will look at when visiting state schools (although generally more strictly related to if the teacher is covering what's in the curriculum).

It's amusing to see so many refer to public schooling as "normal". Honestly, I can't think of a thing less normal than sending your child into a cattle herding facility to be force-fed information by someone who's being told what to teach by an unfeeling conglomerate whose only true interest is the currency of power. To me, that can't be normal.


It shouldn't be and indeed I'd argue whether most schools are like that*. If they are then it's a sign that the system needs to be fixed not scrapped.



*I know none of mine were but then again I was educated in Belgium which has a reputedly very good education system and in one of the best sixth form colleges in the UK.

It's amusing to see so many refer to public schooling as "normal". Honestly, I can't think of a thing less normal than sending your child into a cattle herding facility to be force-fed information by someone who's being told what to teach by an unfeeling conglomerate whose only true interest is the currency of power. To me, that can't be normal.

You're right, that's not normal. That's not the norm for American public schools at all.

I guess home school curricula must include special focus on the crafting and maintenance of straw figures...?


Homeschooling can be said to be the teaching of a child by persons uniquely concerned with their welfare (parents), and therefore a good thing which should be encouraged.

I think that would be a pretty silly definition to use, since by that definition I was "home schooled" despite attending public schools full-time since I was 5.

My parents taught me to read, and introduced me to most of my favorite books. Everything I know about Russian history was taught to me by my mother. My dad taught me Algebra 2 and all the fundamentals of neuroscience. I slept my way through Psych 101 because my mother (a PhD in psych) had already taught me all of it long before hand.

It's not an either-or situation. Parents can be highly involved in their child's education NO MATTER WHAT.

Social training, like academics, varies by household. I will say that superior training in both respects is available to the homeschooler through their group, co-op, clubs (4-H, scouts of all shape and color, etc.), and programs in their community and church, among other things.

How is any of that unavailable to public school kids?

I think it's fine to point out that home-schooling can provide all those benefits for kids, but it's silly to claim that home-schooling provides "superior" training in either area. It depends on the school, on the activities, on the child, and on the parents.

It shouldn't be and indeed I'd argue whether most schools are like that*. If they are then it's a sign that the system needs to be fixed not scrapped.



*I know none of mine were but then again I was educated in Belgium which has a reputedly very good education system and in one of the best sixth form colleges in the UK.
Agreed.
I have no experience with the Belgian system (should have specified that I was speaking of the average public school in the United States) and will therefore default to your testimony.

What sort of system is in place?

You're right, that's not normal. That's not the norm for American public schools at all.

I guess home school curricula must include special focus on the crafting and maintenance of straw figures...?
How are public schools in the USA funded?

Hardly- the persuasive speech is a hobby of mine.

I think that would be a pretty silly definition to use, since by that definition I was "home schooled" despite attending public schools full-time since I was 5.

My parents taught me to read, and introduced me to most of my favorite books. Everything I know about Russian history was taught to me by my mother. My dad taught me Algebra 2 and all the fundamentals of neuroscience. I slept my way through Psych 101 because my mother (a PhD in psych) had already taught me all of it long before hand.

It's not an either-or situation. Parents can be highly involved in their child's education NO MATTER WHAT.
A common attribute among homeschooling households, then, but certainly nonexclusive.

I must take a bow to your parents- they are extraordinary folks. Very honorable.

That they can.

How is any of that unavailable to public school kids?

I think it's fine to point out that home-schooling can provide all those benefits for kids, but it's silly to claim that home-schooling provides "superior" training in either area. It depends on the school, on the activities, on the child, and on the parents.
It is all available to them.

Likewise, I find it silly to claim that home educated students are sub par.
My reasoning behind that statement is that the homeschooler will have more time to devote to such things as it won't usually take until 3 PM to complete their schoolwork.

I think as long as it's the exact same as public school then it's fair. Some people talk about home visits and taking children away from parents if they aren't scoring "high enough" on tests. Public school children are never subjected to home visits or taken away from their parents unless they are being abused. If a public school child scores low on standardized tests repeatedly pretty much nothing is done. Homeschooled children are often held to a higher standard all the while being talked about as being "subpar" it's a weird double standard.

Now if we held the public schools to the same standards and fired teachers not achieving high scores with their charges, we'd be onto something.

If homeschooling is done right then it is an amazing idea. There are many situations in which it is a bad idea. Like, when there isn't enough time taken to actually teach the kid (my case). But there are good cases. My cousin is several years ahead of the other people her age in math and other subjects. She is homeschooled. She is also ADD and public wasn't really that great on her. Public school standards have been dropping for years and they will only continue to drop. In the future, when i actually have kids, I will probably get them private tutors or homeschool them myself. I do not trust the public school system now and I will trust it even less in the future. I do not see it ever getting better. Homeschooling can be done right and it can be done well. But it can also be screwed up royally, just like everything.

For the record, I didn't take the time to read seven pages of posts so i apologize if I am just repeating what others have said.

Homeschooling can be far more effective than public schooling. Given attentive parents (at least making sure the student is completing all assigned work), a structured curriculum will be just as effective (if not moreso) than having a single teacher looking over hundreds of students each week.

Social skills can be just as developed as a public-schooled student, assuming that the child is not a complete shut-in, and is exposed to social situations on a regular basis (homeschooled study groups or outings if nothing else). At the same time, it doesn't require the student to be exposed to harangues and the social dysphoria associated with cliques and bullies. While adversity is a factor of life, constant daily harassment and enforced exposure to idiocy is not neccessarily a good thing, especially when peer pressures might cause the student to adopt the current lowest-common-denominator pastimes, leading to the rise of the kind of idiocy that has allowed people along the lines of Britney Spears, Marshall Mathers and Fifty Cent to achieve some form of popularity.

Homeschooling tends to produce intelligent, free-thinking, eclectic individuals given that these urges are given the chance to flourish, rather than being ground down into mindless conformity.
I'd really like to see what would happen given a full generation allowed that kind of social freedom.

Riight. This is, admittedly, anecdotal, but I recently talked to an (presumed) adult woman of normal intelligence, who had been home-schooled by her father. Here she was, at age 24, prefacing every opinion with "my father says..." If anyone debated her on any issue, she inevitably countered every argument with "my father says..." She was completely incapable of forming an independent thought. If her father were to die, she would be utterly unable to function, there would be no one to think for her. This is the dark side of home-schooling - complete indoctrination to one way of thinking with no exposure to other ideas and no training in critical thinking and analysis.

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?Given my GPA in college, I don't think homeschooled kids are a problem. Sure, there should be regulations -- but only insofar as to mandate having a curriculum and similar things. By the way, I don't have social difficulties.

Homeschooling is a good thing.

One of my cousins in upstate New York has five kids and has homeschooled all of them. They are all doing very well.

I wouldn't send my worst enemy's kids to a public school. When the time comes, I will homeschool.

This is the dark side of home-schooling

No, this is the dark side of one instance of homeschooling, as practiced by one particular parent.

- complete indoctrination to one way of thinking with no exposure to other ideas and no training in critical thinking and analysis.

Sounds like a lot of public schools to me.

Sounds like a lot of public schools to me.

Then youve never been to a public school.



Then again, you seem much like the anti-social fundine nuts that homeschooling produces more often than not, so thats probably accurate.

Then youve never been to a public school.



Then again, you seem much like the anti-social fundine nuts that homeschooling produces more often than not, so thats probably accurate.

you are still misspelling a lot of words. I have been to public school and I can tell you if a kid is going to take everything at face value and not ask questions, they will do that whether they go to public school or not. I can also tell you that close minded over generalizing uninformed people come out of public school at the same rate that they come from homeschooling.

I have been to public school and I can tell you if a kid is going to take everything at face value and not ask questions, they will do that whether they go to public school or not.


Difference is, who are kids more likely to question, their teachers at school, or their parents? Especially if their young.


I can also tell you that close minded over generalizing uninformed people come out of public school at the same rate that they come from homeschooling.

I doubt that personally :p

To be honest, I just don't see the point of home schooling.

Difference is, who are kids more likely to question, their teachers at school, or their parents? Especially if their young.
If they'reyoung they ask a lot of questions. That's what children do. Questioning authority is something all children should learn.

I doubt that personally :p
I see it daily. I have no doubt that you ignore facts though.

To be honest, I just don't see the point of home schooling.

The point of homeschooling is to educate.

The point of homeschooling is to educate.

...in the exact manner the parents see fit. So their kids dont have to learn about ebil things like evolution and contraception, and learn only about gawds word and to view the world as gawd wants them to.;)

Tell me, if the goal isnt to brainwash and indoctrinate your kids in a manner the parents see fit, then why have your kids be homeschooled? Unless you live in an area with crappy, underfunded public schools (which I admit there are too many of) then why homeschool them?

you are still misspelling a lot of words.

And you often fail to capitalize words at the begining of a sentence, like the sentence above, for example ;)

...in the exact manner the parents see fit. So their kids dont have to learn about ebil things like evolution and contraception, and learn only about gawds word and to view the world as gawd wants them to.;)

Tell me, if the goal isnt to brainwash and indoctrinate your kids in a manner the parents see fit, then why have your kids be homeschooled? Unless you live in an area with crappy, underfunded public schools (which I admit there are too many of) then why homeschool them?
You have a very narrow and ignorant view of homeschooling.

I homeschool my children because the school is unable to accommodate them.

And you often fail to capitalize words at the begining of a sentence, like the sentence above, for example ;)
Sorry about that. You are still misspelling words.

You have a very narrow and ignorant view of homeschooling.


Hardly. I see it for what it is.

I homeschool my children because the school is unable to accommodate them.

In what ways are they unable to accomodate them?

The point of homeschooling is to educate.

Well obviously I meant I don't see the point of home schooling as opposed to state or public schooling.

Well obviously I meant I don't see the point of home schooling as opposed to state or public schooling.

Sometimes public schooling or private schooling is not the best option. Everyone has different needs.

Hardly. I see it for what it is.
How many homeschoolers do you know? Do you have statistics proving that homeschoolers are all doing it so they can indoctrinate their children? Do you have a source for any of your claims?

In what ways are they unable to accomodate them?
They are unable to accommodate their health needs. They are unable to accommodate their social needs. They are unable to accommodate their academic needs.

Sometimes public schooling or private schooling is not the best option. Everyone has different needs.

What needs do your kids have and why can't the school accommodate them?

How many homeschoolers do you know? Do you have statistics proving that homeschoolers are all doing it so they can indoctrinate their children? Do you have a source for any of your claims?

Same as you. Personal experiances and being around Christian groups who pushed for all their fellow Christians to homeschool their kids so they didnt learn about Darwin (also known as Satan's right hand man) and teh ebil godless evolution, and so their kids werent learning about contraception.


They are unable to accommodate their health needs.

If they are funded well, they should be able to. However it is possible they cant as I dont know what your children's health needs are.

They are unable to accommodate their social needs.

Im doubtful.

They are unable to accommodate their academic needs.

Again, unless the school is underfunded or you live in a crappy area, I am skeptical.

Home schooled kids are usually immune to peer pressure, Make smarter decisions based on that, And DO NOT do stupid things Like drugs, Smoke, Binge Drinking..

Well, at least thats how i was.

I did not get religion taught either, Which made me lean towards atheist until i became one.

i was home schooled from 4th grade until I graduated at 15.I'm 29 now. I really despised it the whole time. My mother, who would not admit this until recently, took me out of private school to home school me because it was popular with all the women at our church at the time. Looking back I really did not suffer education wise, and it gave me the opportunity to travel extensively all over the world and the grow up working in the family business... which I later grew to hate. ::sigh::

Homeschooled kids are usually immune to peer pressure, Make smarter decisions based on that, And DONT do stupid things Like drugs, Smoke, Binge Drinking..

Well, atleast thats how i was.

Wow, what an utterly absurd and false statement. Care to prove any of that crap youre selling?



If anything, Homeschooled kids are more likely to fall to peer pressure, because since they are not part of the community of the school they are more likely to seek acceptance with their friends in that community by conforming.

They are unable to accommodate their health needs. They are unable to accommodate their social needs. They are unable to accommodate their academic needs.

Wait, i could understand health needs, but it depends on the context, i could understand proper illness, but if you are talking about the food quality then i find that a poor reason.

Academic needs is basically you saying the school is poor, but i kind of think you just want your kids to be succesful and elitist by making them intellectually superior to everyone else, in my view intelligence and academia are two different things, i know many idiots who get A's, they just learn how to pass the tests and not a logical way of thinking.

Social needs, now that just confuses me, are you saying that your children have social needs that no one else does, if that ties in with your health complaint then i can see your point but if not then i see no reason to what you claim.

What needs do your kids have and why can't the school accommodate them?

My 6 year old needs to be a junior in high school. The local school district wants her to be in first grade. Both of my children have health issues that the school will not accommodate even though they are legally required to. Other children with the same disease have had numerous problems and the school board has said that it's not a "big deal" that the children are being made sick by their school.

My 4 year old has severe sensory integration issues and is also gifted, in order for them to accommodate her sensory integration she has to be in special education classes, even though she is working on a 3rd grade level. Regardless they will not let her skip grades, she would be put in Pre-K and forced to repeat her alphabet and play with play-dough all day.

They are unwilling and unable to accommodate children who don't fit into the mold they want them to.

Wow, what an utterly absurd and false statement. Care to prove any of that crap youre selling?



If anything, Homeschooled kids are more likely to fall to peer pressure, because since they are not part of the community of the school they are more likely to seek acceptance with their friends in that community by conforming.
Care to prove any of the crap you're selling?

Wow, what an utterly absurd and false statement. Care to prove any of that crap youre selling?



If anything, Homeschooled kids are more likely to fall to peer pressure, because since they are not part of the community of the school they are more likely to seek acceptance with their friends in that community by conforming.

I'm not so sure, As a kid i was totally Anti-social and fine....I didn't need friends, And peer pressure wasnt a problem. I've been a loner all my life pretty much.

And no need to jump on the God damn offense, I'm just stating what i've learned from MY life.

My 6 year old needs to be a junior in high school. The local school district wants her to be in first grade.

Wait wait. Im sorry, but do you expect me to buy that your first grader is doing calculous, can read Shakespeare critically, and knows in depth the details and process the US went through to write our constitution?

Care to prove any of the crap you're selling?

Again, logically, if a public school is funded well, there is no reason other than religious ones or extraordinary circumstances to homeschool your kids.

Thats all the proof I need. Logic. It comes in handy.

EDIT: Here you go.

Parents choose to homeschool for a variety of reasons they deemed most important. according to the NCES report, the top two in 2003 being concern with the community schooling environments and in order to provide religious or moral training the two motivations having nearly equal percentages (around 30% each). Dissatisfaction with academic instruction was a somewhat distant third, being voiced by 16 percent or respondents.

http://www.educationbug.org/a/homeschool-statistics.html

Wait wait. Im sorry, but do you expect me to buy that your first grader is doing calculous, can read Shakespeare critically, and knows in depth the details and process the US went through to write our constitution?

Yes. It's true.

Again, logically, if a public school is funded well, there is no reason other than religious ones or extraordinary circumstances to homeschool your kids.

Thats all the proof I need. Logic. It comes in handy.

I can't force myself to rely on your "logic". If you want me to believe everything you say that goes against everything I know, then I need some empirical evidence or at the very least some well run studies.

In my personal opinion homeschooling is retarded.

Public schools teach social behaviour and acceptable norms beyond the curriculum, and usually have dedicated teachers for more esoteric subjects - Probably the most important teaching is that you - the student - are not that special.

Then again, this is my personal viewpoint and stems from prevalent atmosphere and (perceived) quality of public schools here.

In my personal opinion homeschooling is retarded.

Public schools teach social behaviour and acceptable norms beyond the curriculum, and usually have dedicated teachers for more esoteric subjects - Probably the most important teaching is that you - the student - are not that special.

Then again, it's a personal viepoint and stems from prevalent atmosphere and quality of public schools here.

The only place to learn about the world is in a school building between 8am and 3pm Monday through Friday then?

Yes. It's true.

Your kids are way ahead of their peers and have a some problems with diseases and certain kinds of dysfuctions, right?

Are they also well adjusted, popular etc? I think those things would strike most people as mutually exclusive.

I can't force myself to rely on your "logic". If you want me to believe everything you say that goes against everything I know, then I need some empirical evidence or at the very least some well run studies.

Check my source I posted.

Yes. It's true.

With all due respect, I dont buy that.

Your kids are way ahead of their peers and have a some problems with diseases and certain kinds of dysfuctions, right?

Are they also well adjusted, popular etc? I think those things would strike most people as mutually exclusive.
They are well adjusted and have friends. I don't know if "popular" is something we strive for in our house, but they are liked.

The only place to learn about the world is in a school building between 8am and 3pm Monday through Friday then?

A parent cannot know children's or teens subculture as well as the kids themselves.

And personally, I think social events and social situations - as public school is - teach more to a child or kid than any well intending parent can alone: Life is not about knowing things it's about living and functioning in a society where each and every person is different and less or more intelligent.

edit:
Denying the possibility of relatively free socializing from a kid is a sufficient reason to favor public school system over homeschooling.

EDIT: Here you go.



http://www.educationbug.org/a/homeschool-statistics.html

So, because 30% of people do something it means that all people or the majority of people do that thing? Did you have trouble in math? Did your teacher help you work through that?

A parent cannot know children's or teens subculture as well as the kids themselves.

And personally, I think social events and social situation - as public school is - teach more to a child or kid than any well intending parent can alone: Life is not about knowing things it's about living and functioning in a society where each and every person is different and less or more intelligent from you.

Do homeschooled kids have no contact with their peers? Are the locked in a closet all day? Do they not have activities outside of the home?

You see at school, kids are exposed to lots of different teachers. Sometimes they even have different teachers for the same subject over years. Thus unless teachers are all indoctrinating the kids into the same thing (at which point, I have to say you may be straying into consipiracy theory territory), children have a chance to be exposed to different views which can only help them in making informed choices.
There are social agendas pushed by the teachers' unions, the BCTF does so explicitly. If I can avoid that social engineering through homeschooling, I'm tempted to do it.

So, because 30% of people do something it means that all people or the majority of people do that thing? Did you have trouble in math? Did your teacher help you work through that?

:rolleyes:


The dislike of the community aspect is arguablly another part of the religious aspect. Therefore, its grand total is 60%.


Your condescending attitude is also getting old. I hope thats not somethng your kids pick up on, otherwise thats a good enough reason to homeschool them. Out in the real world, talking down to people makes you rather...unpopular.

There are social agendas pushed by the teachers' unions, the BCTF does so explicitly. If I can avoid that social engineering through homeschooling, I'm tempted to do it.

.......


And you are going to sit here and claim that homeschooling ISNT social engineering?

Do homeschooled kids have no contact with their peers? Are the locked in a closet all day? Do they not have activities outside of the home?
Do they have unsupervised activities? In schools they are free to mingle among themselves as they see fit - with intervention being necessary only when there's bullying or dangerous activities involved.

What's more important, in schools they are FORCED to mingle with characters - teachers, students - they wouldn't normally have any contact with at all.

...in the exact manner the parents see fit. So their kids dont have to learn about ebil things like evolution and contraception, and learn only about gawds word and to view the world as gawd wants them to.;)

Tell me, if the goal isnt to brainwash and indoctrinate your kids in a manner the parents see fit, then why have your kids be homeschooled? Unless you live in an area with crappy, underfunded public schools (which I admit there are too many of) then why homeschool them?

You just answered your own question KoL...

Homeschooling when done for the reason you specified (avoiding having to have the kids learn about evolution or other scientific principles because it goes against the parents' beliefs) is a bad thing. It is, however, not automatically a bad thing. It really comes down to how capable the parents' are at teaching.

Denying the possibility of relatively free socializing from a kid is a sufficient reason to favor public school system over homeschooling.
Not if the homeschooling is better schooling.

Hardly. I see it for what it is.
You see it as you choose to perceive it, not all children who are homeschooled are done so for the reasons you've put forth.
In what ways are they unable to accomodate them?
Maybe her kids are 'special needs' kids and the school is unable/unwilling to accomodate them? I know my wife and I have had a hell of time getting schools to recognize what my youngest's 'failings' actually are (he has cerebal palsy)

:rolleyes:


The dislike of the community aspect is arguablly another part of the religious aspect. Therefore, its grand total is 60%.


Your condescending attitude is also getting old. I hope thats not somethng your kids pick up on, otherwise thats a good enough reason to homeschool them. Out in the real world, talking down to people makes you rather...unpopular.
My condescending attitude? Funny.

If they are the same thing then they would be the same category no?

Source?
can you imagine people like Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson and all their followers homeschooling their kids?

**points at self**

I'm a grad student. I've been studying in my subject area for years. I am very knowledgeable.

I am a shitty teacher.

I'm fine in a lab setting, but make me stand up and lecture and I will confuse the hell out of any person who manages to stay awake long enough to hear my spiel.

This is why I don't teach. :D Me too. :(

So a physical reason, like "walking to school is flirting with death", does not count?"We take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the street or sticking your face in the fan."

slightly off topic, I had rare feminist hilarity lately with my girls.

The 6 year old was in line to be knighted at the medieval faire and this boy told her "girls can't be knights" to which my daughter replied "down with patriarchy!!!" and then waited in line until she got to be knighted.

The 4 year old wanted to play Lego at a friend's house another parent (who we don't talk to much) tried to steer her to where the girls were playing Barbie saying that "blocks are boy toys" to which my 4 year old replied "do they have penises?" the shocked mother said "no" and my 4 year old said "then I don't think they are boy toys" Your Kids are Teh Win. I gotta send you a copy of Azumanga Daioh! :D

Hey Smunkee... if I do get kids, can I pay you to homeschool them? :D


It's amusing to see so many refer to public schooling as "normal". Honestly, I can't think of a thing less normal than sending your child into a cattle herding facility to be force-fed information by someone who's being told what to teach by an unfeeling conglomerate whose only true interest is the currency of power. To me, that can't be normal. "Normal" is often tied in to "popular". Several decades ago, Marriage was 'Nomally' one man and one woman. About a Century ago, Religion was a "normal" way of life. think about what will be considered 'Normal' a decade from now, or a century from now...

Home schooled kids are usually immune to peer pressure, Make smarter decisions based on that, And DO NOT do stupid things Like drugs, Smoke, Binge Drinking.. yet drivers who learned by their parents also pick up their parent's bad habits.

I was not homeschooled, and yet I don't do drugs, smoke, drink, nor give in to peer pressure. and I know alot of people who also were homeschooled who do smoke, drink (dunno about the drugs) and bow to peer pressure. sorry but you are wrong on this point.

Wait wait. Im sorry, but do you expect me to buy that your first grader is doing calculous, can read Shakespeare critically, and knows in depth the details and process the US went through to write our constitution? I know alot of Juniors in High School who couldn't do that. and this was WAAAAY before "No Child Left Behind."

Maybe her kids are 'special needs' kids and the school is unable/unwilling to accomodate them? I know my wife and I have had a hell of time getting schools to recognize what my youngest's 'failings' actually are (he has cerebal palsy)

That is a failing of the school, and that would become an acceptable reason to homeschool if that becomes your only choice you have.

But to me, those reasons speak more of an underfunded public education system than of the glories of homeschooling.

I think there are a lot of good reasons to homeschool and also a lot of bad reasons.
I also think there should be a final exam and a project every year. There probably already is.

Do they have unsupervised activities? In schools they are free to mingle among themselves as they see fit - with intervention being necessary only when there's bullying or dangerous activities involved.

What's more important, in schools they are FORCED to mingle with characters - teachers, students - they wouldn't normally have any contact with at all.
My children do have unsupervised activities, as well as attend classes and camps with children and teachers that are from diverse backgrounds.

The picture you have in your head of homeschooling is not reality.

Your kids are way ahead of their peers and have a some problems with diseases and certain kinds of dysfuctions, right?

Are they also well adjusted, popular etc? I think those things would strike most people as mutually exclusive.

Why is the bolded important?

My condescending attitude? Funny.


Me thinks you dont read your posts.

If they are the same thing then they would be the same category no?

Because while they often times overlap, they dont always. The full study mentions that it didnt allow parents to check more than one, however if they had it is probable that the one involving religion would have been much higher. Ill see if I can find a PDF file of the full story.

My children do have unsupervised activities, as well as attend classes and camps with children and teachers that are from diverse backgrounds.

The picture you have in your head of homeschooling is not reality.

This is what you dont seem to get. Your kids homeschooling experiance is not the norm if it is what you claim.

The picture of homeschooling in most peoples heads is indeed a reality for most kids.

That is a failing of the school, and that would become an acceptable reason to homeschool if that becomes your only choice you have.

But to me, those reasons speak more of an underfunded public education system than of the glories of homeschooling.

That is exactly my point, homeschooling isn't automatically better than public school and vice-versa. Which is better depends upon the individuals involved.

My children do have unsupervised activities, as well as attend classes and camps with children and teachers that are from diverse backgrounds.

The picture you have in your head of homeschooling is not reality.

*applauds*

:rolleyes:


The dislike of the community aspect is arguablly another part of the religious aspect. Therefore, its grand total is 60%.

There's no "dislike of the community" listed.

"Concern with the community schooling environments" could cover all sorts of things. A parent might, for instance, be worried about gang activity at a school, and thus choose to homeschool. It would fall under that description.

In addition, while a parent choosing to homeschool so that they can provide religious background can mean that the parent wishes to exclude science, it does not have to.

From one of the surveys cited in your source:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/images/fig2.jpg

Only 11.6% list "improper" teachings at schools as one of their reasons for homeschooling.

The 2003 survey was run differently, allowing only one reason to be listed, so we can't really make a comparison to see if that changed.

Your condescending attitude is also getting old. I hope thats not somethng your kids pick up on, otherwise thats a good enough reason to homeschool them. Out in the real world, talking down to people makes you rather...unpopular.

Wait.....Smunkee is being condescending?

Have you read any of your own posts in this thread?

"We take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the street or sticking your face in the fan."Not what I meant. There's plenty of remote places in the US or Canada where people live that make going to school a hazard, particularly if they live relatively isolated from larger communities.

This is what you dont seem to get. Your kids homeschooling experiance is not the norm if it is what you claim.

The picture of homeschooling in most peoples heads is indeed a reality for most kids.

Not in my experience it isn't.

Me thinks you dont read your posts.
You should read yours. You haven't shown me that you have any experience or knowledge of the homeschooling community, so why would I believe you know anything?
Everything you have said goes directly against my experience with homeschoolers in my area.


Because while they often times overlap, they dont always. The full study mentions that it didnt allow parents to check more than one, however if they had it is probable that the one involving religion would have been much higher. Ill see if I can find a PDF file of the full story.
How do you know what would happen if the study was set up differently. You can't infer information not provided. Well, you can, but not while being intellectually honest at the same time.

Do they have unsupervised activities? In schools they are free to mingle among themselves as they see fit - with intervention being necessary only when there's bullying or dangerous activities involved.

What's more important, in schools they are FORCED to mingle with characters - teachers, students - they wouldn't normally have any contact with at all.

Another thing - aside from forced social situation - is that the quality of teaching public school teachers can give IS greater than what vast majority of parents are capable of giving to their child, usually despite what the parent him or herself might think. After all, permanent teachers are supposed to have university level education (even at kindergarten level, at least here, go figure..)

That is a failing of the school, and that would become an acceptable reason to homeschool if that becomes your only choice you have.

But to me, those reasons speak more of an underfunded public education system than of the glories of homeschooling.

Except you're missing what they are trying to point out. They can tailor the learning environment to their child's specific needs. Thus providing individual attention to areas where their child will fail at and move at speeds best to the one learning and not trying to pidgeon hole children and force them to march at a beat they can't follow.

Special diets yes. that is easily done in an individual setting but hard in a group setting.

but if a child excels in English but struggles at Math, then they tailor the math and english to the child's learning pace, another think that is difficult to do in a group setting.

Hence a six year old reads Mein Kamf and has a vocabulary wall that keeps the parent/teacher struggling to keep up.

It really comes down to how capable the parents' are at teaching.
We have little reason to believe that public school teachers are any better.

They work in an uncompetitive environment where they have no incentive to excel, and they're not trained to teach basic skills.

A recent survey (that went unpublished because the results were so silly) found that of the universities in Canada that offer degrees in education, NONE of them teach prospective teachers how to teach children to read.

Another thing - aside from forced social situation - is that the quality of teaching public school teachers can give IS greater than what vast majority of parents are capable of giving to their child, usually despite what the parent him or herself might think. After all, permanent teachers are supposed to have university level education (even at kindergarten level, at least here, go figure..)
As I said before most of the homeschooled children I know do not have their parents as a primary teacher. You have a warped view of homeschooling.

That is exactly my point, homeschooling isn't automatically better than public school and vice-versa. Which is better depends upon the individuals involved.

Thats my point though. If you live in the county I grew up in, which was a very wealthy county with many well funded public schools, there is no reason to homeschool your kids. Thus, the only kids I knew who were homeschooled were socially inpet, usually racist (having no exposure to diversity) idiots who thought that it was undisputed fact that the earth is only 6000 years old and that man was molded from some magical clay.


Which s exactly what I have been saying. If you live in an area where the public schools are well funded (which if I was king of the US they all would be, but alas, Im not king yet) there is no good reason to homeschool your kids, baring extrordinary circumstances.

Not what I meant. There's plenty of remote places in the US or Canada where people live that make going to school a hazard, particularly if they live relatively isolated from larger communities.

and there are places where the neighborhood itself is a hazard. it's not just isolated areas, it's everywhere.

We have little reason to believe that public school teachers are any better.

They work in an uncompetitive environment where they have no incentive to excel, and they're not trained to teach basic skills.


As someone undergoing this process, I will tell you that in the US at least that claim is bullocks. Teachings jobs are extremelly competetive in most of the US, you wont have a job for long if youre medicore (yearly evaluations from administration) and the training you recieve borders on absurity in how comprehensive it is. I took a class where they taught me how to write a fucking multiple choice test. A whole. Fucking. Class.

Do they have unsupervised activities? In schools they are free to mingle among themselves as they see fit - with intervention being necessary only when there's bullying or dangerous activities involved.

At what point in the school day are students unsupervised? The only times I had at public school where I could "mingle" was in the 5 minutes between classes (during which time I had to get to the next class, so there wasn't much mingling) and lunch (woot! 30 minutes/day of sitting with whoever I wanted to that happened to have the same lunchtime)

My children do have unsupervised activities, as well as attend classes and camps with children and teachers that are from diverse backgrounds.

The picture you have in your head of homeschooling is not reality.

It's hard not to have that picture though. Most of the people I have met who have been home schooled tend to be shy with not very good social interaction, people who are home schooled have admitted in this thread to being that way.

Also, do your kids go to the same activities every week? If they are constantly going to different activities and camps, it is very difficult to gain long term friends.

Thats my point though. If you live in the county I grew up in, which was a very wealthy county with many well funded public schools, there is no reason to homeschool your kids. Thus, the only kids I knew who were homeschooled were socially inpet, usually racist (having no exposure to diversity) idiots who thought that it was undisputed fact that the earth is only 6000 years old and that man was molded from some magical clay.


Which s exactly what I have been saying. If you live in an area where the public schools are well funded (which if I was king of the US they all would be, but alas, Im not king yet) there is no good reason to homeschool your kids, baring extrordinary circumstances.

There are plenty of good reasons to homeschool. To say there are "no good reasons" is close minded. I provided the reasons I homeschool, they are good reasons. My children's doctor agrees. I'm sure you know more than the doctor and the school board, and the teachers and psychologists we have consulted though.

It's hard not to have that picture though. Most of the people I have met who have been home schooled tend to be shy with not very good social interaction, people who are home schooled have admitted in this thread to being that way.

Also, do your kids go to the same activities every week? If they are constantly going to different activities and camps, it is very difficult to gain long term friends.

During the school year they go to the same classes every week, during the summer they go to various camps.

As I said before most of the homeschooled children I know do not have their parents as a primary teacher. You have a warped view of homeschooling.

I have no idea of what homeschooling consists of - It's a non-issue here. While it's an option it's not actively used.

I have to ask though, do you percieve public schooling to be inherently worse than homeschooling?

How do you know what would happen if the study was set up differently. You can't infer information not provided. Well, you can, but not while being intellectually honest at the same time.

Because while parents circled a second choice, those results werent published.

Because while parents circled a second choice, those results werent published.

If the results weren't published then how do you know what they were?

During the school year they go to the same classes every week, during the summer they go to various camps.

Do they go or do you send them?

Are they allowed to spontaneously interact with their peers?

and there are places where the neighborhood itself is a hazard. it's not just isolated areas, it's everywhere.But is the nearest school several hundred miles away?

We have little reason to believe that public school teachers are any better.

They work in an uncompetitive environment where they have no incentive to excel, and they're not trained to teach basic skills.

A recent survey (that went unpublished because the results were so silly) found that of the universities in Canada that offer degrees in education, NONE of them teach prospective teachers how to teach children to read.

So you agree with me.

I have no idea of what homeschooling consists of - It's a non-issue here. While it's an option it's not actively used.

I have to ask though, do you percieve public schooling to be inherently worse than homeschooling?

I think they are both equally valid options for most people. Some people should not homeschool in my opinion, and some children can't be accommodated by the public school. In situations where homeschooling or public school would be harmful to the child I believe the least harmful alternative is preferred.

Thats my point though. If you live in the county I grew up in, which was a very wealthy county with many well funded public schools, there is no reason to homeschool your kids. Thus, the only kids I knew who were homeschooled were socially inpet, usually racist (having no exposure to diversity) idiots who thought that it was undisputed fact that the earth is only 6000 years old and that man was molded from some magical clay.


Which s exactly what I have been saying. If you live in an area where the public schools are well funded (which if I was king of the US they all would be, but alas, Im not king yet) there is no good reason to homeschool your kids, baring extrordinary circumstances.

I do live in the U.S. as does Smunkee.
I agree with you that kids should not be home-schooled for religious reasons, but not all kids in the U.S. are home-schooled for that reason.

You should read yours. You haven't shown me that you have any experience or knowledge of the homeschooling community, so why would I believe you know anything?
Everything you have said goes directly against my experience with homeschoolers in my area.


Thats fucking fantastic. Its all evidence based on personal experiance, and Ill admit that makes it schlock, will you? The amount of arrogance it takes for you to assume that just because your experiance is one way that someone elses wont be another is monumental.

You havent shown me anything youve said is anything other than a blad faced lie, but I cant really ask for proof of personal experiance, so Im not going to sit here and say "You dont know anything". Thats the difference between our conduct. You make a claim based on your personal experiance, I counter with one of mine, showing that yours isnt the rule, and you get all hot and bothered.

I do live in the U.S. as does Smunkee.


I said county, not country bud:p

Because while parents circled a second choice, those results werent published.

You can look at the '99 study for an idea.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/images/fig2.jpg

In this study, parents were able to list more than one reason. These are the top reasons, although there were plenty more.

Given that no single option makes it above 50%, even among the top reasons, it seems pretty clear that homeschoolers don't have the kind of uniformity you are claiming. Parents who choose this option do so for a variety of reasons.

Do they go or do you send them?
They only do what they want to do, and actually I don't even let them do everything they want, or they would be over scheduled.

Are they allowed to spontaneously interact with their peers?
Define peers. They are allowed to spontaneously interact with just about anyone. They have sleep overs, they go to play dates, they play sports, they sit in the park and read, etc. They are allowed to spontaneously interact as much as I am.

I said county, not country bud:p

Oops, misread then, sorry. :(

If the results weren't published then how do you know what they were?

They were mentioned in the article, however for the statistical data sent to the government it was not published.

My 6 year old needs to be a junior in high school. The local school district wants her to be in first grade. Both of my children have health issues that the school will not accommodate even though they are legally required to. Other children with the same disease have had numerous problems and the school board has said that it's not a "big deal" that the children are being made sick by their school.

My 4 year old has severe sensory integration issues and is also gifted, in order for them to accommodate her sensory integration she has to be in special education classes, even though she is working on a 3rd grade level. Regardless they will not let her skip grades, she would be put in Pre-K and forced to repeat her alphabet and play with play-dough all day.

They are unwilling and unable to accommodate children who don't fit into the mold they want them to.
can't really fault the schoolboard for not wanting to put a 6 year old in highschool. You do realize how that sounds.

can't really fault the schoolboard for not wanting to put a 6 year old in highschool. You do realize how that sounds.

Especially because I doubt the truth of said statement. I can only imagine the school board felt the same.

Thats fucking fantastic. Its all evidence based on personal experiance, and Ill admit that makes it schlock, will you? The amount of arrogance it takes for you to assume that just because your experiance is one way that someone elses wont be another is monumental.

....you mean like you're doing?

Seriously, KoL, look at your posts. All you have been doing is claiming that homeschooling can only be one way. You've practically flat-out called Smunkee a liar for suggesting that she, and many others, might have reasons other than religious indoctrination for her choice to homeschool her children.

Thats fucking fantastic. Its all evidence based on personal experiance, and Ill admit that makes it schlock, will you? The amount of arrogance it takes for you to assume that just because your experiance is one way that someone elses wont be another is monumental.

You havent shown me anything youve said is anything other than a blad faced lie, but I cant really ask for proof of personal experiance, so Im not going to sit here and say "You dont know anything". Thats the difference between our conduct. You make a claim based on your personal experiance, I counter with one of mine, showing that yours isnt the rule, and you get all hot and bothered.

One of us is making grand generalizing statements and refusing to back them up saying it's "logic". It's not me. There are many different types of homeschoolers. I don't have experience with the "majority" being ignorant fundies who want to indoctrinate their children to believe dinosaurs walked with Jesus. You claim this is true, I ask you to prove it, you can't.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Is public school a good idea?

Maybe.

My question is: Is compulsory schooling, whether public or private, a good idea?

To answer the OP.
I was only homeschooled for kindergarten and suffered no ill effects. However, I could read before anyone else in my class. Since I was only homeschooled for one year though, I can't really comment on its long term effects.

can't really fault the schoolboard for not wanting to put a 6 year old in highschool. You do realize how that sounds.

I can't fault them. They can't accommodate my child though, so I don't send her to school there.

Especially because I doubt the truth of said statement. I can only imagine the school board felt the same.Yes, but unlike us, the school board would have means to verify the claim.

....you mean like you're doing?

Seriously, KoL, look at your posts. All you have been doing is claiming that homeschooling can only be one way.


See, if you read my posts, you see my qualifiers where I say "If the school is well funded..."

You've practically flat-out called Smunkee a liar for suggesting that she, and many others, might have reasons other than religious indoctrination for her choice to homeschool her children.

Really? Where? I also havent said "You dont know anything because my experiance is different!"


Like I said. I will admit right here, right now that personal experiance counts for jack shit in debates, especially over the internet. I doubt she is willing to do the same.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Can I add that to my sig? I'll give you credit, of course.

Can I add that to my sig? I'll give you credit, of course.

Absolutely.

See, if you read my posts, you see my qualifiers where I say "If the school is well funded..."



Really? Where? I also havent said "You dont know anything because my experiance is different!"


Like I said. I will admit right here, right now that personal experiance counts for jack shit in debates, especially over the internet. I doubt she is willing to do the same.
Okay, so when I asked for proof and you were unable to back up your claims, then your claims become useless.

Absolutely.

Thanks. :D

I want to work that line into a conversation now, kind of like "There had to be a second spitter!"

One of us is making grand generalizing statements and refusing to back them up saying it's "logic". It's not me. There are many different types of homeschoolers. I don't have experience with the "majority" being ignorant fundies who want to indoctrinate their children to believe dinosaurs walked with Jesus. You claim this is true, I ask you to prove it, you can't.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about.

*sigh*


Once again. IF the school is well funded there is no reason (baring extraordinary circumstances, your kids academics if what you say is true would be....extra ordinary), other than religious ones to homeschool your kids. Thats my point. Im saying that if all the schools were well funded, homeschooling should become illegal.

As an aside, I have a feeling the reason your kids were not allowed into high school is because maturity and mental development are just as important. And Im sure a first grader fails in the above criteria. This is largely irrelevent, just an aside.

Okay, so when I asked for proof and you were unable to back up your claims, then your claims become useless.

And you cant prove yours with anything but personal experiance! Unless you can show me statistics showing that homeschooled kids are equally social adept and such, your claims are just as useless.

Define peers. They are allowed to spontaneously interact with just about anyone. They have sleep overs, they go to play dates, they play sports, they sit in the park and read, etc. They are allowed to spontaneously interact as much as I am.

Are they forced to spontaneously interact with other kids or handle situations that they didn't want?

That is in my opinion big part of which makes public schools so much superior - Living and functioning as a part of a motley group where everything doesn't always (ever?) go as planned.

I think they are both equally valid options for most people. Some people should not homeschool in my opinion, and some children can't be accommodated by the public school. In situations where homeschooling or public school would be harmful to the child I believe the least harmful alternative is preferred.

I sort of agree, however from another viewpoint. If the kid is disruptive and/or has too many special needs - be they handicaps or special talents (true geniuses, special athletic/artistic skill) - then he or she should have homeschooling or something similar as valid alternatives.

However, I still think homeschooling cannot teach the social aspects and dynamics of a group of random people will have. Besides, if a kid is smart then he or she can help the students performing less well in - what ultimately are - trivial school tasks.

And you cant prove yours with anything but personal experiance! Unless you can show me statistics showing that homeschooled kids are equally social adept and such, your claims are just as useless.

John Taylor later found, using the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, "while half of the conventionally schooled children scored at or below the 50th percentile (in self-concept), only 10.3% of the home-schooling children did so."[48] He further stated that "the self-concept of home-schooling children is significantly higher (and very much so statistically) than that of children attending the conventional school. This has implications in the areas of academic achievement and socialization, to mention only two. These areas have been found to parallel self-concept. Regarding socialization, Taylor's results would mean that very few home-schooling children are socially deprived. He claims that critics who speak out against home schooling on the basis of social deprivation are actually addressing an area which favors home schoolers.

In 2003, the National Home Education Research Institute conducted a survey of 7,300 U.S. adults who had been homeschooled (5,000 for more than seven years). Their findings included:

* Homeschool graduates are active and involved in their communities. 71% participate in an ongoing community service activity, like coaching a sports team, volunteering at a school, or working with a church or neighborhood association, compared with 37% of U.S. adults of similar ages from a traditional education background.

* Homeschool graduates are more involved in civic affairs and vote in much higher percentages than their peers. 76% of those surveyed between the ages of 18 and 24 voted within the last five years, compared with only 29% of the corresponding U.S. populace. The numbers are even greater in older age groups, with voting levels not falling below 95%, compared with a high of 53% for the corresponding U.S. populace.

* 58.9% report that they are "very happy" with life, compared with 27.6% for the general U.S. population. 73.2% find life "exciting", compared with 47.3%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Social_research

And you cant prove yours with anything but personal experiance! Unless you can show me statistics showing that homeschooled kids are equally social adept and such, your claims are just as useless.

The difference is you were stating (or at least implying) that the only reason people had for home-schooling was religious, Smunkee provided her personal experience to show that your generalization was untrue. I do not recall her saying that home-schooling was the best option for everyone, just that it was the best option for her kids.

Also, many schools are under-funded, especially since the passing of NCLB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Social_research

btw. I wouldn't trust wikipedia in an issue like this.

If that bit is written by a homeschool proponent then naturally it will be biased BS.

See, if you read my posts, you see my qualifiers where I say "If the school is well funded..."

....which is still you arrogantly proclaiming that you know what is best for all children.

Children are not little cardboard cut-outs.

Really? Where? I also havent said "You dont know anything because my experiance is different!"

Where has Smunkee?

What she has said is along the lines of, "My experience is very different from that and I actually have experience with homeschooling. Do you have evidence of your statements?"

And the closest you've come to evidence is a study that could be interpreted your way, but is not necessarily what you've been saying.

Once again. IF the school is well funded there is no reason (baring extraordinary circumstances, your kids academics if what you say is true would be....extra ordinary), other than religious ones to homeschool your kids.

What if the school is well-funded, but there is still a great deal of gang activity and the parents feel that their children are unsafe?

What if the school is well-funded, but the teachers suck?

You are assuming that "well-funded" = "perfect school". I went to one of the most well-funded and highest ranked school systems in my state (as far as public schools go). There were still some extraordinarily incompetent teachers. The only reason I generally didn't have to deal with them was the fact that they weren't allowed to teach advanced classes.

Are they forced to spontaneously interact with other kids or handle situations that they didn't want?
They are often forced to interact with children they don't like and are encouraged to solve their own conflicts.

That is in my opinion big part of which makes public schools so much superior - Living and functioning as a part of a motley group where everything doesn't always (ever?) go as planned.

My children are with other children at least 4 days a week during the school year. 3/4 of the time I am not with them.


I sort of agree, however from another viewpoint. If the kid is disruptive and/or has too many special needs - be they handicaps or special talents (true geniuses, special athletic/artistic skill) - then he or she should have homeschooling or something similar as valid alternatives.

Exactly.
However, I still think homeschooling cannot teach the social aspects and dynamics of a group of random people will have. Besides, if a kid is smart then he or she can help the students performing less well in what - ultimately - are trivial school tasks.
There have been studies that have proved otherwise. However, a child in a class with other children at a private college classroom with a certified teacher isn't much different than a child in a classroom at a public school with a certified teacher, is it?

Okay, so when I asked for proof and you were unable to back up your claims, then your claims become useless.

btw. I wouldn't trust wikipedia in an issue like this.

If that bit is written by a homeschool proponent then naturally it will be biased BS.

Especilly considering that they dont compare those statisitcs to those who went to conventional schools.

btw. I wouldn't trust wikipedia in an issue like this.

If that bit is written by a homeschool proponent then naturally it will be biased BS.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray1997/04.asp

Warning, this is a PDF (http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/rudner1999/HSWorksAudioTranscript.pdf)



Edit: From the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling#Criticism)
Criticism

[edit] Philosophical and political opposition

Opposition comes from varied sources, including organizations of teachers and school districts. The National Education Association, a US teachers' professional association and union, opposes homeschooling, although in recent years it has not been as outspoken. The NEA has, in turn, been criticized for its opposition of homeschooling by putting its own interests ahead of students.

Opponents state concerns falling into several categories: academic quality and completeness; reduced funding for public schools; lack of socialization with peers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds; fear of religious or social extremism; that homeschool curricula often exclude critical subjects; that parents are sheltering their children, or denying them opportunities that are their right such as social development, or providing an unfair advantage over students whose parents lack the time or money to homeschool; existence of parallel societies not fitting under the Progressive conception of citizenship and national community. [50]

Some scholars see potential civic dangers in certain forms of homeschooling. Rob Reich, author of "Educational Leadership", for example, writes that homeschool can potentially give students a very one-sided view of things, as their parents may, even unwittingly, block or diminish all points of view but their own in teaching. This may make students unable to think for themselves or to adapt to multiple points of view. He also argues that part of being a citizen is having something in common with fellow citizens, and homeschool diminishes that by reducing students' contact with peers. In short, while homeschooling can be good, Reich warns that those practicing it must avoid these dangers.[51]

Gallup polls of American voters have shown a significant change in attitude in the last twenty years, from 73% opposed to home education in 1985 to 54% opposed in 2001.[52]

[edit] Criticism of supportive achievement studies

Although there are studies that conclude that homeschooled students on average do well on standardized tests,[53] these studies generally compare voluntary homeschool testing with mandatory public-school testing. The study organizers cannot require testing. Homeschooled students are not subject to the testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Some states require testing for homeschooled students and some do not; many that do require testing let homeschooling parents choose from more than one evaluation method. Since testing is not required, homeschoolers taking the tests are self-selected, which biases the statistical results. Therefore, the progress of homeschooled students cannot be compared with that of students in public schools.

The demographics of homeschooling are difficult to compare to traditional schools, or even to define. Agencies, parents, and studies may disagree as to which students "count" as homeschooled. Some people have argued that homeschooled students, especially those who are likely to be tested, are an atypical group whose parents care strongly about their education and would also do well in a conventional school.

[edit] Financial obligations

There may be a financial impact on families in addition to the cost of school supplies and curriculum materials, as one partner may have to forego full- or part-time employment to stay home and homeschool the students in question (see Cost to Families, above). In the long run, homeschooling may mean that there is an overall higher cost to a family over time, although, as discussed in "Cost to Families," the majority of families spend less than $400 per student.

Some families in which one partner forgoes work outside the home compensate by running a business as a family or working from home. Other families make arrangements which allow both parents to work outside the home, whether by enlisting the help of friends or relatives during the hours in which the adults are working, arranging for each spouse to work different hours, or through other means.

However, many families never planned on bringing in two incomes and simply live within the means provided by a single income.

The tangible costs associated with homeschooling are as variable as the reasons and philosophical approaches. Scholastic Achievement and Demographic Characteristics of Home School Students in 1998, Lawrence M. Rudner, Table 2.12, tracked expenditures running from less than $200 to greater than $2000, per student.[54] Notably, the three largest categories were the lowest three levels of expenditure. Students in the $200 or less category were in third – 17.9% of all students – $400-$599 was second – with 21.5% – the largest single category, at 33.8%, was the $200-$399 range. The highest 5 expenditure categories combined – ranging from $600 to $2000 per student – amount to 25.1% of the total, and only 2% of homeschool students lived in households that spent $2000 and over.

All of these levels were well below the U.S. national average expenditure for public school students in 1998; $6200-$6500 per student.[55] The majority utilized less than 10% of public school expenditures.

*sigh*


Once again. IF the school is well funded there is no reason (baring extraordinary circumstances, your kids academics if what you say is true would be....extra ordinary), other than religious ones to homeschool your kids.

As an aside, I have a feeling the reason your kids were not allowed into high school is because maturity and mental development are just as important. And Im sure a first grader fails in the above criteria. This is largely irrelevent, just an aside.

What about travelling/moving a lot, living in an area far away from schools, being a fully capable student but choosing a career path that is not usually part of school ciriculum, or perhaps you have proven yourself uncapable of learning in an environment with so many social distractions.

I know one girl who is heavily into piano, classical voice, and ballet. She lives 20 minutes from the nearest school. She went to school until she was about 8 and then the comuting all day from school to dance to piano was taking up too much time.

I know one guy who fail grade 10 and his parents got a tutor and home schooled so that they would be sure he wasn't skipping classes and not paying attention to the lessons.

....which is still you arrogantly proclaiming that you know what is best for all children.

Children are not little cardboard cut-outs.



Where has Smunkee?

What she has said is along the lines of, "My experience is very different from that and I actually have experience with homeschooling. Do you have evidence of your statements?"

And the closest you've come to evidence is a study that could be interpreted your way, but is not necessarily what you've been saying.



What if the school is well-funded, but there is still a great deal of gang activity and the parents feel that their children are unsafe?

What if the school is well-funded, but the teachers suck?

You are assuming that "well-funded" = "perfect school". I went to one of the most well-funded and highest ranked school systems in my state (as far as public schools go). There were still some extraordinarily incompetent teachers. The only reason I generally didn't have to deal with them was the fact that they weren't allowed to teach advanced classes.


Wow. I could go through this thread and show you that youre...incorrect in a lot of what you said, but I dont think it would really do much. So Im not going to bother.


Yep. Im arrogant. I think I know whats best for teh babies. There you go.

btw. I wouldn't trust wikipedia in an issue like this.

If that bit is written by a homeschool proponent then naturally it will be biased BS.

Those are snippets from studies, one of which KoL decided to use as "proof" that the "majority" of homeschoolers do so to religiously indoctrinate, even though only 30% said religion was a reason they homeschooled.

It's either an unbaised study or it's not.

I have the text of the other study somewhere but it's not on the computer I'm using right now.

They are often forced to interact with children they don't like and are encouraged to solve their own conflicts.
Encouraged? *insert rofl smiley here*

There have been studies that have proved otherwise.
Show me one global - or at least one multinational western world - study.

Just for clarification, I don't live in USA - I live in a country whose relatively homogenic public school system constantly produces top 10 PISA results in each category.

But is the nearest school several hundred miles away? in the city? no, but is hazard only measured by distance?

Once again. IF the school is well funded there is no reason (baring extraordinary circumstances, your kids academics if what you say is true would be....extra ordinary), other than religious ones to homeschool your kids. Thats my point. Im saying that if all the schools were well funded, homeschooling should become illegal.
maybe I'm reading your posts wrong, but it sounds like you're saying...

if all the problems people see with the Public Education system were fixed, then there would be NO good reason for homeschooling.

that's like saying, If we made everyone in every country live together in peace, then war itself would be illegal.

Having a well funded education system does not mean that all the problems would be fixed.

for example, your next paragraph.

As an aside, I have a feeling the reason your kids were not allowed into high school is because maturity and mental development are just as important. And Im sure a first grader fails in the above criteria. This is largely irrelevent, just an aside. if you cannot grasp the idea that a first grader could have the maturity and mental development for High School, why would the board of education? Even if they were well funded?

btw. I wouldn't trust wikipedia in an issue like this.

If that bit is written by a homeschool proponent then naturally it will be biased BS.

You know wikipedia pages have reference links at the bottom right? (Ideally, posters would link directly to them - though I can't say I've ever gone to such effort)

Those are snippets from studies, one of which KoL decided to use as "proof" that the "majority" of homeschoolers do so to religiously indoctrinate, even though only 30% said religion was a reason they homeschooled.

It's either an unbaised study or it's not.

I have the text of the other study somewhere but it's not on the computer I'm using right now.

The '99 study had 12% of homeschooling parents listing objections to the curriculum of public schools as a reason while 38.4% listed "religious reasons". It would suggest that even the 30% in the 2003 study who listed religion or morality were not necessarily objecting to what is being taught at public schools. Instead, they could have been wishing to have religious instruction as well as the rest of the normal curriculum.

I don't think any of us are going to deny the fact that some parents homeschool to shelter their children from the world and "protect" them from being exposed to secular ideas, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that these people are in the majority.

You know wikipedia pages have reference links at the bottom right? (Ideally, posters would link directly to them - though I can't say I've ever gone to such effort)

Yes, and those reference links are linked by the biased writers.

Net is full of material that qualifies as wiki-source however that doesn't make them - or Wikipedia - unbiased.

Yes, and those reference links are linked by the biased writers.

Net is full of material that qualifies as wiki-source however that doesn't make them - or Wikipedia - unbiased.

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

I can't get much more unbiased.

Encouraged? http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/rotflol.gif

Done.

Yes, and those reference links are linked by the biased writers.

Net is full of material that qualifies as wiki-source however that doesn't make them - or Wikipedia - unbiased.

and people hold their own opinions.

so does that make news writers and news casters biased?

Encouraged? *insert rofl smiley here*
I don't understand your laughing.


Show me one global - or at least one multinational western world - study.

Just for clarification, I don't live in USA - I live in a country whose relatively homogenic public school system constantly produces top 10 PISA results in each category.
I'm not aware of any such study.

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

I can't get much more unbiased.

tl;dr

But, then I'm not one you need to convince since I agree with you. :D

No, this is the dark side of one instance of homeschooling, as practiced by one particular parent.



Sounds like a lot of public schools to me.

Lovely how you took that out of context. That one particular parent can be multiplied by many. And that is the dark side of home-schooling, that some parents can completely isolate their children from everything they don't want them to know and carefully tailor their opinions for them.

As for public schools, they are as good as you, the public, make them.

tl;dr

But, then I'm not one you need to convince since I agree with you. :D
They won't read it either.

Yes, and those reference links are linked by the biased writers.

Duh. My point is that you can get a better idea of what bias may be present in the articles by finding out what the writers' sources were.

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

I can't get much more unbiased.

The bias depends on whether the study was made by people who were homeschooled or not - You can always bend results to enforce the idea you find favourable.

It's also not international study and absolute numbers are relatively small.

Still I'm not that surprised of the results: Average homeschooled kid outperforms average kid because average kid in average family is not homeschooled - There's a distinct bias towards middle-class and above married WASP in homeschooling ;)

btw.
Note

This report was supported with a grant from the Home School Legal Defense Association, Purcellville, Virginia. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

They won't read it either.

Probably not, I know I wouldn't bother, even if I didn't agree with you.

Duh. My point is that you can get a better idea of what bias may be present in the articles by finding out what the writers' sources were.
Ah, ok.

It's just that when Wiki is linked it is usually taken as primary source without criticism neither against the page itself or the sources.

I don't understand your laughing.
Were you homeschooled?

It might also be a gender thing, boys aren't or don't need to be encouraged to solve conflicts among themselves, they solve conflicts among themselves. ;)

Encouraging seems so...well...out of touch with the life of a kid that age.

The bias depends on whether the study was made by people who were homeschooled or not - You can always bend results to enforce the idea you find favourable.

It's also not international study and absolute numbers are relatively small.

Still I'm not that surprised of the results: Average homeschooled kid outperforms average kid because average kid in average family is not homeschooled - There's a distinct bias towards middle-class and above married WASP in homeschooling ;)

btw.
Note

This report was supported with a grant from the Home School Legal Defense Association, Purcellville, Virginia. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

I'd like KoL to provide an unbiased study to prove his assertion that homeschooled children are a homogeneous group of socially inept brainwashed masses.

I provided text from a few studies showing that homeschooled children grow up to be socially well adjusted, that they score higher on standardized tests than public schooled children, that they test a few grade levels ahead on average, and that they generally feel better about themselves than public school peers.

KoL has provided one study that doesn't prove his claims at all.

I'm waiting on more than "because I said so".

Ah, ok.

It's just that when Wiki is linked it is usually taken as primary source without criticism neither against the page itself or the sources.

Personally, when someone links to a wikipedia article, I read the article, and then go check out the sources, maybe you should start doing the same, rather than just bitching about people linking to wikipedia?

Were you homeschooled?
For a while I was.

It might also be a gender thing, boys aren't or don't need to be encouraged to solve conflicts among themselves, they solve conflicts among themselves. ;)
It's not a gender thing. Children in public schools here are told not to solve their own conflict, doing so gets them into trouble. When my children are with public school children and they get into conflict I have a barrage of children running in my direction "teacher! teacher! we need you!" I encourage them to figure it out for themselves. I never did understand where this "you need an adult to solve this" came from. My children are quite adept at finding compromise, when other adults and whining children don't interfere with the situation.

Encouraging seems so...well...out of touch with the life of a kid that age.
How many children do you have?

I'd like KoL to provide an unbiased study to prove his assertion that homeschooled children are a homogeneous group of socially inept brainwashed masses.

Well, while US school system is about as alien to me as, well, aliens the link you posted had this interesting statistic:

Table 2.7
Home School Students
Classified by Mother's Religion
Frequency Percent
Independent F:mental 5,119 25.1%
Baptist 5,072 24.4
Independent Charismatic 1,681 8.2
Roman Catholic 1,106 5.4
Assembly of God 838 4.1
Presbyterian 772 3.8
Reformed 685 3.4
Other Protestant 500 2.5
Pentecostal 459 2.2
Methodist 420 2.1
Lutheran 353 1.7
Other Christian 2,213 10.9
Other 1,572 6.2

Total 20,790 100.0%

edit:
(readable when quoting, can't be arsed to fix it any better)

edit2:
How many children do you have?
0 and probably will never have them.

I've more than occassionally watched over my nephews though so I know what kind of behaviour boys from age 1 to 14 have - The dynamics of the situations rarely require encouraging, unless you want them to actually do something useful ;)

I also remember my school days - You didn't run and tell if you ran into a conflict or problem. I have to admit it's been a while though ;)

Personally, when someone links to a wikipedia article, I read the article, and then go check out the sources, maybe you should start doing the same, rather than just bitching about people linking to wikipedia?
I don't bitch when people link wikipedia. I merely don't like when wikipedia 'opinion' is linked and quoted as source when the issue is controversial.

It's a good reference though and the basics are usually right.

But this is off-topic.

Well, while US school system is about as alien to me as, well, aliens the link you posted had this interesting statistic:

Table 2.7
Home School Students
Classified by Mother's Religion
Frequency Percent
Independent F:mental 5,119 25.1%
Baptist 5,072 24.4
Independent Charismatic 1,681 8.2
Roman Catholic 1,106 5.4
Assembly of God 838 4.1
Presbyterian 772 3.8
Reformed 685 3.4
Other Protestant 500 2.5
Pentecostal 459 2.2
Methodist 420 2.1
Lutheran 353 1.7
Other Christian 2,213 10.9
Other 1,572 6.2

Total 20,790 100.0%

edit:
(readable when quoting, can't be arsed to fix it any better)

except that is only a breakdown of the mother's religion of homschoolers. not the reason.

I don't bitch when people link wikipedia. I merely don't like when wikipedia 'opinion' is linked and quoted as source when the issue is controversial.

It's a good reference though and the basics are usually right.

But this is off-topic.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/threadjack.gif

Thats why you should take the effort to check out the articles sources.

IF the school is well funded there is no reason (baring extraordinary circumstances, your kids academics if what you say is true would be....extra ordinary), other than religious ones to homeschool your kids. Thats my point. Im saying that if all the schools were well funded, homeschooling should become illegal.
I don't think I could diisagree more. What if the school administration had a social agenda with which I disagreed?

KoL, I can certainly believe that Smunkee's kids are performing at high-school level in some areas. By the time I was seven, I was learning advanced physics concepts from tutors. And I take offense to you calling her a liar. I consider her a friend.

From what she's told us, Smunkee's kids sound like they are in dire need of special education. Performing far above their peers, some learning disabilities, and physical illness - I'd say she's done the best she could. What I'd describe her as doing is not becoming her kids' teacher, but their head of school. She sets the curriculum, finds teachers, and teaches those subjects she's qualified to do. She's also found a substitute for the social interaction that standard schools provide.

I won't deny that some homeschooled kids are sheltered. They may even be a significant minority. But the studies we've seen indicate that they probably aren't the majority, and many kids benefit from being homeschooled.

If the public schools were perfect, then I admit that religious reasons would be the only reasons to homeschool your kids. But they aren't. I doubt they can be. Maybe if the Department of Education had an annual budget of $1 trillion, but we'd probably nuke our economy in the process.

But if our school system was perfect, we'd have a generation of genius kids to rebuild said economy...

However, I still think homeschooling cannot teach the social aspects and dynamics of a group of random people will have. Besides, if a kid is smart then he or she can help the students performing less well in - what ultimately are - trivial school tasks.

I take issue with this statement. I went to public school for 7 1/2 years, and was home schooled 4 1/2 years (those were not consecutive - I had several long term illnesses as a child). I probably would be far smarter now had I just stuck with home schooling, but that's neither here nor there. My parents felt it was very important that I attend public schools as a child for the social dynamic aspect of it.

However, I did not learn the social dynamic aspect of it. Somehow, I missed the whole social development thing, even though being "forced" to interact. This is because public school doesn't force you to interact any more than home school does. If you so desire, you can remain in the shadows (so to speak) and avoid social situations.

I did that, and I have social problems to this day. Half of the people avoid me, and the other half are afraid of me. I'm not particularly scary looking, either.

At least with home school, if the parents are conscientious, as Smunkee appears to be, they can help their children in the areas that they are not good at, instead of those areas being ignored. There's too much hustle and bustle at (most) public schools for teachers to worry about things like that.

It has it´s pros and cons, as everything else. Home-schooled kids develop extraordinarily well and their knowledge of subject is equally if not superior to that of kids that go to regular school. The only thing I think they lack is associating themselves properly with kids their own age while growing up.

Now there is a much more black and white question, with a much more black and white answer.
No.

Hey, now. Don't paint the whole system with the same brush. Despite all of the bullshit being thrown at public education from every side, a lot of us are still working our asses off solely for the benefit of our students.

:rolleyes:


The dislike of the community aspect is arguablly another part of the religious aspect. Therefore, its grand total is 60%.


Your condescending attitude is also getting old. I hope thats not somethng your kids pick up on, otherwise thats a good enough reason to homeschool them. Out in the real world, talking down to people makes you rather...unpopular.

And yet, (and the irony burns) -- here you are doing it to Smunkee.

Most teachers aren't competent to be teachers either.

This \/

Because of course there are no state or country-wide certification tests, nor are there colleges devoted to training people to be educators, nor are there any courses one must need to pass, nor are there regular observations of the teachers by their superiors nor by outside sources to make sure they are, in fact, competent to be teachers, nor are there ongoing requirements to take courses after certification in order to keep their knowledge current.[/URL]

Thank you, Kat. As someone who just worked her ass off to get her credential this year, it drives me kind of nuts to hear people indiscriminately bash public school teachers when they have a very limited understanding about the system. As someone who became a teacher, in part, because I had such HORRIBLE experiences with teachers, I am one of the first to point out that there are indeed incompetant teachers in the country, and they can do a lot of damage. But there are a great number of excellent, qualified teachers who are dedicated to their jobs and their students. I know so many teachers who battle parents and administrators, who struggle to make ends meet on their salaries, who are up at dawn and home after dinner, day after day, because they care so much for their students and providing the best they can that all the crap is worth it.

Wow. I could go through this thread and show you that youre...incorrect in a lot of what you said, but I dont think it would really do much. So Im not going to bother.

Then you concede the point, being unable to provide proof?

I was home schooled for years. There is regulations, like state tests to make sure you are on grad level and the education is a little better. The only real bad thing is lack of socialization.

This \/



Thank you, Kat. As someone who just worked her ass off to get her credential this year, it drives me kind of nuts to hear people indiscriminately bash public school teachers when they have a very limited understanding about the system. As someone who became a teacher, in part, because I had such HORRIBLE experiences with teachers, I am one of the first to point out that there are indeed incompetant teachers in the country, and they can do a lot of damage. But there are a great number of excellent, qualified teachers who are dedicated to their jobs and their students. I know so many teachers who battle parents and administrators, who struggle to make ends meet on their salaries, who are up at dawn and home after dinner, day after day, because they care so much for their students and providing the best they can that all the crap is worth it.

Teaching is hard because you have people who expect you to do a job they rarely give you power to do. While substitute teaching I learned that I was responsible for things that I wasn't given the tools to do. Even when I could get 29 of them to pay attention the other 4 wouldn't and what could I do about the other 4? nothing. (not that it was easy to get the 29 all paying attention at once anyway.) There is so much bureaucracy it's stupid. If you can get out at the end of the day and 50% of the class learned something, you're doing better than I felt like I was. haha. I only had one class for 2 months while their teacher was on maternity leave.........they weren't bad kids, it was just, too hard to corral them all. I get the feeling that none of them wanted to be there......to tell the truth I wouldn't want to be there either. I got most of the ones that were behind caught up, kept the ones that were caught up interested and kinda helped the few ahead......but mostly, it was damage control.

Is it a good idea? Absolutely. I wholeheartedly believe I received a better education from home than I would in public school.

KoL, I issue a challenge. Either you show me where Smunkee says that, or I call BS.

To account for the possibility that you have just gone to sleep, I will give you 24 hours. If, by 2100 GMT tomorrow, you have not found a quote, I will call BS.

Hey, now. Don't paint the whole system with the same brush. Despite all of the bullshit being thrown at public education from every side, a lot of us are still working our asses off solely for the benefit of our students.

If I implied that teachers don't care about their students development - intellectual, social, emotional, etc - i didn't really mean that. I meant that teachers either don't have the time or simply don't notice when a student is lagging in one of these... less easily testable areas.

I was home schooled for years. There is regulations, like state tests to make sure you are on grad level and the education is a little better. The only real bad thing is lack of socialization.

The good news is there are groups of homeschoolers who get together for socialization. Funny, they are so much better adapted and less rowdy than public school educated children.

If I implied that teachers don't care about their students development - intellectual, social, emotional, etc - i didn't really mean that. I meant that teachers either don't have the time or simply don't notice when a student is lagging in one of these... less easily testable areas.

I don't know about the situation where you live, but it was definitely not this way at my school. Teachers were very involved, there was homework help offered by the school that was supervised by teachers, which in effect would mean that whenever you where having problems with any one subject, you could check with the teacher again in a one-on-one, or better yet with another teacher who taught the same subject (a slightly different explanation can sometimes work wonders), teachers would not only notice a student lagging behind but would try and assist in any way possible.
I've been to my home town last year, and met my 7th grade German teacher, who not only recognised me in the street (a bit embarassing, cause I didn't) but remembered my name and a good deal of my academic history as well.

I don't know about the situation where you live, but it was definitely not this way at my school. Teachers were very involved, there was homework help offered by the school that was supervised by teachers, which in effect would mean that whenever you where having problems with any one subject, you could check with the teacher again in a one-on-one, or better yet with another teacher who taught the same subject (a slightly different explanation can sometimes work wonders), teachers would not only notice a student lagging behind but would try and assist in any way possible.

Well, I really meant areas like social/emotional development, that are not easily testable. If you were lagging in history or math, those are testable easily.

I went to the best public school in all of Arkansas, which is kind of like the best snowboarding retreat in all of Jamaica.

I was home schooled for years. There is regulations, like state tests to make sure you are on grad level and the education is a little better. The only real bad thing is lack of socialization.Hmm, I never had to take any state tests or anything. My mom just had to file reports to the school district, and that was it.

Also, people can get socialization from a lot of places besides school. I had more socialization than my public school friends did.

It's really rather funny that we've had seventeen pages of debate on a question to which the answer ought to be obvious - some kids do better in public school, some kids do better in private school, and some kids do better homeschooled. Some people homeschool for good reasons, and some for stupid reasons. There is nothing fundamentally good or bad about being homeschooled - it's entirely dependent on the specific child and the specific situation. I have never attended public school, because my parents were bright enough to realize that I would be miserable there. Because my parents also both worked full-time, they went to a fair amount of effort to find private schools to which I could get scholarships. Even then, from 1st-6th grade I was stuck in a school far below my academic level, and I have no doubt I would have been better off being homeschooled during those years, had it been possible. I also have no doubt that the school I attended from 7th-12th grade was a far better alternative than homeschooling would have been for me. (Further, I will note that there were other students at both of these schools who functioned very well or very poorly, because, as I said before, there is no one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter education that will work for every child in the world.)

Well, I really meant areas like social/emotional development, that are not easily testable. If you were lagging in history or math, those are testable easily.

I went to the best public school in all of Arkansas, which is kind of like the best snowboarding retreat in all of Jamaica.

And I wasn't only referring to subject matters, either.
Some of my teachers knew me better back then than either of my parents.

If I implied that teachers don't care about their students development - intellectual, social, emotional, etc - i didn't really mean that. I meant that teachers either don't have the time or simply don't notice when a student is lagging in one of these... less easily testable areas.

I would agree that with the demands put on today's public school teachers, there is not enough time in the day to deal appropriately with every problem. Classroom sizes are once again increasing, budgets are reducing... etc etc.

It's also difficult to really tackle some of the emotional/social issues that arise with students as a teacher, especially because of parent involvement. I have been yelled at by parents and administrators alike for trying to mediate disputes between gradeschool girls who came to me in tears. I've faced thinly-veiled criticism from my principal for reporting abuse to CPS because it was "already being handled" by someone else--even though I am legally obligated to make such a report if a student tells me about such abuse. Hell, I've been yelled at by parents for seating their kid next to someone he/she didn't like. Obviously these are problems that would not exist in a homeschooling environment---but imagine all the other problems that would.

The only thing I think they lack is associating themselves properly with kids their own age while growing up.

And depending upon the 'curriculum' that isn't even necessarily so.

It's really rather funny that we've had seventeen pages of debate on a question to which the answer ought to be obvious - some kids do better in public school, some kids do better in private school, and some kids do better homeschooled. Some people homeschool for good reasons, and some for stupid reasons. There is nothing fundamentally good or bad about being homeschooled - it's entirely dependent on the specific child and the specific situation.

Which is exactly what those of us supporting home-schooling have been saying the entire time.

I understand where KoL's prejudice comes from, most of the home-school situations I have encountered IRL have been of the variety that he believes to be the majority, I also thought it to be the majority. Even if it was, that doesn't change the fact that it simply is a better choice for some.

Homeschooling seems like it would be a good thing for some kids. I know that Florida offers online courses for free to all middle school and high school students, a lot of the people who use it use it to take health or something like that to clear up an elective for school, to take a class that's offered online but not at the school that they go to (like Chinese is offered online but not at any of the schools around here, same with some computer science classes, and Latin is only offered in one school in this county), or to take a class that is offered at the school but conflicts with another class (for example, my AP Latin Vergil class is offered at the same time as the only AP Biology class at my school, so I took AP Biology online. It was very good and the teacher communicated with me often through e-mail, IM, and phone and was available most of the time to answer questions). I know one girl who has taken 11 classes this year, 7 at school and 4 online, and she is graduating a year early.

Homeschool students can use Florida Virtual School for free, too. 21% of students who use it are homeschooled and 72% are from public schools, and FLVS offers 90 different classes. I wish I had known about it earlier in high school, I could have used it to take some other electives that seem really interesting to me but either aren't offered at my school or were less important to me than the classes I chose.

I'm at one of the best schools in my county but still only between 30%-40% of students pass the state-wide reading test in 10th grade in each year. It's at the high end of that range for my school and at the low end for the county on average. The advanced classes are taught very well but the remedial and average classes are not.

As for the social aspect, I enjoy being with the students in the advanced classes. They are generally well-behaved, with a few notable exceptions, and I get along with them very well. Even the students in the French I class I am in, and in the Latin II class that I can observe (since I'm the only AP Latin student at my school, I sit in the back of the room and translate the passages on the AP syllabus for most of the time. Since I'm self-motivated and I both enjoy and am skilled at translating, this works very well for me but probably would not for a lot of students), the students seem fairly well-behaved, although they are more rowdy and less mature than the students in the advanced classes.

The people I meet in the halls are less mature, and these are the ones who will make fun of me and try to bother me and annoy me no matter how nice I try to be or what I try to do. Which I guess has served to teach me that most people in the real world are mean and will try to hurt you if given a chance. But then there will always be the people who are nice and friendly and will smile at me and wave to me in the halls regardless of their status as a "popular" kid and mine as kind of a nerd and loner. The "clique" sort of thing that I see sometimes and that was extremely common in middle school seems mostly absent among the students in the AP classes.

So... I'm glad I went to the school I did, but I can see where for some students homeschooling may be the better option.

And depending upon the 'curriculum' that isn't even necessarily so.

*nod*
:)