rob_b recently started a debate about homework, which got me thinking. What type of schooling provides the best education? I am homeschooled myself, and am a strong believer in homeschooling. What are your thoughts?

When I was young, I went to private schools. My opinion is that private schools offer a better education as teachers are paying more attention and have a higher grade education themselves. Also, pupils in private schools are more civilized. You don't really see them beating the hell out of each other in recess, although, some public schools are better.

Being homeschooled is not a bad thing, just make sure you learn the right things.

Damn! I voted public when I meant to check the private one..

Private has to be better for 1 simple reason - the teacher to student ratio is about 2/3 (or less) of public schools.

This means when kids struggle the teacher has time to help them out, or when a kid excels the teacher can recognise this and foster the talent.

Well, the other basic reason is that private pays more so can recruit the best teachers.

putting a side the co ed vs single sex debate that usually forms the basis of the private vs public argument (in my country anyway) the 2 reasons above out way any social or other factors.

Reason 1 is why home school kids usually do better than public too, despite not being taught by qualified teachers (a generalisation I know)


my 2 cents worth.

I would personally prefer, from personal experience, a public school. Well, first, it depends on what public school you're going to, not all are all that bad. Then, the advantage of a public schools, is that you get to know more people, you will begin to learn the different natures of many different people, you learn to adapt, to act appropriately with many situations.

If it's only a private school with few students compared to public schools, you don't really learn that much social life skills. Mostly, I'd say social life skills are one of the most important skills to have, because they can cover nearly every other skill.

For instance: You're not good in math (just a simple example) but you have a friend who is a complete expert, of course you can ask for his help (I don't mean cheating, or maybe I might) either in teaching you, or helping with your problem. Of course the case would be different if the person is not used to deal with different kinds of people.

But I have no call to say which school type is best, people have different characteristics, that make one type best for some, and another type best for the rest. However, I would greatly prefer a public school, really.

Well, I suppose I should have given my reasoning for supporting homeschooling.
Number One: My teacher:student ratio is 1:2.

Number Two: My teacher is always available for questions.

Number Three: I am a straight A student, and I get done with my work quickly. Because I homeschool, I am able to finish my schoolwork in 2 hours, learning everything I need to without sitting around doing nothing for 6 more hours.

Number Four: Many people do not know this, but many homeschoolers (including myself) attend a "homeschool Co-op", where other homeschoolers meet, socialize, and are even taught certain classes. For example, I am a sophomore now. I plan on starting college early, though, so last year the co-op taught an ACT preparation class, which I, along with 4 other students, attended.

There are also homeschool sports teams, homeschool proms, and even homeschool graduation ceremonies. I get plenty of socialization, not only from the co-op, but from church, going to my friends' houses, and even posting things here.

Before I state my last reason for liking homeschooling, I would like to preface it by saying it involves religion, but I am not arguing about religion itself.

My last reason for liking homeschooling is that it allows me to freely practise my religious freedoms. Even my schoolbooks are my religion! I do, however, study other religions, and evolution, so it is not like I am being brainwashed. Well, that's all folks!

(Please don't kill me oh great Moderators!)

Personally, I think it's hard to say which one's best unless you've experienced them all for yourself. You can hardly say you get to socialise more in a public school than in a private school, unless you've been to both and know how much you get to socialise at each one. Then of course there's the fact that every school is different, and so can't really be lumped together as one. for example I have a friend who goes to a private school with about 1300 pupils, while the public school I went to only had 1000. And the private school my brother goes to only has 200. They're all different, and you can't make any claims about all of them, only about specific schools you know about.

Well those seem like good reasons, my main concern was the social aspect but you covered that some.
It still has to be a big change if you decide to go to a major university, I remember talking to some class mates in college that went to smaller schools & it was a big adjustment for them (would have to be bigger for you).
You may think you’re all that in a 5A high school that averages 35 students per class but wait till you’re in a class with 75+ you really have to excel to stand out.
You may want to try a junior college first, and then transfer. You may be smart enough but the plain truth is many students just aren’t ready yet. They get their first taste of freedom & can’t handle it, they party to hard & study to little.

I lernded alls da infomashun i needed on da streets yo. it da best kinda edukashun dar iz!

I see your point, thanks for the suggestion.

Oh, one thing I neglected to mention is that I have also attended public school off and on. My education has been a little weird.
Kindergarten I was homeschooled, first grade I was in public school, I was advanced past second grade to third grade gifted program, fourth grade I was homeschooled, fifth, sixth, and seventh I was in public school, and 8th through 10th I was homeschooled. I am currently in 10th grade, and will graduate from highschool next year because I am homeschooled.
Just thought I would mention that in case anyone thought I was judging public school unfairly because I had never attended it.

Hoots, 75+ in a class? I went to a public school, the largest class I was ever in was 32, and even that was considered very big. Same goes for various friends who went to different schools. So, either you're wildly exaggerating, or the American school system is very different to that of the UK. And poorer too, if they have classes of 75+. How the hell is anyone supposed to learn anything in a class like that?

He's talking about college, not high school. In college, most your classes will feature you sitting in a large auditorium with a bunch of other people listening to the professor lecture for 1-3 hours about the given subject. If you are talking about college, then my only answer is that most Europeans aren't smart enough for college.

Ah, I thought he was still talking about school. My mistake.

Umm...college is school...Maybe I wasn't so far off with my comment...

The biggest advantages I can see for homeschooling are:
1: Material can be presented in whichever form the student does best with.
2: If a student has mastered an area, they can immediately move on. If they have a hard time with something, extra time can be devoted to it.
3: The teachers have a vested interest in the success of an individual student.

Once high-school level is reached, it's difficult for one person to have an in-depth knowledge of all fields covered...but this is the Information Age, and most questions can be answered within a few minutes.

@Abramul: there's a few things I'd like to comment about your view of home schooling advantages.

1: Concentrating on making things very appealing for the students is very likely to render them incapable to adapt to different environments and conditions. He is unlikely to find the perfectly personalized job position that would suit him with all the commodities he had while home schooling.

2: I can't really object to that, I'd just add that it would require frequent retesting of the area as it is completely redundant for someone to learn something if he's going to forget it in a few months. Extended periods of devotion to an area that has already been mastered ensures that the achieved mastery is long-lived.

3: The ideal teacher in a public school should vest interest in his students as well. I'm sure everyone will recognize the seldomness of such teachers in reality as the main problem. But in good schools such professors are quite more probable to come by. Why? Because students inspire their teachers. In my experience good schools are the ones with good teachers rather than ones with a large budget. A good school attracts good students. Good students inspire their teachers because they make their job feel worthwhile and force them to think by asking smart questions and showing interest. Because of that, a good school becomes better - and then it attracts more good students, making teachers even more inspired, which in turn makes it an even better school. Also the spirit of friendly competition motivates the students to be better and leads to students who learn more without feeling as if it's work. It all sums up to a sort of circulus vitiosus.
This makes the teachers in the good public schools (or private schools, but due to the fact that in Croatia most, if not practically all students that go to private schools go there to get formal education without educating themselves - since they are paying, it is, because of some weird reasons, expected that they don't have to know so much to achieve a degree) behave almost ideally.

Now something to add on my own. Homeschooling supposedly gives you an advantage because you don't have to spend time listening to lessons on area you've already mastered. I may be wrong but when I look at myself as an example I can't really see how could I possibly make better use out of the additional hours I'd get if I were homeschooled. It only takes me a minimal amount of time to deal with homework and studying for school and I spend most of my study time studying something extra the usual school program, sometimes on a much higher level that my current formal education.

You could say that I actually homeschool myself, but attend a public school at the same time. I don't really see any better option than this. School didn't ever stand in the way of my self-teaching. Nor did my self-teaching ever stand in the way of school. When there are questions I fail to find answers to in books or on the internet, I turn to my professors or, more often, my senior colleagues. By interacting (by this I'm not referring to the socialization, rather to a form of mentor-student) with a significantly larger number of people I fell advantaged to people who are in contact only with their few private teachers. Even if private teachers are slightly, or more-than-slightly better, the variety of different viewpoints on the same matter proves to be much more useful.

There is a good analogy here. If you were given two pictures showing the frontal and the top view of an object, you'd get some idea about how the object looks in truth, but your idea would be much closer to the truth if you were given 5, 10 or 20 pictures, all taken from different standpoints. One of the pictures might be in color, other one with great sharpness, high contrast, structural analysis data or something else. The more info you have on hand the better you can depict yourself the object.

Just one more thing to add, public schools (and private ones, I can't judge them all just because the ones in my country ) are socially favorable because a gifted student in a fertile environment will induce giftedness in others, increasing possibility of finding their inspiration just because a positive example is around.

I'd write more but it's much too late (5AM) and I really ought to go to sleep.

P.S. freddy, please don't think of this as an attack on your way of education. I simply see it as less good for me and think it less favorable to the universal knowledge than the "regular" forms of schooling. I can agree to the fact that there are some exceptions - people who are better off home schooling. I just don't recognize this as a universally better solution.

Well, this is a debate, isn't it? It would be a bit boring if everyone agreed with me. To be honest, a lot of what you said makes sense. The only problem is location. I moved to a small town in Missouri after living in San Diego, California. To be even more honest, were I still living in San Diego, I might agree with you that public schooling is better. In Missouri, however, the school systems just plain suck, to put it bluntly. The teacher are underpaid, meaning we get the rejects better schools won't take. The parents couldn't care less about what their children are learning, and the kids are totally undisciplined. Well, that is the case at my town's public school system, anyway.

The part about not knowing what to do with your free time, well, I just read a lot. Oh, and play Oblivion, of course.

In any case, my point of view, as yours seems to be, is that different types of school are better for different students. I never claimed homeschooling was the best option for everyone, although I did neglect to make that clear.

Ninja is absolutely correct, & I did differentiate between high school & a major university & suggested a junior college to freddycashmercury.
Not because I think he’s dumb, stupid or can’t handle the curriculum of a major university, it’s the social aspect of it I was referring to that’s all.

In my occupation (engineering world) I have come across many highly intelligent people that can cram numbers & recall information at the drop of a hat. But if you put them in a public environment you would think that they were retarded (honestly after I thinking about it I guess they are in some way) their social skills have never developed, they are very intelligent yet introverted.
I think of my friends’ brother, he wasn’t that bad but he graduated high school 2 years early because he was smart & he could do it. Then he went to Baylor University, a fairly big school but not even that much of a party school & it does turn out some of the best doctors & lawyers. Well he didn’t last one year, not because he’s not smart enough, no way, he just wasn’t ready for it; IT’S A BIG CHANGE that’s an advantage of junior college. The disadvantage is that you will find that some people are there because they can’t get into a university & can pull you down. So there’s a flip side to the coin.
Sorry, I guess this doesn’t help you that much, but at least it lets you know what you’re up against.

From what I have seen,
Public and Private are pretty much equal.

I currently attend a public school, but from what I have
heard about private schools, they're almost the same.

Just because you have to pay to get in doesn't make the kid
more civilized or smart. It's up to the student themselves
to use the resources at hand.

Sadly private schools do get more funding, so yes,
private would have better facilities, I wont say public and private
are equal on that area.

So I guess on the materials part of the debate Private wins,
also in teacher:student, opportunities, class sizes...

Seems like Private has the best for all....
But I attend a Public school and I am just as smart if not
smarter than most kids at either because,
I know how to use the resources at hand....

Overall,
It's really up to the student as to which is better.

Materialistically speaking: Private Pwns Public.
At least in Australia anyways...

Having my mom and dad as teachers, and my grandparents as artists, i have to go to private schools. I am going to a private school next year for high school. I perfer private due to this formula...

Smarter kids=less idiots,duh,=A better education and thinking space for myself.

Haha, i find it hilarious how middle schools in Vegas are Pbs(positive behavior schools) And i see students thrown into bathrooms and beaten up every period....

I voted Other just to pe a pest. No, really though, I think a hybrid of home and private education coupled with an infrastructure supported by public money might begin to improve education. Much of the funds for education go towards transporting student to and from centralized institutions. If some of the school time could be spent at home and the centralized class rooms where time shared perhaps class sizes could be reduced and students could enjoy more individualized attention. Of course, the one problem with that scenario is that most modern homes can not afford the luxury of a dedicated parent. It's a shame, but thats where the "private part kicks in in the form of an in-home education system based on the internet and perhaps employer supported home time for parents who choose to be involved.

Private schools have the advantage of greater autonomy to change and grow as they see fit. They compete for students and money so they should be more of a living entity that acts according to the truth than the government schools are.

I know this is probably impossible but to put the incentive in the right place I suggest the bulk of an institutions rating and funding should depend on where the students end up in say 15 years. Its not about test scores its about results. Isn't it?


The above is just rambling brainstorming. It's badly in need of organization and filling out. But I gotta go...

Homeschooling? HELL NO. This is another one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but is an utter disaster in practice.

1) Very, very few people have the skills and knowledge necessary to give a proper general education. Even those of us who have high-level knowledge of specific subjects (engineering, math, physics, in my case) rarely have the same knowledge in all of the areas required. I could teach someone every form of math from basic addition to university-level calculus, but I know almost nothing about literature. And the problem only gets worse when you realize that knowing a subject is not the same as being able to teach it... go to any serious university classes, and you'll learn this far too well: there are many people who are brilliant in their fields, but who just suck at teaching that knowledge to others. Oh yeah, and just to beat the dead horse a bit more, how many families have enough money that they can afford to have this brilliant, well-educated parent staying home teaching full-time?

2) Many people use homeschooling as an excuse to second-guess the experts on what is true, and what their children really need to learn. Similarly to point #1, most people simply do not have the knowledge to make an informed decision on this. And making the problem worse, many of them are proud of this fact. Consider something like the "debate" over creationism vs. evolution, in the scientific community (the experts who actually matter), there is no debate, evolution is as solid a theory as the theory that disease is caused by bacteria. In formal schools, the correct theory is taught, and schools are held accountable for any refusal to do so. But consider the general population, where there are plenty of people who refuse to accept this fact... if they homeschool their children, what is stopping them from giving their children a fundamentally flawed "theory" of creationism instead? Nothing, of course, and people do exactly that. Now skip forward a few years, when these children get out into the real world, and their lack of knowledge leaves them completely unqualified for any serious higher education.

3) It's much harder to hold homeschooling parents accountable for the content and quality of their teaching. While standardized end of course tests suck, regardless of whether they are used in schools or by parents, at least in schools you have normal grading and supervision to help out with this. Compare this to homeschooling parents... how do you make sure the parents aren't biased in their grading and making it too easy to get high grades? Public schools are bad enough in this country, and produce students that are horribly unqualified for the real world, the last thing we want to do is add more opportunities for students to fall behind.

You have obviously not done your research fully.




Okay, I kind of agree there. My mother, who teaches me, is an extremely intelligent lawyer. I have been gifted with both an excellent teacher and an (if I might say so myself) an above average intellect. I have, however, seen cases of homeschooling gone wrong. One, to be exact. It was because the parent was an alcoholic and got drunk instead of trying to teach her kids.



Well, homeschooling itself is incredibly inexpensive. My mother spent around maybe $1000 total for my sister and I. This includes biology equipment and field trips.




Not everyone agrees that evolution is as solid as the "experts" say it is. I won't debate you on this, however, because this forum has banned religious discussions. Also, if your parents refuse to let you study alternate theories of creation, they're idiots. Plain and simple. I have studied evolution quite a bit myself, and have debated people on this topic before. Seriously, you'd have to be an idiot not to consider all the facts before commiting to any belief system. Also, even evolutionists homeschool. One of the forums I belong to is a homeschool debate forum. At least 10% of the members are atheists.



Read this and tell me again that parents are letting their children cheat. If the parents were easy on the kids, these scores would be much lower.





Homeschooling is not synonymous with Christianity. It is a good alternative option to public schools.

So? Who cares what anyone besides the experts thinks. Their opinion matters about as much as my dog's opinion on the subject.

Of course everyone sees this point very clearly when it's a question of something besides science. If I said "not everyone believes what the 'experts' say about that 'murder is wrong and sends you to prison' theory, I'm going to teach my kids to kill people", you would expect me to be thrown in prison on criminal charges. If your doctor said "not everyone agrees that the theory of 'bacteria cause disease' is as solid as the 'experts' say it is" and refused to wash his hands before operating on you, you would demand he be thrown in court on malpractice charges, and into prison for reckless endangerment. Science is no different... the only people with a right to an opinion are the experts, the rest of you can just shut up and deal with it.



Nice strawman. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between not teaching something as fact, and banning someone from studying it themselves? The issue is not parents allowing their children to hear about things I don't approve of, it's teaching those factually incorrect things as if they were true. Because you know, that's what school is actually about, teaching what is true, not some vague un-structured independent study.

Of course it really isn't an issue, because there aren't any alternate theories of creation. Maybe if you weren't homeschooled, you would have a better understanding of what a scientific theory is, the standards for an explanation becoming one, and why the name is inappropriate in this case.



Nice strawman. You're completely missing the point here. My complaint is not just about evolution, evolution is just one convenient example of the problem I'm talking about. The issue is the lack of control over what is taught and the ability of parents to teach their children false information. Maybe you would understand a different example: communist parents (a completely non-religious ideology) have the ability to teach their children that communism is a wonderfully successful social system that solves all of the problems of modern society, and has worked perfectly in every country that has tried it. This is a problem.


And nice job slipping that insult in there. I'm glad you think I'm an idiot who hasn't considered the facts. Here's a hint for you: I have, and probably far more than you ever have.




Repeat after me: standardized tests suck. Standardized tests are essentially useless for judging real understanding of a subject, and useful only for making pretty graphs for over-paid government agencies to brag about. It doesn't matter if you go easy on children or not, standardized tests are such a joke that you can get away with pretty poor teaching and still have decent scores.





I never said it was. You're the one bringing in this strawman and trying to turn it into a religious debate (which is against the forum rules, as you probably know). All of my points apply equally well, no matter what the parents' religion is.

All right, we are at an impasse. We will probably never agree on this, and as you pointed out (although I had already pointed it out), religious debates are banned.

Just to clarify, when I said that not everyone agrees with the experts, I meant other experts disagree.

One quick question and then I'm done: Why are you so adamant that evolution be taught as fact? If you are right, believing evolution has no advantage. You can learn the science behind it without having to thrust your opinion on everyone. If, on the other hand, I am right, your soul is at risk.

That's as far as I'm going to go with this. We'll just have to agree to disagree on evolution or one of us will be banned.

What was meant by "how many can afford to have a parrent homeschool", is not very many households can afford to have one parrent not work and be there for their child, while only one parrent works.

This can be done with above average income households, or households where both parrents work but make a respectable sum - enough so that one or the other can take time off of work more than once (or twice) a week and teach material.

So for those who can - hats off. For the mass majority, it's public school because there isn't a financial option for anything else.

And I won't even get into how "well behaved" private school children are. From second hand knowledge (having a friend who was private schooled until high school where i met him) there is far more cruelty in private schools - older kids are larger bullies to the younger kids, as in many of the private schools, age groups aren't really segragated and everything from 1st grade up through high school are basically under one roof (or one campus, in general). I don't agree with that.

Most people always look at the cost and say "if it cost more, it's better" and "you get what you pay for", but I did very well in public school and have done very well on college. So yes my opinion is bias in that I had public school my whole life and have been sucessful, but than again everyone's opinions will be bais based on what they believe.

So is one better than the other? I don't know, but I do know that I would prefer to see any children I might have in the future to go to public school. (though I really don't intend to have any children).

Edit: (to freddycashmercury and Duskrider)
you two are hijacking the thread - cease and disist please. Bring up your conversation to each other in PMs if you would. we are talking about schooling.

The experts do not disagree. Among actual biologists (as opposed to preachers with 'biology degrees' granted by un-accredited creationist mail-order diploma mills), there is virtually unanimous agreement that the Theory of Evolution is correct. There are disagreements about the small details of the theory, but well over 95% (I believe the exact number is over 99%, but I'll quote the conservative number) of them agree that the theory itself is true.



Because it is fact. Gene frequencies in populations change over time. The evidence, both fossil and experimental, is un-arguable at the same level that the evidence for F=M*A is un-arguable. The Theory of Evolution is the currently accepted explanation for why these changes happen, and is as solid a theory as the theory that bacteria cause disease.

Seriously, this question is the same as asking "why are you so adamant that 2+2=4 be taught as fact?".



And you are completely wrong, for two reasons:

1) It is impossible to understand modern biology without understanding the Theory of Evolution. This is "optional" only in the same sense that understanding basic physics or how your goverment works are "optional". You can survive without that understanding, but you are completely unqualified for any work in the field, and just generally ignorant. As a parent, what right do you have to decide that your child will not be able to get a career in biology, go to medical school, etc?

2) Lack of understanding of evolution does have practical consequences. Just as one example, every time you go to a hospital and get antibiotics, you are trusting that the scientific theory is correct. But let's make it optional... we'll give you a choice of drugs. You can have the one developed assuming evolution is "just a theory", or you can have the one developed assuming that evolution and its consequences of drug resistant bacteria are true. I'd bet a lot of money you go with the second option.




No it is not. Evolution is a scientific theory, and is taught as a scientific theory. If it fails (and keep in mind, this is extremely unlikely), it fails as a scientific theory because of empirical evidence, not because of theology. If it fails, it will be replaced by an alternative scientific theory backed by empirical evidence, not theology. Your religion has nothing to do with it. In fact, plenty of people accept evolution without compromising their religious beliefs.

But theology is completely irrelevant here. The issue is homeschooling, and whether it can live up to the standards of traditional schools. Science, including biology and evolution, is a mandatory part of a child's education. This means teaching the accepted scientific theories, not whatever alternatives the parents feel like teaching. If a parent refuses to include evolution out of concern for their child's soul, my point is demonstrated quite nicely: that parent is not qualified to provide the education that we have decided children are entitled to.

Since there is no accountability for homeschoolers, this is a major issue.




No, we will not have to agree to disagree on evolution. You may accept the disagreement, but I do not. You are entirely wrong, and have no legitimate points to make. By making this concession, you admit that you have no factual evidence in support of your position, and can only preach at me (the action that is banned by forum rules). I, on the other hand, have nothing to fear from the forum rules, because my argument is not a religious one.

Sorry dude, but I consider evolution just as much of a religion as anything.


If you read my posts you will see that I never said the students should not be taught evolution, merely that they should not have it taught as the only valid theory. The only reason I don't want to debate this is because I am smart enough to pick my battles.

In any case, we are getting off topic. The questions is, Is homeschooling a valid option? Yes. Even if you think standardized tests suck, and I agree with you there, homeschoolers consistently do better in college than public schoolers.

Both scientists and priests would be deeply offended at that statement.

Ah, well I don't have any respect for priests. I am going to state this, not debate this: I don't agree with the modern chruch in many, many ways. One of these is priests/pastors.

As for scientists, well, I guess it depends on your definition of religion. I realize the majority of people would disagree with me, but evolution requires just as much faith as creation does.

Dictionary definition:

Evolution does none of these things.

By this definition, however, science itself is a religion. This part of the definition:



is optional.

You may consider it a religion, but you are wrong. It involves no supernatural elements, has nothing to say about your soul or any afterlife, says nothing about prayer and how to do it/who to do it to, says nothing about morality or how to live your life, and involves no faith. The only way to legitimately call evolution a religion is to make your definition of "religion" so uselessly broad that everything is a religion. And I mean everything... even basic statements like "I am writing something on this forum" or "force = mass * acceleration" would be a religious belief.



Evolution is taught as the only valid theory because it is the only valid theory. Maybe if you weren't homeschooled, you would understand what is required for something to be a scientific theory, and why none of the supposed "alternatives" come anywhere near this status.

The only "alternatives" to evolution are from theology, and theology has no place in science classes. If the parents are acting as a subsitute for the school, they must be held to the same standards as schools, and that means teaching evolution as the only legitimate theory. Any homeschooling system where parents are able to avoid this responsibility is a complete failure and should result in the children being removed from their parents and given to someone who will raise them properly. That kind of failed system should be treated no differently than parents that simply keep their kids at home and never teach them anything.



It's entirely on-topic, because evolution is a nice neat example of the failures of homeschooling to be held to the same standards as normal schools. Evolution is the only acceptable theory, and understanding it is necessary to get even the most basic understanding of modern biology. Additionally, teaching any other "alternative" presents fundamentally flawed definitions of "theory", the scientific method, and various other concepts critical to understanding modern science in general. Therefore any "education" that does not properly cover evolution is a failure.

Now, with that in mind, consider the two alternatives:


Normal schools are held accountable to very strict standards. Failure to meet them (for example, by refusing to properly teach evolution) results in either the school's license being revoked, or the individual teacher being fired, whichever is appropriate. Even if a teacher's students manage to pass the standardized tests, they can still be fired for refusing to teach the expected information.

Homeschooling parents are NOT held to the same standards. Parents are free to teach their children whatever they want, as long as they can pass the standardized tests (a very easy task). There is no accountability, if the parents screw things up, the children just end up with a failed "education" and lack of qualifications for the real world.

I am done with this debate. Call me a coward, chicken, stupid, whatever the heck you feel like, but I'm done. You've got to pick your battles. The end.

Concession accepted.


Thank you for admitting that you have no actual facts on your side, and are just preaching your personal opinion. I hope this is also your concession that homeschooling in general is a fundamentally broken concept, and should not be allowed?

Did I say I conceded? Nope. I just said I am done with this particular debate.

You don't need to say the word "conceded", your actions speak louder than any words. We have two possible options for why you would post this:


1) You know you are wrong, but won't admit it, and realize that if you keep posting you are only going to embarass yourself more and more.

2) You know you are wrong on the factual questions, and have only theology. Since preaching at me is against forum rules, you have no points left to make, and have to remove yourself from the debate. And given that this is a discussion of homeschooling, where the parents act as a substitute for an entirely secular state, this is also a concession that I am right.


If you actually had any legitimate points left to make rather than conceding, you would make them. Since you do not, the conclusion is obvious.

Or I could be bored. I'm a bit annoying that way. If you really want to continue this debate, got to this forum. It's (convienently) a Homeschool Debate forum, chock full of educated homeschoolers. It's mainly for younger homeschoolers who participate in NCFCA, but I am sure you could join. If your "facts" are as solid as you say they are, you should have no problem debating there. Religion is allowed, and almost encouraged there. See you there... maybe.

What about Lysenkoism? It could be argued that it's not associated with theology...

It would be a laughable fraud, if not for the fact that so many people died as a result of that idiocy. The only business it has in science classes is as an example of pesudoscience and why you should avoid it. Kind of the same role that creationism should have, really. But the issue isn't really "are we allowed to teach these theories as examples of obsolete mistakes", it's that people try to teach bad science as if it were actually true. I have no problem with these "alternatives" being mentioned in a historical context, complete with explanations of why they are completely wrong. The problem is homeschoolers are not held accountable to that critical last part, and are free to teach any flawed "alternative" as equal in truth.

Now that this had denigrated into a religious debate/flame fest/screaming match;
I shall exercise my duties and close it..

Religious discussions are forbidden on this forum and I tire of the endless prattle of opposing views..

This should serve as a word of advice, keep your beliefs and tenets off these forums, continue and the results may be painful.

Buddah