To quote our wise and generous moderator: "Feel free to open another, but if it wanders off track use the report button that is what it is there for."


The subject here is homeschooling, NOT religion. Please do not hijack this thread and get it locked like the last one. Our religious beliefs or lack of beliefs are completely irrelevant to this issue. The whole premise of homeschooling is that the parents, because they are more qualified, act as a substitute for the state schools. Now, since we live in the civilized world and have a government with a fundamental rule of separation of church and state (even if it does get abused sometimes), the issue is the purely secular education that homeschooling can provide.

The example, in the case of the other thread, was the teaching of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory completely independent of any theology, and is taught as such. It either succeeds or fails as a scientific theory, and if it fails, it will be replaced by a scientific theory. But yet a poster who shall not be named insisted on creating a false dillema between evolution and religion. Please do not do this. If you feel that teaching evolution should be reconsidered, you will address it as a scientific theory and provide an alternative scientific theory to replace it. This is what we do in science education. If you insist on addressing it from a theological perspective, not only are you breaking the forum rules, but you are conceding that you are not able to live up to the standards required for science teachers and, by extension, homeschooling parents.

If you wish to argue something here, please keep this no-religion rule in mind.








Now then, with that out of the way, I'll just re-post my arguments from the other thread to start the debate:

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.

If this denigrates into flames, warnings will be issued and appropriate action taken.

Buddah

there are different forms of homeschooling. You could be homeschooled by enrolling in an online school, and there are lots of those. They are operated by schools and teachers. Students get textbooks and stuff through the mail, and are graded and get high school diplomas. Of course all documents are typed and sent as a file. Plus they have online tests.

So, since you are talking about homeschooling by parents and why its wrong, what is your opinion about certified online schools?

For many years..in in the middle of no where Alaska and some of Canada,
Students are home schooled. However, they can talk to a teacher via shortwave radio.

The home school system around here has programs where the homework is graded by a certified teacher.


I sort of agree with Duckrider. However, I don't believe it to just be wrong.
Likewise, parents always have the right to teach their kids anything they wish. Even if you or I believe it to be "flawed"

I have a different problem with home schooling.
Personally, everyone I have met, that was home schooled, are socially inept.
Today, home school programs are trying to socialize the children better.

I went to public school except for two years. That was for reasons beyond any one's control.
However, I learned everything first at home and public school was just review. The (dis?)advantage of growing up in a family of teachers

I posted this in the other thread but I don't think anyone ever saw it, becuase of the flame fest between two idiots who can't keep their bickering to themselves (*sighs*) so here is what I posted:

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).

I agree with you - homeschooling has come a long way, and since the Internet is wide spread and far reaching, students may adapt however they see fit. Even though I completed my formal education through the public system, I find the ease and availability of online schooling to be better. Sure, parents may run the risk of having a kid that's not as smart as they'd like them to be, but the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

Duskrider, you still obviously think homeschooling is a parent staying at home and actually teaching their children, am I correct? You also seem to think that parents are willing enough to selectively teach what their children should know, right? And you seem to think that by being homeschooled, you're more likely to produce great numbers of highly incompetent people who can't even work because they're not educated enough, hmm? I have to say that you obviously know nothing of what you're trying to debate here.

Firstly, as bellydancer pointed out, there is such a thing as online schooling. While it would be a good idea for parents to stay home and make sure their kids do what they are supposed to do, it is not necessary. Secondly, where do you get off on parents teaching only what they themselves want their children to learn? And lastly, I have not heard of people who have received their education outside the public school system being completely and utter buffoons in the work place. In fact, many "homeschoolees" tend to be much more competent than those that have gone through the public system.

To have these sentiments is clearly a blatant ignorance of the changing times. Besides, homeschooling allows people to be more creative, to be themselves, and not to be just a product of society. I'm quite dumbfounded, if not a bit shocked, that someone foolishly believes that the public is better than being homeschooled. FYI, there are far more drop-outs in the public system than there are of people not finishing school at home.

Well, with #2, I can definitely see where people would start a heated debate between creationism and evolution since the OP clearly states that evolution is "fact / true" and creationism is a "false / flawed" theory. Both are theories and I don't believe ANYONE was there at the beginning to call it fact. I also don't think there is a scientific theory that exists for why the "big bang" occurred in the first place or what was responsible for it. So let's just drop the entire comment about this example in the 2nd paragraph because the OP seems to be trying to push buttons yet tell everyone not to reply because of forum rules. Smells like trolling.

I'd like to see some statistics / facts about the level of success between home/public/private school. I seem to recall some very prominent leaders in the community being home schooled.

I firmly believe that a child can do well in any of those situations as long as the parent(s) are supportive and take time to help with the education of their child. Public and Private school is not to be considered day-care.

Regarding the comment about a parent not being able to help their child because they are not an expert in the field is slightly bogus, especially for the early years. I haven't seen homework given to a child where the answer cannot be found within the chapter / book that they are reading. A parent should be able to find the answer even if they do not know it offhand. But of course, this takes time and commitment from the parent. (see "supportive parent" paragraph above)

LHammonds

I wouldn't really call this homeschooling in the traditional sense, where the parents take full responsibility for teaching. With this kind of thing, you're still dealing with professional teachers who supervise the whole process. Assuming the online school is actually accredited like any in-person school, this should be fine.





Like the comment above, this is kind of different from what most people mean by homeschooling. And in this case, it's only done because there is no other option. I think there's a major difference between doing the best you can in difficult circumstances and saying "screw you people, I can do a better job" when there are real schools available.



Entirely false. You do not have the right to destroy your child's ability to go on to higher education and a decent career. If you are incapable of meeting the same standards as a normal school, you don't get to do it yourself. If adults wish to be ignorant that's one thing, but they don't have the right to make that decision for their children.




I said some parents are willing to do that. In the case of the evolution example, over 50% of the people in the US feel they know better than the experts. Many of them would be perfectly happy to teach false things if given the opportunity to homeschol their children. This is not acceptable.



Why do you think many people do it? Yes, some do because they have the skills and can legitimately do a better job than the public school system. But a major motivation for homeschoolers is keeping their children away from "unapproved" knowledge they would get in public schools. Even if only a small percentage of people do this, it is too many.



Repeat after me: accountability.

Homeschooling, public schools and private schools are all just fine, in the best-case scenarios. The difference is what happens when things go wrong. If a formal school refuses to teach the material properly (or simply fails because of incompetence), teachers/administration can be fired and accreditation can be removed. When homeschoolers fail, the parents are not held accountable, it is their children that are screwed.

I say this because it is true. Please take the time to actually learn what a scientific theory is and what the requirements are for an explanation to become one. Over 99% of biologists accept evolution as a solid theory at the same level of confidence as the theory that bacteria cause disease. The theory has vast supporting evidence, both from the fossil record and direct observation/experiment, and zero counter-evidence. It is critical in understanding modern biology, an amazingly productive and well-supported field.

Creationism, on the other hand, is at absolute best a flawed theory. It lacks any evidence to support it, has no explanatory power, makes no testable predictions, and shows no signs of improving these flaws. If it is presented as a scientific theory, it is an utter failure. If it is presented as a religious belief, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Intelligent design is even worse. It attempts to use scientific language, but it doesn't even provide any explanation for how things work. It is simply the vague hope that evidence will show up to support it. The entire argument for intelligent design is a giant false dillema fallacy, assuming that it is the default explanation, and any percieved failures of evolution prove it right without any requirement to prove itself as a valid alternative.

In the context of science, a subject homeschoolers are required to teach their children, only one of these three things is a legitimate theory. Teaching the other two not only provides false information, but it creates fundamental misconceptions about how the scientific method works.



Again, if you wish to debate this subject, please at least take the time to understand the definition between "theory", "fact", and "wishful thinking". Evolution is a fact. It is undeniable fact that populations and gene frequencies change over time. The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation for why these changes happen. Creationism is neither, it is either a religious or political position, and therefore irrelevant to teaching science.



Again, if you are going to argue this subject, please take the time to understand what you are talking about. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. The Theory of Evolution describes the changes in genes and populations of living organisms over time. The "big bang" theory attempts to explain how the universe itself formed. Even if it were to be completely disproven, this would have no effect on the Theory of Evolution.




Smells like a moderator who hasn't bothered to study the subject he is making demands about.

I will repeat myself, and maybe the reason for the presence of the evolution argument will be a bit clearer to you:

Evolution is just a convenient example. I picked it because it has two important factors:

1) Among experts in the relevant field, there is essentially unanimous agreement that it is correct. This focuses the issue on holding parents accountable for teaching the correct material, not possible alternative material that could be taught instead. There is no alternative material to be taught, in this case.

2) There are actually a significant number of people who would ignore the experts and factual evidence to teach their prefered "alternative". I could pick on the tinfoil hat nutcases that like to homeschool their children out of paranoia about the Evil Government Conspiracy, but those are such a small minority that we can just point and laugh and get back to discussing the real issue. Evolution, on the other hand, is "controversial" enough that homeschooling supporters can not simply write it off as "but nobody would really do something that crazy...".



If you prefer a different example, feel free to consider a few alternatives:

Homeschooling gives parents the ability to teach their children that communism is a wonderful and completely functional system that produces a true worker's paradise and has been a complete success in every country that has ever tried it.

Homeschooling gives parents the ability to teach their children that there is scientific evidence for their race being superior, and justifying any discrimnation towards others.

Homeschooling gives parents the ability to decide that math is not really important, and they will only teach their children literature and art.

Etc.

Pick any example you like, I just prefer evolution. The simple fact is homeschooling parents are acting as a substitute for the state. The entire premise is that they can do the state's job better, and provide the same education. This includes science (as well as math, accurate history, etc), and science includes evolution. If parents refuse to teach evolution, they are not qualified to teach science, and fail in the role of providing a substitute for the state's education.




This comes in more later in life. Time and teaching skill are more of a factor in lower grades, but once you get to high-school (if not earlier) level material, parents' lack of knowledge becomes an issue. For example, I am an engineering student. I know far more about math and science than many high school teachers, and could easily teach any class at that level (assuming I had teaching skills as well as knowledge). However, I am completley unqualified to teach english literature. I know very little about the general material, and absolutely nothing about any specific books a child might have to read and analyze. Since a homeschooling parent has to cover all areas of their child's education, I would not be qualified to do the job.

So what part of "let's just drop the entire comment about this example" did you not understand?

LHammonds

I understand perfectly well what you said. There are two ways I can take this:

1) You are posting this as a normal member, in which case I have no reason to listen to it. The example is entirely relevant (necessary, I would say) to the point I am trying to make about accountability and standards, and if people wish to disagree about that relevancy I will defend it. And this is exactly what happened, you claimed that evolution is not a necessary part of a complete education and failure to teach it does not represent a failure of homeschooling. I corrected you on this point, and will continue to do so as long as you post your disgreements on the subject.

2) You are posting this as a moderator, in which case you have no business doing so. As someone participating in this debate, it would be abuse of your moderator powers to get the last word and then end the discussion. If you wish to end the discussion, then you must go back and remove all discussion of it from your own post. You can't have it both ways and post "this is what my opinion is, and none of you can argue with it!".


Either way, my point remains true. If you don't want to have your opinions discussed, don't post them in a debate thread.

And as for your accusation of trolling and then using the forum rules to ban people from replying, that's just absurd. I have no intention of baiting people into breaking the rules, in fact, I tried several times in the first thread to make it clear that religion was not part of the discussion. My point is entirely about science and education, two subjects that are allowed by the rules of this forum. If someone has a legitimate disagreement, they have every right to make it, and we will debate the subject.

My comment about banning religious responses was addressed to a single person who insisted on arguing based on his religion and trying to bait me into breaking the rules. In fact, his religious references were what got the other thread locked! Far from being an attempt to silence my critics, that request is intended to make sure this thread stays open to allow discussion!

Duskrider, you are walking on eggshells and this debate is becoming another bashing contest (if not totally against the rules, still on a level far below our intellect).

I suggest this topic be closed and never be brought up again, as it's impossible for some here to not 'wiggle in' some off-comment that is in violation of the rules but still considered "gray" material.

100% wrong. The entire reason for my 1st paragraph was to explain why I have asked you to NOT use it as an example. You said yourself that there are plenty of other examples to choose from. I have no problem at all with the requirement for teaching evolution in school.

I did add my own opinions and I am sorry for that. I'll keep that in mind in the future. I don't usually frequent any forum discussions but because you were reported, I had to read it.

As for the debate, you are a god among men and should rule the world. You win.

/End of debate.