• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Homeschooling

Got some links to the information which you base your view on?

I don't think I ever claimed it was based on some sort of scientific facts, just my own personal opinions and experiences. You may come to different conclusions, and I wholeheartedly support your right to do so.

I mean, you apparently hold the view that home schoolers are somehow socially stunted or inferior to public school kids, and I have been searching for some unbiased sources for a while now, so if you could link to the information you use that would be a great help to everyone on this thread; on both sides of the issue.

I don't see where I said they were necessarily socially stunted or inferior. I simply made the point that I believe it's easier for a child to learn how to interact with people of varying cultures, ages, backgrounds, and positions of authority by placing them in a situation where they actually do so. I don't think that you can reasonably argue that children are more likely to be exposed to more types of people by attending a public school than by being homeschooled. The way I see it, eventually, the vast majority of people have to end up interacting with lots of diverse people, so I'd like to give my kids plenty of practice.

Career over children, aye?

At age 26, when I'll be barely graduated and a quarter million dollars in debt? Yea, career over children. If I have children at that age, I'm pretty sure they'd rather have me be out there earning a living so we can have a house and not a cardboard box, rather than staying home during the day and teaching them their colors.

This of course isn't to say that I wouldn't want to learn with them outside of my work hours, but that to give up my career that young would be a serious detriment to the long term stability of the family.
 
What sources do you have which show that home schooled children do not submit to authorities other than their parents?

If you have actual data please post it.

Considering that that's a rather specious claim to make, not to mention one that I nowhere supported, I don't feel the need to search out a non-existant study that proves such a claim.
 
As interesting as that seems, I feel that it would leave a child utterly unprepared for the reality of a world that is so heavily focused on structured and standardized measurement.

Like it or not, a constant of our society is that there will always be standardized measurement, and learning how to adapt to, prepare for, and beat these measures is one of the most important skills we can have.

What the....why are you under the impression that home schooled student's are not required to take the SAT? They still have to meet state requirements so far as I have seen, so if you have a source to the contrary I would love to see it.
 
I don't think I ever claimed it was based on some sort of scientific facts, just my own personal opinions and experiences. You may come to different conclusions, and I wholeheartedly support your right to do so.

Perhaps your simply not up to date with the current context of this thread. We have stated many an opinion and have moved on to finding actual credible research.

If yours is just an opinion that's fine, it is dismissed as such.

There are already to many opinions here. What we need are facts.

I don't see where I said they were necessarily socially stunted or inferior. I simply made the point that I believe it's easier for a child to learn how to interact with people of varying cultures, ages, backgrounds, and positions of authority by placing them in a situation where they actually do so. I don't think that you can reasonably argue that children are more likely to be exposed to more types of people by attending a public school than by being homeschooled. The way I see it, eventually, the vast majority of people have to end up interacting with lots of diverse people, so I'd like to give my kids plenty of practice.

You didn't qualify what you said as an opinion. You said it as though it was established fact.

So far you have not given the reasoning for your opinion. I can only infer that you assume that home schooled children never interact with anyone their age and have no friends, and that premise is unsupported.

At age 26, when I'll be barely graduated and a quarter million dollars in debt? Yea, career over children. If I have children at that age, I'm pretty sure they'd rather have me be out there earning a living so we can have a house and not a cardboard box, rather than staying home during the day and teaching them their colors.

This of course isn't to say that I wouldn't want to learn with them outside of my work hours, but that to give up my career that young would be a serious detriment to the long term stability of the family.

What a strange point of view you have.....at age 30 my wife is waiting until I am don with my degree to go back to school precisely because we have children (incidentally, she was teaching the little one his colors just an hour ago), and we do not live in a cardboard box.

Considering that that's a rather specious claim to make, not to mention one that I nowhere supported, I don't feel the need to search out a non-existant study that proves such a claim.

Then it remains an unsupported premise and is dismissed as such.
 
As a public school teacher, I can attest to the fact that there is no panacea. Some kids are TOO adept at "negotiating relationships with authorities" and some are miserably banging their heads against a brick wall. It seems every term in almost every class I find the reason to give the"you know..being an educated person is not about what grade point you carry" speech accentuated by a happy sing-song of Kum-by-ah, followed by the "sometimes you just have to be the trick pony who jumps bravely through the flaming hoop" speech--followed closely behind with the "I know I'm smart--why do I have to prove it?" diatribe and an uncontested command for them to "Now get to work!".

I always had an issue complying with authority figures other than my parents until I started martial arts.

If the Judo Flip didn't get the message through then the humiliating time out did: You will respect Sense's authority and do as he says.

IMO if it worked for someone like me it would work for the average kid, home schooled or not.
 
I always had an issue complying with authority figures other than my parents until I started martial arts.

If the Judo Flip didn't get the message through then the humiliating time out did: You will respect Sense's authority and do as he says.

IMO if it worked for someone like me it would work for the average kid, home schooled or not.

Martial Arts are great for that discipline. Me? I was a C-student who only got those grades in high school because the teachers wanted me to get that scholarship for being the jock I was (and they knew by my test scores I wasn't a complete idiot). Then to pay them all back, I abruptly quit on a Big 10 full ride and went off to work in a nursing home to do it all "MY WAY!" I got straightened out by getting knocked up and doing the quick coursework in the school of "hardknocks"...I eventually had to jump through those flaming hoops and "prove it" so to get the respect I used to think I was "entitled" to.

Anyhow you get there...just so you get there....IMHO:mrgreen:
 
What sources do you have which show that home schooled children do not submit to authorities other than their parents?

If you have actual data please post it.


If I have data, I will post it; don't you worry your pretty little head about that.
If I make a post and there isn't any quote included or any link attached, it's because all of the statements contained therein represent my personal opinion only.
That by no means implies that you can't use sources yourself, to refute my opinions.
 
If I have data, I will post it; don't you worry your pretty little head about that.
If I make a post and there isn't any quote included or any link attached, it's because all of the statements contained therein represent my personal opinion only.
That by no means implies that you can't use sources yourself, to refute my opinions.

So your just expressing some admittedly unfounded bias.

At least Evangelicals quote the bible, you have nothing.
 
What the....why are you under the impression that home schooled student's are not required to take the SAT? They still have to meet state requirements so far as I have seen, so if you have a source to the contrary I would love to see it.

When did I say that? I'm well aware they have to take the SAT and may, depending on the state, have to meet other standards.

However, there is a WORLD of difference between regularly graded, heavily structured coursework and the "unteaching" that was referred to earlier.
 
Perhaps your simply not up to date with the current context of this thread. We have stated many an opinion and have moved on to finding actual credible research.

If yours is just an opinion that's fine, it is dismissed as such.

There are already to many opinions here. What we need are facts.

Pardon me sir, I was unaware that you had determined that only studies were welcome in this discussion. Of course, the fact that the vast majority of this debate is something that cannot be measured in a study would lead me to believe that your insistence on "facts" is driven primarily by a desire to remain unchallenged in your beliefs.

You didn't qualify what you said as an opinion. You said it as though it was established fact.

Really? Please cite where I said that something was a fact. Or, alternatively, please stop mischaracterizing my words.

So far you have not given the reasoning for your opinion. I can only infer that you assume that home schooled children never interact with anyone their age and have no friends, and that premise is unsupported.

The reasoning for my opinion? I believe that a public school offers a larger and more diverse group of students for a child to interact with on a constant, every day basis than homeschooling would. If you are claiming that it's possible for a homeschooled child to interact, on his own, with dozens of different children from diverse backgrounds, for 6 hours each and every day, then that's fantastic, and I completely support you in your endeavor.

What a strange point of view you have.....at age 30 my wife is waiting until I am don with my degree to go back to school precisely because we have children (incidentally, she was teaching the little one his colors just an hour ago), and we do not live in a cardboard box.

And that's fantastic for you, I support your decision, and I wish you the best of luck. While that might work out for me, I can easily envision many scenarios where that would not work in my case, considering the amount of loans I will have, the career I and my wife may choose to pursue, and the fact that I place different weight on certain values than you do.

Side note: Interesting how you criticize me for stating that I would choose to do one thing, and then criticize me for supposedly challenging your values. Seems to me that if I can tell you that I wholeheartedly support your decision, but that I have made my own, you should be able to do the same.

Then it remains an unsupported premise and is dismissed as such.

Considering I never made the claim and it was a strawman that you proposed, I have no problem with that.
 
OK, this search for some solid research statistics is making me crazy! I found one study by Sutton and Galloway (1997) on ERIC (Education Research Index), but can't access the entire study to do a good examination of the stats and potential biases. The abstract states that homeschoolers do as well as non-homeschoolers (and better in some) in each of 5 skill areas: academic, cognitive, psychomotor, social, and spirituality. I must've read 20 websites describing and interpretting the research. A couple of things that stand out are that they measured social ability to be based on self concept and compared leadership abilities with non-homeschooled students in private Christian colleges. Basing social ability on self concept is a good start, but measuring one's perception of others, others reactions to them and one's place in the world would also be needed. Personality testing or mood testing (MMPI or one of the Beck Inventories) often yield more complete results. More concerning is the comparision in only Christian colleges. These results are automatically skewed as the population is not complete.

Also, when browsing the HSLDA website, I noticed a few things that concerned me with their presentation or sponsoring of research:

4. Is HSLDA a Christian organization?
Yes; however, HSLDA’s mission is to protect the freedom of all homeschoolers. Although our officers and directors are Christians, HSLDA membership is not limited to religiously based homeschoolers. We respect parents' rights to make the appropriate choices for the upbringing of their children. We have no agenda to make all public and home-based classrooms religious or conservative. Our primary objective is to preserve the fundamental right of parents to choose home education, free of over-zealous government officials and intrusive laws. We do put on a national conference annually and invite the board members of state organizations with whom we have worked for many years. Most, if not all, of those organizations have Christian leaders, but many serve all homeschoolers regardless of religious affiliation, as we do.

Although they state that they do not direct members to adhere to Christian values, one must wonder around how the organization being Christian affects decisions and research

And this:

Where we stand:
9. Why does HSLDA support efforts to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman?

The following answer is an excerpt from a letter written by HSLDA Chairman of the Board and General Counsel Mike Farris:
. . . We are a Christian organization (see answer to question number 4 above). This colors our way of thinking about many things. Fundamentally, it is reflected in what we believe is truth.
All truth is God's truth. Man's knowledge is limited. We think we know something only to find that future generations have found that we really didn't know what we are talking about.
The truth is that God created the family. It is God's view of the family that is reflected in our western civilization and in our law until very recently. If we tear down this God-based view of the family, then all of the God-based principles in our society are ultimately at risk.
The reason we have parental rights is because our law assumes that God gave children to parents, not the state. If we eliminate the assumption of God from our law, parental rights and human rights themselves are impossible.
I was in the Soviet Union in 1988 arguing for parental rights and religious freedom with the governmet of the USSR. They asked, "Where are such rights based in any international legal document?"
I answered, "If rights are based on man-made documents they are not rights, they are privileges. What man makes, man can change."
Only if rights come from God is it illegitimate for man to take another's rights.
It is impossible to say that the God of the Bible would sanction rights of homosexual marriage. Thus, there is no such right in a God-based theory of rights. Any man-made theory of rights is no theory at all. Thus, the argument for gay rights is an argument that fundamentally erodes the very premise of all human rights as rights. HSLDA is not willing to move into an era of human privileges. We believe this would jeopardize our liberty to teach our children at home and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Blessings,
Michael Farris

Disturbing. No disclaimers as in the previous statement. I wonder how they would handle a gay couple wanting to homeschool. Actually, I don't wonder; I think the statement speaks for itself.

Also found this on a non-HSLDA site:
It is difficult to obtain accurate homeschooling statistics, partly because many conservative proponents of homeschools are fundamentally opposed to any government involvement in them, including the administration of censuses and surveys of homeschooling activity. In fact, perhaps the most visible advocate for homeschooling, the Home School Legal Defense Association, states that it “opposes any method to track or register homeschooling by the federal government.” Notwithstanding these challenges, a recent report from the U.S. Department of Education estimates that 850,000 students received homeschooling in 1999.

Add that to this from HSLDA:
It is HSLDA's firm belief that federal government spending on education is unconstitutional and must be eliminated. While we support the position that the federal government should not be involved in education at any level, we also support measures that incrementally reduce the control of the federal government over education.

Perhaps this is the reason that there is practically no research on homeschooling vs. non-homeschooling socialization unless it is sponsored by a homeschooled organization.

My view stands on socialization, though I recognize that I have no specific reserach to back my claims...only my personal experiences over the past 16 years with kids that were both homeschooled and non-homeschooled. Admitedly, I don't think I've seem enough of the former to make a research-based assertation, though in my experience, students from a school-based environment do better socially both in college and outside it. Take that as you will. ;)

Again, this would be an excellent study for someone to do, though chosing the correct tools (I believe personality/mood tests would be key) used to measure socialization would make the difference.

Some links to the information I cited:
A couple from HSDLA:
HSLDA | Federal Role in Education Issue Center
HSLDA | About HSLDA

ECS page describing difficulty in finding research:
ECS Education Policy Issue Site: Homeschooling

If you really want to see all the sites on the Sutton and Galloway study, I'll post the multitude of links I've checked out over the past 4 hours from my browsers history. Or you could save me the trouble and just trust that it's accurate. :smile:;)
 
Actually...My wife and I did much of the same research over a half a year before deciding to Homeschool our children. We also found the Christian base the largest in the community, but this has not been a real issue with us. NY has a very good Homeschooling support community, and as my children are not Christian yet (they may very well decide to be in the future), we simply teach them about ALL the major religions, as well as a few less known, as part of the education proccess.
As of yet we have seen no purposeful attempt by the community to indoctrinate the teachings of Christ into the children, and in fact the issue is largely avoided, I would imagine on purpose. Most find this aspect of a childs education to be a private affair, to be done at the "Home" aspect of homeschooling, rather than something to be shared in a community setting.
 
Pardon me sir, I was unaware that you had determined that only studies were welcome in this discussion. Of course, the fact that the vast majority of this debate is something that cannot be measured in a study would lead me to believe that your insistence on "facts" is driven primarily by a desire to remain unchallenged in your beliefs.

Really? Please cite where I said that something was a fact. Or, alternatively, please stop mischaracterizing my words.

Here:
I think that education is obviously a large part of the point of primary/secondary school, but that socialization and the ability to interact with others is a crucial skill as well. Learning how to deal with bullies, become confident in yourself, interact with members of the opposite (or same, however you roll) sex, and deal with both fair and unfair grading systems is absolutely essential. For all its flaws, I don't think there is a better place to learn these skills than public school.

I didn't say that you said that is was a fact, I said that you say it as though it were fact.


The reasoning for my opinion? I believe that a public school offers a larger and more diverse group of students for a child to interact with on a constant, every day basis than homeschooling would. If you are claiming that it's possible for a homeschooled child to interact, on his own, with dozens of different children from diverse backgrounds, for 6 hours each and every day, then that's fantastic, and I completely support you in your endeavor.

I don't know where these magical schools exist that has all these diverse backgrounds....Hogwarts perhaps?.....but my experience is that schools are assigned by residential district, thus all the children attending are from the same general aria. This means that the diversity of the children a home schooler would interact with is no different than what/who a non-home schooler would interact with.

And that's fantastic for you, I support your decision, and I wish you the best of luck. While that might work out for me, I can easily envision many scenarios where that would not work in my case, considering the amount of loans I will have, the career I and my wife may choose to pursue, and the fact that I place different weight on certain values than you do.

Indeed. I see a greater value on my children than my income.

Side note: Interesting how you criticize me for stating that I would choose to do one thing, and then criticize me for supposedly challenging your values. Seems to me that if I can tell you that I wholeheartedly support your decision, but that I have made my own, you should be able to do the same.

No, that's moral relativism.
That common measure you spoke of earlier regarding education....the same concept is present in morality as well.

According to my tools, which we all have, your decision is neither square, level, plum nor the correct dimension.
 
Where we stand:
9. Why does HSLDA support efforts to constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman?


The following answer is an excerpt from a letter written by HSLDA Chairman of the Board and General Counsel Mike Farris:

. . . We are a Christian organization (see answer to question number 4 above). This colors our way of thinking about many things. Fundamentally, it is reflected in what we believe is truth.

All truth is God's truth. Man's knowledge is limited. We think we know something only to find that future generations have found that we really didn't know what we are talking about.

The truth is that God created the family. It is God's view of the family that is reflected in our western civilization and in our law until very recently. If we tear down this God-based view of the family, then all of the God-based principles in our society are ultimately at risk.

The reason we have parental rights is because our law assumes that God gave children to parents, not the state. If we eliminate the assumption of God from our law, parental rights and human rights themselves are impossible.
I was in the Soviet Union in 1988 arguing for parental rights and religious freedom with the governmet of the USSR. They asked, "Where are such rights based in any international legal document?"

I answered, "If rights are based on man-made documents they are not rights, they are privileges. What man makes, man can change."

Only if rights come from God is it illegitimate for man to take another's rights.
It is impossible to say that the God of the Bible would sanction rights of homosexual marriage. Thus, there is no such right in a God-based theory of rights. Any man-made theory of rights is no theory at all. Thus, the argument for gay rights is an argument that fundamentally erodes the very premise of all human rights as rights. HSLDA is not willing to move into an era of human privileges. We believe this would jeopardize our liberty to teach our children at home and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Blessings,
Michael Farris

Disturbing. No disclaimers as in the previous statement. I wonder how they would handle a gay couple wanting to homeschool. Actually, I don't wonder; I think the statement speaks for itself.

I shear in HDLA's religious position here completely. If you will notice, the Constitution does not found the Blessings of Liberty, but refers to them. Our unalienable rights predate the constitution, and those who rote the Constitution say that our rights came from our Creator, the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

That is why I do not support gay 'marriage: the right to marry a person of the same gender is not a natural right conferred by God, but is a man made construct based only on our subjective, limited knowledge and understanding.

That is why I oppose abortion: A woman needlessly killing her child is established as a crime, not a right to exorcised. Also, it matters not the spicific developmental stage of a ZEF because from conception on its body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, and to smite that temple is to smite the Holy Spirit within it.

I could go on, but what you have quoted here is the root of many arguments here at DP. One's understanding of the Natural Law premise is where it all begins.
 
As with most things, you get out of it what you put into it. When students are more worried about Ipods and Cell-phones than grades, they do not do well. When studetns apply themselves and have parent support they will do extremely well in public education. Blaming schools for students and societies issues is a cop-out of massive proportions and illuminates the real problem with our society in general.
 
I shear in HDLA's religious position here completely. If you will notice, the Constitution does not found the Blessings of Liberty, but refers to them. Our unalienable rights predate the constitution, and those who rote the Constitution say that our rights came from our Creator, the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

That is why I do not support gay 'marriage: the right to marry a person of the same gender is not a natural right conferred by God, but is a man made construct based only on our subjective, limited knowledge and understanding.

That is why I oppose abortion: A woman needlessly killing her child is established as a crime, not a right to exorcised. Also, it matters not the spicific developmental stage of a ZEF because from conception on its body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, and to smite that temple is to smite the Holy Spirit within it.

I could go on, but what you have quoted here is the root of many arguments here at DP. One's understanding of the Natural Law premise is where it all begins.

Not to threadjack, but you're horribly mistaken about our Constitution. It says in the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not a word about a creator or nature's law. I strongly suggest that, if you are homeschooling your kids, you do so with accuracy.
 
I’m hoping that as a teacher you have an inside lead somewhere….

Could you link to some government statistics on home school academics and social development please?

There not too tough to find. Just google. I'm not trying to be a punk, I just don't do the url thing too well. And I don't like doing it.
When it comes to academics, I would expect public schools to do a better over-all job than the home. I'm not taking anything away from Mom and Dad, but unless they are both some sort of Einstein, they can't be an expert in everything a student needs.
ted
 
I’m hoping that as a teacher you have an inside lead somewhere….

Could you link to some government statistics on home school academics and social development please?

There not too tough to find. Just google. I'm not trying to be a punk, I just don't do the url thing too well. And I don't like doing it.

In fact, they are inexplicably "hard to find".
And I'm a fairly good 'net detective.
I don't think I'm the first on this thread to encounter this.
 
In fact, they are inexplicably "hard to find".
And I'm a fairly good 'net detective.
I don't think I'm the first on this thread to encounter this.

Sorry, miss, am I reading the request incorrectly? :confused:
I found these on the first two pages after I googled "homeschool academics".

http://fac.hsu.edu/worth/acad.html

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp?PrinterFriendly=True

http://www.calvertschool.org/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=CES2505

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult.
ted
 
I shear in HDLA's religious position here completely. If you will notice, the Constitution does not found the Blessings of Liberty, but refers to them. Our unalienable rights predate the constitution, and those who rote the Constitution say that our rights came from our Creator, the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

That is why I do not support gay 'marriage: the right to marry a person of the same gender is not a natural right conferred by God, but is a man made construct based only on our subjective, limited knowledge and understanding.

That is why I oppose abortion: A woman needlessly killing her child is established as a crime, not a right to exorcised. Also, it matters not the spicific developmental stage of a ZEF because from conception on its body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, and to smite that temple is to smite the Holy Spirit within it.

I could go on, but what you have quoted here is the root of many arguments here at DP. One's understanding of the Natural Law premise is where it all begins.

Jerry, I continue to admire the consistency of your beliefs. I am certain we will disagree on principle, here. My issue is the discriminitory stance that the HSLDA takes against a section of society, one that may want to homeschool their children. Based on their doctrine, I don't see how the HSLDA could support a homeschooling gay couple if legal action was necessary, whereas they would support a straight couple under the same circumstances. They could use their moralistic values, potentially, against their own goals. I am also concerned about the lack of diversity in this particular area that this promotes. This tends to bolster my argument with regards to socialization. Also, the Natural Law argument is often an easy refute in debate, as it tends to give a subjective value judgement to something that is considered 'natural'.
 
My children will not be homeschooled. I don't really want them to go to private school either, so I'm going to be aiming to live in an area where there are high quality public schools that offer good advanced curricula, such as NYC.

It's great that you have that choice. But somehow you miss the point that not everyone does or can live in an area where there are "high quality public schools that offer advanced curricula..." If all American had equal access to a "high quality public education" why then do we have "No Child Left Behind" and citizen initiatives for vouchers (which, by the way, the government opposes. So much for the idea that the government education links provided earlier are "unbiased." The governement has proven itself to be VERY biased when it comes to education.)

One reason homeschoolers like myself homeschool is because they want their children to get a "high quality education" and they are more likely to get that at home.

I think that education is obviously a large part of the point of primary/secondary school, but that socialization and the ability to interact with others is a crucial skill as well. Learning how to deal with bullies, become confident in yourself, interact with members of the opposite (or same, however you roll) sex, and deal with both fair and unfair grading systems is absolutely essential. For all its flaws, I don't think there is a better place to learn these skills than public school.

Granted. The ability to interact appropriately with others is a crucial skill. But I contest that public school is the best place to learn those skills.

Public school, unless it is part of an IEP, does not provide direct instruction in "social skills" beyond Kindergarten. The whole purpose of Kindergarten is to teach children how to behave in school...sit quietly while teacher talks, don't run in the hall, line up to go to library, line up to go to music, line up to go to the bus, ask permission to use the bathroom. Nowhere since I have graduated from highschool have I had to use any of these "skills." This was socialization specifically to the public school environment. Can a person be successful in life without ever having had to line up for the bus? Yes.

But the "social skills" you all are so hot on...handling social interaction...are not directly taught in school anyway. "When somebody waves a greeting at you, it is socially proper to wave back." My kids must attend public school to learn that? "Use a fork to eat your green beans, but it's okay to use your fingers to eat the chicken nuggets." Which class must my child take to receive this instruction? And what if my child insists on eating his nuggets with a fork and his greenbeans with his fingers? Will someone correct him? If so, who...the cafeteria moniter who is refereeing a disgreement acroos the room?

The homeschoolers I know do not object to that kind of "social" instruction anyway...but would make the point that public school is not the only or most appropriate setting for such instruction. It's the peer interaction that has us most concerned and which you (you=people who oppose homeschooling because it leads to socially backward adults) insist is one of the great benefits of public school.

To say that "there is no better place to learn how to deal with bullies, become confident in yourself, interact with members of the opposite (or same, however you roll) sex, and deal with both fair and unfair grading systems" assumes several things:

1. "Becom[ing] confident in yourself" is a social skill. It's not...it's an emotional skill and follows a series of successful experiences. Not everyone can be successful in public school, and if you've read anything at all about learning theories (The Way They Learn by Cynthia Tobias; One Mind at a Time by Dr. Mel Levine; Better Late Than Early by Dr. Raymond Moore) it is clear that only a very small percentage of the population can be successful in Public School. So if self-confidence is based on success, and only a small portion of the population experiences success in school, then it seems that public school is the least likely environment for a child to develop self-confidence.

2. Public School is a naturally occuring environment. It's not. At no other time or place in life do you interact with 30 people your exact age for six hours a day. At home, at work, at the beach, at the grocery store...you must interact with people of all ages, experiences, socio-economic backgrounds etc. Not so in school. The demographics of a school are determined very much by location, and often by the tax base that support it. A child in public school will interact with children his exact age, developmental level, and similar life experience. There is limited contact with older and younger students, so the opportunities for watching how older students behave and being the model for younger students is lost.

3. Public Schools provide instruction for negotiating social situations that is unavailable anywhere else. Except for the recent interest in social instruction regarding harrassment, this is untrue. How does the school teach about boy/girl interaction? Is there someone standing by teaching a young man how to properly ask a girl out on a date (other than his geeky friends who prove nine times out of ten to be no help at all). Is there someone to guide the girl on how to properly turn down the young man when she is not interested (other than her air-head friends who prove nine times out of ten to be no help at all). Who will debrief them when the whole social situation goes bad?

In the past, the school's attempt to teach children proper social responses (Just Say No, D.A.R.E.) have proven largely unsuccessful. Kids still use drugs/start smoking/drink and drive/have unprotected sex. You wanted statstics about how successfully socialized public school kids are compared to homeschool kids? That's where you'll find them...if socialization is the learning of the acceptable behaviors of a society, find out how many kids use drugs public school vs. homeschool. How many unplanned teen pregnancies are there public school vs. homeschool. How many kids get expelled from college public school vs. homeschool. How many kids end up in jail public school vs. homeschool. I don't have the statistics, but I'd wager that generally speaking, homeschool kids ARE successfully socialized because they understand the rules of society and obey them.
 
Jerry, I continue to admire the consistency of your beliefs. I am certain we will disagree on principle, here. My issue is the discriminitory stance that the HSLDA takes against a section of society, one that may want to homeschool their children. Based on their doctrine, I don't see how the HSLDA could support a homeschooling gay couple if legal action was necessary, whereas they would support a straight couple under the same circumstances. They could use their moralistic values, potentially, against their own goals. I am also concerned about the lack of diversity in this particular area that this promotes. This tends to bolster my argument with regards to socialization. Also, the Natural Law argument is often an easy refute in debate, as it tends to give a subjective value judgement to something that is considered 'natural'.

With all due respect, it's clear you don't understand how HSLDA works.

HSLDA is a group of lawyers (yes, they are Christian) who defend homeschoolers in court so that legal precidents can be established. ONLY homeschoolers who pay the $100 annual membership fee will qualify for their services, THEREFORE if a homeschooling gay couple WHO HAD PAID THE ANNUAL DUES had a legal situation THAT WOULD ESTABLISH PRECIDENT, I don't see why the HSLDA would not defend them in court.

I am not a member of HSLDA, nor do I play one on TV :smile: but I do know of several who have contacted HSLDA for help and have variously received help and not. In one case, DHS had been called on a homeschooling family citing failure to properly school the children. A phone call to HSLDA, a lawyer on the phone, the phone handed out to the social worker standing on the porch, a brief conversation in which the social worker was advised of the family's legal rights...HSLDA would defend the family in court if it came to that. In another case, DHS had been called about living conditions of a homeschooling family. HSLDA was called and they wouldn't touch it. "Living Conditions" are not a homeschooling issue.

In my state just a few years ago, the state required a six page application be submitted each year for each child including a class schedule, list of textbooks used and a complete syllabus of each course for each child...a TON of paperwork! In addition, the state wanted to require each child submit to standardized testing at the public school IN ADDITION to the annual assessment we have to submit to the Dept. of Ed. HSLDA attended the legistative session that what held to discuss the proposed bill and argued that the government was actually requiring more of homeschooling parents than public school teachers and was thus unfair. The bill was killed, many regulations were loosened (now I can simply list all my children and their ages on a single piece of paper and include a statement that I intend to educate them in math, science, social studies, etc for 175 school days) and the benefits are for ALL homeschoolers regardless of religious affiliation.
 
Re: The red tape in Rev's post: Each student that gets homeschooled(and, granted, I am talking NJ, at least), is one less student the school district can count in its request for state funds. To pull a child out of a school system in order to homeschool takes weeks and the skill of jumping through hoops while signing paperwork with a phone in the other hand. One student I had that was leaving 7th grade to be homeschooled was kept 'on hold' for over a month, during which time, of course, he was required to attend school.
I'd seriously considered homeschooling before my kids entered kindergarten, but I'm a bit ADD and a procrastinator and felt I wasn't up to the task. However, when they did start school, they were already reading, writing and doing basic math. My son, in first grade, was allowed to choose his spelling assignments since he was reading at a third grade level and writing at a 5th grade level.( his teacher approached me with this idea since she said any 6 year old who could spell 'apartment' and 'onomatopeia' was way beyond 'cat, bat, sat' :mrgreen:)
As for socialization arguments, I used to have them, but now realize they're BS. There's more chances for that outside of school than within it and in fact, while my daughter excelled and is very social, my son is an introvert and was socially inept all through grammar school. School did nothing to discourage her or encourage him. Scouts, church groups, district sports organizations, etc., all do way more for the social growth of kids than 7-8 hours of instruction broken up by 40 minutes of lunch and recess.
 
Not to threadjack, but you're horribly mistaken about our Constitution. It says in the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not a word about a creator or nature's law. I strongly suggest that, if you are homeschooling your kids, you do so with accuracy.

As it happens I had looked up the preamble (I have it in my favorite list) so as to get the wording just right for that post.

Apparently I could teach my children about reading comp. better than your teacher thought you, as I said nothing about "Creator" being in the Constitution. I said "those who rote the Constitution say", not 'the Constitution says'.

Also, as you can clearly see in your quotation of the preamble, neither Liberty nor the Blessings of Liberty are established, but referred to, which means that they already existed prior to the constitution.....just like a woman's right to not be raped existed before the Constitution, and in fact exists even if the entire body of U.S. law were dissolved.
 
Back
Top Bottom