• 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!

Should home-schooling be illegal?

Should home-schooling be illegal?

  • Total voters
    84
jamesrage said:
Homeschoolers generally do better than public school educated kids, how can you say it is not the best thing for children? IF home schooled gets did lousy when compared to public schooled kids then you might have something to base that comment on.
HSLDA | Homeschooled Students Excel in College

Homeschoolers score higher than 86% of peers

HSLDA | HOMESCHOOLERS SCORE HIGHER ON ACT COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM
Click to expand...

James, I was not able to find any good links, but there must be some that are fair and unbiased..
The wife and I have discussed this and conclude that a decent public school can educate a child better than the parents at home. And this makes sense to me. Another thing, well educated children recieve several hours of education daily at home, no school, public or private can "do it all".
The key word is "decent", maybe 50% of our schools are lousy - the inner city ones in particular.
Having the home schools illegal, as they are in Germany is not a good idea, we must not adopt it.
Instead, the parents in the inner cities should start caring about their children and THEIR schools...This really applies to all parents..Generally, the parents and schools in PA and NY do quite well..
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is just plain wrong, ignorance is high in this thread.
Most of these guys were generals, statesmen, business owners, et all.
How in the hell do you think that is "simple?"

I'm willing to bet most of the detractors are of a government "education."
Click to expand...

From what I have read and seen of these generals, et al, they were idiotic buffoons...but a bit smarter than their competition.
When parents care, the so-called government schools (their schools ) can do a good job.
 
Blackdog said:
Not outrage, surprise. :lol:
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but even surprise would necessitate a claim of being tolerant or otherwise. :lol:

Blackdog said:
So parents should not have anything to do with raising their own children? Or as you put it as little contact as possible?
Click to expand...

My statement was to the effect that minimal contact with society outside the home could be detrimental to the child's social development, I did not address the issue of minimal contact with parents (which would be quite impractical anyway, in the nuclear family environment).

Blackdog said:
Maybe if you live in Utopia, because no place else on earth will you find those values in any great amount outside of the home.
Click to expand...

With respect, that is a matter of opinion, and indeed dependent upon the society in which one lives.

Blackdog said:
I agree that interaction as in social contact is a good thing, but it is no less positive or negative than in the home. Our homes be they religious or otherwise tend to be reflections of our society and visa versa.
Click to expand...

That is quite true, but the individual values (and prejudices) of all parents are not necessarily beneficial to society should they be perpetuated in this way. A balance between parental values, and those of the wider society, is far more useful in the development of a child.


Blackdog said:
So far no proof of any kind has been offered to show why home schooling should be illegal.
Click to expand...

I have never set out to do so. I may not consider it preferable to good public schooling, largely because few parents are sufficiently qualified to instruct their children in the range of disciplines necessary, but I am always reticent to deem a thing illegal. We have sufficient redundant laws on our statute books as it is.
 
I support homeschooling but support unschooling even more:)
 
earthworm said:
From what I have read and seen of these generals, et al, they were idiotic buffoons...but a bit smarter than their competition.
Click to expand...

In some cases you could be very accurate but to think that life a couple hundred years ago was simple is just stupid.

These guys had less over all time in any type of school yet they had better hand writing and eloquence than most college graduates I've seen before.

earthworm said:
When parents care, the so-called government schools (their schools ) can do a good job.
Click to expand...

Trying to get the whole of a schools parents to care is like climbing a mountain while at the same time your kids will suffer from their apathy.

I won't waste my time with that.
In my area the elementary schools are not meeting AYP, the high schools only care about sports programs and the smart kids are marginalized.

Putting my kids into that kind of atmosphere would essentially be child abuse.

When I had my kids I had no reservations about being their parent 24/7, part of that is not dumping them off with a surrogate parent while my wife and I go earn a double income to support a life of excess consumption.
 
I wish to tell some folks in this thread that you can find non religious home school curriculum. It is out there because I have an atheist friend that does the home school thing. :)
 
Kali said:
I wish to tell some folks in this thread that you can find non religious home school curriculum. It is out there because I have an atheist friend that does the home school thing. :)
Click to expand...

The core curriculum we use is non religious.

Homeschool Curriculum | Homeschooling | Calvert School

Although I do believe in a lot of unschooling concepts and we allow our son to free form learn.
We also do some guided projects where he is to practice/test/experiment things with supervision.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
It sounds like you are more concerned with religious indoctrination than anything else.

Raising a child to follow your religious beliefs is fine. Most home schooled children have no issues.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not, I'm much more concerned about other social prejudices, but with respect, you seem to be defending the religious aspect rather more than appears necessary. :)

I would not presume to comment upon anyone's spiritual beliefs, and that includes fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. But I am aware of the damage that any form of extremism can wreak upon society, and especially upon the psyche of a small child.

So I will repeat that I consider it unhealthy for parental beliefs to be the primary exposure to society's values for children. There needs to be a balance, no matter how soundly based we may believe our value systems to be. That balance is often best provided by frequent interaction with the world outside the nuclear family.

Blackdog said:
My daughter was sent to a Catholic school all her life, and she is a Christian like I and my wife. So I guess our indoctrination worked. :roll:
Click to expand...

I guess it did. You may very well consider that a good thing; I could not possibly comment. :lol:
 
Leo said:
Fair enough, but even surprise would necessitate a claim of being tolerant or otherwise. :lol:
Click to expand...

Had nothing to do with it?

I said "It is amazing to me how people who say they are tolerant are so intolerant." - Blackdog

Notice how it is generic and not directed at anyone in particular? It is about the thread, not you. :roll:

Leo said:
My statement was to the effect that minimal contact with society outside the home could be detrimental to the child's social development, I did not address the issue of minimal contact with parents (which would be quite impractical anyway, in the nuclear family environment).
Click to expand...

"I am saying that it is easy for parents to pass their prejudices, religious or otherwise, on to children, and if those children have minimal interaction outside the home, then there is little influence to counter what amounts to indoctrination." - Leo

Could have fooled me.

Leo said:
With respect, that is a matter of opinion, and indeed dependent upon the society in which one lives.
Click to expand...

"Obviously I am not talking about values like fairness, decency, and tolerance. These are values supported by society in general, and interaction with other elements of society will only reinforce them." - Leo

Then please point out this wonderful society you speak of?

transparency_corruption_world_map_2007.jpg


Leo said:
That is quite true, but the individual values (and prejudices) of all parents are not necessarily beneficial to society should they be perpetuated in this way. A balance between parental values, and those of the wider society, is far more useful in the development of a child.
Click to expand...

Maybe in a socialist or communistic society where the value of the individual is not worth much. It does not "take a village."

Leo said:
I have never set out to do so. I may not consider it preferable to good public schooling, largely because few parents are sufficiently qualified to instruct their children in the range of disciplines necessary, but I am always reticent to deem a thing illegal. We have sufficient redundant laws on our statute books as it is.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the US or Australia?
 
Leo said:
Actually I'm not, I'm much more concerned about other social prejudices, but with respect, you seem to be defending the religious aspect rather more than appears necessary. :)
Click to expand...

Your first post...

"I also want to point out that parents should not be the sole arbiters of their childrens' welfare. Certain standards as to religious indoctrination, societal prejudice and other subtle forms of abuse must be met. We are already far too subject to the prejudices of our parents." - Leo

Your third post...

"Like I'm not sure I agree with home schooling being illegal, but I think kids get a lot of religious and social prejudice that way." - Leo

Your fourth post...

"I am saying that it is easy for parents to pass their prejudices, religious or otherwise, on to children, and if those children have minimal interaction outside the home, then there is little influence to counter what amounts to indoctrination." - Leo

Your sixth post...

"I feel sure it would be better for children to be educated at schools like that, than to depend upon a parent who is unlikely to be qualified sufficiently in the entire range of subjects required. And this leaves aside any question of religious indoctrination, or any other prejudice." - Leo

So 4 out of your 5 or 6 posts say different. :2wave:

Leo said:
I would not presume to comment upon anyone's spiritual beliefs, and that includes fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims.
Click to expand...

And yet you are about to AGAIN. :lol:

Why did you feel the need to include Muslims and Christians in that statement? If you had said "I would not presume to comment upon anyone's spiritual beliefs" and left it at that, would it have had less hitting power or something?

You now have 5 out of your 6 or 7 posts mentioned religion as part of the problem. :2wave:

Leo said:
But I am aware of the damage that any form of extremism can wreak upon society, and especially upon the psyche of a small child.
Click to expand...

I guess you are an expert on child psychology and the effects of extremest and fundamentalist religions on children throughout the world?

Leo said:
So I will repeat that I consider it unhealthy for parental beliefs to be the primary exposure to society's values for children. There needs to be a balance, no matter how soundly based we may believe our value systems to be. That balance is often best provided by frequent interaction with the world outside the nuclear family.
Click to expand...

I am certain most socialists and communists dictators past and present would absolutely agree with you.

Leo said:
I guess it did. You may very well consider that a good thing; I could not possibly comment. :lol:
Click to expand...

You don't have to. The anti-religion bigotry gave itself away from the first post.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is just plain wrong, ignorance is high in this thread.
Most of these guys were generals, statesmen, business owners, et all.
How in the hell do you think that is "simple?"
Click to expand...

That may be true, but you must admit that back then, there was far less information that was required to be successful, or even be functioning. This is a very different time.

I'm willing to bet most of the detractors are of a government "education."
Click to expand...

And I'm willing to bet that most of the supporters are not. So what?
 
Blackdog said:
You don't have to. The anti-religion bigotry gave itself away from the first post.
Click to expand...

What you call bigotry, others may term valid concerns. Of course I am concerned about religious indoctrination, as well as other forms. Religion has been the cause of more bloodshed in history than any other element.

But your comments in your last posts lead me to believe that little will be gained in discussing this matter further with you, so perhaps it would be best if we were to agree to disagree. I am not saying you are wrong in your beliefs, but I am not interested in a adversarial religious debate. Little other than ill-feeling will come of that. :2wave:
 
Good morning Mon Capitan, can you make up a saying from the words pearls, before, swine and casting:lol:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That may be true, but you must admit that back then, there was far less information that was required to be successful, or even be functioning. This is a very different time.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I think the only real difference is the rate of information thrown at us today.

I mean lets face it, the village idiot is alive and well in the US and the rest of the world.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And I'm willing to bet that most of the supporters are not. So what?
Click to expand...

Don't agree with that either. I would say most of the people in this thread are probably public school graduates. Not that this makes any difference.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That may be true, but you must admit that back then, there was far less information that was required to be successful, or even be functioning. This is a very different time.
Click to expand...

Different context but not necessarily less information.

Knowing crop measurements and the like back then while now you should know how interest rates work.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And I'm willing to bet that most of the supporters are not. So what?
Click to expand...

It's a self perpetuating stereotype.

Some people think that because it worked for them, it must work for everyone while discounting all the people it didn't work for.

Most of these criticisms are based on unproven stereotypes.
 
Leo said:
What you call bigotry, others may term valid concerns. Of course I am concerned about religious indoctrination, as well as other forms. Religion has been the cause of more bloodshed in history than any other element.
Click to expand...

And the tried and true "religion has caused" is a lie. Man (without religion) has been the cause of more deaths than anything else in the world.

WWI & WWII had nothing to do with religion as far as causes of the wars go. WWI and WWII caused more deaths than every war about religion including the crusades and Inquisition combined.

Iraq, Vietnam and Korea had nothing to do with religion.

Leo said:
But your comments in your last posts lead me to believe that little will be gained in discussing this matter further with you, so perhaps it would be best if we were to agree to disagree. I am not saying you are wrong in your beliefs, but I am not interested in a adversarial religious debate. Little other than ill-feeling will come of that. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I agree.

Have a good one.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I don't agree. I think the only real difference is the rate of information thrown at us today.

I mean lets face it, the village idiot is alive and well in the US and the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

There is far more information that is currently available then there was in the 1700's. Come on, Blackdog... it is absurd to think otherwise.



Don't agree with that either. I would say most of the people in this thread are probably public school graduates. Not that this makes any difference.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I'm willing to bet that the "supporters" either were homeschooled or are currently homeschooling. But we're both correct... it is irrelevant and just a logical fallacy.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Different context but not necessarily less information.

Knowing crop measurements and the like back then while now you should know how interest rates work.
Click to expand...

I do not agree. We are talking about nearly 300 years of advancements and developments. I stand by my statement.


It's a self perpetuating stereotype.

Some people think that because it worked for them, it must work for everyone while discounting all the people it didn't work for.

Most of these criticisms are based on unproven stereotypes.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said it was irrelevant.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
There is far more information that is currently available then there was in the 1700's. Come on, Blackdog... it is absurd to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes and we have access to all of it MUCH faster. Even if they had the info then, they would not be able to access it so fast. Today we get it instantly and THAT my good Captain is the difference, not the amount.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Perhaps, but I'm willing to bet that the "supporters" either were homeschooled or are currently homeschooling. But we're both correct... it is irrelevant and just a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but looking at the poll I doubt it.

I am not home schooled! :2razz:
 
Blackdog said:
Yes and we have access to all of it MUCH faster. Even if they had the info then, they would not be able to access it so fast. Today we get it instantly and THAT my good Captain is the difference, not the amount.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Advancements in ALL fields in the last 300 years have been tremendous. There is far more information out there now then there was, then. Then, the amount of information needed was far less. It IS about quantity.



Possibly, but looking at the poll I doubt it.

I am not home schooled! :2razz:
Click to expand...

The poll asks a very different question and has no relevance to whether someone was homeschooled, or even supports homeschooling or not. I am not a fan of homeschooling, but as I said in my very first post, it is ridiculous to consider making it illegal. WHERE a child obtains their education is a parent's job... within reason. And homeschooling is certainly within that reason.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I do not agree. We are talking about nearly 300 years of advancements and developments. I stand by my statement.
Click to expand...

Civilization has existed for more than 5000 years, man has existed for far longer than that.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Which is why I said it was irrelevant.
Click to expand...

If there is valid criticism, i want to see proof otherwise it's just opinionated garbage based on stereotype.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Civilization has existed for more than 5000 years, man has existed for far longer than that.
Click to expand...

Correct. And with each passing era, more and more information is learned and developed, and more is required to navigate our changing world.



If there is valid criticism, i want to see proof otherwise it's just opinionated garbage based on stereotype.
Click to expand...

Ummm... I think I agreed with you that the stereotype of "what works for me, would work for others" on either side of the coin is irrelevant. I'm not sure if you are responding to something else, here.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Correct. And with each passing era, more and more information is learned and developed, and more is required to navigate our changing world.
Click to expand...

I will have to disagree if we are talking about the population at large.
Individuals who use more advanced information, it's probably true.

A lot of people still believe old wife tales and things that have been proven untrue.


CaptainCourtesy said:
Ummm... I think I agreed with you that the stereotype of "what works for me, would work for others" on either side of the coin is irrelevant. I'm not sure if you are responding to something else, here.
Click to expand...

I know you agree on that but I get super annoyed at detractors, it makes me boil.
No one has presented anything that says a child, educated at home, is of a lesser quality.
 
as an atheist who is ambivalent to people of faith, but has controlled contempt for organized religion.

The quality education of our children should be the reason detre of any civilized society.

This enables children to make lucid decisions, that is why I support the law of the land in the UK that all children in Government funded schools should have a set minimum number of hours of religious instruction a week.

It is no surprise to me that after 40 or 50 yrs of this law, we have the lowest number of actively religious people in our country. I therefore as an Atheist hope you implement a similar laws in your country.

BlackDog mate, there is a poster , he was banned from PF for his religious bigotry and vile Homophobic statements.

He converted To Islam, prior to his conversion he claimed he was a Fundy homophobic Christian Sunday school teacher.

He now home schools his new family as a Fundy homophobic Muslim bigot.

How many from either camp are out there legally poisoning there children's minds.

I don't disagree with homeschooling per se but the authorities must strictly regulate it, that probably does not happen because of costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom