Originally posted by ScienceDada


A bit more on this... I can think of a plethora of CONs for homeschooling:

* Many homeschoolers are subject to budgetary constraints, limited equipment and resources

First on budgetary constraints, public schools get thousands of dollars per kid, and yet they were doing so poorly that George W Bush had to pass the no child left behind act. Yet there are smaller private schools that do better than public schools with less than half of the public schools budget. Curriculum's actually are not that expensive. If someone goes on the cheap, and uses more of an outline for history, science, and etc, there are plenty of free resources online and off line. Yes some home science experiments can be interesting.

* Many homeschoolers must travel in order to be involved with vocational classes or gifted programs
* Many homeschoolers have only one (or a couple) really good teachers

Travel is good, especially if you want to teach about real world jobs. Many people travel 1/2 hour to 1+ hours to get to work. Some even travel 2 hours each way. Doesn't every one really only need one good teacher. I hate to think of how many bad teachers I ran into in public school.

* Many homeschoolers are not given the opportunities to take a senior trip
* Many homeschoolers get no flight time on the space shuttle or the International Space Station

I was never given these opportunities.

* Many homeschoolers are almost never permitted to experiment with drugs or explosives in the bathrooms
* Many homeschoolers are rarely allowed to "sew their wild oats" with multiple girls simultaneously
* Many homeschoolers don't ride the bus to school

These are cons???

* Many homeschoolers cannot speak Latin, Greek, Russian, or Swahili

I may give you this one. Many can't speak those languages. I have seen an advanced grammar or was it spelling curriculum based on the Latin language. There are some that do learn at least one language though.

Sorry if this was meant to be sarcastic. I'm tired right now, and should be sleeping.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

Originally posted by ScienceDada
First on budgetary constraints, public schools get thousands of dollars per kid, and yet they were doing so poorly that George W Bush had to pass the no child left behind act. Yet there are smaller private schools that do better than public schools with less than half of the public schools budget. Curriculum's actually are not that expensive. If someone goes on the cheap, and uses more of an outline for history, science, and etc, there are plenty of free resources online and off line. Yes some home science experiments can be interesting.

Yes, they do get thousands. Depending on the locale, but all my kids together probably reap in over $50k in the school system here. So, I gave my oldest a choice to return to the public school or homeshool this year -- and the latter was chosen. So now we are being harassed by the principal and/or administration. They are going to get an ear full from my lawyer, and this is a violation of our civil liberties.

Neither the federal/state/local government nor professional educators will dictate how my children are going to be indoctrinated. These liberals are fascist, just like the Nazis. When they are denied control over a malleable captive audience, they turn to bullying tactics, because this is how they propagate -- by "getting a hold" of other people's children.

Cool thread asmeone2

Personally, I'm against homeschooling for the most part. Simply because 99% of parents doing the teaching, have absolutely zero teaching credentials. No matter how much they believe being a parent in itself qualifies them to be a formal educator, it doesn't. If parents are going to put their children through homeschooling it should be required that they have a post-secondary education to do so, without exception.

"I perceive public school teachers to be insufficiently qualified, I'm not qualified at all; therefor I can teach my children just as well."
Is an extremely poor argument in defense of homeschooling and it seems to be quite pervasive in the reasoning of many here.

Public school is vital to the social development of youth and that includes the negative aspects along with the positive. Shielding them from the natural experiences of growing up in our society is going to be nothing but detrimental at the end of the day. The "negatives" would include things like bullying at one time or another, physical altercation, sexual exploration and drug experimentation. All of these things play a role in individual development and should not be sheltered from.

How these kinds of situations are handled ultimately depends on the upbringing bestowed upon them by their parents. Just because they are presented with opportunities to experiment with drugs, doesn't mean they will become a drug user. Because they get involved in a high school relationship, doesn't mean they will end up having a child. Being picked on at some point has them acquire an understanding what it's like and why they shouldn't do it themselves. It's an important life and learning experience they need in order to learn how to overcome and rise above it.

My parents never actually sat me down and went into detailed explanations about sex and drugs. What they did do was an extremely good job teaching me about common sense, making good decisions, morality and right from wrong. You don't need the specifics for each and every situation; simply the tools to bring to each of those situations as they make themselves apparent in your life.

Youths need to be confronted with all of these situations to grow as individuals. Sheltering them is more likely to have them make poor choices when met with foreign social interactions as the training wheels inevitably come off. It's infinitely better to make these mistakes young when you're still pliable and receptive to change.

If parents want their kids to learn more in a specific facet of life, it seems intuitive to me that you would teach them this skill outside of school. There's no reason why school has to begin at 9AM and finish at 3PM with absolutely no learning taking place outside of this. I learnt all about finances and electronics from my Dad and my Mom and I learnt Japanese together.

Public high school encompasses some of the best years of your life and I would never deprive a child of mine of those social experiences. People I know who have been home schooled just aren't the same; they never quite adapt to fit in with variable social situations. Most often, they take on the personality traits and mannerisms of their parents; which always comes across as extremely awkward and detrimental to their social well being.

Home schooling position in summery:

Pro's: - Allows more personalized 1 on 1 learning
- Removes all disruptive social aspects
- Allows for stricter discipline of uncooperative or learning impaired children
- Special care for physically disabled children
- Control over all information allows for religious or revisionist indoctrination without external conflicts to contend with (Pro for those parents with such an intent)
- Temporarily lowers risk of developing substance abuse or causing a pregnancy when in doubt concerning competent decision making and/or grasp of common sense concepts

Con's: - Unable to establish a mature understanding of proper social relationships
- Shielded from vital life lessons used to develop one's individuality and self-identity
- Missed once in a lifetime experience that cannot be brought back
- Not given the opportunity to learn and grow from association with peers
- Lack of ability to relate to others the same age
- Vastly decreased opportunities to make friends and explore relationships in senior high school years.
- Not given the chance to fail and learn from mistakes in social situations
- Never given the opportunity to learn from multiple educators or receive the unique tools imparted by each
- Disadvantaged by having access to only a single, biased point of view
- Vast majority of parents lack any formal education in teaching

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
Home schooling position in summery:

Pro's: - Allows more personalized 1 on 1 learning
- Removes all disruptive social aspects
- Allows for stricter discipline of uncooperative or learning impaired children
- Special care for physically disabled children
- Control over all information allows for religious or revisionist indoctrination without external conflicts to contend with (Pro for those parents with such an intent)
- Temporarily lowers risk of developing substance abuse or causing a pregnancy when in doubt concerning competent decision making and/or grasp of common sense concepts

Con's: - Unable to establish a mature understanding of proper social relationships
- Shielded from vital life lessons used to develop one's individuality and self-identity
- Missed once in a lifetime experience that cannot be brought back
- Not given the opportunity to learn and grow from association with peers
- Lack of ability to relate to others the same age
- Vastly decreased opportunities to make friends and explore relationships in senior high school years.
- Not given the chance to fail and learn from mistakes in social situations
- Never given the opportunity to learn from multiple educators or receive the unique tools imparted by each
- Disadvantaged by having access to only a single, biased point of view
- Vast majority of parents lack any formal education in teaching

Wow. There you go. I see this as a completely ignorant viewpoint. But to each his own.

I draw the line when people like ANoNyMiKE attempt to force me to send my children to his public hedonism academies. I will cling to my guns and religion. If necessary, this means revolt or civil war.

Hi Mike, thank you for responding. I am sorry you are getting flamed right away without your points being considered!

While I heartily disagree with you that homeschooling should be automatically outlawed, I think many of your points are valid.

My parents never actually sat me down and went into detailed explanations about sex and drugs. What they did do was an extremely good job teaching me about common sense, making good decisions, morality and right from wrong. You don't need the specifics for each and every situation; simply the tools to bring to each of those situations as they make themselves apparent in your life.

I think many parents go overboard in teaching their kids to fear S&D--and this plays into the decision to homeschool.

Many parents do not realize that the decision to use drugs or engage in sexual acts is almost always secondary to another problem, like rebellion, anger, or low self-esteem.

And of course it has been very true in my life that those who were sheilded from "evil" were typically the ones that ended up falling to it. Why? Because they had been so removed from it that they did not know its mechanics well enough to avoid it.

Youths need to be confronted with all of these situations to grow as individuals. Sheltering them is more likely to have them make poor choices when met with foreign social interactions as the training wheels inevitably come off. It's infinitely better to make these mistakes young when you're still pliable and receptive to change. (emphasis added)

Very unpopular veiwpoint, but very true.

If parents want their kids to learn more in a specific facet of life, it seems intuitive to me that you would teach them this skill outside of school. There's no reason why school has to begin at 9AM and finish at 3PM with absolutely no learning taking place outside of this. I learnt all about finances and electronics from my Dad and my Mom and I learnt Japanese together.

For some reason, there seemed to be an assumption that if a kid is going to public school, then the parent will have no room left to teach him. As your example shows, it isn't really an either /or.

Public high school encompasses some of the best years of your life and I would never deprive a child of mine of those social experiences.

Sure didn't seem like it at the time, but yes they were. The last bastions of innocence, plus most of the perks of adulthood.

People I know who have been home schooled just aren't the same; they never quite adapt to fit in with variable social situations. Most often, they take on the personality traits and mannerisms of their parents; which always comes across as extremely awkward and detrimental to their social well being.

Yes, I agree. Though I have known quite a few that were essentially the polar opposite of their parents.


And I've already talked abotu your P&C's elsewhere in the thread, so I'm not going to comment.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Wow. There you go. I see this as a completely ignorant viewpoint. But to each his own.

I draw the line when people like ANoNyMiKE attempt to force me to send my children to his public hedonism academies. I will cling to my guns and religion. If necessary, this means revolt or civil war.

Seems to me like I laid out a number of carefully thought out and thoroughly explained points; perhaps by ignorant, what you meant was disagrees with you. Hopefully you don't teach your kids to be so intolerant of others who do not share your opinion.

Someone shares an opposing view and you start talking about gun violence? If this is representational of the kind of social development home schooling instills, you're not winning it any points.

Originally posted by eradown
With friends like you, public schools are better off with enemies. Honestly, I have never once met a person who thought it was a good thing exposing kids to drugs in schools. A growth opportunity! Yeah, for the bottom line of the illegal drug industry.

I'm what you call a realist. We can all pretend as if everyone's kid is going to be straight edge, drug free, alcohol free, virgin until marriage; but what purpose does it serve to be dishonest with ourselves? It's most productive to accept the facts as they are, not what we wish them to be.

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
Seems to me like I laid out a number of carefully thought out and thoroughly explained points; perhaps by ignorant, what you meant was disagrees with you. Hopefully you don't teach your kids to be so intolerant of others who do not share your opinion.

Yes, it is ignorant. Your pros are biased, and your cons are pathetic. The underlying assumption is that homeschool students get little/no social interaction (especially negative interaction) and that sex/drug activity is a healthy part of growing up. And to force this agenda, you are supportive of a government system with policies that violate the liberties of those who disagree. I said ignorant to give you the benefit of the doubt. If your points are not ignorant, then worse... they are fascist.

Intolerance is a label given to the liberal double-standard in which conservatives have to give in to a liberal worldview. If I am labeled as intolerant, then I am proud of it. And people like you who think you can legislate tolerance will be proven wrong by insurrection if you target my children. It is a trump card on my part, and I don't care if you like it or not.

Because you buy into the whole notion that parents aren't qualified to raise their own kids, but it must be done effectively by the government/government-approved representatives. This is an unacceptable violation of our liberties, and yes... I do resort to gun violence. That is why in the U.S. we keep and bear arms, to keep the government from getting too powerful. And from dangerous people like you. It is not a "threat", it is a fact and I am informing you.

---

---