Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archived #3

Archived discussions from 1/21/06-1/20/07 (152 kilobytes) NightFalcon90909 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Too Long?

I think this article may be a bit...overworked, and frankly it is still NPOV. I personally don't care much about homeschooling, but I will admit I tend to anti but I certainly think it should be legal.

The article isn't NPOV because it doesn't cover enough opposing views. The article is NPOV because it reads like an article that homeschoolers would write to tell people about their practice. The fact is though that this article really reads like a booster article, even though i know you are all trying to be neutral. It is still clear just from reading it that most of the work on this article is done by homeschoolers. I think the reason for that is that much of the article seems to be written as a response to criticisms of homeschooling. Instead shouldn't that be left for other sources? Same for the curriculum section.

Also in several places you go into some detail about things that are covered in their own articles, such as unschooling, unit studies, etc. This is not necessary. I guess what I am trying to say is that the huge about of x% of students do better with such and such passages in the article make it read like advocacy. We don't need to know that stuff if we just want to know what homeschooling is.

In my opinion this article should do what most do, answer the questions I came to this article for: What is homeschooling? Who does it? How common is it? Why do people do it? When did it start? You should be able to answer those questions in a lot less than 5500 words. Just my opinion. protohiro 09:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....a lot of this criticism may be justified.

However, as for the, "...I came to this article for: What is homeschooling? Who does it? How common is it? Why do people do it? When did it start? You should be able to answer those questions in a lot less than 5500 words...", well, some folks might want a more in-depth treatment than that.

Maybe a rework of the intro would be in order to put the more basic info at people's fingertips... Darentig 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long in places. But I also think it is too short in others :-) The History section exemplifies both points for me. Our family came to homeschooling 20 years ago by reading Holt and the Moores and remain fans of them. But I think there is too much detail on both of them. And there is more to homeschooling history than Holt and the Moores (though that is the best starting point). Brief paragraphs on how homeschooling took off in popularity (and numbers) when the evangelicals discovered it; how it moved from a fringe movement to an acceptable educational alternative (from extreme to mainstream); the political fights over its legality (borrowing from the Legality of Homeschooling article); and the rise of government homeschooling programs would all seem to be important historical notes of the modern homeschooling movement. Oswfan 12:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Protohiro raises basic questions that the article should address; they are good questions but general. On a specific level, the #1 question people ask about homeschooling is "What about socialization?" It's pretty tough to pull the answer to this question out of the article. Shouldn't this be addressed explicitly somewhere near the front of the article? Perhaps as a separate section or perhaps each of the criticisms of homeschooling should have a brief paragraph, leading with this one. The other thing that struck me on reading the entire article is that there is no mention of the homeschooling infrastructure - the local, state, and national homeschooling support groups and organizations. This could be addressed as part of the socialization question, especially the local groups. But it may also be worthy of a paragraph in the history section. Oswfan 12:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV question is one that has come up many times. Upon reflection, and to be perfectly honest, a truly Neutral point of view is a rather utopian concept. Every single individual who seeks to contribute, criticize, or comment upon any subject at all is always going to undertake that task from some particular point of view. How many people are there out there with absolutely no opinion whatsoever about whether homeschooling or institutional schooling is better? (And, if you can find such a person, why should anyone bother to listen to them?)

The real question is whether the article fairly represents the pros and cons of homeschooling, both as a practice and as public policy, which I personally think it does. As noted in previous posts, I've even seen arguments against homeschooling that have been deliberately left out of this article just to keep from making homeschooling critics look stupid. (Or in other words, from a pro-homeschooling standpoint, the criticism was so vapid it actually would've been advantageous to our position to have included it in the article. That was from the NEA.)

I guess it's fair enough to say that the article reads like it was written by homeschoolers, but really, who else is going to write it? Public school teachers? It's going to have to be written by someone who's pretty familiar with the topic, which is pretty much...homeschoolers.

I understand the populist appeal of determining that the article should cover the basic "Who, What, When, Where, and Why," and in less than 5500 words to boot, but as it is there are still gaps in the article that need to be filled in (like when and how did homeschooling come to be so closely associated with evangelicalism). Frankly, when I come to an article I always want more information, not less. Darentig 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well stated! I agree w/ everything. NightFalcon90909 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• The BEST way to keep NPOV is by simply stating facts (as should any and every article). If the article ventures into the personal sides or issues, then you run into POV problems, Wikiwars, etc. I personally don't think that "showing NPOV by representing all sides" works. In fact, I'm yet to see it work. Even if it does work, it compounds the subject and beats the versing to a pulp, there's more of a debate than simply a layout of facts. Yes, I know there's facts within showing two sides, but why do that if you can avoid it altogether? Just state the facts, prove those facts with references. You have a good article with NPOV because there is no POV in the first place. Stating just the facts also helps keep the size of articles down as opposed to making large sections dedicated to showing differing views. Colonel Marksman 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I feel that multicultural/black ethnic minority home education within the UK isn't represented enough in this article. There should be more links to external sites to do with this issue. Any suggestions? —Adventuremama 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposing Views

I agree with (sorry, can't see your name anymore) about the need to include more opposing views...if we can do so in a way that is consistent with notability and verifiability standards. I have a concern that many wikipedia articles abandon these standards for the criticism section, and thus the claim like "some people think that homeschoolers have bad haircuts" gets included, because hey, sure, some people probably think that, and to not include criticisms would be NPOV. I've just put together on article about criticisms of free schooling / unschooling, and I have to say that the published, notable criticisms of a movement are not always what one might expect. So...my two cents. Ethan Mitchell 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any good opposing views ever. All the opposing views of homeschooling I have ever heard of or read about has been rebutted by scientific studies, facts, and polls. IOW, all the opposing views ot there are simply poorly thought conceptions; there's nothing solid there. I have my own arguements against homeschooling in some respects, but they're very minor and highly exclusive. Colonel Marksman 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not so much interested in what our viewpoints are. What I would like to see is that the page explains the types of opposition to homeschooling that exist, in as accurate a way as possible. Deciding whether or not those opposing views are 'good ones' is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Ethan Mitchell 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • As a former home educated person I have some opposing views, however I do not know how to actually place them inside of wikipedia and make the grade for qualified viewpoints. Does anybody have any suggestions? - EDIT - Per Wikipedia:Attribution I suppose there is no way to do so. I'll see you kids when my book is done.

I added the POV tag. I suggest that this entire section be removed unless this can be corrected. There are certainly many opposing findings in research and including only those that support home-schooling is unbelievably biased. 66.45.149.130 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the stuff you took away. Feel free to add some of the other opposing findings to make it more balanced, but please leave established facts here. Thanks! N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, Darentig already did. We'll say I support him :-) -- N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We have been over and over this ground. The fact that there are no properly documented opposing viewpoints does not of itself qualify as POV. You assert "there are certainly many opposing findings in research": where are they? If you have them, properly reference them and post them. It is not "unbelievably biased" to refrain from putting criticism that you cannot find. We have looked for it, and I have even refrained from using some criticism (from the NEA's site) because it was so vacuous it would have looked as though the article was intentionally sabotaging homeschool critics. You cannot simply make an unsupported assertion and then remove supported material and proclaim it POV. Darentig 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cost to homeschool families

This section was modified to include the following "Traditionaly, wives worked inside the home rather than outside the home, so this did not serve as a financial limitation until the economy change necessitating the two income family. In developed countries today, some families compensate by running a family business, working from home..." I have reverted it as uncited material. Additionally, it might be more social commentary than encyclopedic information about "Costs to homeschool families." Darentig 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are studies and data that can be cited from the ethnography "Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement," by sociologist Mitchell Stevens. Pegazzani 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Rudner and Stevens based their research on Christian fundamentalist homeschool families. What can I say. They have the funds to pay for the research, and the HSLDA membership willingly gives out their membership contact information, allowing themselves to be used this way. Inclusive groups tend to keep their membership information private, so they are harder for researchers to find. Also, the more experienced homeschool parents know that research seldom helps homeschooling, they are too busy actually educating their children, and so researchers are left interviewing novices who have only homeschooled a few months, and who aren't irritated and bored yet answering the same questions over and over.

So what is the cost to homeschool? This is like asking how much does it cost to take a vacation. It can cost anything you want it to cost! Some get their curriculum at Goodwill stores and public libraries, while others take a world cruise for a couple of years! Homeschooling can cost whatever you want to budget for it! Some parents have one give up outside work, while others scale back or arrange overlapping schedules, and others just keep their jobs, and homeschool evenings and weekends. Some have grandparents or other trusted relatives or friends do the homeschooling. Like taking a wonderful vacation, where there's a will, there's a way. Any form of education is a family spending choice. Some send their kids to free public schools so that the rest of the family budget can go to other things they consider more important. That's their choice. I defend the rights of all parents to make such decisions. Ann Zeise 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ann Zeise,

"Reasons to Homeschool" table

I like that replacing the image with an actual table. Thanks, Midnightcomm. Two things.

• I'd rather it go back on the left (to break up the article from having everything on the right).

• It needs to have it's previous attribution from below the image, "Number and percentage of homeschooled students, by reason for homeschooling: 1999, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)" I don't think that appears elsewhere. Darentig 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cited the table as described. The table is also aligned left, however, I don't like the way it appears in my browser. Perhaps it should have some whitespace around it? --Midnightcomm 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I say; whitespace around it. I moved it to the right and put Boy Edison and Fireside Education on the right, which seems OK, but the table definitely needs whitespace around it. Type is still too close, and the headers rule displays behind the table heading. I thought to try and do so, but I can't tell from the code what to do. Darentig 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added style="margin-left:15px;" to the table, which looks better IMHO Tomandlu 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide View Tag

I see that a Worldwide View tag has been added by Slf67. I don't dispute that the article is weighted toward the US, but I wonder how much that can be changed. It's my understanding that the homeschool movement originated in the US, and is still by far stronger there than in any other nation. Darentig 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it yesterday but didn't have time to explain at the time. I read this article and the line "white, college-educated, married, relatively affluent, evangelical christians" stopped me in my tracks. And then the main body referred to the work of Holt and the Moores, both obviously US centric. In my mind, as a British Australian, home education is a long standing choice that parents make if they feel they can better educate their children at home and have the time to do so. Most parents outside of the US educate home educate because of overcrowded, underfunded public schools, taking their children out of class sizes of 30 plus, and the parents have the time and expertise to do so. I also suspect the parental politics would be left of centre, but that's my personal observation. In parallel to this a US homeschool program has been developed with religious background over the latter half of last century. Now, if this article is about US homeschooling for religious reasons, then fine and spell it out clearly. But if this article is about educating children at home worldwide then there is undue bias towards the former view. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...something to think about I suppose...to be honest, we have tried to represent the face of homeschooling in the other nations, but it's rather difficult from here and we don't get that much interaction from elsewhere except the occasional addition of a link or something. It isn't that the article is about US homeschooling for religious reasons, but it's dreadfully difficult to come up with pertinent, citable information otherwise, so it definitely leans that way. One reason there is so much info about American homeschooling is because there's a lot more information to reference. (Also, it seems to me that the proponderance of homeschoolers internationally still rest in that camp simply because of the sheer size of the American homeschool movement.)

It's not only the available research that is mostly on American homeschooling - it's that most homeschoolers are American. Look at the numbers cited in the demographics section, American homeschoolers outnumber other nations by 2-3 orders of magnitude. By organizing the Demographics section by country, it places undue emphasis on the minority of homeschoolers. Unless you are from these countries, this data is relatively unimportant and should be much lower in the article. (Oswfan 11:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

I added that statement recently because someone had complained about the article having too much information and they only wanted the barebones facts. Maybe I should alter it to read "average homeschoolers in the US" or something...the statement does come from citable facts, but obviously all aspects do not apply to all homeschoolers. Our family, for instance, is not college educated, I am glad to say, or relatively affluent, I am not so glad to say, but the other aspects fit well enough. That's why I put average in quotation marks.

Schools here are also overcrowded and underfunded, but that does not seem to be sufficient impetus for most parents here to consider homeschooling. (Frankly, even if they were underpopulated and fabulously funded, they would not make a very good environment for anyone, much less children. Prisoners maybe.)

Curious to know why you identify yourself as a British Australian, rather than merely an Australian. Darentig 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be really interesting to dig up some information of say home schooling in rural areas, places where there is no compulsory modern schooling. But just to elaborate on the above, some people home school because they believe there is a huge difference between schooling and education, and that education is the bringing out of innate qualities, such as ability to express yourself through creative writing and speech, of mannerisms (human relations), etc Astounded Heffalump 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's one of my favorite blogs by a homeschool mom who lives on a cattle ranch. [1] Confessions of a Pioneer Woman. She's really a hoot! As Mark Twain said, "I never let schooling interfere with my education!" For many years there was no compulsory education in Malaysia. It was great fun to chat with the homeschool families there, but recently Malasia has adopted compulsory education. There use to be a site run by some women in Afganistan, talking about how they were educating their daughters at home undercover as it was illegal to educate girls in that country. Suddenly that server disappeared. Ann Zeise 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ann Zeise,

Famous People Homeschooled

What is everyones thoughts on having a section listing famous people who were home schooled? Or even partial schooling —The preceding Astounded Heffalump 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been an item of some dispute in the past. You can dig through the archives to see what has gone before. The gist of the most recent discussion is that such a list would have to be absolutely verifiable according to a set of standards which has yet to be agreed upon; all of which no one has taken the time and effort to attempt.

It might also be tricky to create such a list that does not come off looking like Trivia. Darentig 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Public schooling is a fairly recent development, and compulsory schooling is only about 100 years old. So when I see these lists of historical figures who were homeschooled, I have to chuckle: Attila the Hun's mother really didn't have a choice! I do maintain a list of those I call "Successful Homeschoolers." This is a list of modern folks, either the parents or the youngsters, who are homeschooling or who have homeschooled. Most are not in the history books. The one you most likely know is Christopher Paolini, the author of the Eragon series, which was made into a movie recently. Is such a list really necessary? For some, such lists give unrealistic expectations. Homeschooling does not guarantee your child will be wildly successful. To Nay Sayers it gives some proof that we don't all destroy our children in the process. To others it gives "permission" to allow a talented child a way to let them follow their dream, starting at a young age. That's why I keep the list. Ann Zeise 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ann Zeise,

Removal of "Typical American" homeschooler statement

Anon user 66.183.199.29: this is a legitimate factual statement drawn as a summation from the referenced material below. If you think you have some good reason to remove this statement from the article you need to discuss it here first. If you continue removing it with no explanation I will consider your action vandalism and have you blocked from Wikipedia. Darentig 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved the following comment to it's appropriate subject here. Darentig 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot conclude from the data provided that homeschoolers are, on average, white, wealthy, etc. without a qualification that you are referring to American homeschoolers. Also, I dispute the assertion that a majority of even American Homeschoolers are "evangelical Christians." While they may homeschool for "religious/moral reasons" this does nothing to imply any particular affiliation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.199.29 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Hmm...ok I will grant you your assertion as to being evangelical. I still think that's quite true, but I have to agree that it is not cited in the article and will amend it accordingly until I can cite it.

As to the others, the statement already does qualify itself as pertaining to Americans, and the demographic info listed in the article clearly indicates that American homeschoolers are much more likely to be white. Not saying that being white makes homeschoolers special, or that homeschooling makes white people special, just that it is a statisical fact. Personally, I can't imagine what anyone, white, black or purple, is waiting on. I'll add another ref from the DOE study to back these statistics up.

Please note that I did not say "wealthy" but "relatively affluent", as the study does indicate – if somewhat indirectly. Darentig 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK (sigh). The whole point of the summary demographics statement was because protohiro had complained about too much info in the article (!) and not enough barebones facts, then Steve _(Slf67) complained that it doesn't apply internationally, so I noted it as American, and, looking into 66.183.199.29's further objections I did have to modify it slightly, but at this point it really seems like the whole statement should fall under the US subheading of Demographics, and not up in the summary anyway. So I have moved it there and added some interesting Barna stats. I do have to agree, based on the stats I am seeing, that, although American homeschoolers are much more likely to be evangelical than the national population, evangelicalism only comprises a fairly small category of homeschoolers. Darentig 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit taken aback at some of the stats from the Barna studies, but when I went to research Barna, I understood why. Here is a direct statement from the Barna Group website regarding their purpose:"The ultimate aim of the firm (Barna) is to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States." Now, I have to wonder, why on earth would the wikipedia homeschooling article cite such a (willingly professed) biased organization's research when other research from the DOE (through the National Center for Education Statistics) is available? I would like to see this research either replaced with something from the DOE (arguably neutral, though probably biased against homeschooling as the NEA is) or at least a strong statement that the Barna group's studies are challenge as biased and misleading. The contradiction between the various studies' findings make this article difficult to read, as you have to wade through all the opposing statistics to find anything useful.strike71 04:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes by Anon 209.244.16.171

Sorry; most of these have been particularly worded for specific reasons.

• "...very roughly estimates" Typically, the word "very" would be redundant. If you follow the link however, you will see that this estimation is rougher than most and should be noted to the reader.

• "families"; the original material does not state this; it could mean 15,000 students.

• "Atheistic": not "an atheist", to follow the flow of the sentence, but the homeschooler is "atheistic".

• "white": that's the word the study used. Not Caucasian.

• "religious/moral": again, that's the wording of the study, not "theological or ethical".

• "evangelical": again, the wording of the study. Not discussing how strongly the beliefs are held, but that they are evangelical beliefs.

• "national norm": wording of the study; not "general population". Darentig 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

changes by 68.35.158.218

68.35.158.218 has added some good information, rewritten other information, and most importantly added a table. However, the text wrapping around said table is not working so Darentig... since you seem to be really working on this page, could you fix that since I have no idea why it is not working. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 ^{T a l k} 13:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are seeing.....text wrapping looks right to me...I did make some changes to this new material to make the language more encyclopedic and balanced, and for clarification....if it still shows wrong you might have browser issue? I don't know...Darentig 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well whatever you did it is fixed now... maybe I am just crazy and it never was broken;-) N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 ^{T a l k} 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wowa there!

I say there Darentig- are you sure all of those are spam? Some of them looked fine to me-

• Know Homeschooling Wiki

- * Gifted Homeschoolers Forum A California-based national association for families homeschooling gifted children. - * Home Education UK - Contains links to UK, US, European and Australian home education organizations. - * HEN Ireland - The Home Education Network- Support and lobby group for home educators in Ireland. - * IndigoExtra - provides information and links on home education in Europe. - * The Link Homeschool Newspaper Free, inclusive, national homeschool newspaper. Articles run the gamut of styles and philosophies. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 ^{T a l k} 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that knowhomeschooling.com is hardly commercial. --Midnightcomm 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well....spam might really be a poor term as a catch-all, but I have been looking at these for some time now and wondering if they really had a place here....I will admit that I had some qualms about a couple....but in looking at the policy which has been brought to our attention by Veinor, I think that few of the current links really fill the qualifications.

Actually, I am wondering if the external link section ought to be deleted entirely. I realize that many of these are not really commercial, but the links that get added in, and that have collected up, often seem to be a little...well....rinky dink I guess I would say...though that doesn't apply to all of these. Darentig 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing with the discussion of "spam" links. . . .

I have gotten involved in editing only three pages at Wikipedia and have found my editorial revisions revised, themselves, twice, by editors who are far more experienced here than I am.

One of those had to do with my addition of a link on the Homeschooling page to Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd., a major homeschool supply house.

Having, SINCE THEN, read the Wikipedia article about how to identify spam, I realize my link was legitimately deleted. However, I also sense a direction the external links should go, here, on the Homeschooling page.

The NHERI and HSLDA links make sense. The organizations are major sources of information (NHERI) and influence (HSLDA) for the homeschool movement in the U.S.

The Moore Foundation and Holt Associates links, however, though ostensibly related to primary content within the Homeschooling article, are really commercial links, when you take a moment to look.

Ivan Illich link: to an encyclopedia article. Looks legitimate.

Cato Institute article: also appears legitimate. It is a kind of "generic" comment.

My two cents, for what they're worth.

But after my experiences of finding myself on the "wrong end" of other editors, I will refrain from doing anything on the page itself at this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brightflash (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

They may be considered commercial links, but they're noteworthy commercial links; i.e. very much germaine to the topic. Kind of like a link to the Coke website in an article on soft drinks; yes, it's commercial, but you'd really be remiss not to have it. There's also a good bit of information on those sites too. Darentig 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity

I didn't know people did this nowadays, it's very surprising to me. Although seeing how teachers here in Spain are less and less capable of educating children (there are more and more cases of children beating up on teachers!), it wouldn't surprise me if people start doing it.

However I cannot resolve this: How do those children get friends? --euyyn 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, but do you think that friendship was invented 150 years ago with institutional schooling? How did people get friends before that? Don't you have any friends that you met outside school?

Most of what passes for "friends" in the school systems are not really friends at all; more like fellow inmates. On the contrary, it is schooled children who are bereft; of a substantial family and real parenting. Darentig 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

::I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, but do you think that children that go to school can't have a substantial family with real parenting? Why not answer what seemed to be a reasonable question instead of being insulting? --Onorem 15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes.

2. (Seriously) Because this question is as if you dropped into a world where everyone had adopted a pointless practice of wearing scuba gear everywhere they go, for several generations so that no one had ever seen anything else, and when someone suggested there was no real reason to do this people asked, "..but how will you breathe?" It really wasn't meant to be insulting, but it really is that obvious an answer. Darentig 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

::::1. That's just sad. ::::2. Horrible analogy. Scuba gear doesn't make it easier to breathe everywhere you go. Growing up, I knew a handful of kids from church, and a handful of kids that lived (relatively) nearby. I knew hundreds of kids from school, and most of the "fellow inmates" that I considered friends then, I would consider friends 10-15 years later. It's not 150 years ago. Many children around the world have most of their social interactions at school. Yes, there are other places where people can gather and socialize, but many people in recent years aren't as exposed to those places, and it's a legitimate question to ask. --Onorem 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

People, this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not the topic itself. Discussion in this manner of the merits or otherwise of homeschooling is inappropriate. Please take it to e-mail or IRC or something like that. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. :-) I notice you side stepped the issue in an insulting way.

2. No, scuba gear doesn't make it easier to breathe everywhere you go; it's only for making it possible to breathe in a certain peculiar circumstance. Likewise, schools don't make it easier to learn; it's what people do whether you place them in an institution or not.

3. "Many children around the world have most of their social interactions at school. Yes, there are other places where people can gather and socialize, but many people in recent years aren't as exposed to those places" This is precisely my point. This peculiar "parocialism in time" has given people some rather unbalanced ideas and a miniaturized mindset about life. The reason I didn't "answer what seemed to be a reasonable question" in the way you expect is that a much broader frame of reference in needed by the inquisitor. Darentig 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind continuing this discussion in my user talk page so this talk page won't be flooded with it, which I agree is off-topic. In a village with many people doing homeschooling, as would have been the case 150 years ago, children can (must) socialize in the street. But it is difficult to socialize and make friends with people from other schools, so in a normal village or city (speaking of rarity) a homeschooled kid would have trouble making friends. Living together day by day with your friends in the school builds a particular culture inside the group, which makes it difficult for people from outside to join, and it strengthens the bonds formed. --euyyn 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see that there is some disagreement regarding external links (and characterization of some groups mentioned). First of all, please discuss changes on this talk page rather than get into an edit war (and please note the 3-revert rule, violations of which may result in an editor being blocked). It's good to present multiple viewpoints in an article, as long as those viewpoints are attributed and as long as the article ultimately remains neutral. It's also acceptable to characterize a group as left-leaning, right-leaning, religious, etc. only if that assertion can be backed-up with a reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is certainly room to include information about the socio-political leanings of information sources as long as it conforms to verifiability. Those issues should be considered by the reader. The Wikipedia external links and conflict of interest policy is very clear though. And to suggest that this article as a whole is right leaning when so much weight is given to John Holt is preposterous. Darentig 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The political leanings of the Reconstructionist groups that you use as "reliable resources" are highly documented. I have all the necessary resources and links on my site. I have written an article now about the bias in your Homeschooling page.

Don't believe me. Just Google "Reconstuctionist" and "HSLDA." This is a group bent on overthrowing the US constitution and creating a theocracy in the US. They created Patrick Henry University solely to train religious political leaders - they have one major, Political Science. You don't even HAVE any centrist, let alone left-leaning resources quoted. It is as if the article was written by someone entirely outside the homeschool movement or a card-carrying member of HSLDA. The page is causing all sorts of turmoil as those who are truly centrist and neutral are trying to undo the harm this page does! Ann Zeise 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ann Zeise I don't think you understand everyone's role here. I have not written a single word of this article. I deleted a link per WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and in your case, conflict-of-interest policies. I suggested that you use the talk page to try to rationally discuss the article and whether or not it's balanaced. I know nothing about homeschooling, and frankly am not that interested in it. What I am interested in is preventing people from using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their own websites or companies. This just happens to be one of the many articles that I monitor for spam. You show up here and throw a fit because someone doesn't allow you to use Wikipedia to promote your own personal website, then begin making wild (and false) accusations. If you actually read what people are posting here and tried to engage in a real discussion, I'd like to think that other folks who work on the content of this article could work with you in improving any potential WP:NPOV issues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamie, you forgot to tell me one thing: Where to FIND this discussion. The only TALK button I could find was the MY TALK link to talk to you, so I did. You could have called it "Discussion" and then i would have known where to go. Calling things by their correct name goes a long way in educating a person. You have to understand that I contributed to the Homeschool Wiki in ways for years, and then the content was dumped for the current, very extreme right-winged one. Yes, I added a link to my site, because my site is the grandmother of all homeschool sites, and includes every perspective I can manage to find over its 1300 pages. Though I do the "construction" thousands of homeschoolers have helped me create the content. About a million a month find help there each month. I hardly need the traffic. I am only upset that you or whoever is allowing the extremists in the homeschool movement to dominate the article. I don't know if they spammed it or how it got there, but you are the gatekeeper, one who admits to knowing not the first thing about homeschooling or its leaders and divisions. It is just unacceptable. Yes, I am learning my way around this "new order" here in the Wiki. I am nearly 60 years old and one of the "grandmothers" of the homeschool movement. A to Z is not some little personal site, but an icon in the history of online homeschooling. Ann Zeise 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Ann Zeise,

If it's such an icon, I'm surprised that no one has added it before. Regarding you admonition that it was my responsibility to tell you exactly what button to press for the article's talk page; I'm more inclined to help people when they're not throwing wild accusations and writing fairy tales about me. Anyone reading your "feature article" can view this article's history, this talk page as well as your talk page and draw their own conclusions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

biased research

Is anyone else concerned that the only academic evidence presented is by the "National Home Education Research Institute"? The social evidence is not much better...there's one study from the 70s and another, again, by the home education research institute. It seems a bit POV. Jakerforever 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find more reliable evidence, by all means let us know. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that data is derived from the NHERI does potentially mean that it could be skewed by the bias of the researchers, but it's what we have. I don't see an issue with the fact that the Moores conducted their study in the 70's; not like age would cause the findings to grow shag carpet or anything. But finding research at all on this topic isn't too easy, much less from a source that isn't potentially swayed by their interests. It's not really POV because nothing has been excluded to make (or hide) a point. Darentig 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am currently engaged in a study of unschoolers. I agree that NHERI's research is suspect simply because of who they are. But there is a kind of irreducible problem here. Almost all research that is carried out on controversial subjects is going to be enacted by agents that have a particular interest in that subject. How many studies on drug policy do you think are written by people who don't really care about drug policy? I think that this article currently cites both the DOE's research and NHERI's research, and since there is basically nothing else to cite, that's fine. If there's some exceptional reason to think that NHERI's research is biased, then we should mention that, but a critical reader has to be aware that all research is potentially biased by interest. Ethan Mitchell 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on education issues, but I'd be willing to bet the farm there was some sort of academic research or even government-sponsered study...these would be infinitely better than a study conducted by a special interest group! I'm sure a lot of people looked into this, not neccesarily with an ax to grind. Ethan, tell us more about the nature of your study?Jakerforever 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jakerforever, you may be surprised at what the official wikipedia policy ( WP:YESPOV ) says. It says "all sources have biases", and has tips on how to build unbiased encyclopedia articles on top of such biased information.

I agree that a rational person would think that "surely lots of people have done lots of studies on the effectiveness of various ways of educating children". But alas, that seems not to be the case.

If anyone can find any other studies -- even studies that are biased even worse, in one way or the other, please tell us.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links.

OK. I still wonder if we should remove External Links altogether, but they can serve a useful purpose. I propose a policy for this article that no external link ever be added without prior discussion and agreement on the talk page for each intended link. External links are not to be an exhaustive list of possible web resources, but only the most important links. WP:EL Vote? Darentig 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For articles with controversial external links sections, requiring talk page proposals can be a good idea. I know very little about homeschooling, but I did notice that one of the recently removed links, nhen.org, was nominated by Forbes as a "best of" site. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I must admit I missed that....but if you go and have a look at Forbes site they have eleven sites listed as Best of the Web for the Homeschool category, including Nat'l Geo and "teachwithmovies.com." I shouldn't think we should want to add all of those....Darentig 16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Homeschooling in UK and China

I changed English-speaking nations" in the first paragraph to "the US" because home-schooling is rare in the UK and other English-speaking countries. I also removed "this is a source of great controversy in China" because it really is not "on the radar" in China, so to speak, as an issue.

Don't know where the "source of great controversy in China" sneaked in but that should really be flagged as unsupported before being deleted. Am restoring that and "the English speaking nations"; I agree that home education is more prevalent in the US, but the comment was not directed at the UK; and the US is, of course, an English speaking nation. The point of the statement is that home education is more of a legal option in these nations than in most other developed nations with compulsory schooling laws, and that there is more of a homeschool "movement" in these nations. It's still pretty rare in the US too....but a comparison of numbers isn't the point. Darentig 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues that are sources of "great controversy" in China include subjects such as migrant labor, economic growth, the Taiwan issue, the Three Gorges Dam and the Rape of Nanjing. Homeschooling really is not a source of "great controversy". As for changing "English-speaking nations", I changed it again to "North America". I did't explain my reason properly in the first place. I meant that homeschooling is incredibly rare in "English-speaking countries" outside North America. In fact, it's so rare in Europe that even the word "homeschool" will need explaining to a lot of people in the UK. It might be rare in the US, but it's almost unheard of in the UK, probably because we are a largely secular country, and religious beliefs have been the basis of the movement in North Amnerica. 81.151.10.253 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add a statistic here to reinforce my point: in Counties surveyed a survey showed " between 0.09% and 0.42% of school populations being taught at home". [2]

I'm not arguing about China: I have no idea if it's a great controversy or not. All I'm saying is that the first step is to flag it as unsourced and give editors an opportunity to back it up.

As for "English Speaking Nations" you are still missing the point. The statement is not an indicator of the numbers of families that actually partake of their legal ability to home educate their children, but simply that it is a legal option, which it is, "especially in the English speaking nations." Ireland, for instance, guarantees a civil right to homeschool in their constitution. It is not so in many other nations, such as Germany where a homeschooling family recently had their children removed to the public schools by force of arms and the German courts told the parents in no uncertain terms that they could not homeschool and they would just have to learn to accomodate themselves to the rest of German society regardless of their beliefs. Even if no British subject ever heard of home education, it still remains a legal right, that, for whatever reason, seems to be peculiar to the english speaking nations. Darentig 19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the peculiarity of English nations in this area may have something to do with the fact that throughout the 16th and 17th centuries they had so many disagreements about religion (Protestant and Catholic). I know for a fact that this conflict had a large effect on education, as many alternative schools popped up on one side or the other as the power-share shifted. Daniel Defoe, for example, was in a religious minority for the majority of his life, and considered himself self-taught, attending in his college years a lesser-known school that catered to his minority group. Wrad 02:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very imaginative, Wrad. I'm sure no other countries had Catholic/Protestant strife in those centuries -- certainly not Germany! (LOL!) Seriously, what happened so long ago is pretty irrelevant; the concept of homeschooling only makes sense once compulsory education came along, which in most places wasn't until the 20th century. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was think more along the lines of affecting the people's general attitude. English society developed a very fragmented school system very early on. I don't really know what Germany did, but a fragmented system would seem to prepare people for the idea of homeschool, or teaching your kids what you want them to hear, rather than what society does. Wrad 10:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Along the lines of a more international article, I found this "Sites of [homeschool] growth include Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Poland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States." -- Ray, Brian D. "Customization Through Homeschooling." Educational Leadership; Apr2002, Vol. 59 Issue 7, p50, 5p, 1c

NHERI

Spamwithmustard altered the text in social findings..

From: Home Schooling Achievement, a study conducted by National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), indicates the academic integrity of homeschooling; the average homeschooled student outperforms their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. The study also indicates that public school performance gaps between minorities and genders are virtually non-existent among homeschooled students.

To: Home Schooling Achievement, a study conducted by National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), a christian intitution founded for the purpose of defending homeschooling, indicates supports the academic integrity of homeschooling; they claim that the average homeschooled student outperforms their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. The study also They cite their own study that indicates that public school performance gaps between minorities and genders are virtually non-existent among homeschooled students.

I have reverted this change because A: It goes beyond a mere statement of the fact that NHERI is pro-homeschool to being POV. B: the NHERI website gives no indication that I can find of their being Christian or "for the purpose of defending homeschooling." C: obviously, the text already indicates that the study was conducted by NHERI, and the study does not, "cite their own study." That is a grammatical redundancy.

A simple statement of fact about NHERI should be sufficient for the reader to realize the potential for bias to be introduced into the study. Darentig 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis added by me to the above section to highlight the changes —Wahoofive (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The page blithely offers positive studies as the truth

I have looked at some of these studies that conclude that home-schooled students do well on tests. It is one thing that the organizers of these studies have an agenda, typically a pro-homeschooling agenda. That does raise a red flag, but as people have argued, you may have to live with it for controversial questions. However, the way to live with it is not to throw up your hands and say, these studies are the best that we have. Instead, you should check to see to what extent the studies, in particular their interpretations, hold water. So as I said, I checked some of them. The basic problem is that the studies compare voluntary testing of homeschooled students with mandatory testing of public-school students. They don't require testing of the homeschooled students because they can't. Only some states have any mandatory testing of homeschooled students, often with exemptions or options, and I have not seen studies that specifically rely on these mandates to make a clean comparison. Tellingly, some of these studies treat it as a non-issue.

Many parents homeschool because they resent the rigidity of the public-school system. Some of these parents count standardized tests among the rigidities that they oppose. Of course, you're all the more likely to resent standardized tests if your kids do badly on them. Other parents may not be against standardized testing in principle, but they may wait until they think that their kids will do well. Or they may stack the outcome by low-balling their childs' grade. A fair comparison of homeschooling and public schools would have to count all of these possibilities. Greg Kuperberg 04:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and if you can find any studies which lack this bias, please let us know. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that the ACT has a special high school code for homeschoolers (they have a code for each individual HS as well), so they probably would have some unbiased stats. Just have to find them. Wrad 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This website [3] is a possibly biased site, but cites it's source as being the ACT organization. Here's a more unbiased source with the same findings [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17950]. This site offers the opinion that only small percentage of homeschoolers take the test.(I tend to believe it, but want to see some data, rather than an offhand statement [4]). http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp, an SAT score summary from a biased site, citing the official SAT website. Wrad 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This topic is certainly in strange territory if WorldNetDaily is a relatively unbiased source! Be that as it may, this article is not as wacko as a lot of WorldNetDaily articles, so maybe we can learn something from it. In particular, it does more than relate an unbacked opinion that few homeschoolers take the ACT; it gives the number that in 1999-2000, 4,593 homeschooled students took the ACT, out of a total of more than a million. That can be compared to statistics from NCES [5] that there were in that year 235,000 homeschooled children in grades 9-12, out of a total of 14 million students. Also, the fraction of students homeschooled seems to be steady at about 1.7% across grades.

So even though 1.7% of high-school students were homeschooled, only 0.43% of ACT test-takers were homeschooled. Or, transposing the fractions, 30% of high-school seniors took the ACT (assuming that they graduated as seniors), while for homeschooled students the same ratio is 7.8%. This is a substantial amount of self-selection! One possible explanation of the discrepancy is that some homeschooled students may give nominal high-school affiliations to the ACT. But unless 3/4 of them do that, the drop in numbers would by itself say that a much smaller fraction of homeschooled students go to college at all.

I would ask whether homeschooling encourages a philosophy of "if I can't excel, I'll quit the system." It would mean that homeschooled children would always look good in voluntary measures of success, especially contests such as the National Spelling Bee as the Wall Street Journal mentioned. But it would not mean that they are really doing better on average, if they stepped forward to compete or take tests only when they think that they would do well. Greg Kuperberg 03:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be very hard to measure, in either home or public school. I enjoy your analysis, though. We would also need SAT stats. Wrad 11:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive :-). See here. The homeschooled fraction of SAT test-takers was 0.25% in 1999 and 0.45% in 2000. These ratios raise the same questions as the ACT ratios. Greg Kuperberg 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for with all of this, but I feel compelled to point out that the group of homeschoolers is self-selected to begin with, so even if you could test 100% of homeschoolers against 100% of public-schooled kids, that wouldn't prove anything about the efficacy of homeschooling. If nothing else, homeschooled kids are kids whose parents care greatly about their education; such kids are going to do relatively well academically in any context. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What I am looking for is the truth of whether homeschooled students actually do better academically, on average, and if so, how much better. It may be true that they do better, but I have to say that I'm skeptical. For instance, you portray homeschooling parents are greatly invested in their childrens' education, but if so, how come so few of these children take the ACT or the SAT? Even if that question has a positive answer, I would simply like to see credible statistics. I also wouldn't want Wikipedia to give the implicit advice that homeschooling leads to great academic achievement based on ill-founded statistics.

In particular, it might well prove something if homeschooled students actually did worse on average on standardized tests, if you tested all of them. You would either have to doubt that homeschooling parents truly are more committed on average; or doubt standardized tests as a measure of education; or you would have to conclude that there is something else that cancels out the parents' extra commitment, again in the average case. Greg Kuperberg 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your intent. I have always thought that there is a right and a wrong way to homeschool, just as there is a right and wrong way to do anything in education. It would also be nice, on top of what you suggest, if we could separate homeschoolers by teaching methods, to see what is most effective. Unfortunately, the very nature of homeschooling resists most statistics. I am familiar, though, with a few studies measuring student success by household income, and by whether or not a parent is a certified teacher. I was also thinking that some of the stats on homeschool for ACT and SAT may be skewed because many public schools allow homeschoolers to attend for one or two classes (such as band or choir) which a homeschool could not provide. These students may report in surveys that they are homeschooled, but to the ACT that they are attending that particular high school. Sometimes it's hard to draw a fine line between the two. Wrad 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly right that there are wrong ways to homeschool, at least from an academic perspective; for example, many parents homeschool their children in order to inculcate religious dogma and therefore neglect areas of study outside of religion. Others homeschool because their children have "special needs" (whether real or imagined) which they feel the schools aren't addressing effectively. Because of this, just getting raw test averages isn't going to help comprehend the efficacy of homeschooling. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in an unbiased study in which a researcher went into different homes around the country and studied that different ways it is done. In my town, there is an evangelical group of homeschoolers, and if one of the parents is knowledgeable in an area he'll teach the students that are interested. But, if you're not evangelical christian, you can't join. Some schools use a curriculum from some textbook series, such as Abeka (a christian series) or Saxon Math (also used in some public schools). Others have their kids do work around the house and whatnot. Others use an unschooling approach, allowing their children's natural curiosity to lead them to learn. A general theme, though, seems to be that if the parents really care about their child's education, they are more likely to succeed, no matter how it is done, public, private, or any variety of homeschool. Wrad 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What is "education"?

What is "succeed"?

If your child takes the SAT, and does very well, or very poorly, what does that tell you? That your child has or doesn't have an aptitude for taking the SAT? (Maybe they can make a living as a professional SAT taker?) That you or your child's public school teacher does a better or worse than average job of turning children into "wind up mechanical Arithmetic-doing toys," as John Holt said? Or just that your child has more or less of an inclination to be "wound up" into such a toy?

In compulsory-education-minded-society parlance, "education" generally equates to "effectively remembering a host of facts and skills that are cut off from any real application in life, until the test is finished." "Remembering" in this definition is a somewhat gentle word; one might say rather "having been inculcated with" or "injected with".

What makes people think that we can "give" someone "an education"? What is it that makes people think that "an education" will then make the "recipient" a better, more worthwhile person? That you can make them into a teacher by sending them to college? That their life will be more meaningful if they have a piece of paper–whether SAT score or diploma, or what have you–testifying that they effectively gamed the system as well as or better than most "students"? I suppose that if your definition of success is purely monetary you can make a good case that the accumulation of paper degrees does have a tendency to translate to affluence, but the last I checked Bill Gates and the least known homeless man will both go down to the grave.

What is it that makes people think that we can go around measuring human beings with little tests? Once we have measured them, what have we done? Will God ask them their SAT score? Or how much money they made? Darentig 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is another thing that makes educational success difficult to measure: The general trend toward critical thinking over regurgitation. Teachers today are gradually leaning towards the former over the latter. Some homeschoolers follow it, some don't. But the main thing with critical thinking skills is they are difficult to measure objectively. They are usually written as papers or some other project, rather than as multiple choice tests. They do help a lot in learning, though. There are so many things homeschool covers that we will probably need to be careful in making generalizations about it. Wrad 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed external link to a local Boy Scout Troop

An anonymous editor added it, I removed it. This article is about home-schooling, not a resource for home-schoolers. For what it's worth, a list of home-school-friendly Boy Scout troops can be found here: LoneStarDavid 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazi laws survive in contemporary Germany

I am shocked and disgusted to see that Germany is still using Nazi laws and policies in this field, and I have started a section about it. Please expand it. Aviara 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooohkay...*breathe*. There are NO nazi-laws surviving in Germany! It is true that the first time homeschooling was outlawed was under Hitler, and that its still forbidden today...but its NOT the same law. We have a "Compulsory Education"-Law, wich is there to ensure that all kids have the same chances of education. Since it´s thought to be logistically impossible to make sure that all "homeschool kids" get an education that adheres to the offical curriculum, and because of fears of parents teaching their kids propaganda, or just not beeing qualified enought, the lawmakers decided to keep homeschooling outlawed. I´ll rewrite that part. FreddyE 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Have amended this change to be more encyclopedic. As for "NO nazi-laws surviving in Germany"; a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Darentig 15:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is that no nazi-laws have been "copied" into the lawbooks, not that no laws exists wich in essence do the same or similar. FreddyE 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hear the nazis had laws against rape and stealing as well, we should get rid of those laws. Prussia had the first Compulsory Education-Law back in the 1800s. Compulsory Education existed in all German states long before the third Reich—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.232.168 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read a similar thing on the HSLDA website and think it is pure home schooling propaganda. I do believe it says more about HSLDA than about countries that have a strict educational system, not allowing homeschooling. A look at this report is enough to see that the strict educational traject in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden work, Germany doing average, while the US and UK need work. - Species8473 (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is highly biased towards homeschooling. There are multiple citations for homeschooling, while any criticism i feel is deliberately made to sound vague and unsubstaniated. Anyone with more experience than me could have a go at including such studies as The Civic Perils of Homeschooling by Rob Reich ThirteenSenses 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looked for "Civic Perils of Homeschooling by Rob Reich"; could not find it available except by subscribing to academic research periodicals and such. Did find several summaries of it, however, and I may say; How amusing it is that we all must be doing the same thing in order to learn the value of diversity! Darentig 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have access. I'll take a look. Wrad 15:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This addition should go under "Criticism," not "Academic Findings." (Is this the Robert Reich of the Clinton administration? I wish there were some way to read this article...) Darentig 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I put it in the right place, but I do know that Wikipedia discourages Criticism sections. The consensus would rather have both sides worked into the body of the article. Any other place it might fit?

Also, the same issue of the journal this article is in also has many scholarly, unbiased articles in favor of homeschool which I plan to add. Wrad 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that about Criticism so I went looking for some sort of policy and found it here. The first of three listed options for presenting criticism is in a criticism section in the pertinent article, and, in the case of an article such as this one (which routinely is accused of violating NPOV) I think it best to have a section clearly delineated as such.

I agree with ThirteenSenses that Homeschooling's criticism section does appear somewhat vapid, but that's primarily because the critics of homeschooling have vapid criticisms. This one at least has a highfalutin veneer of respectablility and academic accreditation, so it makes a good addition. Darentig 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rob Reich, PoliSci professor at Stanford is a different person from Robert Reich, Clinton's Secretary of Labor. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

By golly, you're right: doesn't look a thing like him. Darentig 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we can move it. I wasn't too familiar with criticism issues, just got criticized (pardon the pun) for having a criticism section in an article I was working on earlier. Wrad 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Heavily Biased

This article is heavily biased in favor of homeschooling, at some points almost sounding like a pamphlet promoting the concept.John 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this has been brought up. Do you know of any anti articles we could add. I still have a few up my sleeve that are pretty reliable sources. Wrad 00:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, would you mind taking them out of your sleeve so the rest of us might have a look? Darentig 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I will. I'm just up to my ears in the Shakespeare FAC right now. Sorry. Wrad 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why is homeschooling banned in Germany and China? That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me. 69.234.214.190

Well, some of us might have always wondered why homeschooling is allowed in the first place, but we come to wikipedia to learn more about the subject instead of posting charged comments in the discussion page... Try get that tunnel vision checked out, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.200.153 (talk)

Wasn't Hitler the one who banned German homeschooling in the first place?--69.234.226.128 (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Compulsory Education existed in all german states long before (in prussia even more than a century before the 3rd reich) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.232.168 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly do wonder if there are any studies covering what societies typically allow homeschooling, and what societies don't. However, I doubt any such study has been done. Wrad 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an opinion forum John 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) You'll noticein the article, Germany allows homeschooling in certain situations. Just because you happen to like, and therefore are most likely a product of, homeschooling does not mean any institution that stands against it is a dictatorship.

I am not a product of homeschooling, I spent most of my education in public school and began homeschool at the end of middle school because of my negative experiences at public school as a biracial child.

First of all, people who like homeschooling are not "most likely a product of" it, and that really has nothing to do with what this person is saying anyway. He or she is wondering whether there is a significant difference between societies that restrict their citizen’s freedom in this way and those that do not. While "dictatorship" was not the appropriate term, it is a legitimate topic of discussion as any studies on this matter would be relevant to this article. Amillion 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment was made by an anon and was clearly meant to be iflammatory, thus it garnered a reply in kind. Jersey John 05:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. That comment was not "clearly" meant to be anything. Amillion 20:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've recently pruned a few sites from the external links per Wikipedia policy (WP:EL and WP:NOT). Since one of my changes was reverted, I'd like to know which portion of the website in question (the Moore Foundation) meets the criteria for links. To me, it appears to be nothing more than advertising for their services. It clearly does not furnish any additional information about the subject of homeschooling.

I'd also like to discuss the Holt website, which is somewhat spammy, but also has some worthwhile info. Is there a better link to that site that we could provide? Mindmatrix 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moore site: I will grant you the commercial nature of the Moore website (and it isn't really a very good site either); however, it is germaine to the article (considering that it is, after all, the official website of the Moore Foundation) and does include a resource that is directly pertinent to the article yet couldn't be directly included in it. In deference to your point I have relinked it to the specific page I am referring to: the Moore Formula. Darentig 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Holt site: To be honest, I that's the best place to start on that site.... Darentig 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the logs, extensive dust-up/argument between Jamie and AnnZeise, and the relevant Wiki policies on links, I'd like to submit that the http://www.homeedersunited.co.uk/ is full of ads, has no decent native traffic, and is an obvious attempt to exploit Wikipedia for more internet exposure. Therefore I move to remove it. Heck, I'm going to do it right now! So there. Cheers! strike71 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Again

Let me start by admitting I'm a very long-time devoted homeschooler and so, of course, I have bias. But I've been quietly watching this article for a long time and thinking about the NPOV complaints. I, too, have always had the sense that this article feels in parts like a "sales pamphlet" for homeschooling but haven't been able to define why. But I had a few specific thoughts tonight and wondered if anyone might agree with me. I know there aren't many contributors on this page, but I'd be interested in hearing more than just one opinion on my vague thoughts.

It seems like beginning the article (even mentioned in the intro paragraph) talking about the rise of compulsory schooling makes the article immediately a sales pitch in a very subtle way. In other words, it as if the article is saying, "Hey, homeschooling is the natural state of mankind and was there first! Schools are unnatural and haven't been around long." While that may be true (and I believe it is true), it makes the article sound biased. I don't want to debate here whether or not homeschooling IS the natural state of mankind. What I am questionning is whether starting the article with "compulsory schooling" (a very negative, biased-sounding term!) gives a biased flavor to the article. In fact, I even wonder why the history of compulsory schooling should have a prominent place in a homeschooling article. Instead, couldn't the article start with a section on "Homeschooling in Earlier Centuries" (not that exact title but the idea) and just talk about the WAY in which homeschooling used to be a part of mankind (with scholarly references, of course) before formal schooling became widespread? There could be a paragraph on the U.S. and then paragraphs on other countries or cultures if possible as well. It could even mention ancient times. It just seems that would keep the focus on the how/what/whens of homeschooling and sound less subtley defensive. Just a minor thing that might help the flavor. At very least, I think the history of homeschooling section should start BEFORE compulsory schooling (with a separate section on early learning at home) to keep it positive.

Similarly, the paragraph beginning "Homeschooling is an option for parents who..." sounds like a sales pitch. I know of course that it IS an option for parents. Strictly, that is FACT. But it makes the piece read like a brochure as in: "Sally's Dance Academy is an option for parents who want their children trained in the best folk dance techniques of Southern Belgium." I wonder if there is a way to just say, "Homeschooling is chosen for a variety of reasons such as..." or something that doesn't quite so clearly evoke images of tri-fold pamphlets.

Just my thoughts so far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.50 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany/Hitler connection

We should not be making a connection between the current German law and the Hitler regime in a way that implies the current law is fascist since that is a fringe opinion (which we do not cover). With good sources we could write a good historical section on Germany's situation, or reflect significant negative and positive criticism of the current situation, but throwing in references to Hitler is against our neutral point of view policy. I edited the recent addition to remove the improper implication, but I think it could use more work. -- SiobhanHansa 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a broader historical perspective in an Oct 1 edit. A bit of background:

- linking legislated mandatory schooling to Nazism is a talking point that seems to have come up in mainly US homeschool advocacy, but it's mainly under the radar in Germany because it's so ludicrous.

- schooling has always been in the legislative domain of the German states 'not' in that of the central government (before Nazism as well as in the postwar Federal Republic.) The only exception to that was in the Third Reich, the policies of which included centralizing legislation (the states were all but abolished in January 1934).

- legislative history: (see also article [6] in the German-language Wikipedia): mandatory schooling was first legislated in the various German states at different times, from Württemberg (1559, boys only), to Saxony-Gotha (1642), Prussia (1717), Bavaria (1802) and Saxony (1835). At the beginning of the Third Reich mandatory schooling was already legislated in all states. This state legislation was just superseded by the central law of 6 July 1938.

- at present the statutory basis for mandatory schooling are separate state laws in the 16 federal states (table of the legislated minimum duration at table in the German-language Wikipedia article)

To summarize: Legislated mandatory schooling was already established for a long time (for centuries, in most parts of Germany) when the Nazis came to power. The Nazi legislation just superseded previous legislation (and was superseded in turn by postwar legislation on the state level)

By the way, I have occasionally read of similar misconceptions in other areas of legislation: because a statute was rewritten in the Nazi period the whole subject of legislation is cast as having been of Nazi origin. An example: In Germany mandatory health insurance (the statutory medical insurance system) was introduced in 1883 but I have read in US anti-universal-healthcare advocacy that the system were legislated in 1937 (referring to Nazi-era legislation that tweaked, not introduced, the system).

Tschild 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the authoritarian nature of Germany's compulsory schooling throughout its history helped to enable the rise of Hitler since German citizens were already more used to deferring to authority than other people throughout the world?

I think the connection of this law to Hitler is valid. At the time it showed a further willingness to defer to the authority of the state, in this case the federal government of Germany, the most centralized and powerful component of the German political system. While it is no longer in the hands of the highest government in the land of Germany, they still do have far higher control of the education of their citizens than any modern westernized nation.

While the law is not fascist as fascism is the merger of state and corporation, the law is tyrannical, tyranny of the majority. If you are not an accredited teacher, accredited by the German state, you are not allowed to educate your children and the state will take them from you if you try. They will freeze bank accounts and assets to the point of these citizens being unable to buy food and supplies.

If this doesn't reek of tyranny, I don't know what does. Furthermore the idea that this is to eliminate parallel societies is deeply troubling. This time the enemy is parallel islamic societies, during Hitler's reign the enemy was parallel jewish societies that held their own interests above the state of Germany. Additionally talk by German leaders that they wish to have all German children share the same values, values which are necessarily determined by those overseeing education policy, implies that any values contrary to the majority of Germans aren't legitimate values and must be stamped out through compulsory schooling.

It boggles my mind that after everything Germany did during WW2 (and yes it will always be brought up and referenced) that they cannot see that this law is in that same authoritarian tyrannical style. As such I think references to Nazi Germany and this law should be included and elaborated. - 72.209.12.250 04/19/2008

Efforts to edit out POV from research section

The former "Research results" section contained only supportive research. Criticism of this section came before this in the Criticism section, which gave the casual reader the impression that these were solid results that had not been challenged. I retitled the research as "Supportive research" and left the criticism in a separate section, but placed it after the supportive material and subdivided it so that the section headings show that the research has been challenged. I have edited the "Supportive research" so that it is clear that the results are not without challenge. In the subsection "Criticism of supportive achievement studies" I have emphasized that self-selection of students for testing is a major issue in potentially biasing the test results.--Zeamays (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC) I have not yet tried to edit the "Social findings" section for POV. --Zeamays (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)