Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Merge Single parent homeschooling here

• Propose that the above article be merged here. There is not enough good material for an independent article. It could become a section in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

External link defense, plus HSLDA as source crit.

Dear Editors,

I added an external link to this article for The Caribbean Center of Home Education Resources (www.tchers.net), which was subsequently deleted. I asked for the reason and was told by Themfromspace that it violated Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. I read through that guidelines and I couldn't find how the link violated it and I note that the web site being linked is the same type of regional web site that includes general homeschooling information as the Australia and New Zealand links that you do have listed. Please let me know how the link I submitted differs from those.

I also am chagrined to see HSLDA in your list of links because they are 1) primarily a commercial organization and 2) an unreliable source, at least as far as homeschooling in Puerto Rico is concerned. For the past eight years, T'CHERs has contacted them on numerous occasions to correct the incorrect legal information that they have listed for Puerto Rico. They did make a change about three years ago, but the information left is still incorrect. This is shameful, especially on the part of an organization whose specialty is supposed to be the legality of homeschooling.

Even more offensive is the blatant disregard that HSLDA has shown toward hard won homeschool victories that have been achieved by local grassroots efforts. A prime example of this is the fact that homeschoolers in Puerto Rico can self-certify their homeschooling when applying for government aid from the Department of Family and the Health Department. Although HSLDA has been notified of these important and positive developments, they insist on promoting their own business by stating in their FAQ for PR that they will provide certification of homeschooling for government offices - without mentioning one thing about parents now having the authority to do this themselves.

I submit this topic with the utmost respect for the work you do as editors. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

Tibs.of.the.jungle (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

world map

I discovered an incoherency between color and text. In the table below the map homeeducation is considrered generally legal in Norway, wich I think is correct. Norway therefore should be yellow and not red on the map.

In the same table homeeducation is considered illigal in Sweden. This is not correct. Yellow is the correct color for Sweden. Even if Norway is more liberal than Sweden both give a legal space for homeeducation. Another story is that a proposal for a new law has been presented last week wich is very similar to the german law. But it is not here yet!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himmelslund (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

homeschooling in Italy

from the map it seems that hs is illegal in Italy. But this is 90% false, as I have evidence of children homeschooled in Italy.

The only requirement is that the child must undertake annually an exam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.16.118 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, homeschooling in Italy is legal. I added the paragraph regarding Italy, with link to the Ministry of Education. The map should be corrected.--Gspinoza (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

sexual harassment a reason for homeschooling

“ Across the country, it was estimated in 2003 that nearly 10 percent of American students — or more than 4.5 million — were targets of sexual harassment or abuse by a public school employee between kindergarten and 12th grade, according to a study by former Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft.

The study, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, said those numbers could be low because inappropriate behavior by educators is likely under-reported, Shakeshaft wrote.

”

That's from [1]. Should that be included in the article somewhere, or the study cited for sexual harassment being a reason to keep children homeschooled and away from rapists? 10% is an insane amount! Dream Focus 05:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless the study itself mentions that sexual harassment is a cause for parents to homeschool, it should not be cited in this section. It would be considered original research, since it's an editor and not a research team who would have thought of the new reason.bob bobato (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for enhancement

The sentence "The Moores cited studies demonstrating that orphans who were given surrogate mothers were measurably more intelligent" does not make it clear who were these children compared with (I assume with orphans without surrogate mothers, but would be nice clarified). Could someone with access to the source check it, please? Mcsontos (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

“It takes a village to raise a child”

“It takes a village to raise a child” There is a particular philosophy of homeschooling, often referred to as “unschooling,” which shares many similarities with the Sudbury model schools. John Holt was its best known proponent, and his writings have been invaluable to us in helping to explain just how learning can happen without teaching, and why on earth a child might choose to learn arithmetic or some other supposedly dreadful subject. ??

That section seems inappropriately worded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.110.27 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias + Bias != No Bias

In the section "Criticism of supportive achievement studies" there is a part that implies a statistical fallacy that comparing two self selected biased populations is comparable or as good as comparing two random selected populations. Rewording should correct this. Perhaps reordering the following sentences would fix the problem. What do you think? Change this:

"Some states that require testing allow homeschooling parents to choose which test to use.[79] When testing is not required, homeschoolees taking the tests are self-selected, which biases any statistical results.[80] An exception are the SAT and ACT tests, where homeschooled and formally-schooled students alike are self-selecting; homeschoolers averaged higher scores on college entrance tests in South Carolina."

To this:

"Some states that require testing allow homeschooling parents to choose which test to use.[79] An exception are the SAT and ACT tests, where homeschooled and formally-schooled students alike are self-selecting; homeschoolers averaged higher scores on college entrance tests in South Carolina. When testing is not required, taking the tests are self-selected, which biases any statistical results.[80] " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk2337 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate this i don´t understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.203.142.130 (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The second part of the proposed change might make more sense if it were reworded to say the following:

When testing is not required, the self-selected tests bias the statistical results.

I did not confirm the sources of this information. You will want to be sure that this is what they are promulgating. ElderHap (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Parents' Motivations

I note that motivations for ideological (i.e.: political/religious) reasons for Home Education children is played down (well, not even really mentioned!) in the foreword of the article; yet you've got a table that shows "religious reasons" as the second most popular motivation for wanting to do Home Education; shouldn't this be reflected in the foreword? From what I can see there is definitely a religious dimension to a significant proportion of Home Education websites.

I think it might also be worth including mention of the idea that people might be motivated to do it by general "moral" reasons, which could encompass both religious and political beliefs that are at odds with the publicly-funded education regimes available. In other words, they feel that their children may be trained to have a particular world-view (that they may find either immoral or censorious; never mind unimaginative) if they remain in the state-school system.

I think this warrants inclusion; because I'm not so sure that academic attainment is really the strongest motivator in all cases; and may be a bit of a red herring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.76.83 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective in my exposure to home-schooling parents, I observe three reasons that parents choose to home-school their kids. The reasons aren't necessarily mutually exclusive:

• Environmental shielding (the environment to be protected from could be too violent, too secular, too conservative, too liberal, too ethnic, etc.)
• Religious indoctrination (goes hand in hand with shielding, although you can have shielding without indoctrination)
• Academic achievement

I agree that this article warrants inclusion of the points you raised. I'll see what I can do about fixing the lead section. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The first main paragraph under the Criticism section lists several bases of criticisms of homeschooling. The following list should be added to the Motivation section or perhaps in an additional section entitled, "Incentives."

• Excellent standards of academic quality and comprehensiveness
• Direct supervision of socialization with peers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds
• The potential for development of religious and social foundations
• Children insulated from common fallacies promulgated in mainstream society
• Children denied rights to opportunities that inhibit proper social development
• Direct oversight of materials and instruction used in indoctrination
• Potential for maintaining diverse families that strive to uphold moral standards of citizenship and society
• Emphasis on non-delegable duty of parents to raise children

While this list is not exhaustive, it shows that some of the listed criticisms fail universal application. While the items in this list also fail that test, including them in the affirmative section provides useful information and improves the quality of the article. ElderHap (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not formal education?

The first paragraph says it is an alternative to formal education. I think it is inaccurate to say that homeschooling is not formal education. In some cases, it definitely is; but in many cases, it is not. Anybody have any suggestions on how to fix this? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Change the word "formal" to "institutionalized" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.45.29.176 (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

List of "homeschoolers"

This has been deleted and re-added a few times. Right now it's gone, but since someone will probably put it back up I thought I'd say a few words on the subject. Specifically, I suggest that we come up with a consistent definition of homeschooling, preferably sourced, that is not anachronistic. Erwin Schrodinger did not think of himself as homeschooled. Ricardiana (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see my prediction was correct. Here's what needs to happen, in my view:

1. First off, lists like this are a problem, not just with WP:TRIVIA but with the MoS re: lists in general. If this section is to stay, it should be written up in actual paragraphs.
2. Second, definitions should not be anachronistic. We can squabble about what anachronism entails here - by all means, let's.
3. Third, sources need to be of a higher quality than some bio of Lincoln that says he didn't go to school. That's not the same as asserting he was "homeschooled."
4. Fourth, perhaps this back-and-forth can be solved by the employment of a neutral point of view? Specifically, something like this: "Many proponents of homeschooling point to such figures as Abraham Lincoln and Elizabeth I as having been homeschooled...[etc.]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardiana (talk • contribs)

The biggest problem with the list is that people will add anyone to the list, even if they were properly homeschooled, and that makes the article look worse rather than better. It's WP:LISTCRUFT at best, and at worst... This is why it should be pulled. It's unlikely to get better until someone rewrites it, and I have no interest in making trivial connections look better. --Izno (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do have an interest, as I was homeschooled and I'd rather we don't look like a bunch of dumbasses. So I've made a preliminary swipe at re-working the section. The first step is for it not be a list or titled as list, and the lack of list format/title should cut down on the temptation to shove more items in. Ricardiana (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of WP:Weasel words, though. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. I don't have time to do the research right now, but at least trying to work on the section is better than having it be constantly deleted and put back. Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So why is it not Dumb Ass for Harvard to have a list of Alumni? The list is to make it easy for someone to research who if anyone important was homeschooled. Needless to say Harvard complies such lists in part as part of its sales effort. And in part for inspiration of current and future students. So? After reading the posts, I think it might be good to explain why an individual is considered homeschooled, royalty being homeschooled by a well paid tutor probably is not what people think of as homeschooling. There may also be a difference between homeschooled, tutored at home, self taught, and even not schooled. Geo8rge (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Part of this issue has already been discussed above, under "notable home schooled students". This wiki entry is NOT on the modern home school movement, but homeschooling generally.

2) Many people are interested in factual information about what kinds of people are home schooled. The list gave a range of historical examples. It was carefully researched by several users and backed up with citations

3) Perhaps there should be a separate wiki page for notable home-schooled students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.203.92 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, whoever you are; I am aware that the issue has been brought up before, thank you. However, it has obviously not been resolved, largely because people insist on deciding what they think about what homeschooling is, etc., and then edit warring accordingly. Wikipedia policy demands the employment of a neutral point of view. I have re-worked the section to add sources that give two opposing points of view. If you would like to make a list of homeschoolers according to one of those points of view, I suggest you create a page as per WP:LISTS, but even then you will have to employ a neutral point of view. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes rather than posting anonymously. Ricardiana (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it was not "carefully researched" because it did not attend to issues of interpretation and anachronicity. Nor did it adhere to NPOV. Nor iss the number of people involved in creating the list relevant to these issues. Ricardiana (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On that note, I'll point out that most of these "carefully researched" sources are in fact to one source, So - Why do you homeschool?, and lack citations to page numbers, a minimum requirement for "careful" research. I might also add that the book is published by a no-name press and lacks citations for its claims.

I have now created a page as per WP:LISTS entitled List of notable homeschooled individuals. Please do not shove this list back in the article; that would be a violation of WP:MOS. Ricardiana (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The section is perfectly neutral, and reflects factual information that is appropriate to the article. It is not a "list" under WP:LISTS and more than the "list" of legality of homeschooling in different countries would be. I have restored the text; do not delete without better justification. Further, your argument of "anachronicity" distracts from the min issue and does not make sense in any case- Elizabeth is a currently ruling monarch, of example. Again, this is not an article on the modern homeschooling movement; it is an article on homeschooling generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.203.92 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You are 100% incorrect. First of all, I created a page for your list, as per WP:LISTS at [[List of notable homeschooled individuals, and provided a link to that page under the appropriate section. Second, it is not "my" argument re: anachronicity, although I happen to agree with it; it is one that is given in a source which I cited. You do not own this article, so stop acting as if you do and stop deleting every cited point of view you disagree with and reverting the page back exactly the way it was. I have (1) tried to get rid of a bulleted list that does NOT comply with the Manual of Style by creating a new page for this info, dubious though some of it is (see other users' comments on this talk page, as well as mine), and (2) added another point of view. The section as you keep reverting it IS in fact NOT neutral because you insist on presenting only one point of view! This is just nonsense. I have put back the one source and am letting the list stay for the moment, even though there is another page with this info and even though it's bad style. If you have the chutzpah to get rid of that source again, I am just going to have to take this to the dispute resolution process. Ricardiana (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of the points above are incorrect. First- although I once added to it, it is not "my" list- this list has been on the home school page of wikipedia in one form or another for years. It is a part of the page that many users find informative and a source of factual information. Examples are an important part of a page like this. Secondly, there seems to be dissatisfaction among some uses that only famous individuals are reported; however, attempts by others to add less famous individuals are deleted (and I agree with that decision, by the way). Finally, different points of view are important, but your point about anachronicity is possibly irrelevant because this is not an article on (only) the modern homeschooling movement- it is about homeschooling generally. Nobody thinks or assumes that Abraham Lincoln's education at home was the same as Elizabeth the II's, or for that matter, some modern homeschooled student in America. By the way, some of these issues (like the details regarding "list" of notable homeschoolers) have been through dispute resolution before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.203.92 (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your points are irrelevant to the points I made above. 1. It's nice that you are not the only one who made this list, but that is not what owning an article means - read the link. 2. I never said examples weren't important. Bulleted lists of examples, however, are not best style:

Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose. Bullet points should be minimized in the body of the article, if they are used at all; however, a bulleted list may be useful to break up what would otherwise be a large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. [This hardly qualifies.]] Bulleted lists are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom. (Wikipedia:Layout

I was fool enough to toy with the idea of getting this article to Good Article status, but with your attitude of [[ownership that will obviously never happen. 3. Once again IT IS NOT MY POINT ABOUT ANACHRONICITY and you do NOT get to decide which POVs are appropriate because they ALL have to presented! You can't just hide under "no one thinks" when obviously that is not true because I have a CITATION to prove it. So thanks for your remarks, but they are IRRELEVANT to my points.

You accused me of deleting material that I did not delete and you acted as if I am presenting one point of view when in fact I added a source to make the section NPOV. You show little sign of understanding Wikipedia's recommendations on layout and you have not assumed good faith. Ricardiana (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the list section, then saw this discussion, so I apologize if I overstepped my bounds. I see no reason not to have a list of persons as cities and schools have such list often including people only minimally attached to those places. And sometimes only rumored to have been in those places. It might be better of the list explained why each person is considered homeschooled. Geo8rge (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Any such list still fails the mine and others' reasoning at Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 5#Notable homeschooled individuals. These people are only tangentially related, and simply because an article in another place or on another topic is similarly poor does not mean this one should be as well. --Izno (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In my professional research off Wikipedia, I have been trying since the late 1980s to verify lists of famous homeschoolers. Usually such lists accrete names by word of mouth, and no one checks even the most readily available biographical sources to see if the persons are correctly described as homeschoolers from the point of view of any era. Once upon a time I had a verified list, for which I made many trips to the library to look up biographies, and that list was quite short. It's always best anywhere on Wikipedia to insist on core policies such as verifiability and reliable sources. That helps each individual article, and it helps the project as a whole. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I really do not see why a referenced list of notable people who were in part homeschooled is a problem. Harvard actually has multiple lists, including one of notable non graduates. Is the Harvard page poorly written? If you consider homeschooling to be on the same level of institutional education then its WP should be similar. Every WP page except this one cannot be poorly written. Anyway I moved the list back to its own WP page. A positive outcome is the list now has references and an explanation of the individuals homeschooling experience. Booker T Washington were really self taught so he was dropped. I hope this solution suits you, having the list on a separate WP linked to this one should keep people from adding the offending section.Geo8rge (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Section

The first sentence implies that education must occur in either one place or another. The same sentence also implies that home education does not take place in a formal setting. Education is a function of the rational mind, and that function is limited only by the child's capacity to observe and process sensory data. Thus, a home-educated child is not limited to receive instruction only at home. Parents may provide instruction at any place and thereby impart education outside the home.

Moreover, many parents provide home education in a formal setting. Informal settings outside the home should not hinder the learning functions of a properly educated home-school student. Public education became an alternative with the onset of compulsory attendance laws. This alternative prevails as the most common. Home schooling now is somewhat rare, as are exceptional citizens.

I propose the section's amendment. --ElderHap (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically what could be done to improve it? LewisWasGenius (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

US section

"However, this phenomenon seems to be flying under the radar as the movement does not seem to have significant advocacy from any national agency or organization and the statistics tracking single parent homeschools have currently not yet been posted on the websites of the DOE,[81] the NHERI,[82] or The Barna Group.[83]"

This statement is false and gramatically incorrect. HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) is a national organization strongly advocating homeschooling. That group has advocated in every state for homeschooling. There are many others that advocate the institution. Some are more significant than others regarding membership or affiliation. The statement in the article should be amended. ElderHap (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on home schooling in the US is far too long for a brief overview of the subject. The size of the section is ridiculous in comparison with that of other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.212.202 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cut it down to size. LewisWasGenius (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Handicap in higher education section

This seems a bit weak:

Some evidence suggests that homeschooling handicaps students at the college and university level. Homeschooled students may be less likely to gain admittance to certain schools. This may result less from outright bias as concerns about socialization and educational breadth. Also, it's been suggested that candidates seeking professorships who are known to homeschool their children may be less likely to "get the job" than candidates who do not homeschool.[35] This claim is controversial and described as "pure prejudice, if not paranoia" by the source citing it.

The source linked to is saying that universities and colleges who believe that homeschooled children are less suited to higher education than school-schooled children (there must be a word for that! Heh). The source does establish the idea that there has been a suggestion that those seeking professorships who are known homeschoolers are less likely to get the job than non-homeschoolers, albeit with one anonymous anecdote. That source does not establish that if this were true, it is based on prejudice or paranoia.

I've removed the final sentence from the section. Those more interested in this article might want to add some more citations for this section or rewrite it. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I took this section out altogether. It makes a circular argument -- "homeschooling is a handicap if it hurts the student when applying for college" -- without presenting any evidence that this does happen. The source article itself is unsigned, and the people described in it are anonymous. Lists of colleges that have accepted homeschoolers are available and perhaps should be added elsewhere, if not already part of the wiki article. - klcwikimom 11:39 4 April 2011

Section not ready for article

I removed this:

Other research

UK: Paula Rothermel ROTHERMEL, P. (2002) Home education: Aims, Practices and Outcomes. PhD thesis, University of Durham. ROTHERMEL, P. (2004) Home education: comparison of home and school educated children on PIPS Baseline Assessments, Journal of Early Childhood Research Issue 5. ROTHERMEL, P. (2005) Can we classify motives for home education? Evaluation and Research in Education, 17(2)(3).

BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Motivations

There is a more recent NCES survey (2007) that summarizes the motivations for homeschooling: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf The data is similar to older studies, including the table in this article. However, the lede is not consistent either with the article itself or the more current data. The article lede states:

"Parents in the United States cite numerous reasons as motivations including better academic test results, individualized instruction, to help the public system with fewer kids, more hands on environments, to try alternative methods, poor public school environment, religious reasons, improved character/morality development, the expense of private education, and objections to what is taught locally in public school."

I don't know the history of this statement, but it is not consistent with the article. I propose something like the following for the lede:

"Parents in the United States cite numerous motivations for homeschooling their children. The three reasons that are selected by the majority of parents are concern about the traditional school environment, to provide religious or moral instruction, and dissatisfaction with academic instruction at traditional public and private schools."

The other reasons are less commonly voiced and could be mentioned in the body of the article. I would also like to edit the Motivations section to reflect the 2007 data but it may take a while given my editorial incompetence with tables! Desoto10 (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that the more current information is listed in the article "Home Schooling in the USA". Should we update the general article or replace the general Motivations section with a more worldwide perspective? Do we have many links to motivations in UK and other english-speaking countries?Desoto10 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes which can easily be reverted if someone objects. I took out the laundry list of parental motivations from the lede and replaced them with the sourced statistics given later in the article. I am still looking for similar statistics for the international community, but am not having much luck.Desoto10 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the reference in the lede to better test scores being a parental motivator as it was not clear that parents actually chose homeschooling for that reason.Desoto10 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Testing

The ref for the following appears to be dead:

"However, advocates of home education and educational choice counter with an input-output theory, pointing out that home educators expend only an average of $500–$600 a year on each student, in comparison to $9,000-$10,000 for each public school student in the United States, which raises a question about whether home-educated students would be especially dominant on tests if afforded access to an equal commitment of tax-funded educational resources.[35]'

In any case, it seems as though the $500-600 per year does not include lost wages from the homeschooling parent. The vast bulk of governmental schooling goes to salaries, not supplies. However, many homeschooling moms (or dads!) start out as stay-at-home parents, and are not "losing" any more money from wages than they would normally.

It seems to me that it would be better if the two sections on "research" should be combined. The difficult nature of assesing the homeschooled vs. those not homeschooled should be pointed out at the start and then the results of studies listed. The section describing the conclusions of the Moores could be significantly shortened. Desoto10 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of sourcing is necessary here.

I see another editor is adding [citation needed] tags to many parts of the article, drawing our attention to statements that should be cited to specific sources. It will be good to look for more books (especially) and peer-reviewed review articles for citations to improve the verifiability of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In the section entitled "Philosophical and political opposition," a bulleted list of points is given, but they do not actually appear in the text any of the citations given in this section. Can whoever added them offer a reference?--71.94.170.163 (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential for unmonitored child abuse

An editor took exception to the statement, "There is no evidence to suggest that abuse among homeschoolers is more pervasive or severe than in government institutions." The citation for that statement is a broken link to a 1996 issue of the BYU Law Review. Can we find a live link to something more current? Also, "there is no evidence..." (asserting the null hypothesis) should be replaced with something like "X found no evidence..." and/or "Y found evidence..." Peter Chastain (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The only part of that section with any real information was the last part about a DC law. It doesn't seem like a very useful section without any reasoning why it exists. Ksevio (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Home Schooling History

Is there a reason this section cuts off at 1980? A lot has happened in the last 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.128.3 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No ordinary person has taken the time to write it yet (hint, hint). LWG ^{Complaints here} 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The history of the legality and adoption of HS is entirely missing. I know that laws must have been changed somewhere in the 1980s-1990s but this information is entirely absent from this article.

Well fleshed-out, that would probably be more than enough material for a new article. In the United States, most education regulations have happened at the state or local level, making for many differences around the United States alone during any given year. If you counted all of the laws that did not refer to homeschooling directly, but still affected the legality of homeschooling, you would have quite a long history lesson. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be titled homeschooling in the United States

It doesn't touch substantively on other jurisdictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.231.183 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What sort of issues aren't being sufficiently covered at the moment? ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very America-centric. It only talks about homeschooling in the United States. - Redmess (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What specifically do you suggest be done to remedy this? What points of the article are specific to America, and what as-of-yet nonexistent points should be added to make it more relevant to other nations? What do you think is missing, that keeps this article from applying to the rest of the world? ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Americas education system

Almost 3 million Americans are home schooled and growing. More then 4 million Americans are in religous schools. Many more are in private schools. And millions of American kids drop out of public school each year. If this dosen't say soemthing about our public schools here in America then I don't know what will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If your spelling doesn't say soemthing (sic) about home schools and religous (sic) schools, then I don't know what will. Also, I'd like to point out that most of those millions of public school dropouts are probably smarter and more world-wise than those home schooled and religious schooled kids who are force-fed biased belief and sometimes flat-out incorrect information by people who are not fit to be teachers. Theroguex (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Theroguex, you seem to be the one exhibiting bias. Not every homeschooler is a sheltered freak. 142.139.181.96 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Theroguex, you yourself seem to be showing a bias against religious schools. I would like to say that many secular curriculum are quite heavily biased, especially regarding the Theory of evolution. Many secular schools teach only evolution, whereas many Christian high schools teach both creation and evolution theories. LordCirth (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

LordCirth, you need to look up the word "theory" in a dictionary. Evolution is as much a theory as is the Earth revolving around the Sun. Evolution is proven and accepted by the scientific community. Creationism is religious bogus. 84.245.1.252 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

that is for another conversation another place.Computerchippo (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Home Tutoring vs. Home Schooling Chart

Is it OK if I add this chart to the article? It succinctly clarifies many common misconceptions between home tutoring and schooling. I can cite it appropriately as well.JasonHoldEm1234 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic	In Home Tutoring	Home Schooling
Location	The student's home or public location	The student's home
Certification	No certification or license required	In most states it is recommended a home schooling program must be certified and approved by the local school district, although not necessary.
Instructor	Typically a college graduate, but in theory anyone can be a tutor	It is recommended to use a state certified teacher, with all the licenses and credentials recommended by both the state and local school district
Material Covered	K-12 and College Subjects	K-12; very rarely is home schooling held for college level courses
Time of Instruction	After school hours	Any time of the day, although typically during school hours

What kind of citations do you have? If you have very good reliable sources, this might be appropriate for the article. I'm not sure where it would fit though. It might also be too much emphasis on a minor topic. Princess Lirin (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The second and third items you list under Home Schooling are not true in my state, and I don't think they are true in most others, unless you are using a different definition of "Home Schooling" than I understand. LWG ^{Complaints here} 22:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick google search for "homeschooling laws by state" tells me that indeed the vast majority of US states do not require any type of certification. LWG ^{Complaints here} 22:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, I had missed a couple key words. I have fixed it. Please let me know if there are any other typos.JasonHoldEm1234 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, a State Certified Teacher? Part of homeschooling is having the PARENTS teach, no matter how thorough or lacking their education. Homeschool moms and dads don't have time to go get a teacher's licence! The goal is to teach children in the way prescribed by the parents, not do school at home. I suppose it depends on the state, but in both California and Alaska, (which I have been homeschooled in!) my mother was able to teach me with just a Master's in mechanical engineering from Carnegie Melon. She didn't need a degree in education! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.189.116 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasons

The intro gives a list of reasons parents choose homeschooling. What wasn't mentioned is that some children have problems getting along in a class environment. Should this be mentioned? Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Oftentimes, there's also a "Special Needs" reason. I have an Aspergers/ disgraphia brother, and he's been homeschooled (along with me) because public education was lacking. It was bad enough in a "rich town," where he was only removed from class twice a week for "special education", but when we moved to a middle-of-nowhere town with tiny schools and no money, we were removed from school because our family could spend more time helping him at home. This is the case with MANY of the homeschoolers I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.189.116 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gatto / Unschooling

It's very, VERY misleading to call Gatto a "proponent of unschooling" without some direct quote showing that he necessarily prefers it over academic homeschooling. The quote only advances the thesis that he and unschoolers share some negative opinions of government schools and their authoritarianism. It doesn't support the thesis that he sees unschooling as a better alternative than academic homeschooling. 132.79.9.15 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Legality of Homeschooling

The alternative article Legality of Homeschooling presents a table which matches this article's map but conflicts with its text. Please can a subject expert reconcile the two? The sources under International homeschooling above may be useful. If there is a consensus to revise or replace the map, help is available at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Certes (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Look in the section #Homeschool Legality World Map above for some comments. I have taken a look at the problem, and the map and the classification in the table seem higly dubious, but I do not have the knowledge required for correcting it.

Most entries here have sources, while many of the links on the mentioned page are non-informative or dead, probably because fewer people are working with it (and it hasn't been updated for a while). Two examples, that I checked because of the discussion above:

Finland: "Legal as alternative to the mandatory public school system. Written and oral examinations to check on progress are mandatory. – legal under restricting conditions, like a teaching certificate or permit"

Norway: "Illegal, public education is mandatory without known exceptions. – illegal"

In the case of Finland the categorization is strange, because I think it clearly should fall into "Legal under regulating conditions, such as mandatory tests and checks". This may be a pure error.

In the case of Norway the law seems to recognize homeschooling and the local homeschooling movement says it is legal. The source used for the table entry is the wikipedia article Education in Norway stating "Elementary and lower secondary school are mandatory for all children aged 6–16." But this is about schooling in general and not about mandatory public schools.

It is probable that there are similar problems with other countries. The original author complains that finding info on Europe is difficult because the multitude of languages and the issue not being widely covered.

--LPfi (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I helped write the article and map the first versions of the map. The countries listed as "Illegal, public education is mandatory without known exceptions." Are probably not correct as the sources are not good. I only added countries with reasonable sources, but other editors have added others. Zginder 2010-03-07T22:31Z (UTC)

I don't think homeschooling is legal in Portugal, either. The law in the link clearly states (art 2 n 3) that "mandatory education requires parents to register school-age children (6-18) at either public schools, private schools or other recognized education institutions" All of these require a licence from the state to operate, and have to follow the approved curriculum from the Min of Education. Also from the same legal doc, mandatory education applies to all children age 6-18 (art 1 n 1; art 2 n 1). The only exception is gypsies, who continue to get away with not sending their children to school, despite of the law. I am tempted to change the article entry to "Illegal" unless someone provides a better legal reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.3.15 (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Despite the law you quote, homeschooling IS legal in portugal, especially for gypsies, according to HLDSA, which is scrupulous about preventing rumors. There are multiple "grades" of homeschooling, ranging from doing "public school at home" to only having progress tests. "Norway: "Illegal, public education is mandatory without known exceptions. – illegal" The second part of the text dont explain very well the first, the first say it illegal and the second say public education is mandatory without known exceptions. Just because public education is mandatory this wouldnt make homeschooling illegal, someone could have both. Of course homeschooling could be illegal and public education could be mandatory, both at the same time. But the second dont make the first true, if the first is true it inst because of the second one. The second part is irrelevant to the first.201.78.134.181 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Limited Perspective

I think that we have a problem with the article being too limited in scope, such that the point of view of the writers becomes glaringly apparent to the readers. The history section, as one example, begins much too recently with too great a focus upon home-based education as a response to the rise of public institutions of education. Home-based education ought to be presented in this article from a more global perspective, with home-based instruction portrayed as the de facto standard outside of all state-fostered or community-centralized systems of education. The article mentions such historical and traditional efforts briefly in passing in an almost dismissive manner. Please consider adding reference to Marcus Aurelius' memoirs, Book I, second paragraph, in which he honors his great-grandfather for causing him to "avoid the schools, preferring able teachers at home, rewarding them liberally." Also, please consider adding reference to Alfred Edersheim's Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the days of Christ,which describes the education of children in ancient Israel as a combination of home-based and community-based efforts. Additionally, please consider referencing Moore's Utopia and Plato's Republic for the obvious reasons. Finally, there was an article on homeschooling in the old Microsoft Encarta database which I think is highly illuminating. I no longer have access to it because it was among the downloaded update articles that are no longer provided by Microsoft. In the article, a recognized authority (he may have been president of the American Association of School Administrators) made a statement somewhat to the effect that part of the reason that we have a clash between those in favor of public education and those in favor of homeschooling arises from a misconception about the purposes of public education. I'm paraphrasing from memory several years old here, but I believe he stated that people wrongly assume that school is for teaching the 3 R's (reading, writing, and 'rithmetic), when its actual purpose was basically indoctrination--though I think he called it "creating good citizens." I think someone who's much better at this than I am could greatly improve the article with these suggestions. Thank you. Infinityseed (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the information regarding Marcus Aurelius's thoughts on schooling fit best in the article Palaceschooling.50.147.26.108 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dogtooth (film)

Recently a discussion has come up about whether this film should link to the homeschooling entry in the See also section. I removed the link, but someone who is familiar with the film and homeschooling may want to add this entry to their watchlist or comment if the issue comes up again. - CompliantDrone (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Name of article

The term "homeschooling" is more American than Commonwealth English and suggests a structured and non-autonomous approach, which is unusual in the British Isles at least. I would claim that this title makes the article biassed in itself. The term "unschooling" is also used, which is again more common in the States than the UK, but is more specific. This bias could be addressed by renaming this "Home Education" and making "Homeschooling" a link page.

Nineteenthly (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Homeschooling is a correct term in the United States, meaning either structured or unstructured, autonomous or non-autonomous. "Home Education" is used internationally. I say, change the page so that "Homeschooling" in the title means "Homeschooling in the United States." "Home Education" and other terms can be separate pages specific to other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.189.116 (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the title is misleading. Home schooling and home education are two completely different things. We home educate our children and I wouldn't dream of home schooling them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.200.77 (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Home education is what this page should be called - homeschooling is a subset of home education. All home schoolers are home educators but not all home educators are home schoolers. I'm surprised nothing has been done to rectify this. I don't know how to change the name of the article or I would have done it.

Bias

There are an enormous number of references here to "studies" publishe by non-reliable sources such as homeschooling advocates (some of whom directly profit from homeschooling), taken as if they were from objective venues. This whole article reeks of advocacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There are 46 references right now, could you call out some of them specifically as being potentially unreliable? ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the HLDSA is 7 of those sources, and they're known for providing a one sided view of the subject. They might be reliable, but incomplete. Ksevio (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The first place HSLDA is cited on the legal status of homeschooling in US states, a subject on which they are undoubtedly one of the leading authorities. The others are in the "Research" section, which in my opinion has numerous issues beyond just poor referencing. I will try to find time for a closer look at that section and its references to see what can be done. LWG ^talk 01:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

HSLDA is in favor of homeschooling, so are not objective in some areas, but are very informative and up-to-date concerning homeschooling laws around the world. Also, they DO NOT profit from homeschooling, they lose money defending parental rights!

The problem with sources and references is that there are two sides here both with very clear agendas. Any research done by home educators and organisations that support them will of course be favorable toward home education. At the same time school districts and bodies that represent teachers have a vested interest in denigrating home education - if more parents home educated more teachers would be out of jobs - and so their research is likely to be biased too. In the UK, teaching unions and school districts (local authorities) actively campaign against home education because every child being registered to a school works to the self interest of these bodies. Research and stats published by them have usually been biased, misleading and deceptive. Even the Parliamentary Group (of the UK government) tasked with the home education brief warns against this problem of misleading information from these specific vested interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.93.215 (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus is not to move per WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Homeschooling → Home Education – Home education redirects to this homeschooling article, but it should be the other way around as home education is the term with the wider meaning. Home schooling is but one form of home education. Apart from home schooling there are other forms of home education such as ustructured and autonomous. The term homeschooling is used predominantly in the US and Canada - and used errorneously to mean home education by those who don't know the difference - while the term home education is used in most of the rest of the world. Besides, we already have a "Homeschooling in the US" article that covers the article title policy. Meat and 2 veg (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose on the face of it. I see no references or proof. And "homeschooling" is such a ubiquitous term in the United States and Canada... even if you could prove your assertion that "Home education" is used outside of the U.S., this still would have to stay here due to WP:RETAIN. Red Slash 00:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. "Homeschooling" has 4,350,000 hits on Google, "Home education" has 932,000. - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose does not appear to be the common name (though you can try demonstrating it), for our purposes; even outside North America, homeschooling is at least a widely used term. As for the argument that the term isn't precise, I don't buy that the definitions you lay out are used in practice, and we have articles on topics within homeschooling/home education, such as unschooling. —innotata 05:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not objective

This entire article is heavily biased in favor of homeschooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.124.132 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a Controversies and criticism section. Please feel free to expand it with reference to reliable sources. There is no reason why an article about homeschooling should not be predominantly about homeschooling. Lame Name (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the NPOV tag the anonymous editor added. Without a more specific argument, there is no reason for that tag to be there. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This article still seem extremely biased in favour of home schooling. I am not read up enough on the topic (yet) to start remedy this making it more balanced, but this really is a major concern and I'm not convinced the "criticism" section is enough. Leord (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the NPOV tag should NOT be here. The person who thinks it is NPOV behaves as if this topic is necessarily a polemic. The fact is that 30 years of research finds generally positive (and no negative) things associated with homeschooling. The article is sound enough; I have been doing research on homeschooling for 32 years. I will return to provide current research citations. The 2-year-old "neutrality" flag should be removed.Blacktailwiki (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Homeschooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150112060657/http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/articles.php?aid=97 to http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/articles.php?aid=97
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090921065742/http://www.hsc.org:80/professionals/briefhistory to http://www.hsc.org/professionals/briefhistory
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150112051234/http://www.oakmeadow.com/resources/articles/WSJArticle.htm to http://www.oakmeadow.com/resources/articles/WSJArticle.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313231804/http://sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/Choice-based_Educational_Innovation.pdf to http://sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/Choice-based_Educational_Innovation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bias, Neutrality

I see that this has been discussed before, but this has to be the most one-sided biased article I have ever read. Even the "criticism" section explains the data in a light favorable to homeschooling. "Here's what the critics say.... But here's why they're wrong." I'm guessing what we have here is an ambitious group of editors who watch this page religiously and are much more devoted than anybody from the other side, creating a situation where the neutrality is constantly moving back in one direction. This needs addressing by more experienced Wiki editors than myself.

In fact, as I look through the edit history I see numerous examples of cited comments, studies, examples, and information that is contrary to homeschooling being deleted or undone with no explanation. Ridiculous. I understand that you're a proponent of homeschooling, but at least admit that there's a legitimate dispute on this issue.tallgaloot (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to some of the revisions that incorrectly removed content? ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just real quick here, there is a big amount of cutting from February 7 and February 25 of this year that removed large sections of cited criticisms with no explanations except "cut cut cut" or "cutting"tallgaloot (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

this appears to be the diff tallgaloot is referring to. Most of the changes made consisted of streamlining overly-lengthy wording, while keeping the content pretty much the same, however it does appear that some of the criticism section was removed. Tallgalloot, could you give your rationale for why the article is now less neutral than it was prior to these edits? -- LWG ^talk 19:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My argument would be less about any specific edits and more about the fact that this article is lacking in any sense of balance. Homeschooling is a hotly contested issue with many arguments on both sides. California almost made it illegal for crying out loud. But a reading of this article leaves one believing that there's no disagreement or controversy, or if there is all the evidence leans in one direction. All of the information on this page lists over and over how students who are homeschooled do better in life, college, etc. No real reference to previous allegations of abuse, studies which show the opposite to be true, or any other real criticism of the movement.tallgaloot (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Homeschooling is a hotly contested issue with many sides--- I agree. However, many homeschoolers actually do better in life, college, etc. As for allegations of abuse, why would an abusive parent jump through flaming hoops to homeschool their child? Studies which show the opposite to be true-- name them. Any other criticism for the movement-- go right ahead. Be prepared for a swarm of logic-learned homeschoolers to descend on this page and debunk them. Homeschooling WORKS-- I am fourteen years old, a homeschooler, and have two novels on Amazon. The third is on the way. I finished Algebra 2 in eighth grade, competed in the state Geo-Bee, and am perfectly normal among homeschoolers. We don't need studies to "tell" us what we already know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.189.116 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. My intention is not to get into a debate on homeschooling and even if I was, this is not the appropriate place to do so. Wikipedia is not a place to push any kind of agenda. These articles should present a balanced, unbiased approach to every topic. tallgaloot (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick look online, here's some sources for people who may want to take a look: http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueid=278&subIssueID=316, http://www.aeaonline.org/news/pdf/NEA%20Resolutions.pdf, Welner, K., “Contextualizing Homeschooling Data: A Response to Rudner,” Education Policy Analysis Archives (7:13), 1999., http://www.northjersey.com/news/030310_Ex_wife_testifies_that_husband_impregnated_their_daughters.html, http://www.paradisepost.com/news/ci_14378467, https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/ (not a legit source on its own, but points to some good information), http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/sw_mich/Home-schooling-hid-Calistas-abuse, http://www.wkow.com/story/16945455/probation-agent-recently-at-child-torture-victims-house, http://gazette.com/article/93341, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/12bodies.html?_r=5&ref=education&, http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/dc/200807230.asp, http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/articles/EPRU-0503-104-OWI.pdf, http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/Sean_Paddock.pdf, http://centerforchildwelfare2.fmhi.usf.edu/kb/bppub/NubiasStory.pdf, http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2016875109_hana28m.html, http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/55652, http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/47591, http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/15056, http://gradworks.umi.com/3489233.pdf, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/05/homeschooling-to-hide-abuse.html (some notes on various entries about this topic), http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110908104009.htm (discusses that positive research is based only on "structured homeschooling", http://www.middleschool.net/negative-homeschooling.htm.

Much of the data demonstrating higher scoring on standardized tests (as far as I know there have been 2) are based on sample groups which may not be indicative of the group at large, does not demonstrate that these students would do any worse in public school, and represent a self-selected sample (those who choose to start and continue homeschooling, assumedly because it works for them). In short, the data demonstrates a strong correlation, but no causation.

I am on neither side of the homeschooling debate, I was simply flabbergasted to discover how much this article was a piece of advocacy like every other homeschooling site on the internet. I came to this page for the sole purpose of hearing a balanced view after having a discussion with some friends and discovered not even Wikipedia was carrying an unbiased approach to the topic.tallgaloot (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

>I just read this now. Had to comment on here. I know nothing of homeschooling and am not American, I am perfectly neutral to the topic. When I read this article, I was shocked by how one sided it was, it is particularly un-encyclopedic as is, even the "criticism" section contains comments telling why opponents are wrong! Nothing about sociability of these kids? 5 second of reflexion on the topic made me think it could be a limitation of the system... hence a potential criticism of it too... Pretty shocked by the poor ethical standards here. [FLO]

An unfortunate fact is that very little research has been done on the subject by unbiased parties. Almost all the information out there is either deliberately promoting or deliberately disparaging the practice. As homeschooling has been controversial in recent years, it is unacceptable for us not to discuss the debate over its effectiveness/drawbacks, but because it hasn't attracted much respectable research it's very difficult to do so in a balanced way. At best we can try to balance the spurious, cherry-picked data from one side with the spurious, cherry-picked data from the other. -- LWG ^talk 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said in another heading, I also find the lack of neutrality shocking. I am also international and I am by these standards entirely neutral on the topic. I know there are valid criticisms to homeschooling, though I have not read up on it (why I came to Wikipedia, which normally takes the high road).

I find it very hard to believe this is the quality of research and coverage on homeschooling from the international community. There are tonnes of studies on education. Perhaps professionals are dismissive of positive homechooling findings? If so perhaps that is worth mentioning? Even in the unlikely scenario there is a massive lack of sources, perhaps diet the article down so there is roughly equal positive and negative material? Leord (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I highly recommend that we try to keep criticism in the criticism section, and keep the reader aware of how polarizing the subject is, and that not all Homeschools are created equal. I also want to remind certain users that neutrality is based on how much you know, not how little. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A designated criticism section is not usually the best plan. First rate Wikipedia articles on far more contentious topics (abortion for example) manage to successfully integrate negative criticism into the article. This benefits the reader in that they do not read the criticism section to find the critical response to each point and flows more naturally. It is harder to write though, but should that really stop anyone? --Sigeng (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Is homeschooling better than public or private schooling? Unequivicably. As a person who has done all three I can tell you that much. However, I would hope the criticism section would be debunked elsewhere. At the very least address the attitudes of the people who disagree with homeschooling should be recorded. Most information you find will support homeschooling but I would like to see some reference to the vitrolic attitudes I've encountered. Chrononem ☎ 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there problems with the sources cited in the Criticism and Controversy section of the article? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is that it immediately debunks every critique that it brings up... and inside the critique section. I don't really have a solution. I'm not the person to correct this, I hated my time in public school and many people had a much worse time than me and no escape from it... this is one issue I cannot bring myself to view objectively, but do I think the article needs work. Chrononem ☎ 01:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Good Homeschooling can be better than bad public/private schooling. Likewise the inverse is also true. There is very little research in this area because the homeschooling lobby makes it hard to track who is home schooled. This page reads like a press release from the lobby. The criticism sections (for some reason there are two of them) are vague and don't go into the valid critiques. The "research" section just goes to show how much bias there is by being separated into "supportive" and "criticisms". Good research should show results, not be attempting to push an agenda. Likewise, WP's coverage of the research should present it as verifiable facts, not take a stance on if it supports or criticizes the subject.Ksevio (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Religious reason for homeschooling.

Is there any interest in adding a section on the religious reasons for homeschooling? It's touched on briefly in the Lead section, but not followed up thoroughly later in the article. Or maybe this kind of addition would be preferable on a religious education article? CSYerkes (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that as long as it's reliably sourced and balanced. There really shouldn't be something in the lead that isn't mentioned in the main body. And, currently the lead section is too long. It shouldn't be more than four paragraphs. Some should be moved to the body. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The religious aspect of the homeschooling movement has only had much attention from reliable sources as it relates to the homeschooling movement in the United States. It is addressed in the article Homeschooling in the United States, and it used to be in this article before it was moved there due to there being few to no sources talking about religious reasons for homeschooling from a global perspective. Feel free to bring some of that information back here if you can do it in a way that fits the global perspective of this article. -- LWG ^talk 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Homeschooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140404033004/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-passing-of-r-j-rushdoony to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-passing-of-r-j-rushdoony

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Improvement of sources needed.

I am looking through the sources of some of the sections in this article, and I thought I should write down the result of this while I remember it.

History The first part of this section which outline the birth of western public education has some sources that don't exactly come from the highest authorities on the history of education. Reference 3 is from the von Mises institute, which seems to be a political organisation and think tank. Reference 5 and 6 are from an homeschooling organisation. Referce 7 is not working, but the article can be found searching the Sutherland Institute website, where the link currently takes you. The article was published in a student edited journal from Bringham Young University Law School.

Research The first reference, 22, is to a list of studies on a homeschooling advocacy organisation. Most of the studies listed are from their own organisation or otherwise not from peer reviewed journals, but a few are. I haven't looked in to what they say in any detail, but if they support the claim that is referenced, they could be referenced directly instead. Reference 23 is to a self-published book by the same organisation (but that is stated in the text). The 26th reference is from the same source. Reference 30 is from another homeschooling site (and doesn't direct to the article intended any more).

Concluding, there is room for improvement, providing neutral references to this article. I probably won't do it myself, but hopefully someone else will. The Encyclopædia Britannica has an article about homeschooling. Maybe this could be used as a neutral source for the Wikipedia article.

Pastisch (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is not a political organization. It is a non-profit with an education mission, specifically in the fields advanced by its namesake: economics and history. Some of their work is for a more popular audience, and some is peer-reviewed, scholarly research. Also, they have a large library of books that they make available free online, so they are a great resource for finding sources with relaxed copyrights. I haven't clicked through on the references yet to see where this one fits. Sixteenkats (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checked "reference 3" (now reference 9). It is a link to the free full text of a full-length book written by an economist (specifically, he had a PhD in economics and was a professor) that was published by the Mises Institute and then, as per their education mission, they made available online. The book appears to have copious footnotes and references of its own. Sixteenkats (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Academic articles on educational evidence of homeschooling Peer reviewed academic article on home schooling http://eric.ed.gov/?q=%22%22&ff1=subHome+Schooling&id=EJ1054568 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01619560701312996?src=recsys Isenberg http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01619560701312996 link to pdf http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ682480.pdf Brian Ray http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02732173.2014.895640 link to pdf Joseph Murphy has summary of previous research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What type of citation?

I was specifically looking at the co-op section and would like to try to find good citations where it was flagged. I assume we don't want to link to specific co-ops to show that they do x or y. I found a blog post asking for "what your co-op does" in the comments, and there are many comments with different examples. Would that be acceptable as a citation? Sixteenkats (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Blogs are user-generated and so are not WP:RS. Meters (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

homeschooling should be differentiated from what homeschooling is not

I think the definition of homeschooling should be differentiated from what homeschooling is not; being self taught and on the job training. Or at least some mention of the fact that there are educated people who did not attend formal school and who were not educated by their parents.. So in the list of notable homeschooled people it should have less about their achievements and more on what their actual educational experiences were. One modern legal definition is “a school primarily conducted by parents or legal guardians for their own children.” The new definition for a home school is “a school provided by a parent or legal guardian for his or her own child.” This might mean that some individuals like Booker T Washington were self taught, with little or no intervention from their parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Homeschooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/lawreview2008witte.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://12most.com/2012/02/07/compelling-reasons-to-homeschool-children/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/homeschooling.k12.3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/homeschooling-a-growing-option-in-american-education
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910031847/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/erie/017/0179/erie0170179.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/erie/017/0179/erie0170179.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Homeschooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hsc.org/professionals/briefhistory
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.moorefoundation.com/article.php?id=53
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130910014026/http://www.stanford.edu/group/reichresearch/cgi-bin/site/ to http://www.stanford.edu/group/reichresearch/cgi-bin/site/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

per country

The per country overview does not differentiate between homeschooling as a fundamental right, or school-systems that are willing to make exceptions when properly supervised for e.g. children in isolated areas or with parents with travelling professions (e.g. shipping). Even in countries that oppose homeschooling as a fundamental principle, it is realised that boarding school in such cases is often the lesser option, separating parents and children for extended periods (strangely, in most countries where homeschooling is popular, so are boarding schools) 88.159.65.111 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I just cut this out

• "However, studies have found that 98% of students participated in 2 or more activities outside the home."

I looked at the "Socialization" section and there was no mention of these studies. One can not write about studies, give their results and then not reference them. And frankly, I find, "activities outside the home" to be a little vague. That could include "grocery shopping" and "going on family vacations" for all we know. I am pretty sure that "attending church" would be one such activity. Carptrash (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed in lead

@Wifey93: The tag you wanted to use was {{citation needed}}, however since that is the article lead (WP:LEAD) which summarizes the article, it's unnecessary to add citations to statements that are discussed in the body (the Germany section mentions illegality, for instance). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 23:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Better late than early

@Wifey93: The quote you removed appears to be in the "Better late than Early" 1975 book (apparently there's a 1977 edition also). I couldn't access the source to see if the remaining material properly summarized it, however. —PaleoNeonate – 19:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Verified: https://books.google.com/books?id=opHkAAAAMAAJ&dq="This+is+like+saying," —PaleoNeonate – 19:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I just cut this out from the lede

because it talks about "critics" but none are referenced here or later in the article that I could find. If I missed something feel free to undo this edit.

"Critics of homeschooling claim that students lack necessary social skills."
Carptrash (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

When checking the article's body criticism, it appears to be mentioned but considering that there currently are more counter-arguments (I can't say if it's in due weight without more work), it may be undue for the lead, at least as-is... —PaleoNeonate – 03:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure "critics" say this, but try and find a study that supports it. I doubt that there is one. Carptrash (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, unless we have more sources and material on it, the coverage is minimal and also likely undue for the lead. —PaleoNeonate – 18:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Home

@Marcelo1147: This talk page is where you should reach consensus for your changes when they're contested, instead of restoring them (WP:BRD). My only issue with it is that it doesn't reflect what the source cited says (which is important for the verification policy). It may be simple to find an alternate source. If you know one, please mention it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Source:

UK Government, Elective Home Education. Guidelines for Local Authorities.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288135/guidelines_for_las_on_elective_home_educationsecondrevisev2_0.pdf

'Learning may take place in a variety of locations, not just in the family home.' Section 1.2

I am not sure how to change this and cite. Any help appreciated. Marcelo1147 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Carptrash already helped, thank you for the alternative source. —PaleoNeonate – 22:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

History

Are you still of the opinion that the "History" section is unneutral? And if so, why? I personally think we could remove the unneutral tag now. -- Maxeto0910 (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I just removed NPOV tag in the history section since there's no explanation on the talk page and the tag was added without edit summary (see version history).-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ocp89040.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lauren.urbina. Peer reviewers: MaxGentino.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Enc1002, Llh1004, Slc1014.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased?

What do you think about moving "According to Elizabeth Bartholet, surveys of homeschoolers show that a majority of homeschoolers in the USA are motivated by "conservative Christian beliefs, and seek to remove their children from mainstream culture"." with updated sourcing to criticism? E. Bartholet is a vocal critic of homeschooling and her writings maybe considered biased.Barbie1979 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The entire article otherwise has to have been written by people willing to extrapolate very limited research. A lot of the referenced being used are from advocacy groups, or corporations that have learning tools to sell. Critics can't be dismissed simply by them having a critical opinion, that's already understood. Compare it to homeopathy maybe, there's many critical voices on the practice, yet they are taken fully seriously on Wiki. Despite being biased. You could start by demonstrating why you think that her writings aren't good, and not just that she disagrees with you. ~~ Kameloso (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

References