Allowing home schooling is even more sick than that kind of bullshit these Texans are doing.
In public schools one at least knows what the teachers are teaching. Home-schooled kids are not protected from anything ranging from creationist crap to domestic violence (you as a teacher can spot if a pupil turns up beaten every other day).
Not to mention the fact that home-schooled kids are far, far behind "ordinary schooled" kids in terms of knowledge. How should they be other, after all?
Edit: for all those who down-vote, I'm writing this from a German point of view. Here, nearly every non-state/church-schooling effort has been plagued with massive problems: inadequate knowledge of teachers, sexual harrassment, violence scandals. Name the problem, you've had it.
I was homeschooled growing up. My brother graduated high school with 36 college credits (dual enrollment), I graduated with 23, and my younger sister graduated with 26. It was like we went to college for a semester before even graduating.
Somehow I managed to graduated university with high honors (sister is in civil engineering on a full-boat scholarship, top of her class, brother got a full boat as well.)
Lastly, my other younger sister (14 years old) is going to be a sophomore next year, is currently teaching herself Python/Ruby, and takes senior-level math.
Homeschooling was the best thing that happened to me: I learned to love learning.
I was homeschooled along with my three brothers in the state of Texas. We all did dual-courses at a community college during the highschool years, and all graduated from college with various MIS/CS/EE degrees.
We were not homeschooled for religious reasons. It was purely a choice made by the family during a time when we were traveling after both parents retired. We each had the option at anytime to jump back into the public education system after we moved to Austin, but we opted to continue homeschooling instead.
Would I recommend it for everyone? No. Homeschooling should be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Growing up we went to the local public school and took art and physical education.
In high school, I played varsity soccer, and ran track at nearby public school, so I knew most of the kids there.
I also worked often, and met quite a few people that way.
If I could change anything about my social activities, it would be to live closer to where things actually happened. Growing up in the middle of nowhere in Maine gets boring :)
So, I don't disagree entirely, but I did go to college with a home schooled guy who was one of the most pleasant, hardworking, and intelligent people I met. I have no idea if religious reasons were part of the reason he was home schooled, he didn't really talk about it, but these blanket labels aren't really helping - home schooling sometimes seems to turn out positive results.
If one were to read your post cynically, they would see that you were advocating everyone be forced into a worse education (often provably so, especially at many public schools) so that we could make sure the parents didn't teach them anything you disagree with and beat them up.
I am with mschuster on this and I am also German. I am certain that many home-schooled children in the US recieve an excellent education. Also, I am failry confident that I could teach my children (yes I have them) better than public schools in quite a few subjects.
Nonetheless, I am glad that public education is compulsory here.
Forcing all children to go to the same schools is essential if you want children to have equal opportunities in life.
1. It gives the children coming from disfunctional households a chance to escape and a chance to be helped.
2. It guarantees that the child recieves an education that has a certain basic level in a broad range of subjects, independently of what the parents find relevant or interesting. I bet there are quite a few parents or future parents on this site who think that teaching children about art or literature is a waste of time. There are also people out there who think the same about history or math.
3. Children recieve an education from people that are associated with education. Not only will uncomfortable subjects such as the Holocaust (very central to education in Germany) or sexual education be covered, but they will also be taught by teachers whose relation to the children is free of all the emotional baggage of the relation between children and their parents.
4. Children need to socialize with other children
5. In public school, children "see" the part of society that their parents would like to ignore, be it out of ideological reasons or out of conveniende. If you are a person who leads a good life, free of the problems that plague the society you live in, you are very likely to either shield your children, or unknowingly only expose them to the bubble in which you live. Both things are bad for the children and even worse for society as a whole.
Regarding your last point: There should normally be enough time out of school to improve on the education that the children receive in the fields that you deem more important. It might well be that through public education we lose some outcome in one potential "megabrain" or two, but the overall gain for society that comes from improvement "at the bottom" IMO far outweighs that. Also, the smart kids usually find a way to dig into what interests them, even if you can push them along only a little.
1. A chance but a good one? What promise do you have that bad families want to keep their children home anyway? Even making that choice suggests a lot of love for their children-it is a sacrifice after all.
2. How? Students in the US routinely score poorly and the system continues, teachers aren't fired, nothing changes really.
3. Why is this necessarily a good thing? Just having a degree doesn't make you qualified to do anything useful. I've interviewed enough software engineers with degrees from great schools who can't seem to program at all to say this is true.
4. On what basis? Also shouldn't parents be more aware of than you?
5. Parents can expose their children to that in any number of ways.
I don't homeschool but these arguments are naive at best. My guess is that in Germany the average school is better than in the US but freedom means people potentially make choices that you don't like. That's part of the package.
You make good points about the advantages of standardized, compulsory public education.
However, one thing I would point out is that your country (Germany) is much more culturally homogeneous than the United States. For example, I don't think there is a significant portion of the population who are religious fundamentalists and don't believe the theory of evolution. So it's much easier to come up with a standardized list of basic information that everyone can agree is worth teaching all children, without getting into endless political and legal wrangles like those that occur in the US over what material should be taught in public schools.
Yes and I'm sure there are super talented Full Sail grads who got fulfilling careers after they graduated, but it doesn't mean there is anything redeeming about that education process.
So, like everyone else in this entire comment section, I will ask - do you have any evidence to contradict the studies that show that home-schooled students generally do better than their public schooled equivalent? Or are you merely asserting how you think it should be based on 'common sense'?
Hmm. Among your premises, it seems you believe that a primary, desirable function of the education system is to limit the influence parents have on their children -- in essence, to protect children from their parents' parenting, including sociocultural influences like religion (and, by extension of that influence, also politics and philosophy).
... Permit me to express a measure of doubt on a variety of levels. The overall desirability, the extent to which that can work, the hubris involved, et cetera...
Indeed, yes, you hit the nail. I see certain religious beliefs, including "creationism" and "vaccinophobia" as existential threats to a free and open society.
Well, first of all, 'vaccinophobia' isn't often directly related to religion. A lot of 'naturalists' reject vaccine science. Second, I find it sad that your solution to existential threats to 'free and open society' is fascism. Your logic applied to 'terrorism' results in where we are now.
Is that what you picked up from that comment? The OP was not suggesting teaching A) in an attempt to supplant B), he was saying that the existence of certain ideas is an 'existential threat' to a 'free society', i.e., thought-crime. To me, the existence of a free society comes along with a lot of baggage, including people who will not believe you no matter how logical you and your arguments are. They get to be citizens too.
Yes, because I didn't take the OP as saying that those were though-crimes. The way I took it was more that because those ideas are a hindrance and harmful to moving a society forwards.
I believe that people should be free to have those thoughts, but I also think they're detrimental to moving society forwards, which is how I read the OP's comment, it just uses a more absolute phrasing.
Funny thing is, I see certain political beliefs -- like contempt for religious freedom (and other freedoms centered around belief and conscience) -- as existential threats to a free and open society.
I think I have a good case that they're a far more direct threat as well, as well. I could even make the case that it's a fundamental contradiction, maybe even a lie, to pursue a "free" society by suppressing freedom. :P
I don't disagree that contempt for freedom of thought--which includes the freedom to think thoughts and believe things that are false--is a serious threat to a free and open society. But I would also point out that, taken to its logical conclusion, this is an argument against public education in general. Any system of public education will end up teaching children things that their parents disagree with on freedom of thought grounds (or indeed the children themselves--I was taught plenty of things in school that I disagreed with, but I still had to give the "correct" answers on tests if I wanted to get good grades). If freedom of thought is a fundamental right, then there is no justification for any system of public education.
To be clear, I haven't attempted to argue against public education existing. (If it seems that way, it's a failure of communication on my part.) The State is not a contaminant whose influence on small children should be avoided at all costs.
But they're not an unmitigated blessing whose opinions should supplant those of parents in all cases either. So I think that it's really good that people have the option to send their children somewhere that isn't a public school system (including a private school or homeschool, possibly even with vouchers). That's a simple, useful check on its power -- and explicitly seeking to remove that check with the goal of changing the way children think is Kinda Creepy or worse. We don't need no thought control...
I haven't attempted to argue against public education existing.
I know you haven't; that's why I took the trouble to point out the implications of taking freedom of thought to its logical conclusion. Most people (including you, it appears) don't like that conclusion; but that necessarily implies that freedom of thought must have limitations. Any system of public schooling must violate freedom of thought in some respects.
Personally, I would be fine with abolishing the existing system of public schooling altogether, and replacing it with something like this: take the money that used to be spent on public schools and divide up among parents as vouchers. The parents can use the vouchers to send their kids to private schools, religious schools, whatever, or they can use them to acquire the resources to enable home schooling. (For example, the voucher money could eliminate the need for both parents to work, so one of them could stay home to home school the children.) But I don't see any realistic chance of a system like this happening in the US.
Also, to be fair, there are arguments on the other side as well. For example, someone upthread pointed out that public schools can help to equalize opportunities for children whose parents simply don't care about whether they get a good education.
As my geologist friend pointed out, a century ago many laughed at the idea of plate tectonics, but it's now foundational to earth science. As commenters have pointed out here, we do ourselves a disservice if we do not allow the discussion of other ideas.
To some. Without getting too deeply into philosphy, I think you'll be very hard pressed to prove any kind of threat to anything from creationism itself.
I am an Atheist, yet I retain skepticism of pharmaceutical industry products, including vaccines (not the science of vaccines, but rather the quality, safety, efficacy).
My nieces were/are homeschooled. Unlike their peers, they aren't ignorant, pregnant and don't have to run a gauntlet of savages in the public schools in their area. In addition to getting a much better education, they are better equipped to handle modern life. From financial wellness, to physical fitness, social integration to self dependence, they are score in the top decile.
How would you know if you met a normal home schooled person? Wouldn't they just seem like a normal person? Do you ask everyone where they went to school?
For the record, I've seen a lot more naive, odd, or strange people who did go to public school.
Social behavior is one thing, and if you're home schooled, it's something you miss out on to some extent unless your parent/teacher/tutor takes special care to expose you to that.
However, the point I take issue with is the "knowledge" thing. Considering we have standardized tests, parent commenter was talking out their ass.
Indeed there are. Bad habits like drinking, smoking, drugs, teenage pregnancy, and how to assault teachers in the parking lot.
These were all extremely common things in the school district where I grew up, which is why my parents, (and the parents of many others in the area) chose to homeschool their children. I never learned those things by "just being among other people" and I think I'm better for it. (My state-required yearly standardized testing scores growing up, that I started college at 16, and the leadership positions in social organizations I’ve held most of my life seem to bear this out.)
Being "around people" is not exclusive to public school kids, nor is it some sort of magical indicator for life success. In addition, homeschooling isn’t exclusively the domain of religious zealotry and terrible people. There are plenty of us who you've met who are perefectly "normal", and may even lack some of the usual bad habits. Please update your stereotype database. :-)
Maybe they don't have the pack mentality of schooled individuals. Maybe they are individual instead of demographic bins that you biased mind can't put them in...
Applying common sense should be enough. You as a parent have neither the time nor the knowledge of all the various subjects that are taught in school, not to mention a proper paedagogic/teaching education.
Every study I've seen contradicts this common sense argument. Combined with the fact that home schooled students still must take and pass state standardized tests means the students have to be at least meeting the minimum educational requirements.
I have a family member in Texas with a home schooled child. They attend group teaching sessions, sit in on other classes, and use the many reference books that are provided for home school teachers. Home schooled does not mean "taught only what the parent wants to teach", nor does it mean "taught only what the parent knows". There's a legal definition surrounding home schooling.
> Every study I've seen contradicts this common sense argument.
Can you provide some of these studies? I've never seen one that was written by someone who understood why its important to control for race/financial status/etc, which makes them fairly meaningless.
Why does that make the study meaningless? I don't think I've ever read a study that says "homeschooling only works if you're white" or "public schools are only for the poor". Are we supposed to believe that the effectiveness of education is dependent on skin color?
No, its because people who are home schooled are more likely than the average student to be in classes (white, rich) that already do well in school, yet they still compare their scores to the general population.
Religious or atheist, uninformed/ill-informed voters and naive policy pushers are existential threats to a free and open society.
Please slow down and use some "common sense" and reasoning before allowing your emotional ranting about how other people (religious folks in this case) lack reasoning and logic.
That is not true. Parents use quality textbooks and lesson plans. They also get together to pay specialists to teach difficult subjects one or more times per week. Also, by the time a homeschooled child is of the age that their subjects can only be taught by specialists, they either know how to teach themselves or take courses from local junior colleges or correspondence courses.
There is no one proper pedagogy. Teachers use a lot of different methods, as do parents, whether they have an education background, a science background, or are just using well-reviewed curricula.
The ability to give a child a customized, one-on-one education is an advantage over the classroom model. The parents have time because one parent does not work or does not work very much; they are a full-time educator and put in a lot of work to be good at it.
Regarding your earlier remark about abuse: abuse does not really happen. The safest place for a child is in a home with intact parents, and most homeschooling families are intact.
I mean this kindly when I say you are completely ignorant of what homeschooling is like. I encourage you to acquaint yourself with actual homeschoolers. There are probably several communities in your area and you would be invited to observe some of the co-operative activities and talk to the parents.
You point about abuse is incorrect. Abuse (physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, or neglect) is more likely to happen in the home, perpetrated by a family member.
I'm not sure why it's a reason to avoid home schooling. Schools are not great at spotting and reporting abuse.
I think that you misunderstood me. The majority of child abuse happens at home (~72,000 parents vs. ~58,000 known non-family [0]), but it happens in broken homes, second marriages, etc. Most homeschooling parents are together and in their first marriage, so they, just going by the statistics, aren't likely to abuse their children.
For a source on the uneven distribution of abuse by family members, I would suggest to start with this HHS report: [1]
"Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect."
`Common sense' in this case is quite misleading; indeed `[a] collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen' fits this case perfectly.
For one, a quick look at Wikipedia gives list of references indicating the opposite -- homeschooled studends tend to sligtly outpeform school-schooled students [1] [2].
For another, there's been plenty of stories in press, and specifically on HN, indicating that giving students a lot of freedom in picking both subjects and methodology yields better results than highly uniform, mass schooling.
Your common sense is failing you because the reasoning isn't sound. Teachers are not super-intelligent all-knowledgeable people. Parents can have the time (stay at home dad homeschooling). Home schooling is 100% 1-on-1 whereas school schooling is at a huge disadvantage to start with 1 teacher per 30+ students. Parents home schooling responsibly have access to the same text books that teachers do. Parents can learn a little bit of how to teach. Parents are more motivated to teach well than a random teacher. Etc.
This entire discussion is an awful bag of anecdotes, with this "common sense" thing right at the bottom of the pack.
Let's base our discussion on actual facts and statistics, shall we?
If homeschooling is worse, the statistics will bear this out. If the statistics don't bear it out, then it's not worse. This "don't bother to look for facts, just think about it" business is reprehensible.
I am a college instructor. I think that covers "proper paedagogic/teaching education."
>You as a parent have neither the time
This part is true. Even if it weren't, I probably wouldn't pursue home-schooling my children. Neither proves the point that no person/family is up to the task.
> nor the knowledge of all the various subjects
I may be deluding myself, but I feel confident that I have mastered all of the elements of "basic high school curriculum." I expect that is true for many people. As far as any of that goes, home-schooling does not necessarily require that one person does all of the instruction, nor that the curriculum is confined to that which is within the bounds of what the parent(s) knows. In fact the parent(s) could outsource nearly all of the instruction, and merely act in a supervisory role.
The most damaging, repugnant and horrific lesson that school teaches you is to accept school as essential and vital for the education of a populace. You appear to have absorbed this lesson very well.
If you believe that the political biases, rote memorization, rigorous examination, strict discipline, regimentation and social control that comes with public schooling is superior to the intellectual freedom of homeschooling and alternative education, you are deluded.
People will be biased, but for open-minded families, it's an excellent bet.
Then you underestimate just how apt children are at learning and absorbing information if given their own pace and room to heighten their interests. It's better to be well versed in a few fields and know minutiae about others, rather than merely know minutiae about many fields.
Please read the works of John Holt, John Taylor Gatto and Ivan Illich for further information.
Even though there may be cases where home-schooled kids don't fare well, I can say that I learned more during my homeschool years (4th-7th grade) than any other time, and that broadening of my interests helped me go on to a top 20 university. Some home-schooled kids may have a worse experience, but you can't write off that entire demographic so easily. The reality is there is probably even more negligence in the public school system. Go watch Waiting For Superman when you get a chance!
> Not to mention the fact that home-schooled kids are far, far behind "ordinary schooled" kids in terms of knowledge. How should they be other, after all?
I was homeschooled all the way through high school, and while I may not be the founder of Dropbox, I scored pretty high on the SATs and do very well for myself. So, [citation needed.]
While students in a public school are vying for the attention of a teacher amongst a group of 20 other students, I had the almost exclusive attention of a teacher very invested in my success for more than a decade. I'm not saying it's perfect, but there can be distinct advantages.
I was homeschooled, I can tell you It's not all like that. The Canadian government checked up on us twice a year. We followed the Alberta curriculum (using ADLC), well known for being strong in the maths and sciences. I wrote the same provincials that the other Alberta students did (in a supervised setting at the same time as everyone else.) I found it better prepared me for self motivation and learning on my own. At university I was on the deans list and scored better than 95% of students (exactly what percentile I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it was the highest of all students in the same year of computer science.) I scored 100% in calculus and published three peer reviewed math papers in conjunction with my professor as a first year student. So you can't discriminate across the board like that, even if in general you're probably correct.
I find it really interesting that homeschooling has such a bad reputation in america. In the UK my impression of it has been overwhelmingly positive. People who I have met who have been home schooled have often had broader education without the limitations of a national curriculum and with significantly more freedom in what sort of things that they learn.
This is balanced by the governments right to the quality of education a child is receiving and potentially serve a school attendance order.
I think it actually has a good reputation here. The people who seriously oppose it today either are committed to mandatory state education for political reasons or have not met many homeschoolers. Most of the hard political battles about the right to homeschool were won 20-30 years ago. Most public and private schools have programs or arrangements for homeschooling families that wish to take some classes or enroll in some extra-curricular programs, as do junior colleges, so even many professional educators have positive things to say about the method.
There are parents in the US that use homeschooling as a tool for religious indoctrination.
Case in point: I was given Christian-themed workbooks and presented anti-evolution texts. Today, I don't belong in either camp. However, who knows how I would have turned out if not for unfettered Internet access and a degree of laxness in the indoctrination efforts.
I'm still anti-homeschooling, but I have to accept that these students do better... probably benefiting from having one-on-one personalized education from the parents while public school students are mostly lectured and ignored by teachers working with 30-plus students.
>Allowing home schooling is even more sick than that kind of bullshit these Texans are doing.
I agree in principle, but what if Christian religious ideals were compulsorily taught in Texas public schools?
>Not to mention the fact that home-schooled kids are far, far behind "ordinary schooled" kids in terms of knowledge. How should they be other, after all?
I am an instructor at a small College in Texas, and I have had a few home-schooled students (and perhaps there were some that I did not recognize). After my experience with them I can say the following: One performed significantly better than public school students in at least one subject (math in one memorable case). Most performed worse or seemed deficient in at least one subject. All seemed to lack social skills to some degree. As an example, the student who was so good at math had no idea of the existence of the civil rights movement of the 1960's. There were other gaps in his knowledge of recent history, but that one stuck out the most to me.
More anecdotes: I was mostly not home-schooled. Maybe for a year or less altogether, for various reasons. I lack social skills to some degree. :-)
But more interestingly, I have absolutely no recollection of being taught about the civil rights movement in school. Certainly I have learned about it, but if I learned anything about it in school, I don't remember it.
Seymour Papert asked a rhetorical question in his book The Children's Machine:
On my reckoning, the fraction of human knowledge that is in the [school] curriculum is well under a millionth and diminishing fast. I simply cannot escape from the question: Why that millionth in particular?
Germany has not had nearly the problems with homeschooling that you imagine. Its prosecution of homeschooling families has been appalling, though. Seizing children (at gunpoint) and forcing them to go to a public school against their parents' wishes, and not allowing the family to leave the country, is not healthy for the children, the parents, the classmates or the country.
In public schools one at least knows what the teachers are teaching. Home-schooled kids are not protected from anything ranging from creationist crap to domestic violence (you as a teacher can spot if a pupil turns up beaten every other day).
Not to mention the fact that home-schooled kids are far, far behind "ordinary schooled" kids in terms of knowledge. How should they be other, after all?
Edit: for all those who down-vote, I'm writing this from a German point of view. Here, nearly every non-state/church-schooling effort has been plagued with massive problems: inadequate knowledge of teachers, sexual harrassment, violence scandals. Name the problem, you've had it.