Homeschooling is banned in California

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

This is what I'm saying, guys. HSLDA loves this 'sky is falling" business. It sells memberships and increases donations. But they don't represent 'everyone' (look at this list of omitted groups, for example http://hsislegal.com/associations.asp) There's a ruling, yes. But the Governor, the State School Superintendent, and members of the state legislature, as well as several home-schooling groups

I thought many of you would like to know that the non-sectarian state
homeschool organizations, CHN and HSC have retained counsel to help defend
and protect homeschooling in light of the 2nd Appellate Court ruling that
rendered the opinion that independent homeschooling is illegal except
through the credentialed teacher/tutor exemption.

The announcement was made by Debbie Schwarzer, Co-Chair of the HSC
(http://www.hsc.org) Legal Team:

"I am thrilled to announce that we have been offered help by two of the
best law firms in the state (and country). The firms will be helping
us on a pro bono basis. That means they will donate (very expensive)
attorney time to help us figure out the best strategies for dealing
with the court issues, and they will help us prepare and file the
letters and briefs that we need.

Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, which is headquartered in Palo
Alto, will be representing HSC. They had helped HSC back in some of
the dark days of Delaine Eastin's time, and their thorough research
helped us feel more comfortable that the advice we were giving the
world about private homeschooling was correct. In the spirit of full
disclosure, you should know that I worked there for many years, but
they made the decision to go forward because they think the case
presents interesting legal issues and they'd like to be on our side.

They will be working very closely with another firm, Baker & McKenzie,
which has 150 offices around the world and, conveniently, one across
the street from WSGR in Palo Alto. Jerry Salcido, who has been a
member of the HSC legal team for several years, is an attorney at that
office, and his firm has graciously agreed to donate their services as
well. Because we couldn't have two firms working for HSC, Baker and
McKenzie have agreed that CHN will be their named client.

We believe that HSC and CHN's interests in this case are very similar.
We have similar membership profiles, we want the same results, we
both think that help from professionals in dealing with the Supreme
Court will be invaluable. The firms will consult with each other to
make sure they are not duplicating efforts, but that they also aren't
leaving any important arguments out. They will also try to coordinate
their efforts with the other groups with which HSC and CHN have been
working, HSLDA, CHEA and Family Protection Ministries."

Karen Taylor of the California Homeschool Network Legal Team
(http://www.californiahomeschool.net) released a statement that concurred
and included this note:

"I met with Jerry Salcido and Debbie by phone yesterday. In addition to
being an attorney, Jerry is a homeschooling dad with young children, so you
can bet his heart is in this case!

...For those of you who are members of HSLDA, FPM, or CHEA, you'll be
pleased to know that HSC and CHN are remaining in contact with these
organizations as well, and they are in agreement that having several law
firms representing the various groups will strengthen the fight, so everyone
remains willing to work together for the good of all. I can't tell you how
pleased I am. This case is too big to be won by any one group, and the
cooperation is what homeschoolers want. Naturally, each group is looking
out for the interests of their members, but it's possible to do that and
also work in conjunction with others, and that's what we're doing."

are working on it.

Switch to decaf, guys.

[Nurvingiel]

Switch to decaf!? Ne-vair!!

Lief, homeschooling is indeed not illegal since this is a ruling, not a law. I'm not discounting your annoyance at the matter, but this is less bad than if homeschooling were actually banned.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Wait a sec folks....I did find this recent bit:
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008...in-california/

Good find Hector. So we can relax a little bit, but still continue to support an environment that fosters homeschooling and creative approaches to education in general.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here's a quote from Arnold Schwarzenegger on this matter:

"Every California child deserves a quality education, and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children," said Schwarzenegger. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then as elected officials, we will."

Could Schwarzenegger enact a law that incorporates homeschooling into your education act (or whatever you have down there) enshrining it in law without mandating any requirements like standardised testing?

Or is this too much to expect from someone who is getting ready to possibly brutalise the public education system? Of course, this wouldn't actually require him to give anyone money, so maybe he would find it more palatable. He is in a tough spot with the budget right now.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here's another statement from the governor's office about what the new law does. "All children ages 6 to 18 must attend public or private school full-time until graduation from high school or be tutored at home by a credentialed teacher."

"Credentialed teacher" implies that he will keep the expensive (how expensive?) credential requirement in place.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Here's a link to the actual ruling.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/B192878.PDF

In a nutshell, the law being referenced is the compulsory attendance law. There is one in every state. In most states, including California, the law specifically exempts people enroled in private schools. In many states, including California, "home-schoolers' have the option to register as "private schools". Since private school teachers are usually not required to be certified through the same process as most public school teachers, that expectation is usually applied to home-school teachers who have been registered in that way. In this case, specifically, the family claimed to be under the supervision of another 'school", but the court saw no real interaction between the family and the umbrella school. Essentially, it concluded the school was fraudulant in representing itself as the certifying organization, and said the mother was not a reasonable substitute for a skilled teacher. You can see at the top that the parents didn't even appear for this court date.

One of the objections (generally) to the certification process is that it may exclude skilled teachers. For example, you may have a Doctorate Degree in Chemistry, but without a certain amount of coursework and continuing ed in "education" you would not be eligible, in some jurisdictions to teach Middle School chemistry. You could be a college professor, but not teach 7th graders. It is regulations like that that make certification expensive, because it would apply (depending on the age group) to many subjects.

However, it hasn't been necessary, so far. I, personally, believe that the family HAS fraudulently represented itself as homeschooling to engage in extra control over children who called the civil authorities for aid, and i darn well believe they're entitled to that aid.

But I've always been a radical on the subject of children's rights. I think those are "inalienable", too.

[Lief Erikson]

sis, I said right from my first post that this is being vigorously contested. Your point about the number of people fighting it only supports what I've been saying. It refutes nothing.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Switch to decaf!? Ne-vair!!

Lief, homeschooling is indeed not illegal since this is a ruling, not a law. I'm not discounting your annoyance at the matter, but this is less bad than if homeschooling were actually banned.

It hasn't been made effective yet. It has to be fought, though, lest it be made so. Our governor is very correct about that.

And signing the petition I linked will help to fight it .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

"Credentialed teacher" implies that he will keep the expensive (how expensive?) credential requirement in place.

In that quote, he was citing what the ruling says. Not what he would have it say. They'll be fighting it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Could Schwarzenegger enact a law that incorporates homeschooling into your education act (or whatever you have down there) enshrining it in law without mandating any requirements like standardised testing?

I don't know enough about the California politics or legislature to say.

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You'd think that a state that's pondering cutting $400 million from its education budget would actively encourage homeschooling. They could really use an increase in parents taking the direct costs of educating their children upon themselves.

But... that would be reasonable. Can't have that.

I'll reply to other posts later, etc.
In case any of you don't know, I'm homeschooled, so this ruling personally affected me... and creeped me out. Yes, the ruling suggested that homeschooling shouldn't be allowed, it's not law, blah, blah, blah. But just the fact that the ruling was made is disturbing.

Sis: Being a homeschool organization, why shouldn't HSLDA be all over this?
Why can't it be Christian?
And please support your claim that HSLDA is exclusively for Christians. I'd like to know your side.


Quote from About HSLDA

4. Is HSLDA a Christian organization?

Yes; however, HSLDA’s mission is to protect the freedom of all homeschoolers. Although our officers and directors are Christians, HSLDA membership is not limited to religiously based homeschoolers. We respect parents' rights to make the appropriate choices for the upbringing of their children. We have no agenda to make all public and home-based classrooms religious or conservative. Our primary objective is to preserve the fundamental right of parents to choose home education, free of over-zealous government officials and intrusive laws. We do put on a national conference annually and invite the board members of state organizations with whom we have worked for many years. Most, if not all, of those organizations have Christian leaders, but many serve all homeschoolers regardless of religious affiliation, as we do.

10. Does HSLDA promote exclusively Christian homeschool support organizations?

We do not. Over 500 support groups participate in our group discount program. Religion is not a criterion for participation. We work in conjunction with secular and religious groups alike to promote and protect home education freedoms.

http://www.hslda.org/about/default.asp
Lief already posted the first one, but it seems to need to be reposted.

[The Gaffer]

Interesting debate. Some observations:

1) When comparing home-schooled performance stats with public-schooled, you are not comparing like with like. The sample who are home-schooled benefit from one-to-one tuition and a highly motivated, education-oriented home environment: i.e. both the sample and the methods are different in important ways that would skew the results. All the evidence shows that your home environment is a very strong predictor of educational performance in the state school sector.
2) Having a PhD in Chemistry doesn't qualify you to teach chemistry, let alone History, or anything else. Not to say you CAN'T teach it, just to say that I know lots of PhDs who are pants teachers.
3) Did I see a move to have the judge's ruling deleted or struck from the record? Now, we don't have a constitution here, but one thing that does get people in a lather is when people try to edit judges' interpretations of the law. In fact, no-one would even dare try. They might moan and complain about it, and they might change the law because of it, but it wouldn't even be contemplated to change the record. That's Ministry of Truth stuff (unless I've read it wrong), and a suprisingly illiberal move from supposed defenders of liberty.
4) It strikes me that there might be a minority of "bad apples" who just don't send their kids to school because they can't be arsed, or who claim "homeschooling" but do it spectacularly badly. Do we not have a social contract in which we pay taxes so that the state can protect our rights? That would, presumably, include some means of telling when a child's prospects are being ruined by delinquent parents. In which case, there needs to be some form of regulation or inspection, and there has to be some legal recourse for the state when a child is detected as being neglected.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Interesting debate. Some observations:

1) When comparing home-schooled performance stats with public-schooled, you are not comparing like with like. The sample who are home-schooled benefit from one-to-one tuition and a highly motivated, education-oriented home environment

Hee hee .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

: i.e. both the sample and the methods are different in important ways that would skew the results. All the evidence shows that your home environment is a very strong predictor of educational performance in the state school sector.

Yup!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

2) Having a PhD in Chemistry doesn't qualify you to teach chemistry, let alone History, or anything else. Not to say you CAN'T teach it, just to say that I know lots of PhDs who are pants teachers.

Yes, but as you point out . . . homeschoolers tend to be highly successful. Perhaps because the homeschool environment, as you seem to suggest by saying that the sample and methods are skewed here, tends to be better.

I just can't resist gloating here . I feel very, very proud of the homeschool movement. And it feels good to hear you compliment it .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

3) Did I see a move to have the judge's ruling deleted or struck from the record? Now, we don't have a constitution here, but one thing that does get people in a lather is when people try to edit judges' interpretations of the law. In fact, no-one would even dare try. They might moan and complain about it, and they might change the law because of it, but it wouldn't even be contemplated to change the record. That's Ministry of Truth stuff (unless I've read it wrong), and a suprisingly illiberal move from supposed defenders of liberty.

We aren't changing history. History has happened and the original judge's interpretation will be remembered. However, that interpretation needs to be depublished because other courts can base decisions partly on it when making further choices regarding the future of homeschooling. It's a legal issue. Depublishing it will eliminate their legal ability to do this.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

4) It strikes me that there might be a minority of "bad apples" who just don't send their kids to school because they can't be arsed, or who claim "homeschooling" but do it spectacularly badly. Do we not have a social contract in which we pay taxes so that the state can protect our rights? That would, presumably, include some means of telling when a child's prospects are being ruined by delinquent parents. In which case, there needs to be some form of regulation or inspection, and there has to be some legal recourse for the state when a child is detected as being neglected.

I think that if they are going to start something like that, they should begin it with the public schools. Students there are generally faring worse than they are in homeschools, in spite of regulations. After the public schools have had a clear improvement in their education systems, there would be more justification for beginning to focus on the significantly smaller number of problems that exist in the homeschooling community. Before laying new regulations on the segment of society that is really doing well, I think it's best to prove that regulations make significant improvements in the part of it that's doing worse.

[brownjenkins]

Any averages of homeschooling vs. public schooling are too skewed by self-selection to be representative of anything.

The most important aspect of education is parents who care about their child's education.

By definition, 95% of the homeschooled have parents that care about their child's education.

By comparison, public schools reflect the entire population: some children have parents who care a lot about their child's education; some who are somewhat concerned, but not that involved; some who hardly care at all.

Thus, the average of the first group is always going to be higher, not because homeschooling is better, but because the entire populace is only made up of a selective part of the total population. If they didn't do substantially better, I'd be real worried.

For those that disparage public school, remember that there are millions of children that graduate from public schools every year and go on to extremely successful careers. My guess is that these children had parents who cared.

My own four children go to public school. My wife could homeschool them (she's a certified teacher), but she prefers for them to have the other experiences public school brings. And we're still around each day after school to fill in the blanks and help them along when needed. Not to mention all the education they received from us in the first five years of their lives.

The question: How do we help kids who's parents don't care (or aren't particularly educated themselves)?

Public school is really the only option, and working to make it better is better for everyone. Homeschooling is fine, as long as those who want to do it do it well, but it does not work for every child.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Any averages of homeschooling vs. public schooling are too skewed by self-selection to be representative of anything.

The most important aspect of education is parents who care about their child's education.

By definition, 95% of the homeschooled have parents that care about their child's education.

By comparison, public schools reflect the entire population: some children have parents who care a lot about their child's education; some who are somewhat concerned, but not that involved; some who hardly care at all.

Thus, the average of the first group is always going to be higher, not because homeschooling is better, but because the entire populace is only made up of a selective part of the total population. If they didn't do substantially better, I'd be real worried.

For those that disparage public school, remember that there are millions of children that graduate from public schools every year and go on to extremely successful careers. My guess is that these children had parents who cared.

My own four children go to public school. My wife could homeschool them (she's a certified teacher), but she prefers for them to have the other experiences public school brings. And we're still around each day after school to fill in the blanks and help them along when needed. Not to mention all the education they received from us in the first five years of their lives.

The question: How do we help kids who's parents don't care (or aren't particularly educated themselves)?

Public school is really the only option, and working to make it better is better for everyone. Homeschooling is fine, as long as those who want to do it do it well, but it does not work for every child.

The fact that you keep saying this doesn't make it true.

There are ways to balance the self-selection in homeschoolers. But if you actually know homeschoolers, they aren't necessary. You assert that they're more involved, but you can bring no evidence to prove that. Among the parents I know you could not determine, statistically, or based on the outcome of their children at 20, which homeschooled, public schooled, or private schooled. There are successes and failures under every system.

The issue is not whether homeschooling works for everyone. Only an idiot would assert that, and no idiots have done so, here. The issue, from a public policy POV, is whether compulsory public education works for everyone. And it doesn't. So the SECOND issue is, can compulsory public education, extended in some way, be the only, best, or most effective solution to the problem of families that ARE at risk? And I say, "The evidence is that it won't solve the problems of ALL of those children, and might not solve the problems of even a majority of them." Yet, in pursuit of this goal you're willing to sacrifice the civil liberties of the entire population.

I find that astounding. It's exactly what people who oppose the war in Iraq complain about there. It's the same thing that causes people to join Amnesty International.

And yet, you seem to see no...IRONY in suggesting that every minor citizen of the country must lose ALL the important liberties that are the basis of the federal Constitution on the off chance that such a system will result in aid for children whose parents (you assert, and that's another issue) don't care about them.

It's not the only option. It's OBVIOUSLY, INSANELY, EXTREMELY, OUTRAGEOUSLY, and DEMONSTRABLY not the only option.

[The Gaffer]

Who is arguing in favour of banning anything?

Lief, you've completely misunderstood me; bj's post summarised it. Oh, but I loved how it's not censoring the judiciary but merely having his judgment "depublished". Winston Smith would be proud.

There was some recent research here which showed that children from "good" educational backgrounds fared as well in a "bad" school as they did in a "good" one. The main difference was that where you take the "good" background kids out of the "bad" schools, they got worse.

So by opting out of the public schools system, these "good" parents make the public schools worse. Selfish?

The issue, from a public policy POV, is whether compulsory public education works for everyone. And it doesn't.

I disagree. (Though my perspective may be coloured by coming from the country that invented free comprehensive public education.)

I'm personally not arguing in favour of any ban. However, I don't think people should be encouraged to do it as I think it would be bad for society as a whole.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Have I MENTIONED this?

http://blog.au.org/2008/02/28/delawa...ble-treatment/

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I disagree.

Why? What do you think the public policy issue is?

Here, let's try another analogy.

You look at a graph which shows a rise in sexual crimes by men. What is your response? If you say, 'Castrate men, and see if that helps.' you have made a case consistant with extending compulsory education.

One of the difficulties is that people like to use education as both carrot and stick for adjusting other social ills. This is my suggestion. Provide educational opportunities, for free. Make them great and make them relevant. Let anyone who can benefit from them walk in and do it. Set the police and social service system to helping people who need help, (and there are a lot of them).

Who doesn't want a civilization with access to education? People swim under barbed wire to get that! But it's become the school system that serves so many other functions... babysitting services in a world with lousy childcare, healthcare access in a world with no insurance or health system, social engineering experiments.

Let's open schools like good libraries and let people use them. It works in places with open access post secondary education, and it would free up teachers, doctors, policemen... everyone, to do what they do WELL.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Who is arguing in favour of banning anything?

Lief, you've completely misunderstood me; bj's post summarised it.

Oh . . . Sorry.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Oh, but I loved how it's not censoring the judiciary but merely having his judgment "depublished". Winston Smith would be proud.

It's California's Supreme Court that we're appealing to, and it's part of the judiciary. So calling it "censoring the judiciary" doesn't make sense. It makes no more sense than marching to try to get the government to change its policies is "censoring" the government. IMHO .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

There was some recent research here which showed that children from "good" educational backgrounds fared as well in a "bad" school as they did in a "good" one. The main difference was that where you take the "good" background kids out of the "bad" schools, they got worse.

So by opting out of the public schools system, these "good" parents make the public schools worse. Selfish?

I think that the factor you and BJ mentioned is one of several. One on one tutoring, which BJ mentioned, also contributes to homeschooling success. So does the ability to proceed at our own pace. Students vary in the amount of time they need to really succeed in a subject. Often, public schools also have an incentive to dub down class material to make it understandable to the worst students in the classroom. They can't afford to just keep teaching high quality material and leave behind class members. That means that the brightest kids often get left in a lurch.

There are a lot of factors contributing to the greater success of homeschoolers. But what parents do in homeschooling is certainly anything but selfish. Their students' presence in public schools might make the schools score better overall, but it wouldn't help their kids to do any better. They'd probably, if there is any difference, do worse. And the family relationships that develop in our families are also wonderful . Plus the moral training, whereas otherwise they could be messed with by the false ideologies that are commonly found in public schools.

*Shakes head.* I really see no positive things to them being in public school, and only negative results. The only positive thing is that it might make public schools look better, but their public image matters less to me than does the upbringing of kids.

Besides, I doubt that the research your quoting is correct. I've heard from professors and students about an atmosphere of "who cares?" that exists about school work in public schools. When kids spend a very large segment of their lives surrounded by peers, those peers have a heavy influence on their views. Often more than do parents. Therefore the environment there can influence kids to care less about their education. Especially when that's combined with an education system that is dubbing down its quality so that it can reach less knowledgeable students. My neighbors went through public school, and they were bored stiff until they got out of it. Now they're racing through college at an incredible pace, succeeding in everything they touch and very excited.

[hectorberlioz]

So by opting out of the public schools system, these "good" parents make the public schools worse. Selfish?

As if that somehow made the curriculum sink in, made the lazier students better, or the teaching methods better...

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

There was some recent research here which showed that children from "good" educational backgrounds fared as well in a "bad" school as they did in a "good" one. The main difference was that where you take the "good" background kids out of the "bad" schools, they got worse.

So by opting out of the public schools system, these "good" parents make the public schools worse. Selfish?

No, because it's not the parents fault that the school is "bad". To want their child to go to a "good" school is selfish? Quite the opposite. And I doubt parents will say, "Oh, my child will do just as good in a 'good' school as in a 'bad' one; I think I'll keep my child in the 'bad' school." It's the parents choice, not society's.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Have I MENTIONED this?

http://blog.au.org/2008/02/28/delawa...ble-treatment/

Ok..... What does this have to do with homeschooling at all?

I think that the factor you and BJ mentioned is one of several. One on one tutoring, which BJ mentioned, also contributes to homeschooling success. So does the ability to proceed at our own pace. Students vary in the amount of time they need to really succeed in a subject. Often, public schools also have an incentive to dub down class material to make it understandable to the worst students in the classroom. They can't afford to just keep teaching high quality material and leave behind class members. That means that the brightest kids often get left in a lurch.

Example: The 5-year-old we babysit is way ahead of his kindergarten class in a lot of areas. His homework (which we do with him) isn't challenging to him at all. He only has problems with a few words in the 5 books he reads aloud from school. He's pretty much half-homeschooled or part-homeschooled because he usually finishes his school homework on Monday or Tuesday and does supplementary homework (including 1st grade Hooked-on-Phonics) on Thursday. (We babysit Mon, Tues, Thurs.)

Example: I used to go to private school. My teachers (mostly my evil 4th grade one) got mad at me if I didn't get something. No "here's how you do it." Very frustrating. Homeschooling is awesome. That's that.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Provide educational opportunities, for free. Make them great and make them relevant. Let anyone who can benefit from them walk in and do it. Set the police and social service system to helping people who need help, (and there are a lot of them).

Couldn't agree more.

The problem is, in real life, the more people who opt out of the state-funded sector, the worse it gets.

Sorry, I was being a bit naughty with the selfish remark. But it is a classic "what's good for the individual vs what's good for society" issue.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc Brandybuck

Ok..... What does this have to do with homeschooling at all?

It has to do with public schools. A lot of people (particularly people whose direct experience of homeschoolers is limited) assume that the only problem anyone would have with a public school is that it would be insufficiently Christian. In some cases, an EXCESS of a particular kind of religion is the problem. I think people need the option to be in a learning environment that works for them. Whyever that is.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Couldn't agree more.

The problem is, in real life, the more people who opt out of the state-funded sector, the worse it gets.

Sorry, I was being a bit naughty with the selfish remark. But it is a classic "what's good for the individual vs what's good for society" issue.

I don't believe that applies, here. I've asked this before. If you've never been in the prison system, you may not realize how broken it is. It's a problem for society that it is broken. However, the fact that you've kept yourself out of gaol keeps you from prioritizing a reasonable fix for it. Therefore, everyone should go to gaol, right? In Israel, every young person serves in the military. Thank goodness they do that, because it makes the problems with a militarized society so much clearer to them. Hence their dedication to disarmament.

What's good for society is an educated population. If the population is doing that in their own time, why is that bad? Homeschoolers still pay taxes to support schools. Some of them teach in schools. Some of them volunteer in schools. Some of them send some kids to schools, and keep some home...that's quite common, actually. Homeschooling is not a threat to public schools. Incompetence within them is.

[brownjenkins]

I'll ask you pro-homeschoolers a few questions, averages aside:

Is it possible to get a very good education via public school?

Is it possible to get a very good education via private school?

Is it possible to get a very good education via a homeschooling?

BTW ~ On some of the other points mentioned above. The public school system in my town has relatively low class sizes (20 students or less, mandated by law). It also has all kinds of advance placement education for students that excel starting in first grade, and one-on-one tutoring for children that have a hard time keeping up.

More importantly, I have three kids who have been going to it, and one more who will be, and they are very smart, polite, and well-behaved. Simply put, I wouldn't even consider sending my kids to the schools if they weren't good. As I said, my wife is more than qualified to homeschool, and we even have the money to send them to private school if we wanted to.

As to what they get from going to public school? A connection to the society that they will become a part of. All the society. Not just the smart kids, the nice kids, the rich kids. They also get to meet the less fortunate, the kids with bad parents, the kids with behavioral issues, the kids with mental issues.

What's good for a society is a society of people that experience and understand one another, as opposed to one where each group spends their entire life in their own little social construct. If you don't get that when you are young, you never get it at all.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'll ask you pro-homeschoolers a few questions, averages aside:

Is it possible to get a very good education via public school?

Yep.

Is it possible to get a very good education via private school?

Yep.

Is it possible to get a very good education via a homeschooling?

Yep.

BTW ~ On some of the other points mentioned above. The public school system in my town has relatively low class sizes (20 students or less, mandated by law). It also has all kinds of advance placement education for students that excel starting in first grade, and one-on-one tutoring for children that have a hard time keeping up.

More importantly, I have three kids who have been going to it, and one more who will be, and they are very smart, polite, and well-behaved. Simply put, I wouldn't even consider sending my kids to the schools if they weren't good. As I said, my wife is more than qualified to homeschool, and we even have the money to send them to private school if we wanted to.

Gee, that's nice. Some people live in districts where the schools are decrepit, the class sizes enormous, the teaching abysmal and the schools unsafe. Some of those people aren't trained to teach and don't have the money for private schools. Some are trained to teach. Some...what were we discussing again? Your many options?

As to what they get from going to public school? A connection to the society that they will become a part of. All the society. Not just the smart kids, the nice kids, the rich kids. They also get to meet the less fortunate, the kids with bad parents, the kids with behavioral issues, the kids with mental issues.

Why wouldn't homeschoolers get that? People have to make up their minds, here. Either the homeschooling population is full of incompetents and child abusers who need further regulation, or the problem with homeschooling is that the parents all care a lot and all the kids are above average. Which is it?

What's good for a society is a society of people that experience and understand one another, as opposed to one where each group spends their entire life in their own little social construct. If you don't get that when you are young, you never get it at all.

Well, first of all, that's absurd. Not everyone lives in Boston. The world has always been full of people who liked strangers, even if they didn't meet any until they went to college, or into the military, or something. In today's world, it's even easier. Look at this board! People from all kinds of backgrounds communicating...even though *gasp* some are homeschooled. But this notion that homeschoolers are sitting in a pseudo-Amish classroom and never meet anyone different from themselves is just fiction. Homeschoolers, partly BECAUSE they aren't locked up 9 months of the year with people their age and from their neighborhood, often has increased opportunity to interact with the society at large, and not merely the tiny segment of it that decorates for the prom.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Gee, that's nice. Some people live in districts where the schools are decrepit, the class sizes enormous, the teaching abysmal and the schools unsafe. Some of those people aren't trained to teach and don't have the money for private schools. Some are trained to teach. Some...what were we discussing again? Your many options?

All the more reason to work on improving public schools. Homeschooling certainly isn't an option for those kids, and taking away the compulsory nature of schooling will just put those kids out on the street.

I went to grammer school in New York City in the early seventies. It wasn't great, it also wasn't terrible, but it was a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Both my parents worked so we could have a home. If not for public school, where would I have been?

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Why wouldn't homeschoolers get that? People have to make up their minds, here. Either the homeschooling population is full of incompetents and child abusers who need further regulation, or the problem with homeschooling is that the parents all care a lot and all the kids are above average. Which is it?

Well, first of all, that's absurd. Not everyone lives in Boston. The world has always been full of people who liked strangers, even if they didn't meet any until they went to college, or into the military, or something. In today's world, it's even easier. Look at this board! People from all kinds of backgrounds communicating...even though *gasp* some are homeschooled. But this notion that homeschoolers are sitting in a pseudo-Amish classroom and never meet anyone different from themselves is just fiction. Homeschoolers, partly BECAUSE they aren't locked up 9 months of the year with people their age and from their neighborhood, often has increased opportunity to interact with the society at large, and not merely the tiny segment of it that decorates for the prom.

It's not that black in white. In purely educational terms, you can learn a lot any environment. In social terms, you gain a lot from a varied environment. You gain an appreciation for people that are not like you. You learn independence and how to function without a parent around to help.

I respect all the posters here, but even just reading this thread, and others, it's easy to see a kind of elitism and misperception that develops among the people here who are homeschooled.

I expected you to answer yes to all three questions (were you homeschooled? ), but there are others here who I think truely believe that you can't get a good education from a public school, and that it's some evil place full of evil teachers and evil children. And, if they never experience it, they will hold on to that opinion for the rest of their lives. It will color the way they view the rest of the world. It's almost a religious vigor about homeschooling.

Outside of the most extreme of situations like the inner city, people should give public school a chance. And, if more is needed, there's still plenty of time in the day for parent's to augment their child's education.

Spending a majority of all your formative years with only your parents and siblings is just too much.