Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 3

Homeschooled individuals
Why does this section exist? If homeschooling is somehow directly relevant to their notability, then it should be important enough to make its way into the content; if not, then why bother to mention them at all? Unless there's serious objection, I think this random list of people should be deleted.

I forgot to timestamp that last paragraph when I wrote it. It's been almost a week. If the list is still there tomorrow and no one's raised an objection, I'll zap it. aruffo 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I object! This is no different than a list of notable people who have attended a certain college. --BASICwebmaster 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The main difference here is that the impact of these individuals' "homeschooling" is unknown or incidental. They may not really even be "homeschooled"-- as has been pointed out elsewhere in the discussion, some of these people were educated before compulsory school existed.If you look at the Juilliard School page you'll see that its featured list of attendees are notable musicians whose education at that school clearly and directly contributed to their success. aruffo 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of including the list is that many people wrongly believe homeschooling is a new trend or that institutional schooling is the only proven method of achieving success in life. Of course, the "homeschooling" of these individuals can't be proven to have led to their success. But, it didn't ruin their chances at success either. Nov 1, 2006

Opinion vs Research
I began to look through this article just with a mind toward eliminating bias, and I was first startled, then dismayed, then appalled to discover just how much of this article is hearsay, supposition, and opinion. If I deleted everything that didn't pass muster according to that measure there would hardly be anything left at all.

I've been looking through WP policy pages lately and I know there's a way to flag statements for missing sources.. I'll probably find that out again and come back later. aruffo 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just tag every unsupported statement with .  The problem with this topic is that it's a difficult one for researchers to tackle.  There's a strong suspicion that a fair amount of homeschooling is conducted by nutcases who, by definition, aren't going to participate in an academic study.  One of the largest and most detailed studies on homeschooling family characteristics was conducted using data generated by Bob Jones University, so even that data has a self-filtering mechanism built in.  With that duly noted, I wish to encourage you to insist that this article's editors stick to the research and report facts, not opinions, suppositions, or weasel phrases as "some believe" etc.  Best wishes.  Rklawton 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! Cute with the "nutcases" citation needed, there, Unschool!  Heh.  All right.. phew.. I'm not going to even attempt to do this all at once.  Bit by bit, that's the way to see this one through. aruffo 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am greatful that you saw my humorous intent. But seriously, Wikipedia's biggest problem may be unsupported statements.  I'm sure it's volume would drop by 95% if everything had to have a citation. Unschool 05:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with you there. I don't really have a problem with unsupported statements as a general principle, because I figure that people will generally write what they know to be true, and it's better to have a statement that can be verified and disputed than to refrain from writing anything at all.  That's why my initial evaluation of this article was not one of verifiability, but of severely ingrained bias.  Even giving the writers the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity and desire to be objective, the entire text reeks of the basic erroneous supposition that people must be "taught" or they will not learn.  For example, each of the famously unschooled people mentioned are quickly dismissed as having had some alternative form of schooling-- Edison had a tutor, Roosevelt and Wilson went to college, Lincoln "acquired schooling".  Why is it necessary to ascribe the brilliance of these men to the fact that they were subjected to schooling of any kind?  It's possible that what they learned, they taught themselves, and the schooling was (educationally) a waste of their time.  It is possible, perhaps even probable... but without sources and verification it is pure speculation, and it is equally speculative to suppose the opposite case. aruffo 09:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Man! I'm having to resist the urge to gut this article completely and start over-- mainly because I don't have the resources and references I would prefer. This article is, in the main, neither objective nor factual. The more I read what's here now the more it frustrates me... not the article itself, necessarily, but the unspoken biases and assumptions present within it which have been engendered by the universal imposition of public schooling. My personal opinion (not observed fact) is that it is ridiculous in the extreme to presume that home-schooled children are more likely to be sheltered from the "real world" and that their socialization is abnormal. I would expect that homeschooled children are not the ones who are locked down into stifling, cheerless compartments and immoblized at uncomfortable desks for practically their entire waking life. The "socialization" imposed by schooling has only become perceived as normal because enough generations have gone by not to understand how new and peculiar this entire system of public schooling is. How can anyone consider it normal socialization to be forbidden to speak or move freely for 2/3 of the day? How can you be socially deprived when you have the entire day, every day, to meet and connect with anyone you please? As I think I've said already, what amazes me most of all is my finding that most people, when encouraged to actually think about it, realize from their own experiences that this is neither normal nor preferable-- yet it is either too late for themselves or their children, or they are too frightened of the consequences to consider an alternative. aruffo 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the reversion I just performed... I know there are plenty of unsupported statements in this article. At least we can avoid make it worse!  In the meantime, it would be great if efforts were applied to supporting (or deleting) what's here, or adding only supported statements, rather than adding still more unverifiable opinion.  aruffo 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I tagged the article, see next section. --Martin 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of point of view?
I was just passing by and looking for information about homeschooling, since it seems to be pretty popular in the US where I live now as opposed to France where I come from. I just want to say that this article is extremely suspicious to me. It shows several patterns of pseudo science and seems like it was written by homeschooling proponents. Some obvious aspects are: In short: this article doesn't respect Wikipedia's policy of neutrality of point of view, so I am tagging this article as such. Sorry I don't contribute to the article myself, but I am definitely not competent. --Martin 06:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * an emphasis on "striking examples" of the success of homeschooling (famous and oh-so-respectful people who were homeschooled)
 * a dedicated section on "academic findings", which is here to tell "hey, science proves this or that" (so and what about the other sections which are not academic, it's all wrong, right?)
 * and many other details which should be obvious for people of good faith who are not totally naive, but are definitely not worth discussing here


 * Thanks. Much appreciated.  I'm too new to Wikipedia to have identified the patterns as clearly and concisely as you just did, or to have applied the appropriate flag.  When you compare this article to the articles about other methods of schooling, it's pretty embarrassing.  aruffo 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point (9/15/06), it looks like a perfectly unbiased article to me, both sides are presented well. -WS

Well, that's part of the problem-- that there are "sides" to begin with. I would firmly assert that this article shouldn't be a debate about whether or not homeschooling is a legitimate alternative to normal schooling-- who cares?-- but actually about the processes and details of homeschooling. aruffo 22:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can really get away from the sides. Obviously, (as bizarre as this seems to me) people are strongly divided about the idea that parents could actually raise their own children. Although we can tell a HUGE difference in the general public's attitude about homeschooling from when we first started 15-16 years ago, people who are committed to the public school system (ie, the status quo) are still deeply suspicious about the motivations and efficacy of someone who would choose to keep their children at home. So I think these viewpoints are going to be an inescapable aspect of the homeschool story.
 * And frankly, I don't see this article as biased either. I move we rescind the neutrality tag. Darentig 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

U.S. bias
I have put together a draft of a new version of this article based on the above discussion. Please read it and give me your input. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your version is a big improvement. You should post it. Amillion 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What would everyone think of this: Instead of having the disproportionately long section on 'legality of homescholing in the US' and a small section on 'homescholing internationally', how about having one section called 'Home education around the world' or something, with brief descriptions of homeschooling {prevelance, legality) in various countries; then moving the huge US-legal section to it's own page (it's probably big enough; this could help trim this article a bit, and make it less US-biased and more well-rounded). Let me know what you think.  —  orion  eight  (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're on the right track. I had mentioned recently that the legality section was beginning to overwhelm the article. I hadn't even thought at the time about it adding to the already overwhelming US bias. "Homeschooling internationally", maybe?. Although I haven't gotten around to adding it yet, I've been tracking down leads for homeschooling in other countries. Although there is some info to be found for about two dozen countries, the only ones with anywhere near enough to have articles of their own (so far) are the UK and possibly Australia. So what about Homeschooling in the US, Homeschooling in the UK, and HS in Australia? Leave everybody else on the main article until it becomes necessary to get there own? That way, all countries will get a brief mention, and you can click through on a specific country if you want more info. Thoughts? Master Scott Hall 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you went too far. Most of the "motivations" and "social effects" and "academic results" are most likely identical in other industrialized countries, even though all the evidence cited is American. I'd support, however, moving the legal stuff to Legality of homeschooling in the United States or something similar since that's not going to be internationally applicable. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are probably right about motivations, social effects, results, etc. being similar worldwide. I just hesitated in putting them in the international article because it is highly assumptive, not to mention, the applicable statistics we have pertain exclusively to U.S. I would also agree that "legality" could use its own article, especially due to the abundance of specific state laws that have yet to be touched. I was just focusing on getting the U.S. POV problem cleared up first. I still think that the main HS should be worldwide, with satellite articles focused on individual countries. After finding an abundance of international HS resources, especially in other English speaking nations, we would be putting ourselves in the awkward position of defending why the main HS article has a strong US bias. I think "Homeschooling" (international article), "Homeschooling in the U.S.", "Legality of HS in the U.S.", and then "Homeschooling in xxx" (as needed) makes a lot more sense to me. We could incorporate the other sections mentioned above into the int'l article as we verify them. Anyone else have an opinion on this one? Thanks, Master Scott Hall 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The concept of homeschooling, as described in the article, seems to be basically a US one, with some extensions in other English speaking nations (cultural proximity? Religious concerns?), and rather inexistent elsewhere. For instance, homeschooling is legal in France but marginal and not worth mentioning (a few hundred families), and most people there never heard of it. For that reason, I tend to think that an article about homeschooling has a US bias simply because it's massively a US phenomenon (for reasons that it would be interesting to explore). Gilles Tran 13:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Gilles Tran, this is something that has been discussed by several contributors to the WikiProject Alternative education. One possibility is to turn this into a national-neutral article and to spin-off more focused nation-specific articles as they are needed. This has been done, sort of, with the Legality of homeschooling in the United States. Additional input on this is always welcome. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that the discussion of US bias is a few months stale by now, but in reading the article for the first time I want to add my input. I see a bias not merely from the US point of view, but from the assumed premise that homeschooling is absurd or abnormal. It's subtler than you think: for example, the article currently reads "the vast majority still utilize the institutional setting" where it could, instead, read "the vast majority still submit to the institutional setting"-- and who said that compulsory school was "popularized"? If you read John Taylor Gatto's Underground History of American Education you'll learn that there was armed rebellion (put down, of course) against compulsory schooling when it was first implemented. I wouldn't think it was "popularization" so much as "enforcement". Additionally, the opening paragraph of this article blatantly implies that school was something designed for privileged people-- that underprivileged people wanted school but couldn't afford it. Gatto's book suggests quite a different perspective: that privileged people wanted to force underprivileged people into compulsory schooling but couldn't afford it.

I've also been reading more about Wikipedia, having recently been motivated to learn more about how it works, and having read the page about weasel words just tonight I spot a good number of them in this article (such as "most home advocates are wary").

I have a very strong opinion about schooling. In my mind, lifestyle, and experience (as a student and a teacher) the vision of public education as an environment for nurturing and development has been steadly and intractably supplanted by the vision of conformity and destruction. I mention this extreme bias (and it is extreme, although not yet in any sense evangelical) mainly because I intend to take a small hatchet to this article and eliminate unintentionally biased statements, and I want to check myself from swinging too far the other way-- if I were to change "utilize" to "submit to", for example, it would not resolve the basic assumption that the parents are making a choice for their children's education. Whoever makes the choice, and regardless of its desirability, the fact is that most children are placed into these institutions.

So if you're not already watching this page, please do so, if only to keep a rein on me (provided that I retain the interest to follow through on what I feel is necessary). Aruffo 09:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice that Schoolrown ("school your own", yes?) has just added a counterpoint against the heavy bias I was talking about-- by going to that highly negative viewpoint of schools and schooling. While I agree completely with what Schoolrown has written, and I believe that observation is part of the ongoing debate, it is nonetheless an equally personal (that is to say unsubstantiated) viewpoint.  I'm expecting to be rather cautious and gradual in my own edits, but as time goes on I would like to see more "legitimate" substitutions for opinions like this-- if they are not entirely supplanted by the results of studies and surveys which have neutral data to report (premises and conclusions, being opinions, aren't really neutral, despite supposed "scientific objectivity"); at least we may have the opinions of published opinion leaders with verifiable information (e.g. John Taylor Gatto or John Holt). Aruffo 04:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Another problem of the US bias here is that the "Legality" section in particular (and the "Population" as well) has no reference for any of the numbers cited about other countries, only mentions English-speaking countries, and then talks of the rest of the world only in vague terms as 'many countries', 'some countries', 'other countries' this or that, even contradicting itself. I will be looking for information to add, and I think the best way is to go directly to the government sites for each country to find the precise legal references, as from a quick search there are just too many biased sources out there on this topic and they too pull numbers and data from nowhere. Please keep in mind that many users of the English-language wikipedia are not in the US and are likely to be unfamiliar with the American pro/anti homeschooling debate. What counts is the hard data that is currently missing from this entry. The varying opinions can be referred to by external links. Pepita 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image
Surely we can have a better image that Jefferson, with a disclaimer could be considered to have been homeschooled.? I'm not sure I have any personal images to release, but I couldn't have been the only Wikipedian raised in a household whose kitchen included desks and textbooks against the wall. :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. The word homeschooling has no meaning in relation to the eighteenth century, when there were no standardized schools. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble finding any free-license images on the internet, but I agree that the pic of Jefferson must go; it was added in drive-by fashion a while ago. Maybe we could put a request at requested images. —  orion  eight  (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Edison or Einstein? They both had a major international impact & were homeschooled after compulsory education began. I will look for images of their youth uless someone object or had a better suggestion. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have a picture of homeschooling (i.e., child at a table with books and a parent teaching in a home setting) as that is what the article is about. Locating free-license images is not proving easy though. —  orion  eight  (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but I also have searched rather exhaustively for copyright-free images depicting just that--to no avail. Would you support the two I mentioned until a better alternative can be found? Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Homeschooled individuals
I would like to suggest, in an effort to add int'l balance, that we trim down the list of homeschooled individuals and add some more int'l examples. Also as mentioned above, "homeschooling" as an alternative form of education has only existed since the mid 1800's (1854, Massachusetts), so the list should only include people who would have been educated after that time. Master Scott Hall 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hall that a person would not be considered homeschooled for the sake of this article if they were schooled before compulsary education because in that time that was the way of education. This article is about the choice to be schooled at home (no mater how we spell or title it) as opposed to in a classroom setting.  My opinion excludes Jefferson, whose picture is at the top. Lrldcs 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed Albert Einstein from the homeschooled individuals list, since nothing on his own article suggests he was homeschooled, and even lists schools he attended. He didn't complete his high school diploma, but that's a technicality. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct. When I put the Edison photo up, I found that Einstein did indeed attend school from age 5-15. Some of the others mentioned in this article need to be re-examined also, per previous conversations on this page. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed most of the claimed homeschooled people from the history section. They did not fit the definition of homeschooled as put forth in this article (read previous discussions above). I left Wilson, but can not, as of yet, back it up with a source. If someone wants to replace him with a person or two from the list at the bottom of the article, fine, as they have all been researched and are representative of a more worldwide view. And/or, after research, add Wilson to the list. Two or three are all we need in the history section—that's the purpose of the other list. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 22:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Homeschooling in popular culture
This article makes relatively no mention of home education in mainstream culture. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few episodes of various TV shows which portrayed some kind of homeschooling. I also remember a CBS show a long time ago about a traveling missionary family who homeschooled (Promised Land). Does anyone know any more? — orion  eight  (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * IMDB search for "homeschooling" yields several films . Also, if memeory serves: Mosquito Coast, Harrison Ford movie, early eighties. I don't know the protocol of entering films with citations—if you do, feel free. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 15:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Motivations
Is there an indication that anti-vaccinationists in states with legislation requiring immunisation before school entry are over-represented in the population schooled at home?Midgley 16:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is listed next-to-last in the Homeschooling motivations section of the article. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that many families homeschool for not just one main reason, for for a multitude of reasons. Many in the "public school is evil" camp are also in the "immunizations are evil" camp. (no offense to those of you with the opinions listed above, they're my own.) --BASICwebmaster 12:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Homeschooling as a term
The second paragraph of the article says in the term homeschooling emerged in the late 1970's. An ancestor of mine, Isaac Newton Carleton ran what he called a home school from 1884 to 1901. It's name was Carleton School for Boys. I have a copy of a circular he had printed in 1894 that calls it that. I was wondering if it was better to say that the term was re-invented or be more specific about the context. Carleton didn't make any claim that he invented the term.

(Original held by Rauner Special Collections Library at Dartmouth College)
 * Carleton, I.N. The Carleton School for Young Men and Boys, Bradford MA: James Ward Jr., 1894.

Rbcwa 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rbcwa, It doesn't surprise me that someone was using those two words together that far back. In fact, I would bet that Mr. Carleton was not the first—or the last to do so. What the article says, and this has been well-documented over the years by many other notables in the field, is that John Holt was the first to use, in a widely-recognized published work, the word homeschooling. Though not by much, there is a difference. Using the words home and school together in a phrase to describe home-based education is no real stretch—it's only common sense and I'm sure it was done thousands of times before 1978. But Holt, who was already making great strides in reintroducing this form of alternative education, put the phrase together to make a new word. This new word went on to be the most commonly used term of the last 25 years to describe this field. BTW, the circular you mentioned would be a great piece of material to add to the Homeschooling article. I would have to check, but I believe its being published before 1923 makes it fair use, and thereby usable on Wikipedia. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll scan or transcribe it and announce to this discussion when I have it available. I have a xerox of the original held at Dartmouth. I don't think my family still has a example of the original printing. Rbcwa 05:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link for the circular:


 * Carleton School for Boys Circular

Please link to it rather than copying it.

Rbcwa 08:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd love to point you to WikiSource with that - so that we can have the whole text up :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a terrific idea. I need to add three more pages to it, then I'll move it over to WikiSource. Rbcwa 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm based in the UK, and we wouldn't generally consider your ancestor to be home-schooling by our definition of the term. He was running a school for boys out of his home, as opposed to simply teaching his own children at home as we do.

Stats
According to a U.S. Census survey, the parents of 33% of homeschoolers cited religion as a factor in their choice, 30% felt the regular school had a poor learning environment which completely contradicts the graph right beside it, which indicates significantly *more* parents are homeschooling because they believe the education system is insufficient, not for religious reasons. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The statistics are taken from two separate sources. The graph refers to an National Center for Education Statistics survey conducted in 1999, while the article itself cites a 2003 U.S. Census Bureau study. My guess is that a four-year time lapse paired with different methods of survey account for the difference. I double-checked and confirmed the accuracy of both sources. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the article so this distinction is made clearer. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To what does the asterisk ("Other reasons*") in the NCES table refer? Thanks. Jim 17:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (from the website that spawned the table:) *Parents homeschool their children for many reasons that are often unique to their family situation. "Other reasons" parents gave for homeschooling in the Parent-NHES:1999 included the following: It was the child's choice; to allow parents more control over what their children were learning; flexibility; and parents wanted year-round schooling. aruffo 20:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Settled issue?
It seems like one issue missing on this discussion page is that of homeschooling's successfulness, which still for me is unsettled. How can you rely on just one study, especially if the link takes you to the Homeschooling Legal Defense Fund site? And I wonder if homeschool students take standardized tests like Virginia's SOL; an update here is appreciable. I also have sensed a conspiracy in the participation of homeschool students in spelling bees because it seems like parents are just trying to impress colleges knowing that success in these events don't reflect overall competence. Again, I would appreciate it if Wikipedia makes improvements in this topic. However, I am not confident because it is so darn slow to respond. -Amit


 * The server is very slow today, that's for sure. Anyway, the world at large, let alone the editors of Wikipedia, have reached no consensus on the efficacy of homeschooling. There's not even a reliable census (at least in the U.S.) of how many homeschoolers there are. And comparing their test scores is kind of useless when so many homeschoolers have educational goals quite different from those of most schools. You're right about the spelling bees; but I see no mention of that in the article. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there statistics available detailing how home schooled students perform in colleges or universities? It seems like universities would keep these kinds of statistics (since they keep pretty much every other kind of statistic relating to graduation). I have a niece who recently graduated from University of Michigan, and she made the off-hand comment that of the top ten students in her class, 4 were private schooled, 1 public schooled, and 5 home schooled (she was private schooled). I do not know if her comment is accurate, but I bet this kind of thing could be checked, as it should be public record. Performance in the college environment would be a somewhat fair and neutral yardstick for the evaluation of the effectiveness of homeschooling compared to other forms of schooling. Rhomphaia 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Many colleges and universities don't really need any statistics. In fact, most colleges will ask, "Are you homeschooled?" as they look at some papers. "Yes," the student says. "You're in!" they will automatically say.

A student who is homeschooled is slowly being allowed to attend almost everywhere. Homeschoolers are most known for their hard, willingness to work and their available information from deep, self-rooted research. Homeschoolers who want to know information and have parents who cannot help them, or can't answer their questions, refer to a great deal of references and own research. My cousin did homeschooling, and started college at 14, and made A's ever since. REFERENCE FROM: http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/12/01/438fd452f4238 Colonel Marksman 19:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC) PS: Dunno if all that is in the homeschooling article... doubt it.
 * Many colleges and universities don't really need any statistics. In fact, most colleges will ask, "Are you homeschooled?" as they look at some papers. "Yes," the student says. "You're in!" they will automatically say.
 * You can't be serious. Perhaps you're thinking of Liberty University?  —  orion  eight  (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike Fortune-Wood's website
I would like to bring to everyone's attention Mike Fortune-Wood's website (www.home-education.org.uk). I have been informed by several people within the UK home-education community that his website is full of plagarised and unconfirmed information. It would be best to find better sources for the parts of the article that cite his website. --Spe88 16:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Being Home Educated in the UK, I would be happy enough to try and find original information from the Official Pages for various Home Education sites? I believe the above mentioned website to be helpful to families, but as you say, not quite reliable enough for wikipedia. Is there anything specific I can look up for the project? Just give me the word (PrettyxVacant 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

I completely agree with the comment regarding Fortune-Wood's website. Having been a member of the online home education community in the early days, he was in the lucky position of being able to register 'home-education.org.uk'. Given that it contains the words 'home', 'education' and 'uk', it comes up first in every search for 'home education uk'. This steady flow of traffic has bolstered the website's position in the community and, although I respect Fortune-Wood for the amount of hours he has put into the website, the quality of the information is variable and many of the 'facts' are subjective. The fact that Fortune-Wood has taken it upon himself to become a voice of the community, in that he is a self-styled reprentative offering courses in home education to local education authorities for cash, this does not make him an authority on the subject. Due to the varying styles of home education, there are no official pages in the UK at all. The closest you will find are websites belonging to various home education organisations, but many home educators do not belong to these due to differences in opinion. There is also no way of ascertaining whether or not most UK home educators belong to any organisation, as we do not know how many home educators there are in the UK. Many of us wish to be left in peace, and not be counted or monitored in any way. The best you can do with this Wikipedia article is to describe some of the ways in which people home educate and use websites for further information. After all, a given family's mode of delivery is not factually questionable, whereas you will find mass deletion by irate home educators if you tended towards generalisation. Hope this helps - the home education community can be very emotional about the way it is portrayed and you will not please everyone, so proceed with caution.

Education Otherwise
In the UK there is an organisation called Education Otherwise that specialises in Home Education. There does not seem to be an article for this, or at least not that I can find. What shall we do about this? (PrettyxVacant 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

I have had a most extraordinary idea! we shall make an article! unfortunatly I am on the wrong continent and know nothing about it. Jedi of redwall 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a trustee of the charity Education Otherwise in the UK. We'll add an article on EO shortly, thanks.

I've just added an article entitled Education Otherwise (24 September 2006), I'm a member of the charity - Aminto

Inexpensive???
As an individual with very close personal links to the homeschool community, I find the remark that "homeschooling can also be very inexpensive" grossly inaccurate. Of course there are varying levels of monetary expense. However, homeschooling is rarely practiced without great sacrifice, even at its most inexpensive. Monetary sacrifice is rarely negligible, but may be far less signigicant than other sacrifices. --Jack 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the wording is a little extreme. At least, it's not as expensive as many people think. A government school spends several thousand dollars per student -- I seem to remember it being >$10,000/year in some locales, but I'm not sure. A child could be homeschooled for around $1,000/year (often less). So, compared to a government or private school, homeschooling is considerably less expensive. --TangentIdea 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Costs of clothing and supplies required for regular school likely more expensive vs. simpler and more casual home attire and make-do at home; costs for books and curriculum can be minimized based on choice or completely eliminated if local libraries are adequate; transportation costs may be reduced; health costs may be reduced if child is not exposed to germs rampant in children in school; parental participation in fundraisers will be minimized. On the other side, a stay-at-home parent is required, reducing possibilities of second income in traditional family; utilities costs will be higher due to use by child at home.  Much depends on the approach of the homeschooling parents; recreating the public school in the home would be pretty expensive, but unschooling at home can be virtually free.  Alan Nicoll 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some good points there, Alan. Thanks.  In my first comment, I hadn't considered unschooling.  Most of the homeschooling I've been exposed to has taken a more curricular approach.  However, most homeschooling requires a major time commitment on the part of at least one parent.  Furthermore, it is inevitably more expensive to care for a child at home, than to allow someone else to provide for him elsewhere.  Conversely, homeschooling offers an opportunity for children to learn to contribute to the family as productive members; I am very much in favor of this approach.  I have considered economic methods in the past, and found cost-effective homeschooling quite plausible.  Nevertheless, "very inexpensive" may be inappropriate when the cost of economical homeschooling is compared to the cost of "free" public education. --Jack 07:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the more simple, self-taught (unschooled) materials can be more inexpensive as well. The ACE curriculum, for example, can be as low as $800 a year. Are these costs in the article? Colonel Marksman 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeschooling can be very expensive when you consider the lost opportunity cost, my mother has lost possibly $60,000+ every year due to not staying in her job as an accountant and instead leaving it to teach me and my siblings. Mathmo


 * Perhaps so, but then how do you value the lost contributions to society from students who are ground into "the workforce" by the schooling system? What would have been the opportunity cost if Thomas Alva Edison had remained in school and subsequently used his "education" to secure a steady pencil-pushing job for some accounting office?  The hidden costs of schooling, to society and to human personality in general, are impossible to gauge.  For the facts that are available, it'd be groovy if someone were to source a study about what a family typically spends on home education-- especially versus what gets spent at a public or private school, and on what.  aruffo 14:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding Charlotte Mason Page
I've started the Charlotte Mason Page. Any help from members of the home schooling community would be appreciated. Thanks Lfinder 19:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)lfinder

Tutoring
The article's first paragraph seems to preclude tutoring as a method (in whole or in part) of homeschooling. Specifically, it states "by their parents." However, the first paragraph in the History section includes mentoring and tutoring as part of home-education for some rather wealthy families (add Teddy Roosevelt to the list). Can we make it clear in the first section what homeschooling comprises? Must homeschooling be conducted specifically by parents, or is it simply "teaching under the governance of the parents." What if my neighbor helps with math? What if we take frequent trips to libraries, museums, factories, and battle fields? Certainly that's not at "home." I think the salient point to homeschooling is that the student's studies are governed directly and entirely by his or her parents and without compromise. Any suggestions for clarifying the main section? Rklawton 20:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes section
Just perusing this article, and the Quotes section really caught my eye in a bad way. It seems very POV, more like something you'd see in a brochure supporting homeschooling than an encyclopedia article. It's very strange that this article admits that a majority of Americans still don't support homeschooling as a concept, and then there's this section that's basically "here are a bunch of vague quotes from great thinkers that appear to support homeschooling." The relevance of, say, Socrates' "To find yourself, think for yourself" is really suspect. I'd like to see this section completely eliminated. --Masterofzen 12:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think the Einstein quote sort of addresses the system of public education - at least as it was fifty years ago.  But the rest has nothing to do with homeschooling.  Rklawton 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed this section. It was added only recently and contains platitudinous quotes unrelated to homeschooling; most of them would be better suited in the Autodidacticism article.  You are correct to say that this section raised POV concerns as well.  If anyone would like to add quotes to the article, please ensure that they are indeed related to the article at hand.  —  orion  eight  (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Interaction with different social groups" - Argument
Interaction with different social groups is essential to learning to live in society; a common criticism is that home-schoolers' "interaction" is solely with other home-schooled children from like-minded families.

Is it just me, or is this argument a little off. By definition, whoever you spend your time with is whoe you spend your time with. For instance, I went to Public School my whole life and solely interacted with other Public School kids.

Granted, I ended up meeting kids outside my school throughout my childhood, but so would anyone that is not actively isolated.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Socialization argument is a fine one to pursue relative to Homeschooling, but this one seems off. : Ian Lewis 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Whoever wrote that didn't use the right words to explain his point. The point of the arguement is that homeschoolers are more likely to have interaction with different age groups. --BASICwebmaster 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is commonly believed that social development is increased as "interaction" with other groups increases. Although this is generally believed to be true, the above argument presumes that home-schoolers have less interaction with other groups than students who attend government schools; the above argument therefore presumes that home-schoolers are less socially developed than other schooled children. This argument is actually quite far from the truth. The environment that home-schoolers commonly use to interact socially is a family-based environment. All participants in this environment get a multi-aged social exposure; older children have the opportunity to learn responsibilities of tending to the needs of younger children, all children have more exposure to interact socially with adults of differing ages than they would have in a larger schooling environment that segregates students on the basis of age. In contrast, while students in an institutional school have more potential opportunities to be exposed to greater diversity, few actually take advantage of these opportunities. Cliques develop and students "interact" in schools with others of like-mind. Therefore home-schooled children are often more advanced socially than their peer-influenced institutionalized equivalents and these differences are in some cases very substantial.


 * I'd add that peer influence is often one of the worst possible influences. Although I may be lighting too large a fire in mentioning it (because there are so many larger sociopolitical issues involved), if you look at the motivatons behind the Columbine school shootings you will see children who were constantly and thoroughly humiliated and degraded by the school experience.  This is an extreme illustration of what happens in minor ways every single day.  The argument of "socialization with one's peers" doesn't wash when you consider that the only things these children have in common is their age and geographical location.  If they do not get along with the children with whom they have been imprisoned, they cannot escape.  Institutionally schooled children are, in that view, considerably less able to achieve meaningful social interaction than those with freedom to make social choices.  They are unable to avoid antagonists, seek like company or, furthermore, enhance their self-image by discovering and pursuing activities in which they are successful and competent, as the majority of their waking time is committed to institutionally-mandated tasks.  Sadly, when problems occur (at any level of severity), it seems the last entity blamed is the one most deserving.


 * Having re-read the main article after writing the above text, I also feel obliged to point out another example of unintentional but blatant bias-- that institutional schooling is "normal" socialization and anything else has to be justified and argued for. Aruffo 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectionable Ideologies at Public School
This reason for homeschooling was reverted by User:Sjakkalle:

"Avoid exposing the child to unwelcome ideas such as tolerance, scientific naturalism, and secular lifestyles"

With the justifcation: rv, is tolerance really an "unwelcome" idea?

I argue that tolerance is an unwelcome idea to many homeschooling parents. You can barely turn on the radio without hearing about how public schools "promote the homosexual agenda", "push the religion of evolution", "teach reverence for Islam, but never for Christ". Many homeschooling parents don't want their children to grow up thinking it's okay to be gay, or that it's okay for a black man to marry a white girl, and especially not for their child to be friends with a non-christian. Creationists are also serious proponents of home schooling.

The statistics on the right of the page say, right there, that the prominent reason for 12% of homeschoolers to leave the public system is that their parents "Object to what [public] school teaches".

To deny that a large portion of homeschooling parents act out of intolerance is to deny a fact, not an opinion. 32.97.110.142 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points! I think it's important to present this information in the article - but in a way that doesn't paint with too broad a brush.  Of course, presenting this one reason in a list of reasons commonly cited is fully appropriate.  Rklawton 05:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "To deny that a large portion of homeschooling parents act out of intolerance is to deny a fact, not an opinion."


 * Well then, I assume you have a cite per wikipedia guidelines for this "fact".216.39.146.25 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not intolerance, so much as it is an incompatibility of worldviews. Some in the Christian faith actually believe what is in their Holy Book. They have a worldview that says that homosexuality is wrong. So they naturally give that to their children. Can you imagine if someone said to you that you couldn't tell your children what you believe? (sorry, forgot my sig for a second! new here, forgive me please) --BASICwebmaster 12:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Profile of Homeschoolers
The section trying to racially profile homeschoolers is grossly incorrect. The statistics used are from seven years ago. By the most recent estimates, African-Americans alone make up 9-10% of the homeschooling population and are its fastest growing sector (a number that is significant when one considers that African-Americans make up 12.9% of the U.S. population). Homeschooling is also beginning to catch on among Asian and Hispanic communities. There is still room for improvement, granted, and homeschoolers have a long way to go as a diverse population, but all this section of the article does is prolong a negative stereotype that is already becoming outdated--HomeschooledDebater 01:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a few days ago there was a protest march through downtown Chicago. A large group of Black parents were carrying signs that said FIX OUR SCHOOLS and NO APARTHEID IN OUR SCHOOLS and the like. I resisted the urge to run to one of them and ask why they don't consider homeschooling (or even unschooling!), as that hardly seemed in the spirit of things, but it's interesting to know that they are considering that option. aruffo 22:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume this is in regard to the section entitled, "Characteristics of families"?
 * I don't know if the information is accurate or not, but it sure doesn't make any sense. It begins by asserting that, "Families that homeschool in the USA are quite different demographically," and then closes by nailing down a distinct monolithic profile: "Thus the profile is a group of well educated, high income white parents with several children and a possible strong commitment to fundamentalist religion." Whether this profile is true I do not know (I STRONGLY dispute the assumption that college educated = well educated, but our family is neither college educated, nor high income, though the rest might fit reasonably well) but I do know that it is in contradiction to the opening statement.
 * Also, when it says that, "94% are non-Hispanic whites (compared to 71% nationwide)" well, 71% of WHAT nationwide? Does that mean that 71% of the total US population is non-Hispanic whites? Or 71% of US public school families? Or non-Homeschooling families with school age children? Ditto for the rest of these percentages..Darentig 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

notable homeschooled persons
In the notable homeschooled persons section, I recognized several names of historical figures who I knew were educated before public education, and therefore before Homeschooling as a philosophy was created. I think that people who grew up before public schooling was instituted (George Washington, for example) should not be in the list; the basis of Homeschooling is choosing not to be educated in a public school. To point out the difference, if Elvis was marooned on an island with nothing but vegetables, that would not qualify him for a "notable vegan" list. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs


 * I must disagree with the premise that a discussion of "homeschooling" should be limited to the time period after mandatory public education came about, although it is true that "home schooling," viewed historically, definitely takes on peculiar characteristics and implications after this point in time. However, the entire reason for that peculiarity is not that there is anything peculiar about homeschooling itself, but rather, because of the rise of the very peculiar institution of mandatory public education. Granted, Washington's parents educated him at home more of necessity than a conscious choice based on particular convictions, but the point remains that Washington became one of the great men of history despite (or I should say exactly because of) the fact that he was denied a formal education and was taught at home, living amongst his own family. (Not at all that home schooling, of itself, will produce in your child a great man or woman of history, but that the environment tends much more to the flourishing of a child as he or she grows up. Not only so, but I think that if you take a look at the writings of both noted and unnoted men and women in the American colonies, you will find a level of literacy that the educated product of the public school system over the last half century or more simply does not compare with.)


 * Also, Elvis, in your analogy, is a "chooser" with no choice, thus rendering him ineligible as a notable vegan, one who makes a choice (of vegetables). Washington is not the chooser, he is the "product," if you will, of the choosers, his family. Though they also (presumably) had no choice in the matter, Washington is nonetheless the result, not the decision maker. And a (largely) admirable result at that. Darentig 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Intended Audience
I might mention why I'm interested in this article. Aside from my own philosophical interest versus compulsory schooling, I am expecting that at some point I'll have children and I will want to homeschool them. In that respect, right now this article is completely useless to me as a source of information. In fact, I expect that I will soon zap most of the external links, commercial or not, because most of them can be found with a quick Google search, and their presence gives this article the illusion of being meaningful. I don't want to read this article to find further resources related to homeschooling. I don't even care why people homeschool. I want to read this article to find out specifics and facts of what I'm getting into-- that is, an actual answer to the question, what is homeschooling?, not what opinions do people have of homeschooling?-- and I presume that that is the essential purpose of the article. aruffo 17:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apart from the obvious, of educating school-aged children at home, it's very difficult to generalize about what homeschooling consists of. Homeschoolers have widely divergent educational goals and even more widely divergent methods, from rigid curricula to total spontaneity. Answering "What is homeschooling" is as difficult as answering "What is music?" in a way that encompasses everything from Bach to hip-hop to African drumming to Javanese gamelan and summarizes the purposes of music from worship to film music to chain gangs to music therapy. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's so, then let's include only that which is obvious and exclude that which is apart from the obvious. If I were to read an article about "what is music" I wouldn't want to know that some people hate it and some people love it, some people devote their life to it and some people think it's a waste of time.  True facts all, but entirely irrelevant to the core of the issue.  I would want to know what its core components may be, how it is used and practiced, and by whom, and what goals they have achieved (which is different from intended goals.
 * I only regret that I don't already have this information to contribute myself! aruffo 06:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

USA Family Characteristics Poorly explained
The paragraph entitled family characteristics keeps comparing the USA homescholling family traits with "nationwide", which essentially means comparing the USA homeschooling family with itself... This makes no sense, and all of the statistics given in that paragraph become useless... What are we comparing the USA family to?

Examples?
The article, it say:


 * Some countries have highly regulated home education programs which are actually an extension of the compulsory school system, while others have outlawed it entirely. In many other countries, while not restricted by law, home education is not socially acceptable and, therefore, virtually non-existent.

Any chance of some specific examples? --A-body-of-water 06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

legal links
I recently was reading this article and thought it was an oversight that HSLDA was not listed under the external links for "legalities" so I attempted to add it. It was almost immediately removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=prev&oldid=69421062

I do not work for HSLDA nor do I agree with everything they do. I understand they are at times controversial but they are one of the largest legal defense and lobbying organizations for homeschoolers in existence. Leaving them out is certainly questionable neutrality. Any complete overview of homeschooling should have them listed.


 * Putting them in or leaving them out is not the issue. Their relevance to an encyclopedia article about homeschooling is.  If there is something significant about HSLDA as relates to homeschooling, surely something more meaningful than a link can be written and contributed to the body of the article while still adhering to NPOV.  This is as opposed to gratuitous placements which describe star products and marketing successes by the companies or individuals thus referenced which have, despite their apparent notoreity, contributed nothing substantial to the field.
 * There are still too many links in this article. I tried to figure out which ones are and aren't "valuable" but that's a losing game because the criteria are too subjective.  I suspect that the best solution will be to simply delete them all.  Those entities which have made a relevant contribution to the topic of homeschooling will be significant enough to find their way back into the content of the article.  Those which have not will not.  It is not helpful for anyone to pop by and casually add "related links" to an article which is already greatly suffering from a desperate need for meaningful content.  aruffo 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I cut some more links today for this reason. I'll axe more later if someone doesn't beat me to it.  I think the article itself should be written well before anyone even considers adding links.  If you've got content, add it.  If you only have a link, save it.  aruffo 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a Wikipedia policy you can point to that mandates that other editors may only add content to articles and not links? Wikipedians are more diverse than that. I may have a link I can contribute about Mary Pride, a pioneer of the modern homeschooling movement, but I have no desire whatsoever to contribute to anything further to this article. Please stop before you chop. Leave links like that so other editors can come along and add content. Also, it is unconventional to chop links while an article is still developing. Adding links is a main way articles ARE developed as other come along. I have placed the Mary Pride link back into the article for these reasons. Please feel free to visit the page and add content from it. I am not going to, don't have the time. CyberAnth 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you read the history of this article, or its discussion? Although this article has been greatly improved in recent days, it has chronically suffered from drive-by linking-- people who don't care about the article, but who have some ulterior motive in taking a couple of seconds to stuff their own link into some arbitrary section.  You can see from this discussion page that content is wanted, not links.  If you don't respect this article enough to make time to add meaningful content to it, then please don't add new links until someone who does has added content which makes the link relevant.  I will remove the link again, now, as any other response would be making a subjective judgment about which links are "worthy" of inclusion and which are not.  If you disagree with me strongly enough, yes, feel free to request arbitration; but if you examine the history of this article, and the discussions on this page, you will see that content is much more desired than links.  aruffo 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the history indicates you have been significantly hijacking this article, engaging in POV pushing and scramming off newcomber contributors, and unilaterally removing external links apart from consensus building and at the protest of users. Doesn't look good. Links in a "See also" section going to another related Wikipedia article 'is' a form of content. It seems to me you are creating your own rules--"no links, only developed material"--and not following Wikipedia policies. Please cite a Wikipedia sources that says only more developed content may be added. "Drive by" linking and other minor contributions are a very important way articles can develop and to not accept them may be considered POV Pushing. Also, it only takes a very cursory overview to make a clear judgement about whether a wikilink about Mary Pride is important for a wiki homeschooling article (e.g., the statement "she is considered a pioneer in the modern homeschooling movement"). The idea is that one editor might add a link like to the Wikipedia Mary Pride article and another one will come along and perhpas incorporate content from the article into this one. That is how WIkipedia works, for gosh sakes. You are basically creating a rule that says all contributors must make major contributions or I will delete them. I wrote the Mary Pride article last night so do not have some ulterior motive except that it is appropriate. I am replacing the Seel Also section Wikilink to the article because it in any estimation to anyone who will read the Pride page highly relevant as a See also" to this page. Beyond that, 'everyone should please discuss the matter rather than you unilaterally making deletion decisions.' CyberAnth 03:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "then please don't add new links until someone who does [care] has added content which makes the link relevant" - the whole point of a "See also" section is to point to other Wikipedia articles that are related but not the exact subject of the article into which they have been placed. For example, see Help:Link which follows this convention. How would that article be if all the info in the See Also section were mandated to be incorporated into the article itself by an editor that was being stubborn? Or see at the Quiverfull article how the See Also section includes Wikilinks to Prairie Muffins and Population. Why? Because they are related but the article does not really warrant developed content about the subjects. Also, you are confusing external links with Wikilinks. Eliminating See also sectioned Wikilinks is simply a defying of Wikipedia convention and, more so, denying users important, related information. CyberAnth 03:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have time to add meaningful content to the article, but you do have time to ream me up and down for following the steps which were previously discussed before you arrived? My goodness... look at everything you've written!  How strange that you claim yourself unable to put this much energy and thought into improving the article.  You've read the discussion page, I've made my point, and you've wasted a lot of the time you said you didn't have.  For the matter at hand, bring in an arbitrator if you like, but frankly I'd defer to Darentig alone who seems to have done wonders in making this article more readable.  Opinions, all?  aruffo 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, with just a short reflection, it occurs to me that the better thing is probably for me to just go away for a while and see what happens with Darentig and others at the helm. I've acknowledged that my interest in this article is as a reader, not a writer-- that is, I want to know about homeschooling, but all I really do know is what I've read in Holt and Gatto.  I'll take this article off my watchlist, come back in a few months, and maybe everything'll be fantastic, or maybe instead the link drive-bys will have again taken sway.  In either case, let's let the organic process keep on goin'.  As they say, peace out-- and for myself I do mean out!  aruffo 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It took 10 minutes, at most. Adding substantive new material to articles takes me much more than 10 minutes. I was a bit too inflamed above, and I do apologize for that. Anyway, my more calm bottom line is that in articles of featured quality, material from MOST external links should be incorporated into the body. But See also are sections different. They point to related Wikipedia articles and are a standard feature in even featured articles. I think you have confused a See also section with an External (outside) links section. A See also section should not be shooed out. CyberAnth 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing. Unilateral removal of external links should really only happen with Link Spam (sorry I don't have the wikilink for that handy), which is how it seems you were dealing with my placement of a See also section and which is why I was getting upset. At the same time, Wikipedia is not a Link Farm (sorry I don't have the wikilink for that handy, either). Several quality external links can justifiably be included on featured articles. I suggest that external links for possible inclusion to this page be placed here on this Talk Page and that consensus be built about which to include. This is better than NO EXTERNAL LINKS ALLOWED. Also, it is acceptable for editors to agree to make a page of many links and post that as an external link, but no editor may place an external link he or she has a connection to (which is link spam). All this is in Wikipedia policies. CyberAnth 05:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks, we've been away due to some personal business. Aruffo, thanks for the compliments; hope you change your mind about staying away. I appreciate that you would "defer to Darentig alone", but we must demur in that regard, since, to begin with, we are not alone, and since this article is not under Darentig's authority, and also because we are homeschoolers, not authorities on homeschooling.

Frankly, we have never heard of "Mary Pride, pioneer of the modern homeschool movement", but that of course does not mean that it is not so. If we are just discussing the addition of a link in the "See also" section I do not see a problem with adding it, as long as it does seem to be legitimately pertinent to the topic at hand and not a spam link or a link to a Wikipedia vanity page. The addition of links within the body of the article does get a little more ticklish as it may interfere with the developing prose and this article does seem to suffer from an abundance of casual "drive by linking" that is not truly encyclopedic (or even thoughtful) in character. (I would have to agree that a link to the HSLDA in the "See also" section would seem appropriate since they do seem to be germaine to the topic, although we really do not care much for them.)...Darentig 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed


 * A history of the modern homeschool movement, from the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-294.html


 * from the See also section. See also sections are for exclusively wikilinks. Additionally, the info from the Cato Inst site should be incorporated into the article, not simply linked to.


 * CyberAnth 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where do you get the principle that See also sections are for exclusively wikilinks? I looked up W policy on "See also" sections and all it said was, "If a page consists of sections and a "see also" refers to the whole page, then make it a separate section. This is to avoid it becoming part of the prior section, to make it visible in the TOC, and to make it easily accessible through the TOC. Alternatively, a "see also" line is sometimes put at the beginning. A "see also" belonging to just one section can be put in that section: within a paragraph, as a separate paragraph, or as a subsection."
 * Also, much of that same info is incorporated into the article. This link represents a valid external link with good information about the history of the homeschool movement, and thus is a good resource to "See also".Darentig 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK...nevermind the "where do you get"...did some poking around and I see that does seem right. What is needed is an "external links" section for this sort of thing. Darentig 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

biased
I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but I do know unprofessional and biased article writing when I read it. No encyclopedia I know would arrogantly declare any topic "a settled issue," especially a controversial topic with strong evidence on either side. Thus, I removed the line "The academic effectiveness of home education is largely a settled issue" and I will continue to remove it every time I see it.


 * Sounds good to me. Even laying aside opinion and presumed arrogance, such a statement is simply unsubstantiated, and that alone warrants its excision.  This article is rife with such nonsense.  Unfortunately, my primary interest in this article about homeschooling is not that I am myself an expert-- I wish I were, so I could contribute!-- but that I actually want to know about homeschooling for any children I may have in the future.  For that, this article is completely and entirely useless.  I basically want(ed) to come to this article to find out essential facts, and to learn what topics I should be seriously considering as a homeschooling parent-- not to hear broad suppositions about the "value" or "effectiveness" of homeschooling.  Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing this entire article hacked down to a stub until someone could build it up properly.  aruffo 04:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that academic effectiveness IS largely a settled issue. It has been well established that homeschooling, on the whole, is considerably more effective than public schools from an academic standpoint (even though most homeschool parents have no degree in "education" like institutional school hirelings do). Otherwise, why would the NEA complain that homeschooling gives an "unfair" advantage to homeschooled kids?
 * Not that I wrote the sentence in question or even care if it is left in or out: the "Academic Findings" section as a whole conveys the same thing. But the issues that are really in question are the facets that are not so easy to measure empirically: the civic, social, and spiritual effects of homeschooling on the students and on society as a whole. [Frankly, although I do think that public school academics are a weak and puny thing, that was at the bottom of the list of why we began homeschooling, (and at the bottom of the list of why I pray that the whole public school system will collapse in on itself)]. Darentig 12:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm more concerned about the nonsense in the "Characteristics of Families" section: see under "Profile of Homeschoolers" above Darentig 12:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue comes down to verifiability (in this case as in most). If it is a settled issue, what are the sources which demonstrate that conclusion?  If the statement can be legitimately verified then there is justification for its inclusion; if there ain't, there ain't.  [But as you say, "acadmic effectiveness" is not even slightly what spurs my interest in the topic.] aruffo 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Settled issue" may be a little bit too strong, but not by much. I think that many of the studies/articles cited in this document put together by HSLDA help to substantiate that.  I'd humbly suggest the use of one or more of these studies as citable, verifiable evidence to back the claim in question.  I barely ever edit at present or I'd volunteer for the task myself--sorry to wimp out on you.  Hope this helped, Jwrosenzweig 02:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care how much evidence you have that home schooling is better. Like aruffo above, I don't claim to be an expert or have any direct experience with home schooling. I don't even really care that much about the topic. Hell, I didn't even read the whole thing. However, what I do know for a fact is that it's a controversial issue that sparks heated debated with alot of people in this country. That means, at the current time, any facts, figures, and studies you cite could be combated with facts, figures, and studies from some interested dude on the other side of the fence. Just because your opponets aren't interested in this Wikipedia article, doesn't mean they aren't out there. Add to that the fact that encyclopedias simply do not declare ANYTHING a settled issue. So add your facts, figures, and studies supporting your side until you are blue in the face. I don't mind. But the instant I see you conclude that it is thus a settled issue, or anything like that, I'm going to delete it.

"settled issue" guy here
I've taken a liking to this article, and decided to clean up bias one sentence at a time. Under "academic findings," I thought it was an obvious bias that for pro-home schooling studies are introduced by "numerous studies have confirmed" while the anti-home schooling studies are not confirming and described as "some studies/critics/etc." Scientific studies never confirm anything, they only suggest. And "numerous" is just a biased way to say "some." So I changed that to "Some studies have suggested" for that first line in "academic findings." I'll be making similar changes throughout the article slowly.


 * It doesn't matter whether a statement says "some" or "numerous". If there are no citations, the result is the same:  an unsubstantiated assertion.  Unless you're adding content which reflects verified research, all you're doing is altering grammar.  aruffo 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, all I was doing was altering biased syntax. An impartial presentation is just as important as factual content.


 * Until there is factual content, there will be no impartial presentation. It could be as easily argued that your revision to "some" versus "numerous" represents a bias against homeschooling.  Unless you're adding content which reflects verified research, all you're doing is altering grammar.  I don't claim that's a bad thing, and I'm certainly not disagreeing with your motivation or your action; I'm pointing out that what this article really needs is for someone with a stated interest (such as yourself) to dig up actual facts and data rather than just move words around.  aruffo 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some can argue anything, but in this case they would be wrong. And I'm not going to agree with your attempts to minimize my intended efforts in this article as 'grammer changing'. I wasn't correcting a spelling mistake, or changing the words around for artistic purposes. I was changing the biased syntax, which is quite a different thing. I'm not disagreeing that facts (studies, statistics, etc) are important, I'm disagreeing with your assumption that facts alone will automatically make a more unbiased and truthful article. So you handle the facts, I'll handle the balanced tone. I'm better off anyway not researching any facts about home schooling so that I can simply continue to read this article as an ubiased web user. I'm done discussing my minor correction.

Unsupported Statements
I confess it-- I'm getting a bit testy and that's prompted me to start carving out useless and unsupported bits which have sat just because no one's yet cared to do anything about them. I appreciate those editors who sincerely want to make a positive contribution to this article, but I will challenge and resist any additions which do not provide objective, verifiable facts. "Most people", "Some say", and any other weasel words, as well as external links offered in place of legitimate references, will be instant targets to avoid further clutter. Clearing the existing clutter of unsupported statements and links-that-should-be-references will be a more gradual task. aruffo 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics
OMG, as a homeschooler, I find the comments about us being "housewives" and "white" quite offensive. I am removing these statements and the entire chart/section - homeschooling has changed so radically over the past five years that your research is completely outdated, misleading, and offensive to the majority of homeschoolers who are not necessarily "white," rarely high-income (as they have given up a second income or part of one to homeschool), or religiously motivated. 68.97.192.23 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Links question
You know, a long time a go the links on this page were cropped down to just a few that represented many various factions of homeschooling, while I won't change what has been done in talking away all link, it does seem to me that homeschoolers ARE the authority on homeschooling. Links to non-profit homeschooling organizations DO have a plce here - IMHO, but perhaps it would start an ongoing link problem? 68.97.192.23 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fruit
I think everybody just needs to calm down and eat some fruit or something...

There's nothing wrong with being white, and there's nothing wrong with being a housewife.. unless of course it isn't true.. ..I know that homechooling hasn't changed radically in our home over the last five years...

Frankly, the whole "article" is disjointed and of little value, and as for that silliness at the top about families hiring, "a young yankee like Stephen Douglas"... what in the world is that all about? The article has no real flow or centrality except that it keeps using the word "homeschooling."

I second aruffo's earlier motion that the whole thing be gutted and reduced to a stub. Darentig 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the largest alternatives to public education, and you think it should be a stub? --Sugarcaddy 18:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's going to be jammed full of opinion, speculation, supposition, self-promotion, spam, and other unverified and subjective information, yes, absolutely. aruffo 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sugardaddy, no, I don't think it should be a stub. I think it should be an article. Right now it's a hodgepodge of silliness, closer to some sort of web discussion/argument than anything. We have homeschooled for something like 16-17 years now, with about 17-18 left to go, and personally believe that public "education" (as commonly conceived of) is completely wrong (read philosophically incorrect/immoral) from it's very foundation and can never be made right no matter what anybody does because it is, at its roots, in contradiction to God's plan for the family. So I am certainly not saying that homeschooling ought not have decent article, just that it does not. Darentig 11:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Math
I have remoived spam for two math suppliers in the math section - there are hundreds of math curricula available to homeschoolers - are we to provide them all free ad space? 68.97.192.23 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

it's not spam, Saxon and CMP are two of the most highly recommended texts, they are just as significant as the 10 constructivist texts cited by the Department of education that all the mathematicians and scientists lined up to condemn. I found out about CMP because I spotted a homeschooler mom that used it, and several friends swear by Saxon. --Sugarcaddy 18:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Either we need to list a lot of math suppliers or none. Otherwise, we are just advertising for Saxon and MCP and implying they are the only good choices! I added a few and recommend others either add some or delete the whole list. I also disagree that is is spam unless only one or two options are given. It is information about options available.

Unsupported statements redux
Sugarcaddy (or anyone else): please do not restore or add unsupported and unverified statements. This article has enough of that already. Cite your sources with appropriate references (not external links) or don't add. If you disagree, we should request arbitration, as our opinions of appropriate content may prove strong enough and different enough to invoke the need for "official" Wikipedia guidance on what should be done. aruffo 03:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me to clarify-- I'm not saying I don't want you (or anyone else) to contribute! What I'm saying is that when you contribute content, make sure your assertions and statements are supported by verifiable references. aruffo 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Socialization
Aruffo, I disagree with your entire removal of the Socialization section. Although I seconded your assessment about cutting the article back to a stub, I don't think this should be done until there is more consensus. I left out the secondary Soc. statement defending homeschooling against critics who complain that homeschooling deprives a child of socialization simply because it doesn't have anything to do with this section. And although I do agree that this statement as to socialization reasons isn't formatted properly, it isn't actually weasel words - if you'll look at the definition that has to do with deceptive wording, not poor wording. Also, those are all very common real motivations to homeschool. It just need to be worded better. Darentig 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And verified. Verified.  Who claims that these are common motivations to homeschool?  Where is the verifiable, duplicatable research?  Without verification, without legitimate research, anyone can say anything.  Part of the reason I'm currently in hack-n-slash mode is to make startlingly obvious just how useless this article is as a compilation of existing, unbiased, scientifically gathered knowledge.  I'll probably chop it out again later-- which is why I mention again that if disagreements become insoluable, it would probably be helpful to request arbitration and get an official/informed opinion about what's better for Wikipedia.  (and let's not forget that we're disagreeing because we actually care.)  aruffo 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, roger that last statement. And the citations. For the record, I claim that they are common motivations, at least for us and the homeschoolers we've known. In other words, I know the article needs help, but in the meantime there are certain statements in here that actually do a pretty good job of representing homeschooling, like this one. ..but it does need to be brought up to par....Darentig 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know whatcher sayin'. Part of the natural problem with the article is that it's not even clear what should be written about, much less how.  In that respect it will probably be necessary to tolerate some unverified statements, if they are unbiased... for a while, until the research can be located to back em up.  I do this all the time on my website-- I make assertions which I know have been reported by various papers, and if I'm challenged then I simply offer the citations.  However, the citations are there, and besides I don't claim my own work to encyclopedic.  I suppose what I'm really saying is that I think it would be best to support what should stay and chop what shouldn't before attempting to add anything new.  aruffo 02:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with all of that, particularly the "natural problem" and "anything new." In addition to the natural problem about the article, I think there is the additional difficulty that persons who would be inclined to homeschool are the type of people who tend to mistrust fact gathering efforts (governmental or non) concerning their personal lives and the decisions thereunto.


 * I think, though, that this would be a good policy to proceed upon: Weed out the poorer quality stuff, Try to shore up the potentially useful stuff, and No one adds anything that isn't cited from a decent source. Darentig 11:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Revision
Intro

The introductory section seems to be quite suitable, with the minor exception that there is no mention of "de-schooling."

History

I would suggest the History section be struck entirely. The 1st part of this section is over-generalized at best, and plain silly at it's worst, i.e. "a young Yankee like Stephen Douglas", or "were taught farm chores and rudimentary arithmetic and spelling", the accuracy of which varies considerably at different times and regions of the US (assuming, as it does, that the US is the orientation of the article. It's always possible that someone outside the US might be online...) The second part SEEMS a reasonable contribution, for an American perspective, but is wholly lacking in citations.

Population

I likewise submit that this section should be struck in its entirety or reduced to the one sentence regarding the US, which has the only (seemingly) reliable citation. Of the others which even have a citation, Australia's seems rather dubious (the author of this web page admittedly has no figures for Australia and arrived at the figures shown by applying the percentage of homeschooling families in the total population of New Zealand to the total population of Australia, without any indication of why this would be an acceptable means of calculating this figure), Ireland's link is to a page which does not discuss the topic, and the UK's figure appears to be the personal guess of the website author.

Motivation

Most of this section seems reasonably communicated except that it is lacking in citation. Perhaps the two sources cited in the opening sentence are the sources? It doesn't say and I haven't tracked them far enough to determine. However, under "Socialization" the second part reading "Many homeschoolers interact with other homeschooling families. Children in towns often interact with public schooled neighborhood children. Some even participate in public school sports or form homeschool leagues. Many homeschoolers are members of church youth groups, where they meet and socialize with students of various education backgrounds, including public schools, private schools and other homeschoolers." should be struck or moved elsewhere. This section is about the Socialization concerns of the homeschooling parents as a motivation to homeschool, not answering the socialization concerns of homeschool critics. (I left this comment in for consideration even though this statement has already been removed.) Also, in the first section of "Socialization," I do not see any relevance in the statement about "time spent on family vacations." Darentig 18:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm completely in agreement with "cite or strike". Seconded.  aruffo 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Me three. If anything, there appears to be a bias to completely dismiss the importance of this topic, for example erasing any details about math programs popular among homeschoolers, or any links that would actually be of use to somebody intending to use  this article as a guide to successful homeschooling. This article should serve as a useful resource to someone  considering homeschooling their children, or seeking additional information on successful curricula and methods rather than as a platform to attack  the practice as wierd and misguided. It's ok to note some people have reservations, but it's not the place on WP to judge it as a valid or huge mistake on people who chose this route. --Sugarcaddy 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation for Ireland (though forgot to login to do it), which cites an open letter from a representative of the government body reponsible for registering home schooled children. Registration became a requirement by law in 2002, but not all are in fact registered. The figures for those registered are from records kept by that body, the estimation of the numbers not yet registered are their's, but I am not sure on what they are based. --Abbeyvet 21:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tintazul and "A Young Yankee"
If anyone understands the significance of the recent edit by Tintazul (+cat, +iw pt) would you please explain it to me? Sorry but I cannot tell what he did.

I am removing the "Young Yankee" from the history. That's all of that I can stand. Darentig 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unschooling, Headers, and "Neutrality"
Fixed the font size on a couple of headers that still didn't quite fit in with the overall page.

Also fleshed out a couple of headers such as "Motivations" to "Motivations to Homeschool."

Unschooling has had two separate entries on the page for some reason, one of which was under the heading "Motivations" which does not quite fit there. I moved the section under "Motivations" and merged it with the "unschooling" section farther down.

Anyone with an objection to removing the Neutrality Marker needs to speak up. Darentig 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon closer examination, I think the "Unschooling" section is actually supposed to be a part of the "Methods" section above, so am changing to fit that.Darentig 12:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article presents a positive spin on homeschooling, and I'm not sure that it presents the whole picture. But, with the exception of a few words which I have just removed, I don't think the non-neutrality tag is warranted. I agree that you can remove it. Nesbit 21:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the non-neutrality tag should be removed. Until this article is an article about the actual topic of homeschooling-- rather than the benefits, advantages, justifications, or defenses of/for having homeschooled-- it is not a neutral article.  aruffo 11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming that the article is mostly off topic, what bearing does that have on it's neutrality? And how are you going to have an article about homeschooling without covering the reasons for and reasonings behind it? I agree that the article needs work, but it looks like a pretty fair presentation to me. Darentig 11:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For one, I think the non-neutral tag is a good alert to the casual viewer that the article is fundamentally flawed. Is there an alternative header which would provide a similar warning?  For another, I have a different opinion of why the article is not neutral.  Although those who have weighed themselves in have generally felt that the article was "pro-homeschooling", I don't see it that way.  Underlying the postive comments is the assumption that homeschooling is perceived as abnormal, harmful, and socially destructive-- I see the non-neutral comments, despite their being positive, as arguing against this perception ("See?  Edison was homeschooled-- this proves we're not stupid freaks!").  This is arguing from a position of deep defensiveness, from an acceptance of the superiority of the antithetical argument, and thus ironically reinforcing the negative image as legitimate and justified.  aruffo 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... well, I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't quite say the article is "fundamentally flawed." It definitely needs work, but I don't think most people need a tag to tell them that. I don't know off-hand about an alternative tag such as you speak of, but I do think that this tag is misapplied.
 * As for the "-this proves we're not stupid freaks," well, I really do see what you're saying there (and frankly, that Edison picture strikes me much the same way), but I want tell you something: When we first started homeschooling about '90-'91, people really didn't get it. Our families thought we were going off the deep-end, and when we would go out to a store or something people would stop us and ask what were our children doing out of school. When we told them we homeschooled they would look at us like we were the most peculiar people, and would often tell us how they weren't so sure that was such a good idea at all. Now, things have changed a LOT since then; people seldom ask or even seem to notice anymore, and those that do usually speak with some measure of approval. But the public school mentality is very, very deeply ingrained in western culture, at least in American culture anyway, that sending your children away from you each day is the assumed norm of human behavior, and many many people still view homeschooling with the basic assumption that the only reason someone would do that is if they were trying to hide something, like: a Stash of AK-47s and Pipe-bombs for the Race War, or, that There's a Sexual Relationship with the Children, or, that The Parents are Too Lazy even to get the Kids Ready for the Bus, or some secret and nefarious thing. (Not making any of those up by the way.) Even to the extent that many people now view homeschooling as an acceptable "alternative", they still often believe that it's a mistake that will damage the children and that they just won't be able to cope in life.


 * The Antithetical argument may not be superior in logic or morality, but in terms of popular acceptance it isn't even close.
 * (And I wasn't going to bring this up yet, but while we're at it, that picture of the small child in the suit and tie ain't helpin' any...) Darentig 12:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * aruffo, I ran across an alternative warning which does fit very nicely and you really ought to love. Check out the link now at the top of the article for "correspondence school."-D Darentig 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right! I do like that "does not cite" heading.  I still feel that the "neutrality" tag is appropriate, especially because of the defensiveness issue, but perhaps changing the tag will encourage others to contribute.  I wouldn't argue with the switch (or with deleting the pic of Edison).  And I have to chuckle because of an item you left out of your list of Things to Hide, namely The Parents Are Trying to Brainwash the Kids With Religious Dogma.  [Never mind that institutional schooling represents an entirely different kind of brainwashing, or that it's even possible for any person to avoid being "brainwashed" into at least some set of cultural assumptions.]  aruffo 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well there's that one too. :-) I didn't have time to make an exhaustive list of all the things we're trying to hide, but just a few examples...Darentig 10:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Which education categories for this article?
Hi: We need to decide the appropriate level for this article within the education category tree. At one time the top level education category was overgrown with hundreds of articles, which made finding things quite difficult. Efforts were made to develop subcategories and move most articles to meaningful subcategories. Over the last several weeks I've been monitoring articles which appear in the general education category (usually a few every day) and sorting them into one or more subcategories. I believe that this article should be moved into the alternative education category, and out of the top level education category. One reason is that the homeschooling category is under the alternative education category, and that there should be correspondence between articles' categorizations and the position of their own categories within the category tree. Possibly both the article and the category for homeschooling should be moved to the top level, but I think that would require some rationale comparing homeschooling with other topics in the top two levels. Nesbit 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Have been noticing some activity regarding categorization of this page and wondering what that was about.


 * I should say that Homeschooling ought to be on the main education level and not listed as a subcategory, for the simple reason that Home Schooling is actually the primary, root form of education. However unusual it may be by contemporary standards, it is, nonetheless, the primary form of education, and all the others are actually merely addenda. Subcategories are those which could be utilized in a home or institutional setting, but have to be understood within one of these two frameworks. For instance, a Classical Education could take place in a home setting or in an institutional school, but it has to have a setting in which to take place; it can't take place on it's own devoid of one of these settings.
 * Additionally, however small of a minority homeschooling may comprise, there are really only two basic categories of educational setting: home and institutional (or you might say, "Home" and "Not-Home"). Darentig 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you address the counterargument that there are hundreds of ways to divide and categorize the business of education (e.g. private vs public schooling, girls education vs boys education, k-12 vs postsecondary, and so on), and that homeschooling vs institutional schooling is just one of a myriad of such divisions? Also, would it be fair for me to assume that you are quite strongly in favour of homeschooling, and that your arguments for its importance are driven by a pro-homeschooling point of view? Nesbit 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be very fair to assume that I am strongly in favor of homeschooling, in fact, we actually consider it morally wrong to send your children out of the home to an institutional school, so that's pretty strong I guess. So you might say that my arguments for its importance are driven by our point of view, but actually, our point of view in this case in more driven by the argument.


 * Either way, as far as addressing the counter-argument I would ask just one question: Was any child ever born to a school of any kind? No, of course they are born to parents, born into homes. And all the divisions of which you speak, however numerous they may be, are nevertheless divisions of Institutional Schooling, i.e. The Other Way.


 * I realize that the weight of recent social practice is so grossly and overwhelmingly against the home setting as to render this view strange and alien, but it is nevertheless both the historical norm and (for those who care) biblical mandate. Darentig 19:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

New Edits 26Sept06
Ok..removed the neutrality marker and replaced it with a "citations" marker, which fits much better. Also moved the worldview tag to the top of the article since it really applies to the article as a whole, not just one section. Rather than deleting Child Edison entirely I moved him to the history section, which seemed fitting. Now it hasn't really been discussed properly, and with apologies to whomever placed it to begin with, but I deleted the image of the child in a suit at the computer ("Braedon Hacking") simply because I didn't think it really fit the image of homeschooling children very well. At least not any that I have known...also, he really looked like a kid just staring at the computer more than being homeschooled, or actually doing anything at all for that matter... Darentig 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Homeschooling "in other Countries"
I reverted this anonymous edit for two reasons: 1. This section is about "Homeschooling Demographics" not "Homeschooling in other Countries." 2. The article is supposed to have a worldwide view. What's the reference country if the countries listed (AU, NZ, USA, CAN, UK & EIRE) are "other countries?" Darentig 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of homeschooling
In the interest of helping make the article NPOV I thought I would look up some quotes I came across recently from the NEA. Frankly, they seemed pretty lame, but I thought I'd take a look. The full article is posted on their website here: http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv040220.html Having read the article, I can't help but feel, personally, that I would very much like to use it in the Critcism section simply because it makes the anti-homeschoolers look pretty stupid. This, of course, would not really be in the spirit of NPOV. Long story short, it's actually written by a janitor, and pretty insipid stuff, but it is posted by the NEA on their official site, so I thought I'd see if anyone out there actually thought that some of it should be placed in the article. Darentig 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that at least some parts of it should be added. That's what the NEA website has to say about homeschooling, no?


 * It's a very odd article, really. It judges a whole group of educators based on the content of one website, that may or may not represent the views of even a small minority. But if that's the stance the critics want to take, then we should let them.71.76.128.116 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that promoting "sides" contributes in any way to NPOV. Neutral presentation of facts-- not allusion to combative and baseless opinion-- is the root of NPOV.  aruffo 06:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I tend to agree, Aruffo. I couldn't really post this "criticism" in good conscience. As I am looking into it, it would seem that this is actually the sum and substance of all anti-homeschool criticism; the best they have to offer. Not much superior to much of the recent items of vandalism this article has seen...
 * ..not that I am actually surprised by that...Darentig 12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move — Mets 501 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Homeschooling → Home education  (Discuss)
 * "Home education" is a more neutral term because "homeschooling" is generally a US term, and also becuase "home education" can refer to types of education based in the home besides schooling at home. I would have just moved it myself, but there had already been an edit on the home education page. — Amillion 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am learning through my research that the term "homeschooling" is uniquely American. The British use "home-education" almost exclusively. Australia uses "home education" (no hyphen), and sometimes "home schooling" (space, no hyphen). "Home education" (with or without the hyphen) definately seems to be used much more internationally than "homeschooling". We may need to think about re-arranging article names a little.


 * Less of a problem may be: it seems that, at least in the US, the term "homeschooling", when used by non-homeschoolers is used, somewhat expectedly, as a perjorative, and with the assumption that all homeschoolers are fundamentalist Christians with brainwashing agendas. And, that many non-Christian homeschoolers prefer using a variety of different terms (unschooling, deschooling, etc.) with the hopes of not being tagged as a "fundy". Any thoughts? Thanks, Master Scott Hall 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My experience is that people use the term "unschooling" in order to suggest or state that the home educational experience they are providing their children avoids a canned or planned curriculum and generally amounts to little more than "living." Alan Nicoll 03:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted a recent edit in which all instances of "homeschool" and its derivatives were replaced with "home school". The revert was due to the anonymous editor leaving no explanation. However, I do believe (and have for some time) that a change of similar nature should be addressed. As far as I can tell, "homeschool" as one word is uniquely American. I have not brought this up before, fearing an outcry in its defense. I am not married to a change right now, but believe that a change is inevitably necessary to produce an accurate article without an undue U.S. bias. If a specific article is warranted for the U.S., I would support using this article title for that. Alternatively, and perhaps more appropriately, a new article entitled Home education, or, perhaps even more neutral and in keeping with the terminology standards that are currently being developed, Homed-based education with most of this content moved over to it. Then this page can be either further developed as a U.S. only article, or as a redirect to, perhaps more appropriately titled, Home-based education (United States). Again, I don't think that this is an emergency, but an eventual necessity. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just like the elevator/lift situation. We have to pick some title for the article. Trying too hard to be neutral just makes us sound bureaucratic (Vertical people transporter). From the Manual of style section on national varieties of English:


 * Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
 * If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.
 * Now you might consider Home education to be a neutral word, but I wouldn't use a fake word like Home-based education. The style manual specifically allows us to use a nation-specific word like Homeschooling. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you might consider Home education to be a neutral word, but I wouldn't use a fake word like Home-based education. The style manual specifically allows us to use a nation-specific word like Homeschooling. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The last thing I want is to be bureaucratic. I am just trying to present this dialog in the event that the subject comes up down the road. Seeing the article renamed Home education instead of the colloquial "Homeschooling" would be great, but anything beyond that should probably be addressed when, or if, it becomes an issue. I've already gone through and "neutralized" much of the article, attempting to steer away from making any changes in the country-specific portions. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 17:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, neutrality isn't the issue: a World Wide View is. The question is whether the usage of the term "homeschooling" represents a significant enough departure from world wide view to warrant correction. I suppose it is true that the term "home education" would better represent the terminology of the english speaking nations as a whole. But as Wahoofive points out that does not seem to be necessary, and in all honesty the US actually would seem to represent, from a numerical point of view, the vast majority of homeschooling. Darentig 12:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Every single home schooled family I know uses both. 'Home education' is more formal, and is almost always used for conference names or other similarly formal events. 'Homeschooling' is more akin to commonly used slang, being used informally in normal conversation. As this is to be in encyclopedia format, I personally think that 'Home Education' is a more appropriate title.

Never been to a "conference...or similarly formal event", but I have never heard any homeschoolers say "Home Education". In fact, in our 16 years, I never even heard of it until I read this article...Darentig 15:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that some time has passed, it occurs to me that "homeschooling" as a term is really much more than slang, it's much more a term of identity, a statement about who we are and where we stand. "Homeschooler" says that we reject your basic premises. We reject your authority to tell us how our children should be raised, we reject your conceptions of education, we reject your mass production mentality. We reject your unwarranted assumptions and your pretense of teaching "truth" with no admission of your own institutionalized philosophical and religious biases. We reject your casual attitude toward the safety and teaching of the most valuable things we could be given, we reject your underlying motivation of convenience and comfort as a determiner of what happens to your children. We reject your assertion that a few years in college means you know better how to raise our children than we do....we are Homeschoolers.Darentig 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No thanks, Amillion.
Amillion, we're kind of working on this article here. If you come in with a hatchet and start dismembering it wholesale, it makes it kind of tough to keep up with where we are. Any changes should really be discussed here on the talk page first, just like the issue about the title change. Darentig 12:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Darentig. Although I definitely echo Amillon's sentiment, I've accepted that the better strategy is to verify what's there rather than to chop it all away. aruffo 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to be disruptive to the editing of this article, I was just trying to help. I'm still kind of new to Wikipedia, and I'm still learning how things work here. Amillion 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's cool. After all, you can't do anything that can't be undone. BTW, sorry if that came across a little harsh there, just couldn't resist the pun...Darentig 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see "Don't bite the newcomers" at the top of the page. Thanks from another newbie. Keep helping out Amillion. Your contributions are needed as this site needs a lot of work.

Definition of "homeschooled"
I note that in previous posts it has been stated, and more or less agreed with, that the definition of homeschooled should be limited to persons who were intentionally home educated after the rise of compulsory education, roughly mid to late 19th century. I would like to challenge this assertion.

I realize that the world has changed in notable ways since the days of Washington, but human nature has not.

And, however much we who do accept homeschooling, and do homeschool, may see homeschooling as the norm of the human experience, we must consider that homeschooled students only make up some 2% of the total student population in the US, where homeschooling is at it's largest. The vast majority of people in the English speaking nations have been institutionally schooled for well into a century now, beyond in some places, and mostly in a public school setting at that. Their accepted framework of reality is that education is something that takes place away from home led by salaried professionals who must attend advanced schools not only to know their subjects but just to teach them. The very idea of educating your children at home flies in the face of all their assumed beliefs about our society, and is rightly viewed by them as an outright rebuff of a cultural institution into which they have invested considerable time, thought, money, and legislation. To say that they come to this article with a view that homeschooling is a questionable practice is the very least that we must do.

My point here is that wherever you may find noteworthy individuals that have been entirely, or even largely, educated at home, even though the parents may have wished it otherwise, or even though it was then the cultural norm to do so and not a part of a "homeschool movement" per se, these individuals are nevertheless valid and necessary proofs that the education of children does not require institutions and trained professionals to achieve satisfactory, even excellent, results.

I think we err not to include such persons in the article. Darentig 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that adding a list of noteworthy individuals just for the sake of including them would be counterproductive. On the one hand, I'd expect such a list to reinforce the defensive attitude ("See? We're not freaks") and, furthermore, fail to make a point other than that.  If there were direct and specific evidence of how homeschooling influenced the success of a particular individual-- thus making an objective case for either the ill effect of institutional schooling or the positive influence of homeschooling-- then that might create a valid argument for his/her inclusion.


 * However, I would strongly disagree that the purpose of this article is to argue for the legitimacy of homeschooling. The facts should speak for themselves.  The question to be resolved is not, I think, which facts can be assembled to justify homeschooling as a reasonable and logical option (this should go without saying!), but which facts should be assembled to objectively represent the phenomenon and experience of homeschooling.  aruffo 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting multiple edits 3 Oct 06
Anonymous at "Cost to homeschool families", don't just remove citation requirements without a consensus, unless you have the citation.

Tracebooks, please don't add links that go nowhere. Also, that part about the curricula didn't read very well.

Anonymous at U.K., this looks like potentially noteworthy info, but it needs to be cited and not just asserted. We are trying to get this whole article away from that. Darentig 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Motivations to homeschool/Socialization
This section ends with the following sentence: "In this view, time spent on family vacations is a valuable part of the child's development, and should not be subject to the limitations of a school calendar." The existence of this sentence makes no sense to me. Is there any reason not to delete it? Darentig 18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of homeschooling
The last line in this section reads, "Two recent studies by the Home School Legal Defense Association, a home education advocacy group in the United States, dispute the claim that the academic quality of home education programs is substandard.[20][21]"

I see no reason for this to be included in the Criticism section...should it moved or deleted?Darentig 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

History
OK, I have added some material to this section. It's still a work in progress, but I think it's safe to delete all the old "Citation Needed" material, and we can build from here. I haven't noticed that anyone's particularly attached to that old material anyway...Darentig 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Primarily, we need 1. something to cover the vast span of time before the rise of compulsory schooling, 2. the growth of homeschooling into a noteworthy movement. We also need to flesh out the rise of compulsory schooling, and the span of time after compulsion before you get to the early 1970s.Darentig 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quiverfull
Quiverfull could use more editor eyes. Since it is related to homeschooling somewhat, I thought I would place this here. CyberAnth 09:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pls. cite source in or rework Social Findings
In "Social Findings", one finds the sentence: "The outcome of our societal insistence on forcing children into the regimentation of formal schooling is a sequence, beginning with Uncertainty, leading to Puzzlement, then Frustration, Hyperactivity, Failure and finally Delinquency." That sounds much like a quotation or at least a paraphrased theory. Please cite the source or delete. Thanks.


 * Source is already cited at the end of the paragraph. That is the finding of Dr. Ray Moore.Darentig 17:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert religious material links, Bob Jones et al...
I reverted this edit for two reasons. One is that no source was cited to back it up. But even if it had, this was inserted parenthetically into a section showing the findings of a research study. That would then cause it to appear that the study had found these two sources as the two largest religious sources of material, which obviously isn't the case. Cite your sources! Darentig 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A few comments/questions
I'm new to this article and have some comments based on what I've seen here:

1. Don't bite the newcomers (see wikipedia's notes on that at the top of the page) as this article needs a lot of help and a newcomer (not necessarily me) might have fresh ideas and shouldn't be scared off. I know it is frustrating to have something you have worked hard on changed by someone you have never heard of, but that is in the spirit of Wikipedia. You can always change it back without attacking the person. But, first consider whether their version might be better.

2. I see some notes that people are intending to just delete edits made that don't have references. I understand your frustration, but I recommend you note the passage needs a reference instead and give people time to find one as it may be valuable material that the author couldn't remember the reference for but hoped someone else out there could.

3. I am as pro-homeschooling as you get, but I was uncomfortable with the lack of neutrality and poor writing style and grammar of the article. I am concerned it will convey a poor impression of homeschoolers, who are the obvious writers of the article. I know the goal shouldn't be to use the article to SELL homeschooling, but we don't want to do the opposite either!

That's it. Maybe I'll be brave enough to come back someday....


 * 1. Changes are one thing, but, as I say, dismembering the article wholesale is not a help. And those "changes" may not be either. Often times they're actually just vandalism or vanity links. ...and I did apologize to Amillion there..


 * 2. This article has had a very bad problem of uncited assertions and spam links all over the place. We can't have people writing in uncited material on the basis that someone can always find the source later simply because you then wind up with a lot of baseless material that never gets cited. And, citing your source is a foundational W policy. I have material right now I want to include but it's waiting on citations. There's still a lot of old material hanging around that needs revision and editing; that makes it necessary to guard vigilantly against the addition of unsuitable new material.


 * 3. Seriously, have you ever tried to find any worthwhile criticisms of homeschooling? I have. You can't find it on academic or "socialization" grounds for sure. If anyone has any I'd like to see it. As for grammar and writing style, well, here's the place to discuss it....Darentig 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses to your responses:

1. I don't think you meant the word vandalism. Here is Wikipedia's definition of vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.  Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I know changes to your work are frustrating, but sometimes they are actually an improvement. And sometimes completely rewriting a really bad article DOES help it even if it hurts someone's feelings. This article is not one person's personal essay on homeschooling. It is a group project. If someone thinks your 100 hours of hard work is lousy and makes huge revisions...ouch, it hurts. But maybe they are right. Actually, in most cases with writing, revision IMPROVES things, especially revision by another person, and especially MAJOR revision. Of course there are exceptions. Honestly, on most articles people don't often come in and cut or change stuff that is well written, objective, and pleasing to read. So accept other peoples' changes or complete overhauls to your work. Sometimes some dismembering is needed. Of course, if someone wants to reorganize the entire article or delete an entire section, they should discuss it first! But deleting a sentence or two or adding a paragraph is perfectly appropriate for ANYONE to do at any time who has good intentions.

2. I think you have a good point on the citations, but you need to be careful not to overdo it. Remember, information that is common knowledge does NOT need referencing. Wikipedia: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source." That doesn't mean every sentence in the whole thing needs a source, only material that could potentially be challenged. Wikipedia also states in its policy pages that you SHOULD give writers time to verify before removing the unverified statement (but not too much time).

3. I'm not saying you need to CRITICIZE homeschooling. But trying to Italic textsubtlyItalic text sell homeschooling or certain aspects of it is a problem here. For example the section on "unschooling" is biased in favor of it, though in a subtle way. It would appear less biased if other homeschooling philosophies were explored in similar depth. For an example of a great well-written and fairly objective article that has had TONS of revising by experts see "Stem Cell Research". It might give you some ideas of how to include various sides of a story and how to make a comment such as "some people believe x" that really doesn't need a reference without being unscholarly. But, back to the topic of being objective on homeschooling. The part about the teachers' unions criticisms could be expanded and referenced. Their specific objections could be quoted. Doing so would make the homeschooling article more unbiased altogether. The Australia story is twisted to show how "unfair" it was to the boy's family rather than to show the media's point they were making--that some homeschooling families have been neglectful. Don't say it doesn't happen that families are neglectful. I've seen it personally. But, that isn't my point either, and I actually think the whole Australia story is anecdotal and poorly written and should be cut. And another example: if you are going to have a section on homeschool motivation (and I know it has been debated here whether that should be there at all), then the article would be more objective if you added "reasons why people discontinue homeschooling" or "reasons why people choose in the end to stay in school". It could be brief. Again, you don't have to criticize homeschooling if you can make it appear you are just stating neutral facts. But, anytime you list pros, you need to find some cons. It will actually make your pros stronger if you have the better position. Some places that is done better than others in the article.

Here are Wikipedia's comments on NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one....When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

This means to me: If we state why people homeschool we need to state why they might not; if we discuss one type of homeschooling methodology, then we need to discuss as many types as we are aware of and not just the most popular ones; if we discuss the negative results of compulsary schooling, then we should list the benefits too (or include neither); and if we talk about the positive things in the history of homeschooling, then we should list the negative things that happened along the way too.

If you want help making it objective, I suggest you ask someone you know who hates homeschooling (and I'm sure you can think of someone) to read through it and suggest places where the article feels biased or just poorly written. Sometimes things that are FACT to homeschoolers are NOT fact to other people. And they might tell you what they might want added to the article as basic information.

I also think the article needs more information on other methods of homeschooling (any good book on homeschooling will have info on that you can draw from) and a brief mention of homeschooling cooperatives. Also, the math section isn't parallel with the others and doesn't fit there. It probably needs dropped altogether and the first sentence makes no sense anyway. I say that a mathematician. And the two paragraphs preceeding the math section are very, very awkward. You don't need most of those quotes as you can still reference if you are paraphrasing. It is unnecessary to quote common phrases like "approximately half". If you are worried about plagiarizing, then change the words to synonyms instead. There are similar problems other places in the article. I'd be happy to fix it if I won't hurt anyone's feelings and cause them to just put it back how it was. Also, some of the places with lots of statistics would benefit from being presented as a table instead.

Just a few thoughts. --KCodSchool 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Heavens to Elizabeth! Yes I actually meant to use the word vandalism, and I also meant to use 'spam links' and 'vanity links'.


 * I don't see the Australia criticism as biased in that way at all. Looked pretty straightforward to me. I even wondered if the editor that posted it were anti-homeschooling, and, frankly, since I haven't found anything backing it up I am now wondering if it's actually fabricated.


 * The problem with giving the writer "time, but not too much time" to cite is that it doesn't take too long of that before you have more than you can keep up with. I'll take a look at the policy there.


 * Like I said, I actually have tried to find cons. Frankly, most of them are laughable, and have already been well represented in the article. When homeschooling first emerged, the professional educational establishment asserted that the academic quality would be sub-par. When it became clear that it was actually above their own performance they said that homeschooled kids would be damaged socialogically. When it became clear that homeschool kids are "significantly" above their insitutional schooled kids socially, they asserted that it wasn't "fair", and it might be too "hard" for homeschooling parents. Frankly, there's a reason for that: institutional schooling is physiologically, emotionally, spiritually, motivationally, and morally wrong. If you can find worthwhile criticism, do it.


 * OK, math. I didn't write that original section, but I don't see that big a problem with it. The opening sentence actually is the reason that Math is listed, out of parallel, even though no other basic subjects, such as reading, are. The point is not whether one could adapt "Standards Based Math" to a homeschool environment, the point is that the schools are using Standards Based Math, which many people do not agree with. Did you follow the link?


 * Everything else: yes, yes, it is a work in progress...Darentig 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just type a big "hands off my article" sign at the top of the discussion page. It would save everyone, especially you, a lot of frustration.--KCodSchool 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Australian criticism
OK, I was interested to read about the "Peter Craggs" case that was supposed to have aired on Australian 60 Minutes, but I can find no trace of any such story looking for "Peter Craggs" or "Right Love" or when cross referenced to "homeschool", homeschooling", homeschooled", "home educate", "home education", or "home educated", either in a google search or on the Australian 60 Minutes website. I am going to wait a couple of days to see if someone can demonstrate that this is legit, and then remove it if not.Darentig 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, in the absence of any response at all on this point I have removed this section. My reason is not because it is a criticism of homeschooling, but simply that, since I cannot find any indication of its validity I have doubts concerning its legitimacy. I am preserving it below in case anyone actually can verify it, then we can restore it if appropriate...Darentig 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"In 2006 criticism of homeschooling increased in Australia, due to the Australian 60 Minutes airing a story on alternative parenting methods. The story featured parents that believed that Australian school systems were not qualified to teach their children adequately, and thus called on parents to homeschool their children. The story tracked a case of a boy Peter Craggs, who after being home schooled for his entire life, showed signs of social retardation, withdrawn emotional intelligence and reduced physical prowess. Peter himself was a defender of the homeschooling system, stating that he felt 'loved." "

introduction to the article
I made a couple minor changes. Let me explain my reasoning for some of them.

Numbers under 100 should usually be written out.

Where it stated "provide their children with a quality of education...unobtainable," I think it sounded biased as it implied homeschooling is superior to schools. So, I changed it slightly to say "different". Feel free to alter it more if you have a better idea of how to remove the bias.

I felt it was a little jumpy and needed some smoother transition and clarification, so I added a little.

The last sentence in the intro needs a little clarification. Do we mean "the developing world"? Certainly, there are a few cultures in which this is not true. A reference wouldn't hurt either...or some type of statistic if there is one. If no one solves this quickly, then I'll work on tracking it down.--KCodSchool 05:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I had no objection to the truly minor changes, i.e. "at" to "in", "and" to "or", but I disagree with most of the others here.


 * Yes, numbers under 100 should usually be written, but that is not the case when listing a century, in this case the 19th Century. That may be a difference in english usage, such as American/British, though I do not think so, but, if so, this article is already established using American usage.


 * I cannot agree with changing "quality of education" to merely "different". For one thing, homeschoolers invariably do homeschool their children to give them a better quality of education, not a different education. And secondly, well, all the data that I have seen is embarrassingly in favor of homeschooling when compared to institutional schooling. Have you considered the possibility that home education is actually right, and institutional schooling is actually wrong?


 * RE: Jumpiness. This section is not just prose but is actually a disambiguation section to help the novice parse out the different implications. I did not write this section, but I do think it accomplishes its purpose well, is very dictionary-like in its formation, and is fundamentally changed in character by the changes you made.


 * RE:"developing world". No, I actually did mean "the English speaking nations"; i.e. Britain, Scotland, Ireland, U.S., Canada, South Africa, Australia & NZ. Home education may be technically available in other nations, but it exists, as such, primarily among these nations, seemingly having begun in America.Darentig 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy "your" article. Maybe someone else can point out the bias to you. I don't have the patience. --KCodSchool 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NEA
If anyone is working on the "criticism" section, here is a reference to the NEA's actual comments that could be integrated:

http://www.nhen.org/LegInfo/default.asp?id=261

If no one else is interested, I'll get to it someday.

--KCodSchool 06:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen this, and to honest, this is the best I have found that they have to say. Since it really just amounts to a lot of thoughtless whining, it's really hard to give it any serious thought or space. Mostly, this is already covered in the criticism section. You may have seen the discussion above where we were kicking around another page from the NEA's site and trying to determine whether to use it, but frankly, it was such pitiful stuff that to have used it would have looked even more biased in favor of homeschooling. Darentig 16:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My thought was simply that the criticism section lacks the needed REFERENCES regarding the NEA's cricticms, so you could use this letter as the reference (annotation) to back up your claims regarding NEA's anti-homeschool positions. I think his ideas are ridiculous and unsupportable too. But, you need a reference here if you are going to claim the NEA has been open against homeschoolers.--KCodSchool 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not my claims. And they have been openly against homeschooling.Darentig 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable homeschooled individuals
I would like to revisit this topic. I was looking at Master Scott Hall's alternative homeschool article that he proposed in Jan 2006, here. That obviously didn't go anywhere, but it does have a pretty nice list of homeschooled persons. 1. I still think that such a list is germaine to the topic and should be included in the article. I suggest that there now be a vote on whether to include one. 2. Such a list would need to be looked over rather carefully. I know that I have seen some individuals on such lists that are dubiously listed, and we certainly do not want that. Darentig 18:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the addition of the list of "Celebrities who were or are homeschooled" for three reasons.
 * • One is that although I do, obviously, favor some sort of list such as this, it has been the status quo for a while now not to have one, and this topic is currently up for discussion and a vote.
 * • Two is that such a list should certainly not be a list of "celebrities", which, for instance, I would not consider Abraham Lincoln to be, and which might preclude some notable persons who might not really be very well known. For instance, I recently read that Ariel Durant was never formally educated. Now I would say that qualifies as a "notable person" that should be on the list, with appropriate citation, but I have doubts as to whether enough people are familiar with Ariel Durant to refer to her as a celebrity. The inverse question would be, is it really encyclopedic in character if some child actor/actress on some TV show was/is homeschooled? I think not. Or a tennis player?
 * • Three is my biggest concern about this sort of a list: verifiability. I would say for absolute certain that IF such a list is added it should NEVER be allowed to include ANY individual without an appropriate citation to demonstrate that the individual in question CLEARLY was home educated, or at least not formally educated. The few Wiki articles I checked from this list gave no indication about homeschooling...Darentig 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * After attending New York public schools "sporadically", Ariel Durant went to the Ferrer modern school which is where she met her future husband Will Durant, who was a teacher there. While you can dispute whether attending an anarchist school qualifies as "formal education," it certainly isn't homeschooling. As for celebrity, on other pages I've worked on I have found it to be a good guideline to limit such lists to people who have Wikipedia articles: that sets a standard of notability which, while not universally agreed upon, is at least consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. The article on each person on the list should state that they were homeschooled, and the issue of documentation should be addressed there. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...see what I mean, RE: Ariel Durant? Now you might have a point there with that, "people who have Wikipedia articles," but it would really be a whole lot easier to footnote the list than to work that into all the pertinent articles thereunto....although that would tend to discourage flippant additions...Darentig 19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing "apprenticeship" by 67.142.130.26
I am removing the addition of "apprenticeship" by 67.142.130.26 under the section of homeschooling methodology. Pending further discussion and explanation, I do not see how this topic applies to the section. Although I agree that the old apprenticeship system was a very good idea and we would do well to reinstitute it, that isn't really a method of homeschooling. More like a part of an overall change in outlook of social philosophy in general, which does tie in with homeschooling, especially unschooling, but doesn't fit here. Not only so, but I saw no indication in the linked article of apprenticeship even being still in existence. I personally think that society as a whole and some 3/4 of our young people would be better off just getting out (even at a young age) into some gainful employment than going off to college to see what they are going off to college for, and that apprenticeships could well play a valuable role in that. I'd love to see the concept explored, but I don't see how it fits here. Darentig 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Actually removing "Private Tutor" also. That's certainly a legit means of homeschooling, but it is not a "philosophy of homeschooling", which is what this list is. Need to find or make somewhere else to work that in. Darentig 12:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Apprenticeship is an educational method, and it does take place outside of schools, but I agree with you that probably couldn't be considered a method of homeschooling because it is not based in the home (and it is not under the direction of the parents). On the other hand, some homeschoolers (especially unschoolers) do make use of it. Apprenticeship certainly is still in existence, being most commonly found in trades, like carpentry. I have also heard of people in the unschooling community who have formed organizations with the purpose of linking interested people with apprenticeships (I would have to check, but I think that there was an article about it this in the Alternative Education Resource Organization magazine). I think that some discussion of it, either as a related form of education or as a supplement to the education of homeschoolers, would be usefull and appropriate. Amillion 02:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed about the relevance and importance of this issue. If someone can put together some useful (and verifiable) information it should go in the article. Darentig 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Apprenticeship can be based in the home if the child desires to learn a parent's trade or professions (anything from plumbing to car repair to software design). [67.142.130.26]


 * In the 19th century most wealthier families hired a private tutor for thier children. This was usually a retired teacher or professor.   The tutor/pupil relationship is so completely unlike the parent/child relationship that the relationship should count as a methodology of homeshooling in its own right.  [67.142.130.26]

(Have edited this entry to reflect standard protocol. Folks, don't insert your comments in the middle of comments, they need to be added at the end. See talk page guidelines.) Darentig 12:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * • Learning a trade from one's parents while in the home couldn't really be considered apprenticeship in any real sense of the word. Apprenticeship was the practice of sending a child out of the home to someone who is not the child's parents to teach the child their trade and provide for their needs for living (food, clothing, etc.), in return for labor provided by the child to assist the journeyman or master. It's a great idea for parents to teach their children a trade, but that would never really be an apprenticeship. • The fact of using tutors in the 19th century has already been covered in History, and in any even the article is really about home schooling today, or the contemporary Homeschool Movement, and the implications thereof. • Granted the relationship of a child to a tutor would be different than the relationship with his (or her) parents, but the employment of a tutor is not, in and of itself, an educational methodology. The tutor may employ some methodology, such as the ones listed, but he, himself, is not one. Darentig 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

History: Evangelicalism
The History section really needs a fourth subsection: Evangelicalism, or something like that. Beyond all dispute the vast majority of the homeschool movement is evangelical, but how did it get that way? This I have not found. Outlaw homeschooling certainly wasn't christian in nature in the 70's (Or was it?) when Holt and the Moores were introduced to the idea, yet by at least 1990, if not the mid-eighties, it was heavily so. We are evangelical ourselves and have been homeschooling since 1990, but never heard, or heard of, any call for christians to homeschool their children....or at the time even new that this was the case......I know that Ray and Dorothy Moore were christians, but they never issued any "call to evangelical christianity". Could it be that it was just a completely spontaneous grass roots shift? Anyway it is an important part of the story. Does anyone know how that came to be? Darentig 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that no one does yet know; it's a book waiting to be written. In fact, there's a lot which is not known about homeschooling. What are you doing the next few years? &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Blueprint education
Noted the addition of a (inoperable) link by 24.117.243.40 to a new Wikipedia page with this title. Frankly, the article looks like a vanity page to me, but I thought I'd hang on a minute for a reason to consider that this link might be legit before deleting. Darentig 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. No response on this item so I am deleting it. Like I said it looks like spam to me. Darentig 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Calvert school
...and while I'm at it, I've been looking at this Calvert school link too. The vast majority of hits I find on the web about it are from their own website, or derivitives thereof. I have to purposefully exempt their stuff from my Google searches, and even then I keep getting it. Does anyone know of any reason to consider this one outfit particularly important to homeschooling, and not just a spam link? Darentig 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, no response on this one so far. I am deleting this link: Looks like a spam link to me, and these people are primarily a private school anyway. Darentig 14:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be appropriate to have a link to the Wikipedia article, however. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that's my question. Technically it wasn't really a spam link, but a link to the W article that, frankly, looked to me like a vanity article. I'm not opposed to having the link if anyone can vouch for the relevance of it, but the article itself has no citations, and RE: all the points I made above. For the time being I'll put it back, but, well....Darentig 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say, based on anecdotal evidence, that Calvert is the leading supplier of school-in-a-box for homeschoolers who want a prepackaged curriculum. I have a friend who is around 50 now, but she used Calvert when growing up (her parents were missionaries in Japan). Calvert provided everything, including pencils. They've been around since 1905 and claim to have served over 500,000 students; currently they claim to have 22,300 "distance learning" K-8 students enrolled. See . Definitely not just a vanity article (although I agree their W article is crappy). &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Heidelheim???
The page speaks of a German state of Heidelheim. I don't think it exists.

Neither the English nor the German Wikipedia has a page on Heidelheim. As far as I can tell, while the larger area comprising the cities of Mannheim and Heidelberg is sometimes referred to as "Heidelheim", this seems to be a rather modern term and has never been an official name. The only place in Germany ever officially called Heidelheim seems to be this village of 120 inhabitants:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Heidelheim,+Wunsiedel+im+Fichtelgebirge,+Bavaria+Germany&ie=UTF8&sll=50.148447,12.054676&sspn=0.01892,0.039825&om=1&z=16&t=k http://www.heidelheim.de/heidelheim/index.php?mod=page&action=view&id=1

This article says that Heidelheim didn't have a school until 1810.


 * Let's drop the Heidelheim if no source turns up to prove the claim about it.
 * 89.57.151.135 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have removed Heidelheim. I don't think it's really germaine to the article anyway...Darentig 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Parochial Schools
The following statement was added under Criticism: "Home-schooling performed for religious reasons raises objections similar to those encounted in parochial schools and other non-secular educational settings." I think the statement is supposed to be worded, "Home-schooling performed for religious reasons raises objections similar to those encountered by parochial schools and other non-secular educational settings."

I have removed it and saved it here for the following reasons:

• It isn't footnoted. Sorry to be a stickler on this point, but we still have a lot of the old un-documented material to be dealt with in this article, we've worked hard to get this article footnoted properly with sourced information, and we really can't allow the introduction of uncited material at this point.

• It's unclear. A: What are the reasons referred to? These aren't listed. If they were listed, shouldn't this statement then become a separate paragraph within the Criticism section, with this as the introductory statement to the paragraph and the reasons following? Unless it isn't a separate subsection, but merely an addendum to the current paragraph it resides in, as in, "And oh, other religious schooling, like parochial schools, also suffer this sort of criticism"? If so, it may be true, but it shouldn't be here simply because this is an article on home education, not parochial (or any other) schools. I hope wasn't added just to create a link to the Parochial schools article....?

Darentig 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. There are many theoretic objections to parochial education in general, and these may become magnified when the religious education is not supplemented or balanced by secular teaching. (This applies to Islamic, Christian, and other religious training performed in isolation.) However, I will leave it to others to find the appropriate documentation.... Bticho 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Such as Germany
Under Legality of Homeschooling, and anon editor has slightly modified the text "...while others have outlawed it entirely.." to read "...while others, such as Germany, have outlawed it entirely."

Technically, according to the understanding the article has been operating under, this addition ought to be struck as being uncited, but it is a minor addition to an old uncited statement that has stood for some time now.

I am familiar with the recent incident to which Anon most likely refers: it is a true injustice. Makes me very glad I don't live in Germany.

Anyway, in this case, I am adding a citation mark to the statement. I think there is still a bit of material hanging around that could use that statement. Darentig 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I removed entirely the statement form Cwabray answering a criticism of homeschooling. Although I do agree with the statement, it is uncited.

More than that though, the "criticism" section is a common and reasonable section in Wikipedia articles and is there to list criticisms, not counter them. It is perfectly reasonable that an encyclopedic article about homeschooling should list the criticisms of homeschooling opponents. To be honest, these criticisms are the best that we have found to represent the anti-homeschooling position, and they really do a good job of making homeschool opposition look groundless and foolish without even bothering to answer them.

But again, please; cite your source or leave it out! No original research or opinions. Darentig 12:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)