What's wrong with Home Schooling?

[PunditLisa]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

Please consider how you are going to fill your days after they have gone off to college & started living independently.

Ah, and some argue that homeschooled children need to learn better social skills.

[MsWhatsit]

Originally Posted by Ruken

Now granted, I can't teach everything. You mentioned 12th grade calculus (why 12th grade, I don't know, and not the greatest example since most kids don't take it, but let's go with that.) I'm not qualified to teach calculus, unless I were relearning with the kid. There would be lots of "I'll get back to you on that" as a response to questions. My parents were not qualified to teach me advanced math either. I took two years of math online, one super cheap one with a group of homeschoolers and another through some general correspondence program. It seems to have worked out ok because I started college with credit for those two math classes (not to mention whatever I got from the other 8 AP tests I took.) There are workarounds when you're in over your head.

What a weird way to defend homeschooling. "My parents couldn't effectively teach me certain subjects, so I had to take classes instead, but because I didn't go to school I had to do this via online correspondence classes." Yes, good workaround. Another good workaround I can think of is called "school".

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Get back to me when you've done it successfully and we'll talk about what is "laughable." Right now, I'm just absolutely tittering.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Been there, done that. Teaching one kid isn't the big deal people here like to make it out to be.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Ruken

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Been there, done that. Teaching one kid isn't the big deal people here like to make it out to be.

Depends on the kid, doesn't it? Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I'd find you less of an Il Capitano if you weren't making such sweeping generalizations based on that experience. But what the hell do I know? I've taught several thousand kids over the last 25 years, individually, in small groups, and in large groups. They been from across the spectrum in ability and needs. They been from all kinds of different cultural and economic backgrounds. Many of them did not have English as a first language. I taught these kids chemistry, biology, and physical science, as well as doing tutoring in English and mathematics.
But hey...you have a PhD in Chemistry and you taught a kid once.

[Ivorybill]

I just don't understand the venom from the people here who are find fault with home education. It does good things for some kids and does a disservice to others. The same thing can be said for public and private school education. There are lots of variables to consider with home education and with classroom education. Why the ire?

[Antinor01]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

What a weird way to defend homeschooling. "My parents couldn't effectively teach me certain subjects, so I had to take classes instead, but because I didn't go to school I had to do this via online correspondence classes." Yes, good workaround. Another good workaround I can think of is called "school".

It's only weird I'd you define home schooling as "Mom and Dad being the only instructors throughout their childrens education.". Those of us who have actually lived it aren't doing that. Part of what can be great about it is the flexibility. Most of it does follow the route of working out of a book, taking the tests, etc. But you can take classes other ways as mentioned many times above.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

You certainly seem to be giving your children an excellent education. But, at a certain point, they need to be able to have "fun" away from home, on their own. If your local high school is good, that might be the time to let them test their wings. Since they'll still be living at home, your family activities can have educational & interesting aspects.

Bridget, you really don't need to condescend to me quite so much. My kids have fun away from home and on their own now. If we homeschool through high school, I will expect them to be quite independent--and given my 10yo's recent enthusiasm when community college courses were mentioned, I don't think it will be a problem. I was an exchange student myself and would very much like to see my girls do something similar, or perhaps take a gap year and do some of those volunteer positions in India kids can do now. My ambitions in that area have taken a hit because of my oldest girl's severe food allergies--once upon a time we had hoped to 'trade' cousins with her uncle in Japan once she was 13 or so, and that is turning out not to be possible--but I hope we can figure something out.

I'm not sure you realize how much homeschoolers focus on independence. We're not raising our kids to stay home forever; we're raising them to be successful and adventurous adults.

Please consider how you are going to fill your days after they have gone off to college & started living independently.

That is a very funny comment that gave me the giggles. Don't worry, I have plenty to do.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Ivorybill

I just don't understand the venom from the people here who are find fault with home education.
...
Why the ire?

I think Icarus had a good point early in the thread, though he too was presenting it as a negative.

Originally Posted by Icarus

In many ways it is a blatant rejection of societal norms. In that, I see it as similar to the '60s commune culture.

People do it for a variety of reasons, but many boil down to "I don't want my kids exposed to those people!" Well, the rest of us are those people, and we are not the monsters you think we are.

Institutional schooling is a large part of most people's formative experience. An apparently blanket rejection of the experience and its assumed values can feel like a rejection of the people.

[PunditLisa]

I, too, am amazed at the level of anger and suspicion re home-schooling. If you cannot fathom that there is more than one effective method for educating a child, then you are no different from the fundamentalists who believe that they have discovered the Truth, and that there is no other route for achieving it.

Public school worked for you? Bully for you. Now let others choose their own path.

[kushiel]

This being the Dope, most people here are are intellectually curious and socialize with like-minded people. I'd hardly say we're the 'average'. I want to see this same question asked somewhere more representative of the average.

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

What a weird way to defend homeschooling. "My parents couldn't effectively teach me certain subjects, so I had to take classes instead, but because I didn't go to school I had to do this via online correspondence classes." Yes, good workaround. Another good workaround I can think of is called "school".

I was enrolled at a "school" at the time. We only homeschooled full time for a few years, since we eventually moved somewhere with schools that weren't completely useless. "School" didn't offer calc 2 or statistics, so I took them over the internet in 11th and 12th grade. This isn't all that rare, and I wasn't the only student at the school to do it. Again, these are not usually required courses in high school. I taught myself chemistry (another class that not all high school students take) because the teacher was a moron. Every single other student in the class failed the AP test. This is not difficult chemistry we're talking about. The other students were not stupid either, just merely victims of a teacher doing more harm than good. She was fired after that year.

We discussed taking classes at EPCC or UTEP, but they're both pretty abysmal* and transportation would have been problematic. The online classes were great because they took less time than a typical class does. Obviously I learned what I needed to learn.

*And of course, that's where most of the local teachers come from.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by kushiel

This being the Dope, most people here are are intellectually curious and socialize with like-minded people. I'd hardly say we're the 'average'. I want to see this same question asked somewhere more representative of the average.

Good point here. The type of person that would be a poor choice for homeschooling is probably not the type that would post on this board, leading to a skewing of results.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by kushiel

This being the Dope, most people here are are intellectually curious and socialize with like-minded people. I'd hardly say we're the 'average'. I want to see this same question asked somewhere more representative of the average.

Yep, we're pretty special folks all right. If you'd like to mingle with some more ordinary plebes, you could always find some homeschooling message boards and look around.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by AlienVessels

I explained that. Page 16 of the document (17 of the pdf). Nearly all the samples were self-selected. That's all I need to know to categorize these studies as slightly better than anecdotal.

It's not about me not accepting self-selected groups. It's about that not being acceptable scientific methodology.

There are objective standards in psychological and social science research. This review makes it clear that as of that point in time, the research was "in it's infancy".

At this point I think it's only us who are interested in this topic, so unless others weigh in that they're following this with interest I think we've hashed most of our differences out.

I'm more accepting of self-selected study participants in sociological studies. They're the norm really. Everything from focus groups to political polls are self selected. A pollster approaches someone and asks if they want to participate, if they say no, that's it. Homeschoolers were asked if they wanted their kid to take the test, some said yes, some said no. That's it. Social sciences don't have the kind of rigor the hard sciences have, and that's just part of the nature of the beast. The parents administering the test was a bigger problem to me than the subject selection process.

Maybe the horrid homeschoolers are avoiding becoming data points in these kinds of studies. If so, then we have no data on what's happening to them and their children. Why should we restrict the rights of those who appear to be doing just fine because of our fears of some unknown, possibly nonexistent or negligible group of crappy home educators? If all the data we have, and it isn't perfect, shows a positive impact on society(echoing the review's authors) then why should we sacrifice that because of what may or may not be happening in the gaps in the research?

I don't think that review supports a logical case for restricting homeschooling. If anything it supports additional support for it and encouragement for home educators to help flesh out the data pools.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by dangermom

Yep, we're pretty special folks all right. If you'd like to mingle with some more ordinary plebes, you could always find some homeschooling message boards and look around.

Actually, I would say that most Dopers are not average. My concerns with homeschooling probably don't apply so much to homeschoolers on this board as they do to homeschoolers that might post on mothering.com, for example. Or the Huffington Post "Health" section.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Ruken

Sticking me in front of a classroom would be a bad move, but I can teach your kid chemistry if you sit him down with me 3 hours a week, provided he doesn't have huge deficits in other areas that would make that an extra challenge (the kid who couldn't figure out that 2 molecules of water have four hydrogens and two oxygens was difficult ). Now granted, I have a PhD in chemistry (oh whoops, I taught myself chemistry in high school, so I guess I shouldn't have learned anything), but the idea that I'm not able to teach a child (or a small group of children) a range of topics better than the average public school teacher is laughable, especially given that this country's teaching programs aren't exactly known for taking in our best and brightest.

Well, it seems you missed the point of my question (which has been answered already by others, thank you). No doubt someone with an advanced degree in chemistry can teach chemistry to a high schooler without a problem. Can you teach literature? History? Sociology? Government/poli sci? Physics? Theatre? Music? Visual arts? Can you teach ALL of those in addition to chemistry?

Since "homeschooling" apparently has a broader definition than I was aware of, of course, the fact that it's impossible for a single person to adequately cover all of this, is less relevant. (Aside from cases where it really is just a single, unqualified parent trying to teach this stuff. Or trying to avoid teaching this stuff.)

Now granted, I can't teach everything. You mentioned 12th grade calculus (why 12th grade, I don't know, and not the greatest example since most kids don't take it, but let's go with that.)

Because I was using myself as an example (parents couldn't help with 7th grade algebra), and I took Calculus in 12th grade. (Also, if homeschooling is supposed to be more personalized, it's going to need to account for students who do take Calc in 12th grade. I personally would have loved the opportunity to learn more advanced topics than I did. I just don't think I could have done so through homeschooling, because my parents would not have had the resources to do better than the public high school.)

BTW, I don't know if it was different back then, but I took all of the state standardized tests in private school when I was a kid. Maybe it wasn't "required," but they did it anyway. On the other hand, the curriculum was not nearly as broad/advanced as in public school (I guess they had a decent remedial program, though), so I was bored out of my mind by 5th or 6th grade, and got transferred to public school in 7th.

[raspberry hunter]

Originally Posted by Kaio

Well, it seems you missed the point of my question (which has been answered already by others, thank you). No doubt someone with an advanced degree in chemistry can teach chemistry to a high schooler without a problem. Can you teach literature? History? Sociology? Government/poli sci? Physics? Theatre? Music? Visual arts? Can you teach ALL of those in addition to chemistry?

I have an advanced degree in physics, and... Yes, to all except Theatre and Visual arts, and even there I'd be able to put together a curriculum as long as it was heavy on studying it (e.g., watching and analyzing plays, or analyzing photographs/paintings) rather than performance/execution (which is often an extracurricular activity anyway). If I was allowed to focus on (say) photography/graphic design I could do a pretty good job with that.

I'd do a better job of teaching history and government than my high school teachers did, too -- for example, my history teacher thought the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis were the same thing.

You didn't mention foreign languages -- that's the one thing I am fairly sure I, and my husband, could not do to the level I would want my kid to learn it.

Of course, it would be extremely time-consuming to do this! I've already got some lesson plans for physics, math, music, and literature/writing in my head from other teaching stints I've done in tutoring and church, but to really sit down and think about a year-long course in history or biology would take quite a bit of time and energy for me -- although I could do it, I'm not sure I would want to. Which is why, I think, a lot of people don't homeschool as much at the high school level.

I wonder, though, if a lot of people who do decide to homeschool their kids are the sort who think a lot of things are interesting, and are therefore educated in a fair number of subjects.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Well, it seems you missed the point of my question (which has been answered already by others, thank you). No doubt someone with an advanced degree in chemistry can teach chemistry to a high schooler without a problem.

I disagree. Just because someone knows a subject thoroughly, doesn't mean that this person is an effective teacher, in this or any other subject. And this is one of the problems with homeschooling...many of the people who decide to teach have no idea how to go about it.

I'm an excellent reader, and I can do just about all arithmatic and even some real mathematics. However, I am a lousy teacher in just about every academic subject. I can teach someone to knit or crochet or how to play FRPGs. When my daughter needed help learning to read, though, I had to get a tutor for her.

I acknowledge my shortcomings as a teacher. Many homeschoolers, though, don't even realize that they are barely literate and have problems with any math beyond simple addition and subtraction. And yet they think that they are great teachers!

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

I acknowledge my shortcomings as a teacher. Many homeschoolers, though, don't even realize that they are barely literate and have problems with any math beyond simple addition and subtraction. And yet they think that they are great teachers!

EVERYBODY thinks that they are great teachers. At least, everybody (or a significant percentage of people) think that they are better teachers than people who do it for a living. They especially think that they are better teachers than people who took classes in teaching theory (granted, not all of that information is helpful or decent). Otherwise, we wouldn't be having societal conversations all the damn time about how teachers suck.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by Kaio

Because I was using myself as an example (parents couldn't help with 7th grade algebra), and I took Calculus in 12th grade. (Also, if homeschooling is supposed to be more personalized, it's going to need to account for students who do take Calc in 12th grade. I personally would have loved the opportunity to learn more advanced topics than I did. I just don't think I could have done so through homeschooling, because my parents would not have had the resources to do better than the public high school.)

My girls are both on track to finish calculus by 12th grade, and I certainly plan on having them do so. Whether that will be a CC course, a home study course taught by their dad, or at the local high school, we don't know yet--but there are a lot of options.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

At this point I think it's only us who are interested in this topic, so unless others weigh in that they're following this with interest I think we've hashed most of our differences out.

I'm more accepting of self-selected study participants in sociological studies. They're the norm really. Everything from focus groups to political polls are self selected. A pollster approaches someone and asks if they want to participate, if they say no, that's it. Homeschoolers were asked if they wanted their kid to take the test, some said yes, some said no. That's it. Social sciences don't have the kind of rigor the hard sciences have, and that's just part of the nature of the beast. The parents administering the test was a bigger problem to me than the subject selection process.

I'm not accepting. I spent too much time doing research as an undergrad and later with graduate work in Psychology to give credit to research that barely explores the issues.

Social sciences do have rigor, they just explore issues that are more abstract and have more variables to control for. Rigor is about the tools and methodology, not the subject.

Maybe the horrid homeschoolers are avoiding becoming data points in these kinds of studies. If so, then we have no data on what's happening to them and their children. Why should we restrict the rights of those who appear to be doing just fine because of our fears of some unknown, possibly nonexistent or negligible group of crappy home educators? If all the data we have, and it isn't perfect, shows a positive impact on society(echoing the review's authors) then why should we sacrifice that because of what may or may not be happening in the gaps in the research?

The default is public school. If you can demonstrate you can do better, great. Otherwise, the kids get the resources of many different teachers, students, and educational tools a single private family is unlikely to be able to provide.

I don't think that review supports a logical case for restricting homeschooling. If anything it supports additional support for it and encouragement for home educators to help flesh out the data pools.

We don't have to present a case for restricting homschooling. They have to demonstrate they can do the job and your random family is not equipped to do so.

The warm and fuzzies of a couple of researches that would love to get grants to study homeschooling don't even hit my radar.

[Little Nemo]

Some people seem to be saying that one of the advantages of home schooling is being able to avoid the often hostile atmosphere of the student peer group. It's true that home schooling does avoid this but is it really an advantage?

The problem is that most social groups don't become less hostile as its members become adults - they just get more subtle. So if you're ever going to function is a social setting, you're going to have to learn the skills. Most people start learning those skills in recess when they're five years old. Home schoolers are going to be several years behind.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by missred

The majority of the homeschooled young people tended to be bright enough, but many times had issues with time management. Doing things on someone's schedule who may not be as flexible as Mom or Dad is problematic in many cases. A lot of times they are also ill prepared to deal with others on their team who are 180 degrees from their experience (although this often isn't limited to homeschooled workers to be fair). Fortunately, a couple of years down the road in the real world, a lot of these issues are minimized in all but the most sheltered. This is in comparison to people coming from public or private schools.

YMMV.

I deal with a lot of employees who have been homeschooled and I agree 100%. The people who are homeschooled are the ones that are always taking long breaks or showing up late and taking a lot of extra time on a project that doesn't require it. I've also heard "My parents don't want me working this shift" given as an excuse. Honestly, that's just unacceptable.

But I think the biggest thing with homeschooled kids is that they just seem "off" in some way I can't put my finger on.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The problem is that most social groups don't become less hostile as its members become adults - they just get more subtle. So if you're ever going to function is a social setting, you're going to have to learn the skills. Most people start learning those skills in recess when they're five years old. Home schoolers are going to be several years behind.

I'd say many of the homeschooled kids I have known have been ahead of other kids in social skills, because they've had more experience dealing with adults outside "conventional" relationships.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Some people seem to be saying that one of the advantages of home schooling is being able to avoid the often hostile atmosphere of the student peer group. It's true that home schooling does avoid this but is it really an advantage?

The problem is that most social groups don't become less hostile as its members become adults - they just get more subtle. So if you're ever going to function is a social setting, you're going to have to learn the skills. Most people start learning those skills in recess when they're five years old. Home schoolers are going to be several years behind.

I'm not sure that I have seen much of that in this thread; could you point me to it? I did say that I think my child has a bit of a social advantage over me since she hasn't been unmercifully bullied since the age of 6, but I never said that she doesn't face any social difficulties or ever hang out with other children. She just doesn't do it in a public school setting. As I said, she's more socially adept than I was at her age. I have a hard time believing that small children need to be bullied in order to grow into competent adults; IME it has the opposite effect, slowing social development because of fear.

[Little Nemo]

Nobody needs to be bullied. But people are bullied. And that continues throughout a person's life - it's just that the form of bullying will change. So what people need to do in order to become competent adults is learn how to deal with bullies, whether it's a fifth grader who wants your chocolate milk or a boss who's pressuring you to work outside your contract.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by spark240

I'd say many of the homeschooled kids I have known have been ahead of other kids in social skills, because they've had more experience dealing with adults outside "conventional" relationships.

I don't know about that very much, but I do know that my kids are not afraid to interact with kids different than themselves. In particular, I've noticed that they have no reluctance in hanging out with kids with autism or other difficulties. In our group, we have some kids with varying levels of autism or Asperger's, and one kid with a disorder that seems to be something like what Gary Coleman had; he's 11 but smaller than my 7yo. They just hang out and play. From what I recall of my own school days, I'm not sure that would be the case at a public school.


Some people here have commented that Doper homeschoolers are probably of a higher quality than others. I'd just like to say that I don't consider myself to be a particularly amazing homeschooling mom. I know many who are far better at it than I am, who do incredibly cool things. I hope to be more like them, but I'm distracted and selfish much of the time. And all of us are only human, doing our best for our kids with what we've got like all the other moms.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by spark240

I'd say many of the homeschooled kids I have known have been ahead of other kids in social skills, because they've had more experience dealing with adults outside "conventional" relationships.

Let's face facts, adults are not going to interact socially with a child the same way they would interact with another adult. Children get a sheltered version of interaction from adults. To get real social interaction you have to be in a peer group - which for children is a group of other children.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Nobody needs to be bullied. But people are bullied. And that continues throughout a person's life - it's just that the form of bullying will change. So what people need to do in order to become competent adults is learn how to deal with bullies, whether it's a fifth grader who wants your chocolate milk or a boss who's pressuring you to work outside your contract.

We're all going to run into them; they don't only live at public school. Personally I think that if you're lucky enough to get bullied when you're 10 or older and more equipped to deal with it--as I think my kid is--then it's better than getting beaten down at 6 or 8.

I'm not sure why you seem to feel that groups of children only happen at public schools. They are all over the place.

[Antinor01]

This thread reminded me to call my Mom and thank her for home schooling me. I truly believe it was the best choice. As any parent does, I know she has sometimes wondered if they made the right decisions in raising us so she really appreciated that. Thanks all for the reminder to do that.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by dangermom

I'm not sure why you seem to feel that groups of children only happen at public schools.

I never said that. But for most children, school is going to be a substantial portion, most likely a majority, of their social interchange with a large group of other children.

[YogSosoth]

The only people who homeschool are crazy. That is not a generalization, they are all crazy

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by dangermom

I don't know about that very much, but I do know that my kids are not afraid to interact with kids different than themselves.

To be clear, my own experience with homeschooled kids began when I was near the end of my own high school time, and the kids I met then were at least 15 or 16.

But now I know parents who are homeschooling younger kids, and I have seen exactly the dynamic you describe with them.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Thanks, YogSosoth--I was wondering about that! Glad you cleared it up for us. I think we can lock the thread now!

[doreen]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

Maybe the horrid homeschoolers are avoiding becoming data points in these kinds of studies. If so, then we have no data on what's happening to them and their children.

That's right, we have no data on them and their children- which means we don't know how they are doing, we don't know how many of them there are and we don't know what proportion of the homeschooling population they make up. Which means we know absolutely nothing about the entire universe of homeschoolers and cannot make generalizations such as "Home schooled children perform at higher academic levels than non-home schooled children." We can perhaps say that homeschoolers who participated in a study , or took a specific test or used a specific curriculum perform better than non-homeschooled children, but that's it. Otherwise, it's like pretending that the average SAT score at my high school tells you anything about the approximately 90% of the students who didn't take the SAT. They may have been excellent students planning to go to colleges that didn't require the SAT, or they may have been illiterate - no way to know from the data given.

Now, that's not necessarily a reason to restrict homeschooling, but it is a reason to avoid making statements like this

If all the data we have, and it isn't perfect, shows a positive impact on society(echoing the review's authors) then why should we sacrifice that because of what may or may not be happening in the gaps in the research?

because the data doesn't show a positive effect of homeschooling on society. At most, it shows a positive effect for the group of participating home schooled students. Just because it would quite literally be impossible to obtain data from a random sample of home-schoolers doesn't mean we should act as if a non-random sample gives us the same information.

You're correct that a fair amount of research , especially polls , depend on self-selected participants. But they still use methods designed to eliminate sample bias- for example, ten years ago ,telephone pollsters did not make it a point to include cell phone lines. Now they do , because the demographics of cell phone households are not the same as those of households including a landline and leaving out those households will affect the results. Look up the Literary Digest poll in 1936 for a famous example of a incorrect result due to a biased sample.

[araminty]

I agree with a lot of the criticism in this thread. Many of the experiences kids get in schools just can't be replicated in non-school situations. And these experiences form the basis for social interaction that makes up, well, society.

In the last homeschooling thread, which I linked to above, I mentioned some examples I've seen in the informal education classes I've taught. These classes, while really great at teaching the subject matter at hand, can't also serve as socialization training for the participants too. I just don't have time to say, "please keep your questions on topic, and share your stories with me at the end," to the thirty homeschooled kids who keep telling me rambling anecdotes, and it's not fair on the few kids who do know the boundaries.

I don't think informal classes can give kids the social skills they need.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I never said that. But for most children, school is going to be a substantial portion, most likely a majority, of their social interchange with a large group of other children.

OK, but not for all. So in fact we're pretty much in agreement? Homeschooling is always going to be a minority choice.

I've been thinking a little about this whole social/bullying/diversity thing. A lot of people claim that homeschooling robs children of the diversity and tolerance found at public schools (well some of them; certainly not this local one). And again, that homeschooling robs children of the social pressures they need to learn to deal with. Both of these things are assumed to exist only in public schools.

At the same time, I think we all know that IRL, school culture teaches conformity and social fear. There is a box of acceptable qualities (as a mom of girls, I'm going to talk about girls but it's for boys too): one must be pretty, fashionable, slim, 'nice,' athletic, witty, gossipy, etc. and the rules have been getting progressively stricter and are being applied at younger ages. When I was in grade school, the rules existed of course, but they weren't nearly as rigid or demanding.

I can actually go on and on about this, but I'll try not to and just say that I think it's interesting that the diversity of personality and thought that comes naturally to many homeschoolers seems to be unacceptable to so many Dopers who otherwise declaim the virtues of diversity, tolerance, and individual freedom.

[Peremensoe]

Well, neither formal nor informal classes can give kids many of the social skills they need, but that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with either kind of class in itself. It's a matter of the total range of experiences. I expect an ideal socially healthy person will have experienced both kinds of classes, and a whole lot of other kinds of interactions as well. Certainly attending only formal classes can be a substantial handicap.

[rhubarbarin]

Originally Posted by spark240

Well, neither formal nor informal classes can give kids many of the social skills they need, but that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with either kind of class in itself. It's a matter of the total range of experiences. I expect an ideal socially healthy person will have experienced both kinds of classes, and a whole lot of other kinds of interactions as well. Certainly attending only formal classes can be a substantial handicap.

It sure was for me. I was intimidated by everyone older than me for a long time - my parents didn't take me out much and were authoritarian, so I got little exposure to kids who weren't my own age or my little sister's age. And adults/people more than a few years older were only authority figures to me.

I wasn't socially normal at all until I started working, got out on my own and started interacting with all kinds of people. I haven't met any religious, isolationist homeschooled kids (I've heard some horror stories though) but I have met a lot of kids who were educated at home by progressive or secular parents, and all of them have been far more well-rounded in most ways than I was, as a public school kid, or than most of my public-school friends in fact (let's face it, I'm not the best example - I've always been a little off). Most of them are highly successful in higher academics as well.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

The only people who homeschool are crazy. That is not a generalization, they are all crazy

Moderator Note:

YogSouth, I urge you to drop the generalizations, because despite what you think, that's what this is.

For The Straight Dope,

Spectre of Pithecanthropus

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The problem is that most social groups don't become less hostile as its members become adults - they just get more subtle. So if you're ever going to function is a social setting, you're going to have to learn the skills. Most people start learning those skills in recess when they're five years old. Home schoolers are going to be several years behind.

I agree with you, but I honestly haven't seen public schools (or even private ones) really stepping up to teach these skills. Throwing kids to the wolves or just telling them to deal with it by themselves does not constitute skills instruction.

And frankly -- munging a quote from Tori Amos -- everyone's teaching kids how to avoid or deal with bullies, but no one is teaching kids not to bully in the first place.

I have no idea if homeschooling does this better (some of the time, most of the time, or never), but I wouldn't use this as an argument in favor of public school.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by doreen

That's right, we have no data on them and their children- which means we don't know how they are doing, we don't know how many of them there are and we don't know what proportion of the homeschooling population they make up. Which means we know absolutely nothing about the entire universe of homeschoolers and cannot make generalizations such as "Home schooled children perform at higher academic levels than non-home schooled children." We can perhaps say that homeschoolers who participated in a study , or took a specific test or used a specific curriculum perform better than non-homeschooled children, but that's it.

Wait, aren't homeschooled children required to take the same standardized tests as public school kids? Wouldn't it be possible to conduct a meta-study comparing test scores of kids enrolled in public schools, vs. those who are not? (Surely there are public/private/home school enrollment records somewhere, yeah?) That would solve the sample-bias problem, at least.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Kaio

I agree with you, but I honestly haven't seen public schools (or even private ones) really stepping up to teach these skills. Throwing kids to the wolves or just telling them to deal with it by themselves does not constitute skills instruction.

And frankly -- munging a quote from Tori Amos -- everyone's teaching kids how to avoid or deal with bullies, but no one is teaching kids not to bully in the first place.

I have no idea if homeschooling does this better (some of the time, most of the time, or never), but I wouldn't use this as an argument in favor of public school.

Again, I want to emphasize I'm not advocating bullying. I'm just saying it exists. Unless people live in a very controlled environment for their entire life, they're going to encounter bullies. So they need to learn how to deal with a bully.

And that works both ways. Social experience also teachs children why being a bully is bad. A person with limited social skills might grow up to become a bully.

And bullying is just a single aspect of social skills. Children learn all sorts of other social skills in their peer group as well.

I'm not saying people can't learn these social skills in other ways. But their opportunities will almost certainly be much more limited that those of children who spend forty hours a week with a large group of other children who they deal with on an ongoing basis.

[Kaio]

I get that. I'm just saying that dropping kids into a large peer group, which will include bullies, and leaving them to sink or swim on their own is not a remotely effective method of teaching coping skills. We don't expect kids to intuitively understand algebra, so why expect them to just somehow "figure out" how to deal with bullies?

Basically, I"m saying that I wouldn't advocate that "public schools teach social skills better" when in my experience, public schools don't teach these skills at all. Or even provide a whole lot of help. Kids are basically teaching themselves, which may or may not work out remotely well.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Nobody needs to be bullied. But people are bullied. And that continues throughout a person's life - it's just that the form of bullying will change. So what people need to do in order to become competent adults is learn how to deal with bullies, whether it's a fifth grader who wants your chocolate milk or a boss who's pressuring you to work outside your contract.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I was bullied horribly during a certain period of my schooling -- mainly seventh through ninth grades. I have never been bullied, not even once, as an adult, and I'm 48 years old now. Even in college there was no bullying any more. The idea that kids must experience bullying in school to prepare them for life just doesn't seem right to me.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Some people seem to be saying that one of the advantages of home schooling is being able to avoid the often hostile atmosphere of the student peer group. It's true that home schooling does avoid this but is it really an advantage?

The problem is that most social groups don't become less hostile as its members become adults - they just get more subtle. So if you're ever going to function is a social setting, you're going to have to learn the skills. Most people start learning those skills in recess when they're five years old. Home schoolers are going to be several years behind.

I think your perception of this issue is completely wrong. A child's peer group is not hostile in general. That's what makes it a peer group. It's true there's a period, stretching roughly from 5th grade to 8th grade on average, when "friends" insult each other a fair amount, but by and large friends are friendly. Bullying comes from outside the individual's immediate group of friends.

As for the idea that adult social groups are hostile, that's just bizarre. If it's true for your social group, ditch it and get a new one.

[Ivorybill]

Originally Posted by Kaio

Wait, aren't homeschooled children required to take the same standardized tests as public school kids?

That varies by state. When we were in Louisiana there were at least two ways to register with the state: (1) as a private educational facility and (2) as a home study program. We chose the latter. The state required that we complete and be able to prove a minimum number of instruction days and to prove grade equivalency. Every spring we gave our kids the California Achievement Test (CAT). We did not have to give those scores to the state, but rather kept the results on file in case we were ever audited. So I doubt the data are out there in an easily obtainable form.

It's clear that those who have their minds made up that institutional education is the cornerstone to social development are not going to change their minds based on this thread. I wonder, though, if they are protesting that as much as they are protesting that parents who home school maintain greater control over the amount of indoctrination state and private entities are able to give their children in the educational arena.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Ivorybill

That varies by state. When we were in Louisiana there were at least two ways to register with the state: (1) as a private educational facility and (2) as a home study program. We chose the latter. The state required that we complete and be able to prove a minimum number of instruction days and to prove grade equivalency. Every spring we gave our kids the California Achievement Test (CAT). We did not have to give those scores to the state, but rather kept the results on file in case we were ever audited. So I doubt the data are out there in an easily obtainable form.

It's clear that those who have their minds made up that institutional education is the cornerstone to social development are not going to change their minds based on this thread. I wonder, though, if they are protesting that as much as they are protesting that parents who home school maintain greater control over the amount of indoctrination state and private entities are able to give their children.

That's interesting. Are there any cites available as to how often Louisiana audits home schools?

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

As for the idea that adult social groups are hostile, that's just bizarre. If it's true for your social group, ditch it and get a new one.

No, I will say that if you haven't been bullied as an adult, by an adult, you've been very lucky. I have had some astonishingly lousy supervisors in my time; and the reality is, you don't always have the option to just pick up and leave your job.

Hell, I had one boss who lied about me to another department's manager in order to cover her own ass. I was copied on an email to him that said she "didn't know why" I hadn't finished his project. The reason, as she knew perfectly well, is that she'd never told me about said project. Her response, when I politely and privately pointed this out, was that "it didn't matter."

I did walk out at that point, but that was only possible because I'd toughed out her crap for three months, and saved money like a fiend. And the economy wasn't in the toilet at that time.

[Ivorybill]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

That's interesting. Are there any cites available as to how often Louisiana audits home schools?

I don't know. The place to look would be the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).

I don't know anyone in our orbit of home school groups who was ever audited, mainly because these folks all actually did home education in compliance with state guidelines. The rumor was that the only time the state really came out to audit was when the neighbors called to complain that the Snopes up the street were endangering the welfare of their children and hiding behind the home education laws to do so.

I just quizzed my wife on the reporting to make sure I got it right. She confirms that we did not have to turn in test scores, but that she did so as to prove grade equivalency w/o there being any questions about it.