Home Schooling a Constitutional Right?

I believe that a common education is important inorder to have a cohesive society. But this arguement can be made only if the education is sufficiently good; Without this, people can cloak their biases with the flag of quality. This goes back to the arguments during the founding of our country. Protecting newspapers was considered a bulwark of democracy. However, the newspapers can be this only if the citizens are educated. It is the purpose of the democratic government to give its youth such a education that they can take what is written in various newspapers and make good decisions. Remember: All power is derived from the people.

Your wrong! I have made maybe one other entry recently. Please post my note.

Claire, you wrote:
"I can certainly understand the thinking of the Los Angeles court and the idea that part of the contract of civil society is a certain standard of education, which impacts all of us who share this country. But I feel like taking educational freedom out of the hands of parents is not wise."

But educational freedom is entirely in the hands of the parents. Parents can choose which school districts to live in, or to send their children to private or parochial schools. They also have a say in the quality of the local public education because they vote for school boards and bonds to pay teachers' salaries.

If they want to home school, let them educate themselves first, and get the necessary certification.

It's in the best interests of everyone to have an educated populace, and those interests aren't being served when totally unqualified parents, some barely educated themselves, use home schooling just to make certain that their children are completely indoctrinated in a particular religion, cult, hate group, or political point of view. Brainwashing, in other words.

I'm sure there are many home schoolers out there who do so because they really are qualified and are better able to give their children a good education than the local school system. With intelligent, educated, parents who have the dedication, and are willing to devote the time, this can be an excellent way to teach children. But these are also the sort of people who could easily get certified.

I don't think the right should be taken away, but certification should be required.

Pam

If I understand your argument certification is the only way to ensure that parents can adequately teach their children. My question has education improved that much in this country with certification of public school teachers? If your argument was valid why do our schools perform in the lower half of testing when compared to other developed countries? Has certification helped us that much? I see many schools and kids failing due to our current education system. You might argue that the schools and students that are failing do not have proper parental involvement; however, parents who home school are doing that exact thing being involved with their kids’ lives. These parents are extremely invested in their children’s success and progress. Why do you think they take the time?

Your concerns that parents are brainwashing their kids, but offer little proof that this practice is wide spread. Should I just trust you on your assertion? We have a five year old and after attending local public schools picked up such great phrases as “I want to die” “I hate you” and other great bathroom words. Did the teachers teach those phases? Absolutely not, but the school environment does allow for this expression of self. Who is brainwashing who? I thought I would never have my child home schooled or sent to private school, but after my child’s first year away from home I can understand why parents would home school their kids.

I find it ironic that most who support the decision in CA also oppose “No Child Left Behind”. If a school wants to show that they are performing up to speed why not demonstrate it with metrics since that is what the courts are demanding?

Pam - I think you are way off. Your comment asserting that home-schooling is a tool used by parents to indoctrinate children into cults, hate groups, brainwashing is not only unfair, it's foolishness.

From kindergarten all the way up, I was in public school. Then city college before finishing up at a 4 year university. I'm consistently amazed at how often I'll meet a young person (be it 8 years old, or 16 years old) and I'll be impressed by how smart, and social, and mature/adjusted this kid is... only to find out... you guessed it: home-school.

I have the utmost respect for parents who sacrifice to educate their own children. And it is a sacrifice. But wow- it seems to pay off!
This certification ruling is like asking a marathon runner to run a 5K to prove they're legit. It's nonsensical. Home-schooling parents are already going above and beyond. And that should be no surprise: because they literally love their students.
(And face it, kids grow up so quick. Make the most of the 18 years you get 'em.)

Pam - I think you are way off. Your comment asserting that home-schooling is a tool used by parents to indoctrinate children into cults, hate groups, brainwashing is not only unfair, it's foolishness.

From kindergarten all the way up, I was in public school. Then city college before finishing up at a 4 year university. I'm consistently amazed at how often I'll meet a young person (be it 8 years old, or 16 years old) and I'll be impressed by how smart, and social, and mature/adjusted this kid is... only to find out... you guessed it: home-school.

I have the utmost respect for parents who sacrifice to educate their own children. And it is a sacrifice. But wow- it seems to pay off!
This certification ruling is like asking a marathon runner to run a 5K to prove they're legit. It's nonsensical. Home-schooling parents are already going above and beyond. And that should be no surprise: because they literally love their students.
(And face it, kids grow up so quick. Make the most of the 18 years you get 'em.)

The article does not mention if there is any harm identified. Why is this step being taken? Are there children who are under educated due to being educated at home? I haven't heard anything about that. So I'm wondering, is this a reaction to a problem, or something that simply "makes sense", and so it is being implemented?

From what I have seen I find home schooling is a success. Parents get what they want, they still pay taxes to schools, which have one less student so saves money, and in MD I believe state tests are regularly administered to ensure the child IS being educated properly. There exists a wealth of home schooling material and my local high school allows home schooled kids to participate in extra curricular activities, so the kids can participate socially with their publicly schooled neighbors.

In other words, I see no problem, I see positive benefits, and I see state oversight to weed out those teaching improperly. Maybe things are different in CA, I don't know, but where there is no smoke there is no fire.

Personally I would not home school, but I understand why people do it, some reasons I agree with, some I do not. Personally I want my daughter to gain the social skills and learn how to deal with a variety of people by attending public school. But I support home schooling for anyone who wants to put in the effort and time.

The move in CA to require teaching credentials seems boneheaded. What they should do is provide a few voluntary courses for parents who want to learn how to home school better, even allow such courses for parents of public school kids. I think that would be well received by everyone. And if they are worried about kids not being educated, test the kids and disqualify parents who are not teaching their kids, requiring them to attend a school. In other words, instead of assuming all parents are bad at teaching, test to weed out the few that really are. I believe this is what MD does and it seems to work well.

Certification or testing - all I'm saying is that there has to be some oversight.

A few months ago in Washington, DC, it was discovered that a woman who had withdrawn her children from charter schools, where they were doing well, saying that she wanted to home school them, had instead killed them.

Their severely decomposed bodies were found in their home where their clearly mentally ill mother was still living.

In the many intervening months (almost a year), no one had checked on these children.

Sure, I know that proponents of home schooling can show many examples of successful children who've received a superior education. If giving a supreior education were always the motivating force, I would be all for it. But I remember the twins, Lamb and Lynx Gaede, of the singing group Prussian Blue, being home schooled by their militant white-supremacist & antisemitic mother, cheerfully telling news crews what a "good man" Hitler was.

Even doing it for reasons of religious inculcation is wrong, IMO. Shielding a child from the wider world of ideas can only result in a narrow-minded adult, and we don't need more of those.

The quality of American public schools is another subject, and one that needs addressing. But part and parcel of that is the culture of "cool" that seems to prevail, where doing well academically isn't seen as a social asset. Watch Leno's "Jaywalking" episodes and be afraid - be very afraid.

I've got a problem with Tom's comment here. He says that he'll meet children who are smart, well-adjusted, mature and find out that they are homeschooled. However, this is based solely on anecdotal evidence. It says nothing about the quality of a homeschool education in general. It's not a statistically significant sample.

And he says that asking parents to acquire teaching certification is like "asking a marathon runner to run a 5K to prove they're legit." This analogy doesn't make any sense. The parent hasn't somehow already proven that he/she can teach. This is simply a regulatory step to ensure that all children are getting a proper education. If the state has a responsibility to provide education for all children and requires that all children receive an education, then the state can't make an exception for homeshooling. All public school teachers are required to have teaching certificates, why shouldn't parents?

I have a feeling that home-schooling parents who want to isolate their children from evil influences are simply delaying the inevitable and in many cases shooting themselves in the foot. Sure, they have a lot of control over what their children are exposed to for 16 or 17 years. But at some point they have to let go. And just when most young people are feeling most rebellious, curious, and hormone-driven you let them into this utterly new unexplored world. They run into "new" ideas that seem fresh and brilliant because never explored and different people who live in totally different ways. One of the good effects of being exposed to the broader society is the opportunity to discuss why some people think/believe one way and others differently. If you can't defend your beliefs and practices to the child you're raising, then perhaps you need to examine them yourself? At any rate, there should be at least a minimum level of education required of any one teaching, privately or publicly, and standardized tests at different levels. Yes, you should have to prove that you are not depriving your child of a real education just because you really enjoy his company.

I have a feeling that home-schooling parents who want to isolate their children from evil influences are simply delaying the inevitable and in many cases shooting themselves in the foot. Sure, they have a lot of control over what their children are exposed to for 16 or 17 years. But at some point they have to let go. And just when most young people are feeling most rebellious, curious, and hormone-driven you let them into this utterly new unexplored world. They run into "new" ideas that seem fresh and brilliant because never explored and different people who live in totally different ways. One of the good effects of being exposed to the broader society is the opportunity to discuss why some people think/believe one way and others differently. If you can't defend your beliefs and practices to the child you're raising, then perhaps you need to examine them yourself? At any rate, there should be at least a minimum level of education required of any one teaching, privately or publicly, and standardized tests at different levels. Yes, you should have to prove that you are not depriving your child of a real education just because you really enjoy his company.

Why don’t we require new parents to get nursing degrees to be certified to take care of infants? After all a nurse is more qualified to care for infants, who are inherently medically sensitive. Why don’t we require early education credits for parents to care for toddlers and preschoolers? After all, certified early education instructors are clearly more qualified to provide care for small children. Why don’t we require nutrition certification for parents, because after all, certified nutritionists are way more qualified to make diet choices for children. There’s no reason to assume that since parents clearly need certification once their children are 6 (in CA), that they shouldn’t have other pertinent certifications before then.

Clearly we need to reign in those parents churning out home educated young adults who are a drain on society, after all the public school’s track record is much better (1 in 3 CA high school seniors don’t graduate http://www.all4ed.org/).

In fact, let's create some parent certification tests, to make sure that people who become parents are really qualified. Certainly that would weed out those who would later make such an unreasonable choice to forgo their own interests and careers and keep their children at home to indoctrinate them, making the lazy and easy choice of home education instead of dropping them off to let the state take on their primary care and indoctrination for “free.”

And further, let's institute some laws to make it illegal for parents to impose their own religious, political, moral, environmental, industrial and fashion standards on their children. After all, we don’t want narrow minded children growing up into narrow-minded adults, regardless of how they are educated. In the meantime, we’ll need to agree on who gets to define what constitutes “narrow-minded.”

Frankly, fellow citizens, all sarcasm aside, I will fight zealously for your right to choose to be “narrow-minded” as you naively assume all homeschoolers are barely educated religious zealots, because your right to do so protects my rights to espouse the education philosophy of my choice.

I have mixed feelings about home schooling. I can certainly see its appeal in an age of unruly or under-funded schools, and an environment of cafeteria-type learning that goes against parental wishes and beliefs. The parents want to choose the curriculum, rather than trust the educators to do so. (That opens up a different, serious debate at the outset.) My experience was as a public school brat in the Bible Belt during the 60’s and 70’s. The first grammar school I attended was strong on discipline and order, but weak on individuality and creativity; a country school full of kids from young working-class families. We even had Christian religion injected on occasion during school hours. I was bored in first grade, as I was already taught at home by my college-educated grandmother since birth. There was never flexibility in the school structure or curriculum to allow me to progress at my faster speed. I did enjoy the harmony and peace at the school, but was frustrated by the academics. In sixth grade I transferred to a grammar school closer to an urban environment. I encountered people of different races for the first time, and I also encountered a more chaotic environment with some truly dangerous and pre-criminal individual students there. I also had one of the best teachers I had ever encountered. She was amazing in her ability to tailor lessons to individual abilities and to keep peace in the classroom. I excelled at my studies despite my emotional upheaval. The change in school environment for me was monumental in every way imaginable. I learned that the world was not all white and obedient of authority. I learned that I could actually survive in a challenging situation, but mostly I learned how to get along with a variety of people who saw the world quite differently than I did. If I had been home-schooled (which really wasn’t an option at the time), my parents’ limited education experience would have hampered me academically. I would not have met people different from me and I would have had a closed world-view, never having met adversity and learned what I was capable of understanding and handling when pressed to do so. I also lack the prejudices that still infest my parents and grandmother. I dislike the lack of discipline in public schools today, but the culture has changed and coarsened, affecting how kids learn. Still, I’ll take an unruly environment with some genuinely broad understanding and experience over a sterile, parentally-controlled one. A strictly religious coworker of mine has three boys who have always been home-schooled by their Christian mother and housewife. A couple of years ago when the first boy headed out to Liberty University (what a misnomer…) he lasted all of one quarter. He had not been allowed to date as a teenager and was under strict, watchful eyes constantly at home. At college, he had a small amount of freedom and fell in love with the first girl he met who paid attention to him. Since he obviously had normal urges we all experience his only way out of his dilemma was to offer to marry the girl almost immediately. His father was adamant this was not to be until college was finished. The kid became depressed, his grades fell and he left college. He now has returned home to his parents’ basement to live and to pursue some menial career doing photo albums for weddings. The second son saw the example of the first and announced up front that he had no intention of going to college at all. I guess the father got what he wanted all along: complete control of his children’s lives.

Pam wrote: "educational freedom is entirely in the hands of the parents. Parents can choose which school districts to live in, or to send their children to private or parochial schools. They also have a say in the quality of the local public education because they vote for school boards and bonds to pay teachers' salaries."

Not all of us are wealthy enough to afford housing in a neighborhood with good government-run schools or private school tuition.

Also, parents have little input into their local government-run schools when most decisions are made hundreds of miles away in the state capitol or thousands of miles away in D.C.

Homeschooling is the only way that middle-class families like mine can have educational freedom.

Crimson Wife says:
"Also, parents have little input into their local government-run schools when most decisions are made hundreds of miles away in the state capitol or thousands of miles away in D.C. "

This just isn't true. School boards are a function of county government. Get involved. Don't give a knee-jerk "no" vote to every school bond bill just because it will raise taxes.

Yes, if you want the best education for your kids, you have to be prepared to pay for it, whether public, private, or in the home - the necessary books and other materials to do the job really well don't come cheaply. This is something that all prospective parents should consider when planning their families. Children aren't dolls or teddy bears - they come with responsibilites.

Some counties have school systems that are in the top ten nationally year after year. I was lucky enough to grow up in such a county, so I know first hand that there is all kinds of housing there. It may be statistically above the national median in income, but there are plenty of low-income families there too; and their children go to the same schools as the "rich" kids.

There is nothing unconstitutional about home scholling. You may want every child in a public school so that he/she gets indoctrinated properly. But parents have a right to teach their children what they want, even nonsence. In many private church related schools in Georgia kids are taught that there never were dinosaurs. They teach them from the goddam Bible. But this is legal. I would not want to bar this by law: even though it would be better for kids to learn the truth, namely that Christianity is bunk. But to take parents away from their children is just wrong.

Musingmom writes:

"... we’ll need to agree on who gets to define what constitutes 'narrow-minded.'"

It only has one meaning, to wit: "Lacking tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy; petty."

It says nothing about the viewpoint of the narrow-minded person - that could be anything.

Musingmom also writes:
"... as you naively assume all homeschoolers are barely educated religious zealots..."

No one on this thread has said anything of the kind. Lower your fists. "All" is a word that covers a great deal of territory.

The cost for all the homeschooling materials (textbooks, math manipulatives, reference books, software, supplies, enrichment classes, etc.) is less than 10% of what it would cost for private school tuition in my area. To move to a neighborhood with good government-run schools would increase our housing costs by thousands per month. The most cost-effective way for our family to provide a high-quality education for our children is homeschooling, pure and simple.

The local school board really has very little control over what goes on in the schools. They have some power over the budget, but most of their money comes from the state so Sacramento places all kinds of strings on how it can be spent. Textbooks are adopted at the state level and teachers have to follow the state standards for each subject. Add to that all the Federal requirements from NCLB and so on. We've come a long way from the days of local autonomy over education :-(

I don't understand the comments that imply a public school education automatically equals a better-educated and more socially adjusted child. That isn't the case at all. How many homeschooled kids just drift through, aimlessly, until they are old enough to graduate or drop out? How many of them end up working at Walmart forever, or living their lives out on welfare? None. If public schools are so great and wonderful, you'd expect similar percentages of students who fail vs those who excel in either group. But you don't.

Why is that? I think the inherent nature of homeschooling sets kids up to succeed. Additionally, a parent who is motivated to teach their child knows that he/she can do things better and do better things than public schools can. And they generally do.

Do you really think your child's teacher actually cares about your child's lifetime success? Are they going to remember your child after school lets out for summer? Are they going to follow your child throughout his life, lending support? If yes, then your child is very lucky. Probably though, your child will get lost among the hundreds of students that teacher will have over her career. I know there are many, many dedicated and excellent teachers out there. They unfortunately have 30 kids at a time, and generally for no more than 9 months total. Parents have the right and responsibility to make sure their child doesn't get lost in the shuffle. It's not even about religion or shielding your child from the world's sinners. It's about giving your child every advantage you can.

I don't understand the comments that imply a public school education automatically equals a better-educated and more socially adjusted child. That isn't the case at all. How many homeschooled kids just drift through, aimlessly, until they are old enough to graduate or drop out? How many of them end up working at Walmart forever, or living their lives out on welfare? None. If public schools are so great and wonderful, you'd expect similar percentages of students who fail vs those who excel in either group. But you don't.

Why is that? I think the inherent nature of homeschooling sets kids up to succeed. Additionally, a parent who is motivated to teach their child knows that he/she can do things better and do better things than public schools can. And they generally do.

Do you really think your child's teacher actually cares about your child's lifetime success? Are they going to remember your child after school lets out for summer? Are they going to follow your child throughout his life, lending support? If yes, then your child is very lucky. Probably though, your child will get lost among the hundreds of students that teacher will have over her career. I know there are many, many dedicated and excellent teachers out there. They unfortunately have 30 kids at a time, and generally for no more than 9 months total. Parents have the right and responsibility to make sure their child doesn't get lost in the shuffle. It's not even about religion or shielding your child from the world's sinners. It's about giving your child every advantage you can.

The Homeschool Legal Defense Association has a good summary of studies of academic statistics of homeschooled students. See http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp.
On average, homeschool students consistently outperform public school students.

One study referenced in the above link examined the the significance of whether the parent performing the homeschooling is a certified teacher. The rest of this post is an extended quote from the above link:
***
The study found that the average scores of the homeschool students were at or above the 80th percentile in all categories. The homeschoolers' national percentile mean was 84th for reading, 80th for language, 81st for math, 84th for science and 83rd for social studies.

The research revealed that there was no positive correlation between state regulation of homeschools and the home-schooled students' performance. The study compared homeschoolers in three groups of states representing various levels of regulation. Group 1 represented the most restrictive states such as Michigan; Group 2 represented slightly less restrictive states including North Dakota; and Group 3 represented unregulated states such as Texas and California. The Institute concluded:

...no difference was found in the achievement scores of students between the three groups which represent various degrees of state regulation of home education.... It was found that students in all three regulation groups scored on the average at or above the 76th percentile in the three areas examined: total reading, total math, and total language. These findings in conjunction with others described in this section, do not support the idea that state regulation and compliance on the part of home education families assures successful student achievement.

Furthermore, this same study demonstrated that only 13.9 percent of the mothers (who are the primary teachers) had ever been certified teachers. The study found that there was no difference in the students' total reading, total math and total language scores based on the teacher certification status of their parents:

The findings of this study do not support the idea that parents need to be trained and certified teachers to assure successful academic achievement of their children.

Oh please, neochristians, keep you brainwashed spawn at home and out of public schools where they can spread the religious hatred and exclusion of others you have taught them.

Later, you can pay for their therapy when they can't cope with the real world.

It makes sense to require that home-schooling parents have some pedagogical competence, but they certainly don't need to meet conventional certification requirements, which tend to be developed by self-serving college and university education departments to amass student credit hours. I have taken courses for certification, and I suspect that the equivalent of six hours of college work, ed psych and teaching methods, would cover it. They could be made available by the home school association as well as by accredited colleges and universities, if that isn't already being done. That said, we should be aware that the home school groups have been commissioning studies to prove that home schooling is superior to public education. That's much like the tobacco companies claiming that smoking was good for one's "T-Zone." That data should be excluded from the argument, as should anecdotal "evidence" about screwed up home schooling parents and out-of-control public schools. It's a legitimate movement, but it should not be accepted on the basis of commissioned studies or random public school atrocity stories.

I work with both Alabama public school students, students at private segregationist "academies", and home schooled students (referred to as "Homers" by the public school students).

The home-schooled students are isolated by parents with a limited, very fundamentalist world view. Their perception of history, science and every other discipline is colored by an often-laughable ignorance. Did you know, for example, that the "Dark Ages" were called that "because that was a period when people turned away from God"?

Many of these kids are woefully unprepared for a diverse world. To complicate things, most of the dads are absolute patriarchs and the moms have to find power wherever they can find it, often in passive and manipulative ways.

Sure, home schooling and segregationist academies work for some people, but there are a whole lot of kids who are being totally screwed-up.

It should be noted that under our Constitutional rule of law our rights are unlimited unless and until abridged or prohibited by a law which has been enacted pursuant to a delegation of authority by the citizens.

The Court of Appeals' original decision would vitiate that principle, which is the keystone of our democratic republic.

You write "it essentially comes down to the right of individuals to direct their own fate, without regard to the ethics of civil society," but that analysis is not correct. What it comes down to is the right of individuals to direct THE FATE OF THEIR CHILDREN, which is a totally different issue.
Certainly, the government should defer to parents on many decisions regarding their children, but the state must set limits on the rights of parents over these separate individuals. If all parents were responsible, caring, and wise, this would not be necessary; but if all citizens were responsible, caring, and wise, no government at all would be necessary. When, for example, does discipline become abuse? A major goal of our free society is to allow each individual to achieve his or her potential. When the actions of irresponsible parents threaten to preclude that possibility for their children, the state has a responsibility to intervene and set some standards for the responsibilities of parents.
Whether California has struck the right balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children is a separate and complex question, but the basic issue that the government has some responsibility to ascertain that parents are acting responsibly is, I believe, inarguable.

Home schooling is not only done for religious reasons. When I was homeschooled we were able to learn faster due to being able to learn at our own pace.

There are many great books on homeschooling including "The Well Trained Mind" by Jessie Wise and her daughter Susan Wise Bauer.

From what I've seen personally of home schooled children, it is a type of child abuse.

These children are poorly socialized, woefully undereducated, brainwashed -- and when they are finally thrust into society as adults, their permanent psychological damage will prevent them from acting as fully actualized well-adjusted adults.

Case in point: even those with the awareness to escape from the Jeffries cult appear damaged.

Not all homeschooling families are religious. I am an atheist who homeschooled - actually, unschooled, our children. They had academic freedom from birth, studied and experimented and explored according to their own drive for knowledge (which schools actually strip out of kids before the end of kindergarten). Like many other home educated people, they were active in the community, mixed with people of all ages, did a lot of very practical work and learning in addition to their more intellectual pursuits, and didn't have a lot their time wasted on the extraneous junk that fills out so much of a school student's day. They were able to go as deep into a subject as was useful to them, rather than closing the book because it's Tuesday at 10:10am and time for the next subject. They're adults, capable, social, professionals, now. Oh - and we had so much fun!

We spent a fair amount of time with religiously motivated homeschoolers, for field trips now and again, swim lessons, and a math club for a few years. Although I don't in any way share the beliefs that they had, I would defend their right to raise their children in their own conscientiously held belief systems.

In South Carolina, you may home school if the parent doing the home schooling has a High School diploma, or it's equivalent. Yes, a person with a GED is deemed capable of educating children.

I tend to agree with California that parents who home school be required to be as credentialed as those hired in their school system.

I have two degrees and boatloads of Air Force training and yet I deem myself unqualified to educate my children (by myself.

While our local school system may have faults and lack in some ways, I am qualified to supplement my childrens education. Both are honor roll students and continue to progress nicely.

My experience with children who are home schooled is that they are socially inept, lack many of the basic skills such as reading, spelling, handwriting, and basic math tables. Honestly, I think many home schooling parents do it becasue they like to sleep in and not have to worry about getting up and ghetting their kids to school.

My initial reaction is always that home schooling should be illegal because if I hadn't attended public schools, I probably would not have been able to escape the repressive ultra-religious environment I was raised in. However, in thinking about it, I realize that the issue is unlimited parental rights - even when those parents are repressive, mind controling, ultra-religious parents. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it occurs to me that we have a training process for obtaining a drivers license, but no training for parents. Maybe we could incorporate parental training into classrooms (but if this is only at public schools, it doesn't help break the cycle of repression if the home schooled children are taught that perpetuating mind control is a duty of a good parent). We have such a wonderful country with such a diversity of viewpoints that it is a shame to have so many children locked away, exposed to only one (usually narrow) perspective. But how to fix it goes beyond home schooling and we need to avoid outlawing the cases where home school parents provide a superior education and expose their children to the wonderful world outside.

Trippin, what you are talking about is not homeschooling, it's negligence, which is more common in the schools than it is among homeschoolers.

I am a stay-at-home dad who homeschools three elementary-age boys. Since taking them out of the public schools their social skills have increased significantly, as they are now no longer learning social skills from a mob of nine-year olds but from grandparents, neighbors, music teachers, barbers, etc. That is, from real people in the real world. I would hardly call an elementary school or a high school a good place to be socialized. Many find it toxic, in fact, spending the bulk of their adult life in therapy trying to deal with what happened to them in school.

As for education, I don't see how my children benefit from sitting in a classroom and moving at the pace of the pack. One of my boys, age six, reads at about a 6th grade level. To keep him challenged I have to be attentive to what he needs on a daily basis, not what his brothers (let alone twenty-five classmates) need. Another son, age nine, isn't much of a reader but is a particularly good guitar player. We integrate his lesson and practice into our curriculum and he practices two hours daily. After that I focus on his weaknesses and we drill solidly in Latin for an hour daily to develop analytic precision in his thinking. The core for all three boys is massive amounts of reading and mathematics, five days a week, fifty weeks a year (my kids spend a solid six hours daily, no exceptions, thinking and working intellectually).

Now I say all this because in my experience this is more common among homeschool families than what you have witnessed. Despite all the work I require of them my children are happier, more open, more emotionally secure, and better behaved than they were in public school. Schools exist for the sake of parents, not children, and there are few rights I cherish more than the right to protect my children from their pointless, destructive influence.

This discussion is filled with misinformation.

I am a homeschooling mother. We are not actively Christian, although we are intermittently church goers. We homeschool to enrich and expand our children's worlds. I am part of a very large, very active homeschooling community, and while we are religiously diverse, not one of the homeschooling families I know resembles the horrible abuses I've read described in this discussion.

My children have regular socialization in NORMAL environments. They play with children of all ages, all religions, all races, all philosophies. They learn in the real world, about real issues that they will have to deal with. My children interact with adults and children alike, not just the children in their assigned classroom, which creates an artificial environment of age mates. There is tremendous learning that happens when older children foster younger children, both for the older and the younger child, and this does not occur in the current public school environment.

If more people opened their minds to homeschooling, the world would be a better place. Not all homeschoolers are uber religious families with narrow agendas. Many of us are everyday people who just want what is best for our children, and find that the public school system falls very far short of that.

I am present to supervise (frequently from afar) while my children work out their issues with other children. Children can be cruel when left to their own devices, and a loving parent can guide a situation towards a happier ending better than children on a playground who torment each other.

I do not shelter, hide or abuse my children. Their lives are rich, active and fulfilling. They have the dedicated attention of their mother, and that is something no school can ever give. The memories we have together are priceless, and there is no way I would consider sending them off to be raised by public school babysitters, knowing that their education would be cookie cutter at best, and neglected at worst.

Public school children are abused every day, and frequently their symptoms are right in front of the administrators noses, but are not seen. Public school children commit terrible crimes and the signs are present but ignored. Public school children treat each other terribly and very few bullies are ever redirected towards kindness.

Nothing is foolproof. Nothing. You just do the best you can, and hope it turns out okay.

Public education is the foundation of this great nation.

Efforts, like homeschooling, are an attempt to undermine that foundation. As the homeschooling craze has risen, America has begun to fall.

Homeschooling is used by abusive parents to hide battery and incest.

Homeschooling is used by terrorists to train their children to hate America and kill Americans.

Homeschooling, if allowed at all, should be very carefully monitored by the government. It's proponents need to be on a carefully monitored watch list.

I have mixed feelings on the idea of home schooling, and part of that mix does involve concern for the ability of some parents to teach.

My mom has a high school diploma and only passed Algebra 1 because her teacher felt sorry for her the third time she took it and passed her with a D. There is no way she could have taught us mathematics - basic arithmetic yes; mathematics, no. She used to work as a substitute teacher in our public school system and when she was given a semester-long assignment for a science teacher who was on extended medical leave, I had to explain the material to her. There's no way she could have taught us science.
My dad has a GED and the electronics training that he received in the Marine Corps. He is a natural mathematical genius, but can't explain how he solves problems. He can do it, but he can't teach it.
Both of my parents are highly intelligent individuals who love their children dearly. I was reading independently by the age of three because my mom read to us all the time, and when I told her I wanted to read, she taught me how. My dad taught me how to play cribbage, how to read my utility meters, and how to change the oil in my car. While both of them are capable of teaching some things, neither of them would have been able to provide us with a well-rounded education by home-schooling.
So what happens when you have parents who want to home-school, both of whom have a high school diploma or the equivalent, but who don't have an understanding of they would need to teach?

I teach high school in California. I have no problem with home schooling. But I object to those who hurl attacks at the public schools with little or know knowledge of why the public schools don't always turn out wonderfully successful (or even literate) students. I suggest it's because most of the families from which those unsuccessful students come are ones that could not sustain a successful home-schooling effort; in fact, they do not provide an environment at all conducive to successful public (or parochial) school education either. Public schools must take on all comers, something that private and charter schools don't have to do. The dilemma of the public schools is that they must serve all--including the any whose families don't support them with a decent home environment and the many who simply don't want to be in school and look on it as an imposition from the state. One think pupils in the public schools get, that isn't available at charter, private or home schools, is exposure to the length and breadth of the community--a vital education in itself.

My brother is a teacher in a Christian school. When he sends me a letter or an email, his lack of writing skills leaves me stunned that his state permits him to teach. His wife's skills are not much better. They are both Christian fanatics, as the media would report.

They have a son with many discipline issues. They took him out of school to "home school" him.

Classes consisted of his mother reading trashy novels and the son listening to the latest rap music.

The son is now in a Christian "reform school", for lack of a better term, because he has never learned that, regardless of our country's freedoms, there are social expectations by which he must abide.

As a former teacher, I favor public education, though I don't think our country has ever committed the necessary financial resources to make public education a success. I understand why some parents think they can do more for their children at home.

Home schooling should be monitored by the state and the teacher-parent should be licensed before the child is released from public school.

Americans have always enjoyed the rights of individuality perhaps more than any other people in history. Americans hold those rights of individual choice paramount and at the peril of forsaking other values which are held by other people in so-called civil societies. If it is important that we protect educational choice even at the risk of becoming a more divided and ill-educated nation, then let it be.

Perhaps we should ignore the sage advice of Thomas Jefferson who believed with good reasoning that a public education system was fundamental to building and protecting a republic. Let us have our choice! Let us continue to watch our public schools decline. Let us have our home schooling! Let us be stupider still!

Trippin said:

"From what I've seen personally of home schooled children, it is a type of child abuse....

Case in point: even those with the awareness to escape from the Jeffries cult appear damaged."

As homeschoolers, we don't base our world view by just what we see on television. Perhaps you can cite some better examples other than one sensationalized story. Perhaps not. But as someone who pays taxes (and pays for what I see as still substandard education despite exponentially higher resources) and also as someone who homeschools, I think "Trippin" needs to consider that if you are going to cite a few instances of highly publicized abuse at the hands of homeschooling parents (which no one I know- home or public schooling- would ever condone) please balance your argument by citing famous and/or local cases of teacher or staff abuse. Or do we even have enough space in the comment box for that?
Every day, I hear reports of teachers molesting their younger charges, teachers humiliating students.... AND please do not forget abuses suffered at the hands of other students. I am going to just guess that in a group of diverse adults, you would probably hear some pretty hairy stories about peoples' "golden school days"- k-12 provided pretty bad memoires for many,many people...
In Virginia, we had to have a no-bullying law instituted a couple years ago because teachers in my own county failed to see children being thrown in front of buses the resultant attempted suicides from that behavior. Or what about teen pregnancy pacts? (I have not yet heard of that type of thing in my teens'group of friends) I am pretty sure we could leave it at that, but if I were to use the same tactics with which you have tried to support your argument against homeschooling, I would not want to leave out the many many instances of public school shooting. Or bomb threats. Once again, I can cite several bomb threat events in and around Charlottesville, VA in the past year- I do not have to reference the more well-known and also well-publicized events, because there are plenty of nearby real-life examples I know of that touched families we know- it was not just a news story.
Do I think public schooling should be illegal because of these events? If I were to use your argument of illegalizing something because it was a rare and extreme event that led to it being on t.v., maybe.
Instead, I believe in the parents' right to choose the best educational fit for their child (or if they want to have chidren at all) and just as I recognize that these events are all exceptions rather than the rule and that most teachers and school staff (as well as students) mean no harm, I think you should consider that homeschoolers are just the same: some of us want our children to be able to focus more on art or music then schools allow, some want to avoid the kids being on a bus several hours a day, some of us are in the military (or the peace movement, for that matter) and may travel frequently and the schedule of homeschooling works better than other alternatives for our learning and our lives.
And if you are still using the argument that homeschoolers are a bunch of right-wing nuts, please education yourself: that demographic has changed. A long time ago. And there are plenty of PUBLIC school districts (Augusta County, VA for one) that still are entangled in furthering religious agendas, by busing kids to bible study during the school day. What do you say to homeschooling parents that have removed their children from that school district so that they are no longer subjected to that particular religious training?
I just don't think you have become thoroughly educated about this subject enough to make a valid point about the legality of homeschooling. However, I do look forward to your comments once you can balance your argument with these points above taken into consideration.

We are making another generation of people without the skills to function in the world. I do hope that faith will sustain them.

Homeschooling, in one form or another, is legal in most countries in the world. The right to homeschool is considered an important human right internationally. The percentage of children being home educated varies from country to country, as well as the community support for homeschooling.

Currently, the USA has robust, well-developed networks of private families and professionals supporting homeschooling. There is a wealth of resources, such as coops, websites, conferences, camps, local and state support groups, clubs and classes for children, curricula, software, mailing lists with thousands of subscribers devoted to particular subjects or education methods, and so on. These multiple circles of people not only educate their children, but also design, pioneer and develop new models and methods of learning and teaching. It is an unprecedented grassroots movement producing a wealth of know-how about pedagogy, parenting, psychology, and education, curricular resources, and human networks. Trying to squash this movement would be, first and foremost, an act of cultural vandalism, akin to purposefully burning the Library of Alexandria, or, to use a more modern example, hacking and destroying Wikipedia pages.

I assume you would also agree that employers could choose to eliminate from consideration for employment home schooled folks in fields that require an understanding and belief in biological evolution to perform their duties such as pharmaceuticals, agronomy, medicine, forestry, fisheries and so forth without any fear of being accused of discrimination barring presentation of substantiated evidence that the job applicant is not a flat earther.

We are making another generation of people without the skills to function in the world. I do hope that faith will sustain them.

We are making another generation of people without the skills to function in the world. I do hope that faith will sustain them.

What is this "You are posting too frequently" when I do not have anything posted? This is the worst and slowest system I know of.

We are making another generation of people without the skills to function in the world. I do hope that faith will sustain them.

What is this "You are posting too frequently" when I do not have anything posted? This is the worst and slowest system I know of.

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

Too many comments have been submitted from you in a short period of time. Please try again in a short while.

I rest my case.

Oy! So many.

California's 'Compulsory Education Laws' require children between six and eighteen years of age to attend school.

California's statutes are silent regarding homeschooling and allow only for two nonpublic-school educational options:
1) children enrolled full time in a private school (not 'home-school') and
2) the private tutoring exemption for children who are instructed at least three hours each day and 175 days per year by a teacher holding a valid California teaching credential.

Fines and possible imprisonment are imposed upon parents for truancy violations.

The court decision, that is the topic of discussion, does not address any constitutional rights of children. The court's decision stated that 'parent's have no constitutional right to homeschool their children.
However, taking any 'constitutional' approach, regarding children's rights, in this matter, is unlikely to succeed.

The best approach (opinion) is to investigate to see if the Compulsory Education Laws may be in violation of the California State Constitution.

The California State Constitution has already been amended to exclude mandatory education from being considered 'involuntary servitude' (slavery).
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
The Legislature and people of the State of California find and declare that this amendment is necessary to serve compelling public interests.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 9 EDUCATION
states:
SEC. 2. A Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be elected by the qualified electors of the State at each gubernatorial election.

It seems that the Superintendent of Public Instruction could establish homeschooling as an educational option. This could be a campaign issue.

If there is a problem with the present law, it is that it fails to provide options of (for) "Compulsory" education. It is argued that the State has a compelling interest that trumps parent's rights in education choices regarding raising children.

The primary and potential 'constitutional issue' is in the State dealing with children as though the children are the property of the state.
What the State is 'saying' is, 'Yes, they are your children, but the State is going to exercise a great measure of control over what goes into your child's mind'.

California has a stellar, and well deserved, reputation for being 'progressive'. However, California's Compulsory Education Laws appear to be in need of some enlightened alteration.

One would think that the State should be required to offer parents a viable alternative to the present 'TV quiz show' (memorization / brainwashing) approach to primary education. However, finding a successful 'constitutional challenge' to the present laws is going to be difficult. The 'involuntary servitude' loophole has already been closed by constitutional amendment. 'Freedom of Religion' does not require a child from being excluded from the presentation of alternative theories.

One 'immediate' solution is to have California's Education System have a cable broadcast network (3+ hours daily) that can be a required 'homeschooling supplement'.

Some type of State supervision would be required:
- semi-annual testing
- telephone and/or internet conferences, etc.
The 'how to' can be worked out.

A bonus would be that the proposed 'California Educational Broadcast Network' would greatly alleviate California's motor vehicle congestion (taking kid's to and from school).

Final comment:
With the advent of the internet, computers and major advancements in multi-media, it would seem that some educational firm (business) could produce a series of DVD's that include the course work for primary, secondary and high school educational requirements; to produce a product that meets standards provided by State Boards of Education.

The present education system is also a massive waste of time, energy and resources spent (just) commuting.

Alternatives should be investigated. The State should not 'own' our children, nor should the Teacher's Union(s).

Many parents, undoubtedly, utilize the State's educational system as a 'babysitter'. However, more progressive parents should have viable options.
The present system handles 'the slackers' but ignores the highly intelligent and motivated.
California's "One size fits all" (presently) educational approach appears to be 'highly dysfunctional' for 'top end' students.

'Involuntary servitude' and 'California', typically, are not words that are, usually, used in the same sentence. Let's get busy, California!

Brian Richards wrote: "Public education is the foundation of this great nation."

Better go back and study your history. Government-run schooling didn't become widespread until the mid-19th century. Many of the Founding Fathers were educated at home, including: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, 17 of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and so on. The foundation of our great nation is *LIBERTY*, the right of individuals to go about their lives with a minimum of government interference.

Also, what evidence do you have to support your claim that homeschooled children in the U.S. are at significantly higher risk than other children of suffering abuse or becoming terrorists?

I am a pretty mainstream parent who chose to move my son from a charter school because he had special needs that the school was inadequately addressing. I tried for years to work with the school with varying success. However, his middle school teachers were not open to any changes, and I didn't have the heart to watch my child shunned on a continuous basis. My son has already tested better than 92% of the nation's high school graduates on the ACT exam (at age 12). I know that home school will provide many more opportunities for quality social experiences. I would have loved to have kept my son in school if I felt that his needs were being addressed. Now he can have the flexibility to delve deeply into subjects that interest him and have an educational plan that is a true IEP (Individual Education Plan).

I homeschooled my older daughter for preschool before starting her in kindergarten at the local public school, and I plan to do so with my younger one. I know that comparing homeschooling for preschool to homeschooling for grade/middle/high school is comparing apples to oranges, but to me, it still counts! I chose to homeschool my older daughter during her preschool years for two reasons. One was due to economic reasons, as we are a blue-collar, single-income family (I had quit my job to stay home and raise our children) and the cost of a private preschool was way out of our league and there is limited pre-K education in our county. Head Start was also out due to distance factors and the fact that I didn't want my child being exposed to other kids whose parents' idea of raising them was basically either plopping them in front of "junk TV" or letting them run wild with no discipline whatsoever. There are church-run preschools in our area, but we rejected that option partly because of price and partly because we're Wiccans. Since we are quite happy with the religion we have, our refusal to be "saved" would make our daughter either the target of religious harassment or about as welcome there as itching powder at the beach!

She thrived under our education...by the time she was four, she knew her shapes, colors, letters of the alphabet, numbers up to 50, and was even writing some letters. I even started to wonder if I was teaching her TOO well, as I began to worry about her being bored in kindergarten! She was exposed to classical music through "Kinder Konzerts" at the local community college and featuring the Maryland Symphony Orchestra, among other groups, and the reading program at the town library along with reading at home made her a book lover from the beginning. Television was limited to strictly educational programming and still is (at least at home; she still gets exposed to "junk TV" at friends' houses). "Field trips" were to places like the national parks in the area, the zoo, craft demonstrations, or even something like a trip to the grocery store (that's a good place to teach economics, nutrition, or identifying members of the food groups, to name a few ideas).

When she entered kindergarten, the results were apparent. She had a solid grasp on the skills required, she had manners better than a lot of the kids there, and she usually had the week's homework done by Tuesday or Wednesday, even though it wasn't due until Friday. When school let out for the summer, she got a "homework packet" with a daily assignment in it to help keep her skills up, and she is constantly asking to do the next day's assignment immediately after she completes the one for the assigned day. This is keeping me hopping supplementing her "seat work" so she doesn't run out too quickly, and it's fun seeing how we can make a school lesson out of mundane things like errands to the grocery store or even working in the vegetable garden. And of course, it's the one place where we can celebrate our religious holidays or simply live our faith without repercussions from the "we're gonna-convert-you-to-our-religion-no-matter-what" type of Christian who wouldn't dream of someone daring to follow a different faith than theirs. But that is merely a secondary consideration; our children's education being as well-rounded and started as early as possible is tantamount.

Whenever I meet a home schooler, or a home schooled person, I am led to wonder just what it was that the parents wanted to keep their children from learning that caused them to keep their children jome. It cannot be that they did it to insure that the kids learned something not available in their school, as the common sense to that is to let the school system you choose deal with arithmetic, reading, spelling, and the rest of the common school curriculum, and provide what is missing your self. Better to find a school system you can work with and spare your efforts for the part that you can't get in the school system, than do the whole jjob yourself, (unless you are in fact the best teacher around, for, if you are that good, why aren't YOU teaching in that school system.) While there are many home schooled children who do show up as advanced students when they get into college, there are at least as many who really learned little or nothing. Those kids don't make the news because another uneducated and nearly unemployable young adult isn't particularly news worthy.

The question in each home schooled students results isn't what did they learn, but what did they miss?

Home schooling, Christian home schooling especially, so often involves rejection of modern science in part or in whole, that I wonder if there is a corresponding right to reject home schooled job applicants for many jobs today that require an understanding and belief in modern science including biological evolution. I would think so, barring documented evidence that the applicant is not a creationist, flat earther or some such thing.

Unfortunately, your essay doesn't make the best argument for homeschooling, if you are a product of it yourself.

"spirt" (spirit--spelling)
"With that in spirt (sp) in mind..." (typo?)
"hornets nest" (hornets' nest--possessive)
"other parties including" (other parties, including...)
"nineteen member" (nineteen members--typo?)

I just wanted to add my two cents as a young adult (I'm 26) who was homeschooled for seven years (grades 4 - 10, inclusive). Prior to being homeschooled, I attended both an expensive private elementary school (non-religious, just to be clear) in Saint Louis, MO and a public elementary school in Norman, OK. My parents made the decision to homeschool me based on intellectual regression they saw in me after transferring from public to private school. While I do not want to blame public schools, as I know many excellent public schools and many excellent public school teachers, the fact of the matter is that public schools are almost by definition designed to teach to the lowest common denominator, and gifted programs often are among the first to be shortchanged by budget cuts (maybe on the theory that gifted kids, being gifted, don't actually need to be challenged in school like everyone else).

My parents made the decision to homeschool me for academic purposes alone, and while the ride was bumpy at times, I certainly think in the end it turned out in my favor. I have attended, at various points in my life, public and private elementary and secondary schools, vocational-technical school, public and private universities for both undergraduate and graduate school. Each and every school I have attended has had its pluses and minuses. Certainly, while many families homeschool for religious reasons, I take offense to people who broadly stereotype homeschoolers as "religious freaks" - perhaps that is your impression of the ones you have met, but there are plenty of others out there who homeschool for a variety of other reasons.

While I am as concerned as the next person by the idea of barely educated parents taking charge of their children's education (I was fortunate in that regard to have parents that both had achieved a graduate education), I think that trying to force parents into following the same techniques and teaching the same things as taught in public school defeats what in my mind is the great advantage of homeschooling - individual attention, personalized instruction, and a focus on the unique needs of each student. To my mind, a much more loosely constructed criteria for evaluating parents would be best, as the best methods for teaching a single (or at most, very small group) of students (children) are not necessarily congruent with the criteria evaluated by a teaching certification. I think that if a parent has attained a basic level of education, and can foster a positive learning environment for their children, then they should feel whatever teaching methods they find appropriate, even if they are teaching things (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) that I disagree with.

If the parents are so determined to impose their worldview on their children, then it seems to me that it will not matter whether they go to public, private, parochial, or any other kind of school. As much as I might wish it were so, we can't legislate parents to encourage their children have a strong, well-balanced education, so we should maintain the flexibility to let parents tailor their children's education the way they see fit, within some narrow boundaries (such as providing for increased oversight of children schooled by parents with less than a college education) that don't take away the primary advantage homeschooling provides - individualized instruction.

I would like to apologize for the not-so-tight structure of my post below, but the primary point I wanted to make is that framing the homeschooling debate in religious terms is unproductive. While many homeschoolers might do it for religious reasons, the broader issue of regulating homeschooling is not inherently an issue of religion, or of religious freedom.

To Bill Rogers:

I completely agree that students who fail to succeed in a public school environment do not have parents who can or will support their educational efforts. I also agree that the public schools must take all comers. We can agree that the problem is with the inherent nature of the system. There is no way possible that you, as a human being, can be attuned to the needs, goals, and progress of each of your students each minute of the day. Furthermore, when the school year ends and another begins, you have 30 more students enter your classroom. You can not waste your time and efforts caring about last year's students; you must get to know each of your new students as best you can. Rinse and repeat, each and every year throughout your career. I have had many teachers who impacted my life in various ways, but I would guess that none or few of them remember me, let alone anything about me. And probably all of them will sleep just fine tonight without wondering what ever became of me. It's not that they are bad people or bad educators. It's the system. Many parents don't see this as the best way to ensure their children's success. For those who can, homeschooling is a way to avoid those problems altogether.

I do disagree with the following: "One think pupils in the public schools get, that isn't available at charter, private or home schools, is exposure to the length and breadth of the community--a vital education in itself."

Public schools aren't a microcosm of the community. They are their own little world, at best a shadow of the actual, bigger world. Homeschooled kids, on the other hand, are able to experience a deeper sample of the actual world because they aren't stuck in a classroom for what amounts to hours of wasted time (again, not an evil construct of the public school system but an inherent and necessary flaw.) Homeschooled kids are fortunate to have flexibility in their schedules, while still being able to experience the exact same benefits of education that their public schooled peers receive.

Again, not knocking public schools, just saying that if a parent is able and willing to homeschool, the child automatically gets a leg up on his/her competition. What kind of parent doesn't want to give their child the best?

As a high school coach, I have seen first hand what keeping kids out of public participation can do.
Good kids, good athletes unable to play on their community school teams
Well meaning parents socializing them with the few other kids whose parents exclude their kids from the honor sand fun.
Only armed with half-assed knowledge and abilities, these parents socialize their kids as if it were merely some kind of recess with little games, even at an older age.
Like Peter Pan, they don't want their kids to grow up and face the real challenges of a tough world.
I felt so sorry for the kid who could have done great things for his local school as an athlete in order for him to be saved I guess.
Well, he deserves being saved.
he's already experienced the isolation of hell.

Doug,

I have to say, I take offense at that comment, even though I would certainly fall into the minority (you imply) of homeschoolers who don't believe in those things (falling in the moderate-to-liberal range on the political spectrum). I knew many people who were homeschooled for religious reasons, and while we disagree on many social issues (abortion, school prayer, etc.), I would never charge them with that last particular attack. In my mind, saying that people of deep religious faith are inherently bigoted is in and of itself a bigoted attack that does no one any good.

There are a myriad of books out there and issues on the ground every day that document all of the problems with public education. I won't list them here, but suffice it to say if parents passively expect public education to do a good job and keep their kids safe - well good luck.

Just as public school can't be condemned for all just because there are lots of quality and safety issues, neither can homeschooling. Many homeschoolers are getting a fantastic education and will be the leaders of this society.
Also note that the parents most likely to homeschool are former school teachers.
There are too many famous homeschoolers to list that have made major contributions to society. Simply google [famous homeschoolers] and you'll understand that homeschooling has made and continues to make a huge positive contribution to society.

Homeschooling serves kids well if it's done well and for the right reasons - gifted children, special needs children, etc. are generally better served.

The biggest downside to Homeschooling in my opinion is the lack of opportunities provided by the public institutions to include homeschoolers in collaborative activities like sports and band.
HS families have to spend hundreds of dollars per year on these activities even though we already pay lots of taxes to send Johnny and Jane to band and football.

By the way, if public schools would get smart and include homeschoolers in SAT and AP statistics I think they'd find that their averages would bump up.

I was homeschooled.

It can be good, or it can be bad.

Mine was mostly good, but I missed out on a lot of basic information, mostly in the sciences, economics, political theory, literature, etc.

It was left out on purpose.

In retrospect I feel that was a huge mistake. I got a very limited education, and to this day I feel like I'm missing what I could have had.

On the flip side, I now live in DC, and the schools here are absolutely horrible. I can see why a parent would refuse to send their kids there. My homeschooling was FAR better than what I would have gotten in DC.

I would support some government oversight of homeschooling efforts, if only to make sure a full curriculum is taught.

And I would encourage all homeschool kids to use the internet and other resources to get a more robust education.

I am sending my child to public school this fall.
So, She goes from having Mommy's full attention to sharing one teacher with 24 other kids. I fail to see how that is going to be better for her than just teaching her myself. My desire to teach her at home has nothing to do with religion.

I am a product of the public school system, and I remember the bullies, the apathetic, underpaid teachers, the crowded classrooms and the annoying, unrelated "tests" that would cut into learning time, for days at a time. This was before the age of computers, cellphones, school shootings and No Child Left Behind, ironically spearheaded by our country's dumbest president.

Sorry, just because a group of people has organized something under one roof and put a state stamp of approval on it doesn't mean it is of a better quality than what parents themselves can provide. As long as parents can show an organized effort to teach a basic approved curriculum (math, reading.. etc.) then I don't see a problem with it.

The jury is still out on whether I'm sending my child to public school this fall. We will see how she copes. I have a choice, since I have a college degree, and experience teaching children. However, I find it ironic that my high school diploma would be deemed inadequate proof that I had the education to teach my own children. I think that speaks volumes about the quality of public education in general.

fix the schools.

teach religion at home.

Robert,

I guess you are implying that it is more important to teach a child to "do great things for his school" than to teach him the Bible.

The attitude that public school sports are so important is part of the reason we will home- school our children. Perhaps if we ended athletics and had teachers focused on academic excellence rather than coaches who want to make sure their athletes pass, we would have a better system.

And keeping my children from the type of socializing that goes on at public school is the other benefit. I would rather there be no socializing than that type of socializing.

Robert,

I guess you are implying that it is more important to teach a child to "do great things for his school" than to teach him the Bible.

The attitude that public school sports are so important is part of the reason we will home- school our children. Perhaps if we ended athletics and had teachers focused on academic excellence rather than coaches who want to make sure their athletes pass, we would have a better system.

And keeping my children from the type of socializing that goes on at public school is the other benefit. I would rather there be no socializing than that type of socializing.

I think that states are absolutely within their rights to require that homeschooled children pass standardized tests each year, in all subjects including science and history (appropriate for age of course). While I think it is a parent's prerogative to home school if they believe in that (I do not, I think that being part of a larger class of dissimilar children teaches something essential), but those children have to meet standards just like anyone else.

Also while I understand how parents would want to pull their child out of substandard schools, my heart aches for the other children whose parents can't make the time commitment for home schooling and can't move to a better district; if the energy home schooling parents make for their children could be poured into the schools, maybe they wouldn't be so substandard. I think we all have to pull together to educate all our children if we can.

CEFLYUNLINE.@MSN.com said:
"Whenever I meet a home schooler, or a home schooled person, I am led to wonder just what it was that the parents wanted to keep their children from learning that caused them to keep their children jome."

Have you ever just tried asking all these homeschoolers you meet what it is they feel they did not learn?

I think one big difference is that many homeschoolers would be able to eloquently point out to you exactly what it is they felt they did not learn, and tell you how they may actively be pursuing that info post-homeschool, or why they decided it was not important to them. If you asked me what I missed by NOT growing up as a homeschooler, I can't even fathom all I missed out on- all that I can guess is that I spent many year listening to what someone else thought was important (decided by corporations and government with way more insidious agendas than some care to acknowledge) and lost much time being able to focus on my own interests and develop them. There were pockets of light in school, sure, but I liken it to sitting in a theater all day to see one good preview.

I want to point out that our choice (and many of my homeschooling friends' choices) to homeschool was based NOT on excluding information, but of concern of what would be excluded.

a few of our family's (non-exhausitve) examples:

History- Discussions of slavery, Native Americans and other important subjects not mentioned when I was in school-textbooks not used in public schools: 1491, A People's History of the United States.
Art- My daughter could not go a few hours without doing art- why would I send her to a place where because of "budget cuts" it was reduced to once a week, or not at all?
Music- Same as art- not much music happening until maybe high school around here
Access to the outdoors/exercise- In our area, recess is omitted after 3rd grade. This is the closest thing to "socialization" that even happens in school (a big buzzword for opponents of home education), and its endangered in almost every state. Walking to school seems to be discouraged in many places these days, sadly enough. Otherwise, I would say that applies, at least indirectly.
Healthy Food- Dominoes delivers to many Virginia schools, but we would prefer our children have healthy organic and local food whenever possible, and save the pizza for a bona fide treat- the exception versus the rule.
Healthy Environments- Even in more progressive areas, people are concerned that pesticides and other dangerous checmicals are used to "clean" their childrens' schools and are working for their removal from the school
Real Information- In school, I did not learn how to conserve energy, start a business, grow food, preserve its seeds or process it through cooking or canning, etc. or how to care for animals (responsibility). Studies were done a few years ago that concluded the kids in rural areas actually performed better in science studies than their more urban counterparts- access to plants and animals played heavily into those results.
I do hope some schools are teaching these skills but just saying it in front of the class is different than kids LEARNING it:
I borrow from a homeschooling mom's blog here:

"teaching by just telling kids things all day and calling it learning is like throwing marshmallows at them all day and calling it eating."

CEFLYUNLINE.@MSN.com said:
"Whenever I meet a home schooler, or a home schooled person, I am led to wonder just what it was that the parents wanted to keep their children from learning that caused them to keep their children jome."

Have you ever just tried asking all these homeschoolers you meet what it is they feel they did not learn?

I think one big difference is that many homeschoolers would be able to eloquently point out to you exactly what it is they felt they did not learn, and tell you how they may actively be pursuing that info post-homeschool, or why they decided it was not important to them. If you asked me what I missed by NOT growing up as a homeschooler, I can't even fathom all I missed out on- all that I can guess is that I spent many year listening to what someone else thought was important (decided by corporations and government with way more insidious agendas than some care to acknowledge) and lost much time being able to focus on my own interests and develop them. There were pockets of light in school, sure, but I liken it to sitting in a theater all day to see one good preview.

I want to point out that our choice (and many of my homeschooling friends' choices) to homeschool was based NOT on excluding information, but of concern of what would be excluded.

a few of our family's (non-exhausitve) examples:

History- Discussions of slavery, Native Americans and other important subjects not mentioned when I was in school-textbooks not used in public schools: 1491, A People's History of the United States.
Art- My daughter could not go a few hours without doing art- why would I send her to a place where because of "budget cuts" it was reduced to once a week, or not at all?
Music- Same as art- not much music happening until maybe high school around here
Access to the outdoors/exercise- In our area, recess is omitted after 3rd grade. This is the closest thing to "socialization" that even happens in school (a big buzzword for opponents of home education), and its endangered in almost every state. Walking to school seems to be discouraged in many places these days, sadly enough. Otherwise, I would say that applies, at least indirectly.
Healthy Food- Dominoes delivers to many Virginia schools, but we would prefer our children have healthy organic and local food whenever possible, and save the pizza for a bona fide treat- the exception versus the rule.
Healthy Environments- Even in more progressive areas, people are concerned that pesticides and other dangerous checmicals are used to "clean" their childrens' schools and are working for their removal from the school
Real Information- In school, I did not learn how to conserve energy, start a business, grow food, preserve its seeds or process it through cooking or canning, etc. or how to care for animals (responsibility). Studies were done a few years ago that concluded the kids in rural areas actually performed better in science studies than their more urban counterparts- access to plants and animals played heavily into those results.
I do hope some schools are teaching these skills but just saying it in front of the class is different than kids LEARNING it:
I borrow from a homeschooling mom's blog here:

"teaching by just telling kids things all day and calling it learning is like throwing marshmallows at them all day and calling it eating."

As my husband says..."my kids are gonna wipe the floor with your kids in the real world someday!" My homeschooled kids, that is. I can't understand why many of you are so enamoured with the public school system. Twenty years ago, I graduated high school as the valedictorian of my class, entered a state university and discovered, to my surprise, that I didn't know many of the basics that most of the others knew. My education was substandard and if I was at the top of the class, pity the rest of them.

Fast forward to my job as a Training Director in a DC metro corporation. I had the honor of developing a basic grammar and writing class for many of our employees who couldn't spell, compose a decent letter, etc. to our customers.

In addition to the standard stuff of school, my homeschooled kids will also get a course in financial management and the opportunities to delve into extracurricular activites as they desire. As to socialization, there are so many activities in our area, we could be busy with other people (including public school kids) all the time.

I've already ordered my daughter's kindergarten curriculum for the fall. I was pleasantly surprised at how thorough it was - I can't imagine the public school kids will be able to cover as much as we will this year.

Obviously, I'm aware that many kids WILL do well in the public schools, but I have the opportunity to give my kids an excellent education. I plan to do that.

Homeschooling is fine as long as the parents follow the state-mandated curriculum and the children have to take the same standardized tests.

The courts made a silly decision. It's also unconstitutional. What happened to the pursuit of happiness? And for some, this is a religious decision- also mentioned in the constitution. Children who are homeschooled have one-on-one attention which allows them to cover more material than those in traditional schools (unless the parents are undisciplined themselves). People have a right to make this decision for their family, not the government. There was indeed a time when there was no formalized school system, remember? (Not that anyone now was alive back then.)

Whenever I think about what the State should or should not require of its citizens, I ask myself this question; “Do I want men with guns to go into peoples’ houses in order to compel obedience to this law?” Think about it. Which laws and social policies that you favor pass this bar? Paying taxes - yup. Violent crime - yup. Hard drugs - yep. Homeschooling, nah, not even close.

I don’t know if homeschooling is a constitutional right, but I don’t think it really has to be in order for us to support it.

I support the idea that home schooled kids must pass state standardized tests in order to receive a diploma. I support the idea that kids pass standardized tests to be promoted to the next grade level and that home schoolers should also be asked to take these tests at the same time that the public school kids do. A diploma is a certification and a privilege that must be earned. Requiring applicants wishing to receive ANY certification from the State requires minimum standards, so this should be a given.

Some posters here are concerned that children are kept out of school to prevent them from learning about certain things while they are impressionable children. That’s true. I know a few home schoolers and they always mention that they would like their children not to be exposed to certain things while they are still children. Sound like a good policy to me. I know some people would like to take that decision away from parents but it seems to me that it’s a core parenting responsibility. Do we really want to inject the State so deeply into the lives of families for this?

Another argument I’ve heard is that parents are essentially being selfish by pulling their children out of failing schools and that they should instead keep their kids in the failing school system and throw the time and energy that they would have spent on that one child into making the entire system better for everyone. I agree with your analysis here but disagree with your conclusion – home schooling is often selfishly motivated. But I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. Parents should do everything they can for their children and your recommendation would hurt their child a lot in exchange for benefitting all of the school district’s children a teensy little bit. That sounds like bad parenting to me.

ZZim

eeitreim, just how is the belief in evolutionary science necessary for pharmaceuticals, medicine, agronomy, forestry, and fisheries? A lot of the knowledge base for these professions was established long before evolution was widely-accepted or injected into these fields. This is a weak argument against homeschooling.

After reading through the posts here I have come to this conclusion: many of you either don't have children in school or you haven't been paying attention to what public schools are really like. I don't see how you could support public schools over homeschooling if the goal for children is to be well-educated and responsibly socialized.

If Ms. Hoffman's muddled writing or basic misunderstanding of the U.S. legal and political system (I'm not sure which is the problem here) is an example of the results of homeschooling, the California legislature was absolutely right to require parents who are homeschooling to have certifications. Because, of course, it was the legislature, not the court, that enacted the law that requires certification. The court didn't create the requirement sua sponte - it interpreted the law and found that it did not violate parents' constitutional rights.

Ms. Hoffman should educate herself a bit before commenting on the issue. She should also meditate on whether the court or the legislature is the appropriate body to address her policy arguments in favor of permitting homeschooling.

I'd like to clarify the education options in CA, as people talk about the judiciary vs. the legislature and constitutional rights.

There are 3 options for parents to comply with the compulsory education law: public school, private school, and a credentialed tutor. CA education law does NOT address "homeschooling," as a term or as an option. The term is completley absent from the code. You can find the CA Education code at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.

So parents who choose to educate their children at home have 3 legal options under the current code. They can enroll their children in the local public school district’s independent study program (my district calls theirs a “homeschooling” program). They can enroll their children in private school independent study program. Private school programs provide varying amounts of oversight, from almost zero, to actively supervising. Or, parents can start their own private schools, even located in their homes, and enroll only their children. In order to start a private school, you must register it with the state, and keep attendance records. That’s it.

Under the Private school exemptions in the CA Education Code, the state provides NO oversight, does NOT mandate curriculum, and does NOT require private school teachers to be certificated or credentialed. They are only required to be “persons capable of teaching.” Private schools are required to keep attendance.

Anyone can start a private school. Anyone. If you don’t like the premise, the religious affiliation, or the curriculum, you don’t have to send your kids there. But they still have the right to have their own private school.

In the In Re Rachel L decision , the Appeals Court ruled that enrollment in a private school’s independent study program was NOT sufficient to satisfy compulsory education statute under the CA education code. They added a clause in their interpretation of the code and said that students enrolled in a private school must actually attend that school (the code makes no such distinction). In make their ruling, they also noted that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children. They further did not limit their ruling to the particular parents in question, but made its application universal to all parents in CA (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF). And as Hoffman notes above, they clearly realized they need to take a second look and decided to reconsider their decision (which by default vacated the original decision).

So, the ideas of parental oversight commented on here in length really don’t apply… CA already does not require oversight of private schools. And the question of whether or not home education is or is not a valid choice, whether or not its successful and the myriad of reasons parents would choose to home education really isn’t the point. Do parents have the legal right to educate their children at home in CA? Read the code for yourself.

DCP writes:
"...how is the belief in evolutionary science necessary for pharmaceuticals, medicine, agronomy, forestry, and fisheries? A lot of the knowledge base for these professions was established long before evolution was widely-accepted or injected into these fields."

Firstly, evolution is not a "belief." It is settled science, and is part and parcel of the fields of study mentioned. If you start those studies without knowledge of it, you will surely be left far behind by those who have it.

Yes, parts of what we know in those fields was known prior to knowledge of evolution and DNA - far more is known now.

Michelle : Sometimes you don't need to ask, you only need to listen, as over and over, the same themes keep coming up:

I don't want my children in that lousy school system where they learn all the wrong things from their friends.

I don't want my children in those schools where they have to share a teacher with 24 othwer students.

I don't want my children in that school system where they just eliminated ... .

Personally, there are a great many things I wish my kids had learned while they were growing up, and as often as I could I encouraged them to try to learn them. My Son in Scouting, where he did learn leadership, camping, and the multitude of other things scouts teach, but didn't put the time in some activities he couldn't work up the interest in that would have gotten him his Eagle Scout. But you only encourage, not push. My Daughter who would have benefited so much from 4H, but just couldn't stand her father's encouragement.

The got the basics in Catholic and Public schools, and the extras whenever I could teach them. Had I had to insure that they got the basics, I doubt that I would have succeeded.

As for the poster who wondered what it meant that her High School Diploma didn't qualify her to home school, why should it, it wouldn't qualify her to teach in any other school.

I know many homeschoolers, and a few home schooled. I listen. I note that it is what they didn't want their children learning that animated their conversations. Bluntly, around here, it is too often that what they really don't want their children learning is how to go to school with blacks. And since I am bnot asking, just listening, I get the notion that they ARE telling the truth, and not what they think I want to hear.

If there is any famous American from the Founding Era considered less religious than Benjamin Franklin, it certainly is Thomas Paine; yet it is striking to see what even Thomas Paine believed should be taught in public education. For example, in a lecture in Paris in 1797, Paine attacked the French public school system because of the secular anti-religious manner in which it taught science. Paine protested:

"It has been the error of the schools to teach...sciences and subjects of natural philosophy as accomplishments only whereas they should be taught...with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting...our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools...

[T]he evil that has resulted...has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator Himself, they stop short and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence."

Not even Thomas Paine - probably the least religious among the American Founders - believed that public education should be so secular as to exclude religious and moral teachings. America's first colonial educational laws, its first federal laws, and the declarations of many early American statesmen confirm the fact that the unique American approach to a successful education integrated religious and morals lessons with academic instruction. Subsequent textbooks demonstrate that this philosophy of education remained intact and unaltered for centuries.

It would not have surprised Dr. Benjamin Rush to learn that our academic achievements have fallen significantly since the secularization of public education, for he had long ago observed:

"[T]here is the most knowledge in those countries where there is the most Christianity...[and] those...parents or school-masters who neglect the religious instruction of their children and pupils, reject and neglect the most effectual means of promoting knowledge in our country."

--------------------------
Source: Four Centuries of American Education" by David Barton.

So then, if we are going to teach religious principles in school, which religious principles are we going to teach? Arguing that Christianity improves education might be a bit of a tenuous argument when taken in historical context - the relative medical, technological, and literary achievements of say Europe from 800 - 1400 would pale compared to those of the Middle East for that period.

The problem with public schools is they teach a revisionist's view of the history of our country. If you have been educated in the publi schools, you most likely never heard of these quotes from Noah Webster and John Qunicy Adams:

-----------------------------------------
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws....All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." Noah Webster

"Three points of doctrine, the belief of which, forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of a God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark; the laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy." John Quincy Adams

------------------------------------

When our schools begins teaching the actual words of our founders and stop revising history, then maybe parents will no longer need to teach their children at home.

Those are good quotes, and certainly anyone interested in the history of our Founding Fathers would do well to read them and accord them merit when evaluating the state of mind of Webster and J. Q. Adams in regards to the role of Christianity/Religion in public life. However, those tricky little words in the Constitution regarding the separation of Church and State seem fairly well-defined also. I don't think it is "revising" history to say that most of our country's founders were devout Christians who nevertheless believed that religion should not play an explicit role in the operation of the federal government. Teaching good morals in line with Biblical precepts is one thing; teaching the Bible itself is something else.

Since I have such beautiful memories of school and would have considered it an absolute torture to be stuck at home to learn only with my parents as teachers, I do not personally recommend home schooling.

To each his own but here my reasons against it.

I have only vague memories of having read about home schooling in books, how the super rich of yester years in Europe employed private tutors for their children. It goes without saying private tutors were of the highest quality. (Doesn't even the royalty in Britain send their kids to schools?)

What are the disadvantages of home schooling?

1. The parents may not be adequately qualified to teach the children and provide them with adequate mental stimulation.

2. Children miss out on the opportunity to mix with their peers and all that goes with it: the joys, the sorrows, the challenges, learning team skills, shared memories of successes and failures, the sense of greater identity belonging to a school provides...the list is endless.

3. If children are abused or manipulated in ways that is unhealthy for their normal development, there is less chance of detecting it.

MusingMom - You're simply wrong. The Court interpreted the statute based on several legal precedents interpreting the statute in a similar way, but the statutory interpretation was not the primary basis of the appeal. The putative constitutional right to home school was actually the basis of the trial court's initial decision and thus the basis of the appeals. Your implication that the court somehow overstepped in making the constitutional finding is categorically wrong.

The appeals court probably agreed to rehear the case because the parents failed to make an appearance in the original appeal. The court generously decided to let them have a do-over so that the issues could be fully briefed and argued before the court.

And as long as we're recounting the facts, lets not forget that the case was brought by attorneys for the children and that the trial court did remark that the education provided by the children's parents was really, really bad.

Ignore RealEducation. He or she is simply repeating long discredited "analysis" and quote mines from the infamous lying shill David Barton. For the real story, try reading writings from actual historians and scholars rather than a guy whose highest earned degree is a BA fro Oral Roberts University and whose claim to fame is that he makes up quotes from our founding fathers.

I used to think that HS might be a good idea - until I understood (from several parents who HS thier kids) that the main reason, is to NOT teach evolution. This theory, is THE most supported theory. National Geographic put it this way - if you believe in electricity, or plumbing, or general physics, those disciplines have less support than does Evolution. And, evolution is being studied, and supported on a variety of fronts as I type this. The parents I spoke with, did not believe in birth control, and were shocked to hear me refer to my daughter as a little monkey. In my view, they are being naive, as I was with my former understanding.

Homeschooling will not teach one critical item - to think for oneself - it is the ultimate in being a (following) sheep - listen only to your parents, who only listened to their parents, etc.

Yes, parents should have credentials, and yes, like all other students in the US and elsewhere, learn the basics of science, lest the US fall even further behind.

I homeschool my children and not for religious reasons. I homeschool my children because I enjoy their company. Like most homeschooling parents with whom I am familiar, I am good at this. The level of education my children had received at their public schools had been good. The level of education they have received from me has been great. I have no certificates. However, like most homeschooled children, my kids have outperformed their publicly schooled peers on all of the standardized tests my state requires. Homeschooled children outperform their privately and publicly schooled peers in spelling bees and geography bees every year in this country. Homeschooling is not the answer for every child or parent. The governments of state and country should not be allowed to take away the choices of those of us for whom homeschooling is the answer.

First of all, time out for people who get offended when evolutionary science is called a "belief." No one was around in Genesis, so it's called a "belief." Likewise, no one was around was around when a gorilla-like being popped out the first human. So people have the choice to believe it or not. I'm not knocking what people choose to believe, whether it be the Garden of Eden or Darwinism. But as far as I know, the missing link is still missing, and modern human history has no record of an occurrence of this nature since the process takes so freaking long. So either way, they are both beliefs.
Furthermore, I think it might be inaccurate to link the nascencies of the theory of evolution and DNA. If I can remember HS science, their births were pretty separate (not that they haven't been entwined since.)

John E from Compton HS post reads in part:

"Let me ax you a question would a home schooled kid get a better education than I gots here at Compton HS?"

My question is is John E correct do home schoolers do better on standardized tests than children educated in the public schools of LA.

DCP - So much ignorance, so little time. You apparently don't remember high school science, or else you were never taught it. Before bravely equating belief in evolution - one of the best tested, most confirmed, and most fruitful scientific theories in the history of the world - with belief in Genesis, perhaps you should actually do some basic research on what evolution is. Here's a hint - the "missing link" isn't and your description of what you think evolution says about human origins is so wildly inaccurate as to be hilarious.

Can we keep the discussion on track? Perhaps the teaching of evolution is one factor parents consider when deciding to home school their children, but that's not the issue here. Is home schooling a constitutional right, and if it isn't explicitly, should it be?

How many home schoolers still want to benefit from public schools offering of sports and computer classes? I believe there were some court cases where home schooled kids still wanted to play sports. Apparently, the public schools "bad influence" doesn't apply to sports. It's OK to interact with public school kids in extracurricular, they're just a bad influence in the classroom. Tim Tebow, the Florida quarterback and Heisman winner was homeschooled and I don't think he was a one-man football team for his "school".

I love it. Homeschoolers are backwards, ultrareligious, science-hating, antisocial freaks.

I guess it's human nature to attack something you don't know anything about.

In truth, homeschooling families represent a fairly diverse society. It's idiotic to assert people only homeschool to avoid evolution. For what it's worth, my husband and I both have advanced science degrees and believe firmly in evolution. We both read and write in Greek. I'm learning Latin (one of the many subjects I should have learned in public school and didn't.) My husband has just begun studies for his PhD in software engineering. "All knowledge is worth having" could be our family creed. Don't tell me we are backwards idiots who can find the book of Titus but not Luxembourg on a map. There may be some hs families who are ignorant, but not us. And if parents DO instill deep religious values in their children, they should be commended, not vilified.

And for those of you who depict homeschooling parents as being selfish for refusing to "better the public schools", what are you actually doing to better society? Are YOU tutoring struggling students? Donating supplies to impoverished classrooms? Assisting the homeless? Mentoring at-risk children? Easing the burden from an overcrowded fostering system by becoming foster parents? I have my own children to worry about, but I'm still active in social causes. I think I'm going above and beyond my responsibilities as a citizen. What about you?

I already pay enormous property taxes to support the public school system. I don't agree with the way my money is used in schools any more than the way tax dollars are spent on hundreds of other wasteful government projects, but I still do my duty and pay up. Beyond that, I feel justified in saying that my children come first with me. You say that hs kids don't learn the ability to think independently. I'd say homeschooling is inherently set up to teach independent thinking. We're not blindly sending our kids to be taught by "the man". We're doing our own thing our own way. That's independence.

Home schoolers should certainly not be allowed to participate in public school extracurricular activities, sports, etc. It just ain't fair!

The major downside of home schooling is that the kids are not exposed to any knowledge beyond their their parents span - which is more often limited to the social, historical and scientific knowledge level of some TV evangelist - - - now THAT IS sad!

On the other hand, I wish I had had the chance to home school my daughters down in Louisiana (3rd grade) when the school bus roared in with its load singing, "Ain't your mama pretty, meatballs on her ti_____s, scrambled eggs between her le_s".
That was a heck of a "public" school environment for a third grader.

I WANT fundamentalists of every religion to home-school their kids, and you should, too!

Here's why:

1. They won't be pushing creationism in science classes their kids don't attend.

2. They won't be getting their fundamentalist anti-science, pro-church/state confluence ideas onto college campuses because those kids won't be well enough educated.

3. Fewer students in public schools means both a better teacher-student ratio, and fewer gov't funds to pay public school administrators.

See? Its a win-win!

I once had been a vigorous opponent of homeschooling, a practice which I dismissed as bizarre and counterproductive to the needs of a well-functioning society. But then I became a public school teacher and now see things differently.

Despite the best-intentions of educated profesionals such as myself, I have since learned that herding 30 kids of the same age into one classroom simply is not as productive as having a child learn from his or her loving parents at home.

The nine grandchildren of a friend of mine are being homeschooled by her daughter-in-law. Since the 13 year cannot read, the family jokingly says that home school has disinegrated into no school.

How sad that the state does not regulate the homeschools that are springing up all around the nation. Why aren't state tests mandated to make sure that education is taking place? How do we know whether an angry or psychotic person is not venting on some poor child?

The problem with education children is not with the schools or teachers. The problem with educating children is with incompetent parents. Home schooling only ascerbates the real problem.

I just have to take the time as one who's qualified to speak about homeschooling to say that it's so sad to see such misinformation in regards to this topic. I've Homeschooled my children for 5 years, know hundreds of fellow homeschoolers (yes we're very well socialized) and I've yet to meet a family like I see on ABC's "reality" TV shows. It's a shame that so many have unfortunately apparently (based on their flawed comments) used that show as their only source of information in regards to the homeschooling issue.
It's a clear indication of the close minded narrow thinking that public schools promote. Your only view of the world is a dictated one. You don't know how to go out and do the independent research that Homeschooling children are taught from day one. In school you're taught to believe only what they want you to and have a limited view of the world. The Homeschool children are the open minded ones who are free to think on their own and not do the drugs, have the sex, join gangs, etc. that their public school peers are doing just becuase they want to fit in. Homeschool children are out in the world learning about life first hand, not behind the four walls that schools limit them to. Indipendent thinking is what the Gov. wants to avoid. Educated, clear minded, unwilling to be a puppet to man, involved in civics and the legal proceedings around them, aware of our constitutional rights, and free thinking individuals (like Homeschoolers) scare them.
No matter what you feel about Homeschooling, you should care that our basic human rights are being attacked. You all want to live the way you choose and raise your children as you see fit. Decisions like this will enable future hindrances on those basic rights. If you want to live free you should care about this decision no matter what side of the fence you are on. Stay on your side and we'll stay on ours, but don't try to tell us how to live on our side if you don't want us to tell you how to live on yours.

“Whatever education is, it should make you a unique individual, not a conformist; it should furnish you with an original spirit with which to tackle the big challenges; it should allow you to find values which will be your road map though life, it should make you spiritually rich, a person who loves whatever you are doing, wherever you are, whomever you are with. It should teach you what is important, how to live and how to die.”~ John Taylor Gatto

Being a homeschooling mother of six I would have to say yes we should have the right, as parents, to decide what is best for our own children. We decide what to feed them, what to allow them to watch on TV, what sports we're willing to drive them to, what musical instrument they'll play -- we educate them in throughout their lives, why should academics be different.

What parents specifically teach their children in a given year should not be a concern. Each state has specific laws about how homeschooling is monitored, most states require standardized tests to be taken at the end of the year.

I am religious, I homeschool my children because I believe it is what God is calling me to do. It is a lot of work. I certainly wouldn't decide to sacrifice myself to this degree if I didn't believe it was best for my children. Yes, they are socialized, we play sports year-round - some of my children are on travel and all-star teams; some play musical instruments. They take some classes outside the home -- things like biology, chemistry, Spanish -- with certified teachers. We have group classes with other children. My oldest daughter graduated from high school a year early with 34 credits, a 3.76 GPA and 12 college credits. She was accepted into all the state schools she applied to in Virginia. She is bright, I did not make her that way, God did, but homeschooling enabled her to work at her own pace. One of my children is dyslexic. She is also bright but has difficulty spelling. Being homeschooled we can select a curriculum that is suited to meet her needs and help her excel in ways that a standardized program could not.

I like being with my children and building memories together. A few years ago we traveled around the US for six weeks and saw things that most people only read about in books -- they didn't read the definition of a Mesa, they climbed one.

Homeschooling is not for everyone, but neither is public or private school. Parents are the primary educators of their children whether they like it or not, and they should have the right to decide what and where their children learn.

Evolution, or at least Darwinism, is exactly the point. As long as the sort of parents who think home schooling is a great idea are taking their offspring out of real schools, the better off the species will be in the long run. I say go for it!

Why do all the "homeschooling" parents feel that their kids have the most hands on approach. One parent said that "homeschooled" children are taught from day one. All children are taught from day one and this learning continues even when they attend a formal school. In a school outside of the house, they learn discipline, time management, social and communication skills as well as academics. This learning continues at home after they get back from school. Often they speak another language,play music, do sports, go visit places they have studied in school with their parents and so on... As long as the parents teaching children at home have the necessary qualifications ..by all means go ahead. When your kids get sick, you take them to qualified doctors and not self medicate them!

Hey, Coach Robert!

We home-school and are glad we do. There are plenty of athletic opportunities, even in our small town, and kids swim, play soccer, learn Irish Dance, compete in 4-H, win statewide Latin and piano contests, and get into Harvard.

Coach, your apparent problem is, you can't stand the competition. Well, rest easy: we pay all our taxes for government schools to pay people like you, and we don't spend a cent of it. So wallow in your discriminatory taxpayer-funded trough, and we'll see you at the swim meets. And BEAT you!

Chuck, there are a lot of incompetent teachers and school systems out there too. I have had a lot of wonderful teachers and I have had several who taught for years totally imcompetantly. I think most people will agree that the public (and private) school systems are not always the best way to socialize children (drugs, sex, and violence fairly common). My sister home schooled for years having control of the children they socialized with. They took dance classes performed in community theater, went to museums and libraries and returned to high school smart, self-assured children who other kids and adults love to be around.
Not that every child should be homeschooled, but neither some children definately should be!

Chuck, there are a lot of incompetent teachers and school systems out there too. I have had a lot of wonderful teachers and I have had several who taught for years totally imcompetantly. I think most people will agree that the public (and private) school systems are not always the best way to socialize children (drugs, sex, and violence fairly common). My sister home schooled for years having control of the children they socialized with. They took dance classes performed in community theater, went to museums and libraries and returned to high school smart, self-assured children who other kids and adults love to be around.
Not that every child should be homeschooled, but neither some children definately should be!

It is not the rights of the parents that are in question. It is the children's right to be educated that should be protected. And no, homeschooling is not an education. Just as you are not qualified to be your child's medical doctor, neither are you qualified to be a teacher.

If you would like to homeschool, then go to school yourself and get your teaching degree. THAT is your right.

And for those who insist on the "I'm doing it and my children are just fine" argument-- there are plenty of people who smoke and don't have cancer. Some people ride motorcycles without helmets and they are just fine. Etc, etc.

"Home schooling at its heart is about disengaging from the map laid out by popular culture and questioning the authority of shared civil society."

The problem with this is when governmentally prescribed schooling diverges significantly from the preparation a person needs to contribute at the highest levels in a particular culture and society. No public education provides this preparation today. Public education prepares one to function as either a prince or a pawn in a culture, pretty much world-wide, that denies the flexibility of these functions beyond recognized socio-economic status. Unfortunately, education outside the existing public system may subject one to lifelong exile from polite society because one may be perceived as knowing too much or knowing the wrong things to be either a prince or a pawn.

Stephens,

When you wrote that it's not the right of the parents we're talking about, you are so wrong. It is definitely the right of the parents.

Until children are adults, they are under the care and supervision of their parents by law. To think some of you wish to take away those rights is pretty scary.

You also wrote, "And no, homeschooling is not an education. Just as you are not qualified to be your child's medical doctor, neither are you qualified to be a teacher."

I greatly beg to differ with you there. Homeschooled children have proven over and over again to out-score public schooled children on standardized tests and have been winning the spelling bee and geography bee despite their being a minority.

Parents are the very first teachers when their children are born. And parents can give their children individualzed instruction that best fits their learning style with one-on-one teaching. You won't find that in any public school.

Then you wrote, "If you would like to homeschool, then go to school yourself and get your teaching degree."

Despite what you may think, a teaching degree does not make you a better teacher. Some people are just naturally gifted at being able to teach others. I have had some of the worst teachers in my public education. Their degrees did nothing for them. And since much of what is taught in college is crowd control, many homeschool parents who actually do have teaching degrees have found it has not benefited them but has actually caused them to have too much of an institutionalized approach to teaching.

Personally, I made the decision to homeschool when the public school wanted to place my son in special education in 2nd grade because they didn't want him to have a "melt down" during the SOL tests in 3rd grad and adversely affect the schools test scores. That's when I realized the school was more interested in their test scores than in my son. Since then I have homeschool him for 6 years and he tests at "above high school" level on the Stanford Achievement test.

Homeschooling may not be for everyone, but for the truly dedicated parent (degree or no degree) it is one of the best ways to offer your child an oustanding education.

The world is 5000 years old, flat, and the sun revolves around it. I'm ready to home school.

After high school....then what? Will you still keep the kids home and "homecollege" them. After all , its the same public school pool of students that will go to a public or state University...will you let your precious children mingle with the unruly public school kids or will you send them to fancy private colleges?
As for scoring high on SATs and spelling bees and the likes of it....it would be a shame if HS kids did not score well on these as they are the KAPLANS and EXCELS of the worst kind!!!

"Stephens, When you wrote that it's not the right of the parents we're talking about, you are so wrong. It is definitely the right of the parents.
Until children are adults, they are under the care and supervision of their parents by law. To think some of you wish to take away those rights is pretty scary."

Well, if you hold the theory that children are property, with only such rights and privileges as their parents give them, you MAY be right.

There are parents who let their children die of perfectly treatable medical conditions because they claim the right to inflict their religion on their kids. There are parents who abuse their children in many other ways because it is the parents right to raise the child as the parent sees fit. When that abused child becomes an anti social adult, whom does society hold accountable? We jail the child, and every good Republican yells "Mushy Headed Liberal" at the lawyer who brings up the abuse suffered as a child in the defense of the adult.

PUBLIC EDUCATION is the one defense against such abuse, as well as the abuse that occurs when children are kept away from contact with the sciences, or literature, or social science training that the HS parents oppose.

Perhaps if HS children, on becoming adults and deciding that they were deprived of important skills by their HS'ing parents would sue their parents more often, some sanity would come out of the insanity of such law suits.

Educating children to be functional in society as a whole is one of the main obligations of parent hood. Home Schooling is a convenient way for poor parents to avoid that obligation. It is just that none of those parents will use their experience to argue for the right to home school, and their deprived children may never know that they were indeed deprived.

It is the presentations of those speaking for home schooling that have finally convinced me. Home schooling is not a right, it is a borderline crime.

The bottom line is that people have charge over the destinies of their own households. And they have charge over their own happiness and their own beliefs. This is a constitutional right. Anyone who wants to go around denigrating people who don't hold the same philosophies as themselves should sign up to be first members of the New American Nazi Party. That's the only place where they belong.

Regarding the post:

PUBLIC EDUCATION is the one defense against such abuse, as well as the abuse that occurs when children are kept away from contact with the sciences, or literature, or social science training that the HS parents oppose.

Don't be so naieve, there are plenty of abused children in the public schools. And what you're doing is punishing the good parents for the few bad parents by suggesting parental rights be restricted or taken away. Obviously, you're not a parent.

As for being "kept away from contact with the sciences," etc., wrong again. As a Christian I am definitely teaching my children creationism, but I'm also teaching evolution because I want them to be able to debate and knock down the silly arguments for evolution. They're already pretty proficient at it.

Ignorance is bliss. Here are the statistics:

--------------------------------------------------
Academic Achievement

· Dr. Brian Ray, in the most in-depth nationwide study on home education across the United States, collected data on 5,402 students from 1,657 families. Homeschool students’ academic achievement, on average, was significantly above that of public-school students. In addition, the home educated did well even if their parents were not certified teachers and if the state did not highly regulate homeschooling.3
· Home educators are able to be flexible and tailor or customize the curriculum to the needs of each child.
· In study after study, the home educated score better, on average, than those in conventional state-run schools (see table).2

.... Reading Language Math
Public Schools 50 50 50
Home Education 65-80 65-80 65-80

· For learning disabled students, there are higher rates of academic engaged time in homeschooling and greater academic gains made by the home educated. “... [P]arents, even without special education training, provided powerful instructional environments at home...” (p. 11).4

"As for being "kept away from contact with the sciences," etc., wrong again. As a Christian I am definitely teaching my children creationism, but I'm also teaching evolution because I want them to be able to debate and knock down the silly arguments for evolution. They're already pretty proficient at it"

I feel sorry for your poor, undereducated, duped and doomed to a minimum wage job kids.

The following is a brief list of people who were homeschooled - don't think they were " poor, undereducated, duped and doomed to a minimum wage job kids." (Dick)

Presidents
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Quincy Adams
Abraham Lincoln
William Henry Harrison
Theodore F. Roosevelt

Governors
Patrick Henry [VA]
Charles Pickney III [SC]
Richard D. Spaight [NC]
William Livingston [NJ]
Richard Bassett [DE]

U.S. Senators and Congressmen
William S. Johnson [CT]
George Clymer [PA]
John Francis Mercer [MD]
William Blout [TN]
William Few [GA]

Scientists/Businessmen
Blaise Pascal
Booker T. Washington
Thomas Edison
Benjamin Franklin
Andrew Carnegie
John Stuart Mill
Chief Justices of U.S. Supreme Court
John Rutledge
John Jay
John Marshall

College Presidents
John Witherspoon -- Yale
Timothy Dwight -- Princeton
William S. Johnson -- Columbia

Preachers / Missionaries
John & Charles Wesley
John Owen
Johnathon Edwards
William Carey
Dwight D. Moody
John Newton
Hudson Taylor

Authors
Mark Twain
George Bernard Shaw
Irving Berlin
Charles Dickens
C.S. Lewis

Philosopher
Charles Montesquieu

Famous Women
Abigail Adams
Mercy Warren
Martha Washington
Florence Nightingale
Phyllis Wheatley
Agatha Christie
Pearl S. Buck

Generals
"Stonewall" Jackson
Robert E. Lee
Douglas MacArthur
George Patton

Artists
John Singleton Copley
Andrew Wyeth
Rembrandt Peale
Claude Money
Ansel Adams

Composers
Anton Bruckner
Felix Mendelssohn
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Francis Poulenc

The following is a brief list of people who were homeschooled - don't think they were " poor, undereducated, duped and doomed to a minimum wage job kids." (Dick)

Is that all you can come up with? The list of accomplished individuals who attended public or private schools would dwarf that puny list by multiples.

Nevertheless, my comment to "Homeschool Mom" was more directed at her nincompoop remark that she teaches her kids evolution only so they can refute the proof of it. Now, that is world class nonsense.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/334232/homeschool_bible_lesson_plans_noahs.html?cat=4

Read it and weep.

HomeSchool Mom:

As a Christian and a human being, I find it disgusting that you are teaching your children lies and misrepresentations about evolution. Just a tip - those blank stares you and your children get in response to your "arguments" from people who actually know something about evolution are not a sign of your debating prowess and superior knowledge. They're a sign of just how off the wall and discredited your "arguments" are - they're so wrong on all levels that responding in a brief, coherent, and polite manner is impossible.

On the subject of the putative constitutional right to homeschool, the question isn't whether parents have a constitutionally protected interest in making educational decisions for their children - they undoubtedly do, hence the Supreme Court decisions that a stste cannot ban enrollment in private schools or the teaching of a foreign language. The legal question is what limits the state can constitutionally place on that right in order to pursue the compelling state interest (as recognized in numerous court cases) of ensuring that children receive an acceptable education. I suspect that, if a case presenting this question were to be fully briefed and argued and taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, they would find that the state would have to satisfy either a heightened "rational basis" review or "intermediate scrutiny".

If the former, the challenger would have to show that the restriction was not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (the court might shift the burden onto the state on this issue, but the same standard would apply). If the latter, the state would have to show that whatever restriction it placed on homeschooling (testing, certification, etc.) was substantially related to achieving an important government. purpose.

I suspect that the requirement at issue here - that homeschooling teachers be certified - would not satisfy intermediate scrutiny because the state doesn't require private school teachers to be certified, thus undermining any claim that certification is important to ensuring California's purpose in requiring certification. It would probably survive rational basis review, for reasons stated in the court's decision.

Unfortunately, the issues haven't been fully briefed and argued in this case, both because the parents didn't enter an appearance in the original appeal and because the state was not a party to the case. FOr that reason, it is premature to make any pronouncements about the constitutionality of the certification requirement.

Home Schooling can be great, if the kids have enough interaction with peers in other settings, but the same minimum standards of education must be applied to Home Schools, Private Schools, Charter Schools and Public Schools in regards to what is taught, and some form of testing is vital to insure these standards are met.
Any school can add subjects, but at a minimum a High School education must include.
1. Math (hopefully through Geometry, or further, but some common standard)
2. English.
3. Science, including Biology and the theory of Evolution. Of course a school which receives absolutely no public funding is free to teach the theory of evolution (or Gravity for example) as a totally false theory but students have to learn it.
4. History and Government.
There should also be ONE NATIONAL STANDARD Test for each grade level
Of course, sadly and intentionally the Bush Education testing doesn't have a national test, and doesn't test on anything but Math and English, but that can be corrected.

Of course most Home Schooled Students will not have a problem passing a test which the average public school student can pass, but some certainly will Its the public responsibility to ensure that all schools are teaching the basics.

As to the question of what I plan for my sons after high school?

They will attend college, one is already planning on becoming an electronic design engineer like his dad. And unlike public school kids, they will already begin taking college classes at the local community college at the age of 16 and get credit for those classes as both high school classes and college credits.

As for attending a public college where I know evolution will be taught -- I have no problem with that when they are 16 and can think for themselves. I prefer not to have them taught evolution as fact until they are old enough think through the arguments evolution puts forward.

And by tthe way, homeschooled kids are being sought out by colleges now because they have proven to be more dedicated to learning and have excellent study skills.

Whoa, some of you guys seem to be really afraid of homeschooling. What are you so afraid of?

Having seen many of you on other posts, I know already you're fans of Obama and Obama promises "hope and change," so why are you so afraid of change? Where is your willingness for progressive change when it comes to education?

Great, teach your kids the Flintstones instead of real science.

That's what all these home-schoolers do. They teach their kids that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that dinosaurs lived with Man, and that science is always wrong and the work of the Devil. And of course, Global Warming is a myth.

These kids will be ready for the burger-flipping careers of the future!! Not much else.

The Ninth Amendment says that we all have inalienable rights, even ones not listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

I had no idea the Founders intended a "Right To Be Stupid".

Great, teach your kids the Flintstones instead of real science.

That's what all these home-schoolers do. They teach their kids that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that dinosaurs lived with Man, and that science is always wrong and the work of the Devil. And of course, Global Warming is a myth.

These kids will be ready for the burger-flipping careers of the future!! Not much else.

The Ninth Amendment says that we all have inalienable rights, even ones not listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

I had no idea the Founders intended a "Right To Be Stupid".

Annes, you said that as a Christian and human being you find it disgusting that I'm teaching creationism to my sons. Do you not know that as a Christian the Bible is to be treated as God's word and the Bible clearly states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?

As a Christian and human being, I am greatly disappointed that you would call yourself a Christian yet deny the truth of the Bible.

Just like the Bible says that the world is flat and that Noah magically fit two of each kind of species onto a boat considerably smaller than the Titanic and kept them there for months? And which creation story do we believe? And how did Adam and Eve's guts not explode from all the bacteria that were living and multiplying in their intestines before death entered the world?

My faith is strong enough to acknowledge that the Bible is not and is not intended to be a history book or instruction manual. My faith is strong enough that I don't have to force myself to believe lies, or force myself to believe that God would create mountains of contrary evidence to trick us, or force myself to parrot the mendacious rationalizations of nitwits and charlattans so that I can continue to cling to the literal truth of a story that has long since been proven wrong.

You are doing your children a great disservice and neither you nor they are as smart or impressive to the rest of the world as you think they are. Even your puffery about the opportunity to take community college classes at 16 is misplaced - children in public and private school have the same opportunity.

You Have the Right to be Stupid:

Why are you so willing to accept the theory of evolution when it still cannot explain where life originated from? And doesn't it bother you that the whole idea of things going from a disorganized state to an organized state goes completey against the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Doesn't it make you wonder how DNA could be a language which we are only beginning to understand yet have no author of that language? Do you ever stop to think through any of these issues?

As for the founders of our country, here are a few quotes:

George Washington: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ." (Written to native Americans)

Samuel Adams: "Let statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by educating their little boys and girls and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."

Benjamin Franklin: "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion and the excellency of the Christian relgion above all others, ancient or modern."

Annes,

Sorry, but if you think the Bible has been proven wrong, you better think about what you really believe. What god are you trusting in anyway?

Did you ever read the book of John? Do you disregard that as well? In John, it is written that in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God and that all things were created by and through Him. Do you know who that "him" is? Jesus Christ. So do you believe that or do you throw out the New Testament as well?

Now you're just not making sense. How does John's quote about God creating the world contradict evolution? And what does evolution have to do with the origin of life or the origin of the universe, for that matter? My standard answer to people like you is that you're either ignorant or dishonest, but since you seem to think you're SO bright, answer me this - if, all scientific observations and experimentation notwithstanding, you deny that evolution is true, what objective basis do you have for denying it? If, as I suspect, your only basis is your faith in the literal truth of every word of the Bible, why did God create a world in which systematic, objective observation cannot confirm the literal truth of Genesis and, in fact, contradicts it?

America is still the greatest country in the world. Students from all over the world are trying to get in our colleges. Americans have made tremendous strides in science, medicine and technology over the years. From my math, the vast majority of Americans up to this point have attended public schools. So let's hear it for public education!

Can we put the silly Certification argument to rest? Anyone with the least degree of exposure to the public schools knows that there are properly certified, perfectly bright people who are nonetheless disasters as classroom teachers.

Education School programs mainly teach classroom management skills; what does a homeschooler need with those?

And if the argument is that we need to know that these homeschoolers know enough math, history, language, etc. to be able to teach it to their own kids--well, isn't the proper certification for that called a High School Diploma? That's the idea, isn't it, that if you get one of those, you're well educated enough to function in society? Maybe the interesting point is that people don't believe that anymore.

But back to the author's argument: the problem here is that homeschooling isn't a religious issue, it's a parental one. Many, many people choose to homeschool who are not religious, and who live in area with "good" public schools. It's more a lifestyle decision, based on how one views the role of parents and family. It should be every parent's right not to have to turn their children over to the state.

Annes wrote:

Just like the Bible says that the world is flat and that Noah magically fit two of each kind of species onto a boat considerably smaller than the Titanic and kept them there for months?

THE BIBLE NEVER STATES THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT. IT ACTUALLY STATES THAT IT IS A SPHERE. AND IT WASN'T TWO OF EVERY SPECIES, BUT TWO OF EVERY "KIND" OR TYPE OF ANIMAL, I.E., DOG TYPE, ELEPHANT TYPE, ETC.

And which creation story do we believe?

THE ONE IN THE BIBLE.

And how did Adam and Eve's guts not explode from all the bacteria that were living and multiplying in their intestines before death entered the world?

THIS I DON'T KNOW -- BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF A WORLD WITHOUT DEATH UNFORTUNATELY. BUT WHEN GOD LOOKED AT HIS CREATION AND SAID THAT IT WAS GOOD, I TRUST THAT IT WAS GOOD. DON'T YOU TRUST GOD?

"Homeschool Mom: Annes, you said that as a Christian and human being you find it disgusting that I'm teaching creationism to my sons. Do you not know that as a Christian the Bible is to be treated as God's word and the Bible clearly states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?
As a Christian and human being, I am greatly disappointed that you would call yourself a Christian yet deny the truth of the Bible."

Neither the Jews, who wrote the Old Testament, nor the Catholics, who wrote the New Testament, make that claim. If the people who wrote the books don't hold those beliefs, by what authority do you teach them?

Annes: "I suspect, your only basis is your faith in the literal truth of every word of the Bible, why did God create a world in which systematic, objective observation cannot confirm the literal truth of Genesis and, in fact, contradicts it?"

Are you sure evolution fits the definition of science? Science should be testable, observable, and repeatable.

"Evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature." (Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. in Biology)

The title of this article seems ill-informed. At least for parents whose home schooling is motivated by their bona fide religious beliefs, the right to home school is already a constitutional right. The U.S. Supreme Court case was called Wisconsin v. Yoder (1973?). The court held that the First Amendment's religious liberty clause entitled Amish parents to withdraw their children from ANY type of formal schooling at age 12 despite Wisconsin's mandatory attendance law. Many of the arguments being made here were made by the State of Wisconsin. They all were rejected in light of a parent's First Amendment rights. So you can debate all you like but, at least for home schooling motivated by religion, the highest court has already spoken.

"Neither the Jews, who wrote the Old Testament, nor the Catholics, who wrote the New Testament, make that claim. If the people who wrote the books don't hold those beliefs, by what authority do you teach them?"

This is the problem with the Bible not being taught in school. The New Testamant was not written by Catholics. It was written by Jews who believed in Christ. Where did you get that one from? Aye, aye, aye!

And you say the Jews don't believe the Old Testamant? Hmmm.

I'm not sure why there is all this talk about religion and homeschooling when the most obvious fact is that homeschooling is a better educational option for most kids. They get one-to-one attention from the adults who care the most about the child's future and this business about certification is a red herring. Has anybody payed attention to what certified public school teachers are producing? Last time I checked the consensus was that most public school kids are not really ready for college. The kids that succeed at public schools are the ones whose parents are most involved in their lives, just like the homeschool parents. Public school is the third best alternative for educating children, behind private schooling and homeschooling.

Will Home School students be allowed to post signs on their front lawn that say "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" ?

Homeschool Mom - My standard response stands. To refute your specific claims

- There are two creation stories in Genesis. Two. In the first two chapters.

- Even if you limit the Ark to two of every "kind", you've got a major problem. There are a lot of "kinds", for one thing. FOr another, how did the kinds separate into the almost infinite number of species we see today in the few thousand years since Noah allegedly took his boat ride. And, of course, what did they all eat?

- The Bible speaks of the four corners of the Earth and for most of Judeo-Christian history, this was interpreted to mean that the earth was flat. Other passages were interpreted to mean that the Earth was the center of the solar system because that was the most obvious literal reading. You now say those were incorrect interpretations, even though they were the most obvious literal readings. You see the problem for your position, surely.

- Again, the standard literal interpretation of the Bible is that death did not enter the world until after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were expelled from the Garden of Eden. So if you don't know, you should try to figure it out, because it creates a major problem for your literal reading of the Bible.

- What Christians refer to as the Old Testament does not comport with the scriptures used by the Jews. And the vast majority of Jews, like the vast majority of Christians, do not believe in the literal truth of the biblical creation stories.

- Your quote regarding the scientific status of evolution is idiotic and demonstrably false. Evolution is one of the most well-tested and well-observed scientific theories in existence. It is better understood than gravity. Evolution has been repeatedly observed in nature and under experimental conditions, it is observable in the fossil record and by analysis of the genome. Hypotheses generated by it have been tested and confirmed in repeated experiments, which have yielded incalculable benefits for humanity. Creationism, on the other hand has . . . nothing. No evidence, no observations, no ability to generate testable hypotheses, no life-saving discoveries. You simply don't know what you're talking about, which was clear when you started confusing evolution with the origin of life/the universe.

Until you actually answer the questions I asked, I will consider you dishonest and no longer respond to your posts. If, all scientific observations and experimentation notwithstanding, you deny that evolution is true, what objective basis do you have for denying it? If, as I suspect, your only basis is your faith in the literal truth of every word of the Bible, why did God create a world in which systematic, objective observation cannot confirm the literal truth of Genesis and, in fact, contradicts it?

I know that home schooled kids are separated from the distractions that public school kids have. And sure, getting one-on-one education can push you further than someone sitting in a classroom with 20-30 other kids. This is why home-schooled kids excel in academics. But you need more than good spelling and calculus to get ahead in life.
Public school kids learn ambition and competitiveness and the facts of life. The USA has the worst scores in math and science in the civilized world, but we are still the best. No other country has so many people dieing to get in here. As successful as China and India has become, no-one is dieing to get into those countries.

Public school education teaches you to do whatever you want to get ahead, whether that is lie, steal or cheat. I know, I've only gone state sponsored schools my whole life. The only thing that matters is the grade and class rank, not what you know.

Sure, 40% of public middle schooled students have used drugs and have had sex. But these are important life lessons. You need to be able to deal and engage with other people to survive in this rat race. If the USA is going to continue to be a world leader, we need to teach our children how to be a cut throats.

I respect the right of parents who don't want there children to have these values, I believe in live and let live. But I also believe in an eye for an eye. And for the rest of us that are on the same page, we need to continue to teach our kids how to be on top if we are going to keep the USA on top of the world.

Please don't insult parents that home school their kids, they are doing what they believe is best for their kids. I know many of them. But their kids are too nice, smart and sweet. So much so that they make me sick. For the rest of us, send our kids to public schools so that they will learn to fight like savages to keep the USA from plummeting into a third world country.

So to all you home-schoolers, keep up the good work, teach your children well. But my kids will always have better grades. And when our kids graduate college, your kids will be checking spelling and writing code, my kids will be CEO's and CFO's. Because they have learned that it is a dog eat dog world.

I just wanted to thank Real World for the beautiful comment below, and let him know that despite having been homeschooled, I will eat his children (but not dog) for lunch :)

Also, I just want to object to the fact that this has been classified as a religious debate (due to the unfortunate location of the discussion) - I don't see anything inherently religious about the debate over homeschooling, and the fact that this has turned into a debate over evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design theory just serves to reinforce my view that people in the US no longer seem to debate actual issues any more - we're more interested in insulting each other over a tangentially-related issue than engaging in an actual intellectual debate.

What a ridiculous proposition!

A parent is not allowed to say No to Gov't sponsored, politically correct flavor-of-the-day propaganda in the schools?

When did we stop being a free country?

I'm amazed and amused at the misinformation that abounds here regarding home schooling. We know of people who home school in Northern Va solely to enable their children to competitively ice skate and we have family that participate on numerous sports teams (sorry Coach-your public school teams aren't the best/the only). As Home Schoolers, there's a tremendous amount of choices available to us: Sports teams/classes (music, art, dance)/Quizzing & Debate teams/Film Production clubs/Technology Teams/Community groups (4-H, Scouting, volunteering)/Civil War Reenactments (to name a few). In addition to that, there are thousands of curriculums to choose from and Co-Operative groups/Home School support groups/Classical Education groups one may choose to join. Most Home Schoolers are far from household prisoners, as some here seem to think. I laugh at the socialization issue when I see my child running around on the playground with 86 other home schooled children from her Co-Op and the older children playing gently with the younger (that definitely wouldn't happen in a public school).
As for standardized testing, if Home Schooling opponents will do their homework and research for themselves (instead of what they've "heard"), you'll find most states require testing. The tests, such as the CAT (California Achievement Test) are often more thorough than SOLs and there's no way to teach to the test. In most states, there is accountability.
We're also able to take far more field trips to science/history museums, art shows, ballets, and other venues because we home school and meet many different people of all ages. My child is comfortable carrying on conversations with peers, as well as adults.
Educationally, our curriculum covers more than my School Board requires. My 6-year-old reads words like hydrogenated and knows more about insects than I ever learned in college Biology. She can find the majority of countries on a globe because we talk about where things are made and study other cultures. We read...a lot! Because we home school, we can devote time to extras that interest her, like the solar system. She wants to learn and that's why we home school...we want to preserve and encourage that love of learning. That rarely happens in a public school setting because of time constraints and one teacher has to make sure 15-2 children are learning the material (not easy when each one learns at their own pace).
When we come to subjects that are not my forte, like many other home schoolers, we anticipate using our Co-Operative group/DVD long-distance learning programs. Public school teachers experience the same limitations, being certified for k-3/5/8 or for High School. The Calculus teacher is limited to Math courses-he/she doesn't teach AP English.
As for the ridiculous comments that home schooling is basically a license for child abuse-what a lame argument. The poster obviously doesn't personally know or interact with many home schooling families. Public school parents abuse children-I know because my teaching mom sees it.
IMHO, most of the "concerns" about home schooling are actually sour grapes. Home Schooled children consistently outscore public school children on testing, generally have shorter school days without hours of evening homework, are better adjusted socially with various age groups, and are not restricted to a classroom 7+ hours each day. Many Home School opponents are, in fact, jealous. Jealous that: home schooled children are not sick from the stress of preparing for Sols, home school parents have not spent weeks at home prepping their children for Sols, home schooled children are out in the "real world" in real life situations instead of sitting in a desk most of the day...among other things.
The same opponents don't see how many hours I spend reading teaching materials and researching curriculums/subject material. They don't see me checking out my stack of 15-20 books at the Library each visit and finding interesting teaching games/activities for my student. They don't see me at support meetings, listening to speakers and taking notes. There are no bon-bons and soap operas in our home...there's no time, even if I were so inclined (which I'm not). I work on home school materials during rest time and after my child is in bed.
Finally, for the person who posted that every parent can't home school due to finances, that's a misperception too. Many parents could do what we did-pay off their debt, save their money, the parent of choice quits their job and stays home to home school. The truth is many Americans don't want to sell their $200,000-$500,000 homes, quit their meaningful career, give up their top-of-the-line cars, sacrifice their expensive beach/mountain/Disneyland/ski resort vacations, cut their eating out/cable/recreational shopping. While I agree that not everyone can or should home school, many can and just choose other priorities instead.
Sorry this is so long, but it was necessary.

I was home-schooled by parents who never finished high school. This was not the best situation as my parents were both unqualified and emotionally ill. My father was later diagnosed as bipolar and my mother was a depressive who often used suicide threats to manipulate others. Fortunately they did have enough sense to get some help from the 7th grade on through Calvert and American Schools. Both of these had excellent programs, but I grew up under the cloud of being a second-class student, unlike the few local neighborhood kids. By some series of minor miracles I took my GED tests and passed with high enough grades to get into junior college. My mother at first opposed this, but her fear of completely loosing me finally turned that around. If I had followed my parent's views I would have never gone beyond a home school- high school level, would have never gotten married or moved away from home.

I have known people who had good reasons to home school (one friend took her kid out of public school because the science teacher was teaching creationism - ironic indeed!), but most parents have neither time nor resources to be good teachers (my friend was a mathematics instructor at a junior college). The pipe dream of a nation of homeschoolers is unrealistic and to some extent cruel to those without resources who's children will be relegated to more and more inferior public schools if some of the more rabid home school advocates have their way. Parents who home school do need to meet some standards and have some sort of plan other than just bucking the system. The most successful have actually formed cooperative schools with other parents - in other words a small private school!

Annes, Evolution has not been "tested" and "repeated" -- and it is indeed an unproven theory. And, yes, it does purport to deal with origins, as in Darwin's book, Origin of the Species, yet it does not provide an answer for the origin of life. You're obvsiouly as devoted to the theory of evolution as I am to the truth of the Bible, so we'll just have to disagree and allow the posts to return to the theme of homeschooling.

oh jezus maria pleeze the california court should only allow parents with proper teaching credentials to teach homeschooling.
i know of a person nearby a dockworker the guy barely speaks correct english and has no education himself the same goes for his wife and they are homeschooling their 4 kids.(yes they are native born!)
needless to say they will not be able to enter workforce when mature and will cost our society lots of tax dollars to support them in future!

The "socialization" I remember from public school was endless teasing about my cleft lip/palate and my speech. Human nature hasn't changed so much as to believe that this kind of thing is all in the past. Public school is fine as long as one fits the mold and doesn't require too much extra time or effort to learn.

I think most of the people here who are passing judgement on homeschooling families are really uneducated on the subject and are making assumptions.
I was homeschooled, until I was 15, and then I went directly to college. I did well in college and proceeded to get several degrees. It was a very easy transition to college, because I was already used to studying independently. And my mother had always taught me to go for 100%. If I got one answer wrong, I had to go back and figure out the right answer. In public school, you can get a C, meaning that you got many answers wrong and that is normal. Achieving excellence and true understand of the materiel is not important.
In homeschooling, I got to explore many subjects, in addition to learning the basics. I was expected to do well and thus I expected a great deal from myself. The love of learning was emphasized. That love of learning carried me through many years of college, and is one of the best things you can give your children.
Now I am an adult, and now homeschool my kids. I strive to create a learning environment in my home where my kids can discover their strengths. They will get a top notch education. And we will begin incorporating college classes in their early teens just like myself and my cousins.
My children have many social exposures each week. You would never know they were homeschooled, if you saw us in a store. They don't look weird and they are very capable to community with their peers and adults.
I choose to homeschool for several reasons. I want to give my kids a better education than what they would get in a public or private school. I also home school because I am want to teach my kids to be loving and kind human beings. I choose to expose them to positive good things, ex...working with me at the food pantry I run, serving at a homeless shelter, gathering supplies for orphanages in Ethiopia, opening their home and family to several children from another country that didn't have a family ( adoption ), and the list goes on. Children are like sponges. I don't want to fill them up with garbage on TV, or bullies at school. They will experience some of those harsh things at life at some point, but I will have allowed them to grow up strong in who they are before that happens, so they are confident to stand up against peer pressure, even if they are the only ones.
We live in a very selfish society. I don't want my children to be this way. And I have to start by example. I love my children enough to sacrifice many of the things/careers, I would like to do, so I can pour into them. I can tell them I love them and how special they are, until I am blue in face, but to really make it true, I have to show them in my actions that they are my priority.
They are my special gifts and they are worth it.

Disclaimer: Please disregard any typos, my three youngest, are age 1, and like to climb all over me while I am typing. Well I must get back to my kids. Thanks for reading!

I think most of the people here who are passing judgement on homeschooling families are really uneducated on the subject and are making assumptions.
I was homeschooled, until I was 15, and then I went directly to college. I did well in college and proceeded to get several degrees. It was a very easy transition to college, because I was already used to studying independently. And my mother had always taught me to go for 100%. If I got one answer wrong, I had to go back and figure out the right answer. In public school, you can get a C, meaning that you got many answers wrong and that is normal. Achieving excellence and true understand of the materiel is not important.
In homeschooling, I got to explore many subjects, in addition to learning the basics. I was expected to do well and thus I expected a great deal from myself. The love of learning was emphasized. That love of learning carried me through many years of college, and is one of the best things you can give your children.
My oldest son is 7, and reads at a 8th grade level. He reads out of interest and joy. All of my kids are ahead and test in the high 90's percentile on the CAT test each year. If you choose to home school, you can most certainly gauge whether or not your children are learning at the appropriate level through standardized testing. The same test that public school kids get. Although once you get into home school, you find that the tests tell you what you already know, but you see how they are doing in their curriculum.
Curriculum: Why any parent can homeschool, regardless of education level? i Because there is tons top notch curriculum out there. I had a great education....but even I can't remember alot of what I learned. So I am relearning alot with my children. There are great curriculums like Switched on Schoolhouse, which is done on the cpu.....it give the student the assignments, grades the work and keeps organized records. There are homeschool coops, online schools, and the list goes on.
Now I am an adult, and now homeschool my kids. I strive to create a learning environment in my home where my kids can discover their strengths. They will get a top notch education. And we will begin incorporating college classes in their early teens just like myself and my cousins.
My children have many social exposures each week. You would never know they were homeschooled, if you saw us in a store. They don't look weird and they are very capable to community with their peers and adults.
I choose to homeschool for several reasons. I want to give my kids a better education than what they would get in a public or private school. I also home school because I am want to teach my kids to be loving and kind human beings. I choose to expose them to positive good things, ex...working with me at the food pantry I run, serving at a homeless shelter, gathering supplies for orphanages in Ethiopia, opening their home and family to several children from another country that didn't have a family ( adoption ), and the list goes on. Children are like sponges. I don't want to fill them up with garbage on TV, or bullies at school. They will experience some of those harsh things at life at some point, but I will have allowed them to grow up strong in who they are before that happens, so they are confident to stand up against peer pressure, even if they are the only ones.
We live in a very selfish society. I don't want my children to be this way. And I have to start by example. I love my children enough to sacrifice many of the things/careers, I would like to do, so I can pour into them. I can tell them I love them and how special they are, until I am blue in face, but to really make it true, I have to show them in my actions that they are my priority.
They are my special gifts and they are worth it.

Disclaimer: Please disregard any typos, my three youngest, are age 1, and like to climb all over me while I am typing. Well I must get back to my kids. Thanks for reading!

I have read all the previous posts and seems to me that most people are under the impression that all homeschooled people are some type of stereyotype. If you were homeschooled you must be a terrorist, religious fanatic, a hillbilly, anti-social, stupid, abused, really smart, or any number of other things. Is it possible that you can be homeschooled and be (gasp) normal? I assure you I have met all those types of people and believe it or not some of them came from public and private schools as well as from being homeschooled! Just because some people mess up the homeschooling process doesn't mean everyone does. Just because there is one bad public school should we close them all down? Don't punish the majority for the mistakes of the minority.