Talk:Homeschooling

This should be titled homeschooling in the United States

It doesn't touch substantively on other jurisdictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.231.183 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What sort of issues aren't being sufficiently covered at the moment? ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction Section

The first sentence implies that education must occur in either one place or another. The same sentence also implies that home education does not take place in a formal setting. Education is a function of the rational mind, and that function is limited only by the child's capacity to observe and process sensory data. Thus, a home-educated child is not limited to receive instruction only at home. Parents may provide instruction at any place and thereby impart education outside the home.

Moreover, many parents provide home education in a formal setting. Informal settings outside the home should not hinder the learning functions of a properly educated home-school student. Public education became an alternative with the onset of compulsory attendance laws. This alternative prevails as the most common. Home schooling now is somewhat rare, as are exceptional citizens.

I propose the section's amendment. --ElderHap (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically what could be done to improve it? LewisWasGenius (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

US section

"However, this phenomenon seems to be flying under the radar as the movement does not seem to have significant advocacy from any national agency or organization and the statistics tracking single parent homeschools have currently not yet been posted on the websites of the DOE,[81] the NHERI,[82] or The Barna Group.[83]"

This statement is false and gramatically incorrect. HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) is a national organization strongly advocating homeschooling. That group has advocated in every state for homeschooling. There are many others that advocate the institution. Some are more significant than others regarding membership or affiliation. The statement in the article should be amended. ElderHap (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on home schooling in the US is far too long for a brief overview of the subject. The size of the section is ridiculous in comparison with that of other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.212.202 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cut it down to size. LewisWasGenius (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge Single parent homeschooling here

• Propose that the above article be merged here. There is not enough good material for an independent article. It could become a section in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

External link defense, plus HSLDA as source crit.

Dear Editors,

I added an external link to this article for The Caribbean Center of Home Education Resources (www.tchers.net), which was subsequently deleted. I asked for the reason and was told by Themfromspace that it violated Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. I read through that guidelines and I couldn't find how the link violated it and I note that the web site being linked is the same type of regional web site that includes general homeschooling information as the Australia and New Zealand links that you do have listed. Please let me know how the link I submitted differs from those.

I also am chagrined to see HSLDA in your list of links because they are 1) primarily a commercial organization and 2) an unreliable source, at least as far as homeschooling in Puerto Rico is concerned. For the past eight years, T'CHERs has contacted them on numerous occasions to correct the incorrect legal information that they have listed for Puerto Rico. They did make a change about three years ago, but the information left is still incorrect. This is shameful, especially on the part of an organization whose specialty is supposed to be the legality of homeschooling.

Even more offensive is the blatant disregard that HSLDA has shown toward hard won homeschool victories that have been achieved by local grassroots efforts. A prime example of this is the fact that homeschoolers in Puerto Rico can self-certify their homeschooling when applying for government aid from the Department of Family and the Health Department. Although HSLDA has been notified of these important and positive developments, they insist on promoting their own business by stating in their FAQ for PR that they will provide certification of homeschooling for government offices - without mentioning one thing about parents now having the authority to do this themselves.

I submit this topic with the utmost respect for the work you do as editors. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

Tibs.of.the.jungle (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Americas education system

Almost 3 million Americans are home schooled and growing. More then 4 million Americans are in religous schools. Many more are in private schools. And millions of American kids drop out of public school each year. If this dosen't say soemthing about our public schools here in America then I don't know what will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If your spelling doesn't say soemthing (sic) about home schools and religous (sic) schools, then I don't know what will. Also, I'd like to point out that most of those millions of public school dropouts are probably smarter and more world-wise than those home schooled and religious schooled kids who are force-fed biased belief and sometimes flat-out incorrect information by people who are not fit to be teachers. Theroguex (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Theroguex, you seem to be the one exhibiting bias. Not every homeschooler is a sheltered freak. 142.139.181.96 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Theroguex, you yourself seem to be showing a bias against religious schools. I would like to say that many secular curriculum are quite heavily biased, especially regarding the Theory of evolution. Many secular schools teach only evolution, whereas many Christian high schools teach both creation and evolution theories. LordCirth (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Parents' Motivations

I note that motivations for ideological (i.e.: political/religious) reasons for Home Education children is played down (well, not even really mentioned!) in the foreword of the article; yet you've got a table that shows "religious reasons" as the second most popular motivation for wanting to do Home Education; shouldn't this be reflected in the foreword? From what I can see there is definitely a religious dimension to a significant proportion of Home Education websites.

I think it might also be worth including mention of the idea that people might be motivated to do it by general "moral" reasons, which could encompass both religious and political beliefs that are at odds with the publicly-funded education regimes available. In other words, they feel that their children may be trained to have a particular world-view (that they may find either immoral or censorious; never mind unimaginative) if they remain in the state-school system.

I think this warrants inclusion; because I'm not so sure that academic attainment is really the strongest motivator in all cases; and may be a bit of a red herring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.76.83 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective in my exposure to home-schooling parents, I observe three reasons that parents choose to home-school their kids. The reasons aren't necessarily mutually exclusive:

• Environmental shielding (the environment to be protected from could be too violent, too secular, too conservative, too liberal, too ethnic, etc.)
• Religious indoctrination (goes hand in hand with shielding, although you can have shielding without indoctrination)
• Academic achievement

I agree that this article warrants inclusion of the points you raised. I'll see what I can do about fixing the lead section. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The first main paragraph under the Criticism section lists several bases of criticisms of homeschooling. The following list should be added to the Motivation section or perhaps in an additional section entitled, "Incentives."

• Excellent standards of academic quality and comprehensiveness
• Direct supervision of socialization with peers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds
• The potential for development of religious and social foundations
• Children insulated from common fallacies promulgated in mainstream society
• Children denied rights to opportunities that inhibit proper social development
• Direct oversight of materials and instruction used in indoctrination
• Potential for maintaining diverse families that strive to uphold moral standards of citizenship and society
• Emphasis on non-delegable duty of parents to raise children

While this list is not exhaustive, it shows that some of the listed criticisms fail universal application. While the items in this list also fail that test, including them in the affirmative section provides useful information and improves the quality of the article. ElderHap (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

List of "homeschoolers"

This has been deleted and re-added a few times. Right now it's gone, but since someone will probably put it back up I thought I'd say a few words on the subject. Specifically, I suggest that we come up with a consistent definition of homeschooling, preferably sourced, that is not anachronistic. Erwin Schrodinger did not think of himself as homeschooled. Ricardiana (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see my prediction was correct. Here's what needs to happen, in my view:

1. First off, lists like this are a problem, not just with WP:TRIVIA but with the MoS re: lists in general. If this section is to stay, it should be written up in actual paragraphs.
2. Second, definitions should not be anachronistic. We can squabble about what anachronism entails here - by all means, let's.
3. Third, sources need to be of a higher quality than some bio of Lincoln that says he didn't go to school. That's not the same as asserting he was "homeschooled."
4. Fourth, perhaps this back-and-forth can be solved by the employment of a neutral point of view? Specifically, something like this: "Many proponents of homeschooling point to such figures as Abraham Lincoln and Elizabeth I as having been homeschooled...[etc.]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardiana (talk • contribs)

The biggest problem with the list is that people will add anyone to the list, even if they were properly homeschooled, and that makes the article look worse rather than better. It's WP:LISTCRUFT at best, and at worst... This is why it should be pulled. It's unlikely to get better until someone rewrites it, and I have no interest in making trivial connections look better. --Izno (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do have an interest, as I was homeschooled and I'd rather we don't look like a bunch of dumbasses. So I've made a preliminary swipe at re-working the section. The first step is for it not be a list or titled as list, and the lack of list format/title should cut down on the temptation to shove more items in. Ricardiana (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of WP:Weasel words, though. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. I don't have time to do the research right now, but at least trying to work on the section is better than having it be constantly deleted and put back. Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So why is it not Dumb Ass for Harvard to have a list of Alumni? The list is to make it easy for someone to research who if anyone important was homeschooled. Needless to say Harvard complies such lists in part as part of its sales effort. And in part for inspiration of current and future students. So? After reading the posts, I think it might be good to explain why an individual is considered homeschooled, royalty being homeschooled by a well paid tutor probably is not what people think of as homeschooling. There may also be a difference between homeschooled, tutored at home, self taught, and even not schooled. Geo8rge (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Part of this issue has already been discussed above, under "notable home schooled students". This wiki entry is NOT on the modern home school movement, but homeschooling generally.

2) Many people are interested in factual information about what kinds of people are home schooled. The list gave a range of historical examples. It was carefully researched by several users and backed up with citations

3) Perhaps there should be a separate wiki page for notable home-schooled students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.203.92 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, whoever you are; I am aware that the issue has been brought up before, thank you. However, it has obviously not been resolved, largely because people insist on deciding what they think about what homeschooling is, etc., and then edit warring accordingly. Wikipedia policy demands the employment of a neutral point of view. I have re-worked the section to add sources that give two opposing points of view. If you would like to make a list of homeschoolers according to one of those points of view, I suggest you create a page as per WP:LISTS, but even then you will have to employ a neutral point of view. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes rather than posting anonymously. Ricardiana (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it was not "carefully researched" because it did not attend to issues of interpretation and anachronicity. Nor did it adhere to NPOV. Nor iss the number of people involved in creating the list relevant to these issues. Ricardiana (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On that note, I'll point out that most of these "carefully researched" sources are in fact to one source, So - Why do you homeschool?, and lack citations to page numbers, a minimum requirement for "careful" research. I might also add that the book is published by a no-name press and lacks citations for its claims.

I have now created a page as per WP:LISTS entitled List of notable homeschooled individuals. Please do not shove this list back in the article; that would be a violation of WP:MOS. Ricardiana (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The section is perfectly neutral, and reflects factual information that is appropriate to the article. It is not a "list" under WP:LISTS and more than the "list" of legality of homeschooling in different countries would be. I have restored the text; do not delete without better justification. Further, your argument of "anachronicity" distracts from the min issue and does not make sense in any case- Elizabeth is a currently ruling monarch, of example. Again, this is not an article on the modern homeschooling movement; it is an article on homeschooling generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.203.92 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You are 100% incorrect. First of all, I created a page for your list, as per WP:LISTS at [[List of notable homeschooled individuals, and provided a link to that page under the appropriate section. Second, it is not "my" argument re: anachronicity, although I happen to agree with it; it is one that is given in a source which I cited. You do not own this article, so stop acting as if you do and stop deleting every cited point of view you disagree with and reverting the page back exactly the way it was. I have (1) tried to get rid of a bulleted list that does NOT comply with the Manual of Style by creating a new page for this info, dubious though some of it is (see other users' comments on this talk page, as well as mine), and (2) added another point of view. The section as you keep reverting it IS in fact NOT neutral because you insist on presenting only one point of view! This is just nonsense. I have put back the one source and am letting the list stay for the moment, even though there is another page with this info and even though it's bad style. If you have the chutzpah to get rid of that source again, I am just going to have to take this to the dispute resolution process. Ricardiana (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of the points above are incorrect. First- although I once added to it, it is not "my" list- this list has been on the home school page of wikipedia in one form or another for years. It is a part of the page that many users find informative and a source of factual information. Examples are an important part of a page like this. Secondly, there seems to be dissatisfaction among some uses that only famous individuals are reported; however, attempts by others to add less famous individuals are deleted (and I agree with that decision, by the way). Finally, different points of view are important, but your point about anachronicity is possibly irrelevant because this is not an article on (only) the modern homeschooling movement- it is about homeschooling generally. Nobody thinks or assumes that Abraham Lincoln's education at home was the same as Elizabeth the II's, or for that matter, some modern homeschooled student in America. By the way, some of these issues (like the details regarding "list" of notable homeschoolers) have been through dispute resolution before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.203.92 (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your points are irrelevant to the points I made above. 1. It's nice that you are not the only one who made this list, but that is not what owning an article means - read the link. 2. I never said examples weren't important. Bulleted lists of examples, however, are not best style:

Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose. Bullet points should be minimized in the body of the article, if they are used at all; however, a bulleted list may be useful to break up what would otherwise be a large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. [This hardly qualifies.]] Bulleted lists are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom. (Wikipedia:Layout

I was fool enough to toy with the idea of getting this article to Good Article status, but with your attitude of [[ownership that will obviously never happen. 3. Once again IT IS NOT MY POINT ABOUT ANACHRONICITY and you do NOT get to decide which POVs are appropriate because they ALL have to presented! You can't just hide under "no one thinks" when obviously that is not true because I have a CITATION to prove it. So thanks for your remarks, but they are IRRELEVANT to my points.

You accused me of deleting material that I did not delete and you acted as if I am presenting one point of view when in fact I added a source to make the section NPOV. You show little sign of understanding Wikipedia's recommendations on layout and you have not assumed good faith. Ricardiana (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the list section, then saw this discussion, so I apologize if I overstepped my bounds. I see no reason not to have a list of persons as cities and schools have such list often including people only minimally attached to those places. And sometimes only rumored to have been in those places. It might be better of the list explained why each person is considered homeschooled. Geo8rge (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Any such list still fails the mine and others' reasoning at Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 5#Notable homeschooled individuals. These people are only tangentially related, and simply because an article in another place or on another topic is similarly poor does not mean this one should be as well. --Izno (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In my professional research off Wikipedia, I have been trying since the late 1980s to verify lists of famous homeschoolers. Usually such lists accrete names by word of mouth, and no one checks even the most readily available biographical sources to see if the persons are correctly described as homeschoolers from the point of view of any era. Once upon a time I had a verified list, for which I made many trips to the library to look up biographies, and that list was quite short. It's always best anywhere on Wikipedia to insist on core policies such as verifiability and reliable sources. That helps each individual article, and it helps the project as a whole. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I really do not see why a referenced list of notable people who were in part homeschooled is a problem. Harvard actually has multiple lists, including one of notable non graduates. Is the Harvard page poorly written? If you consider homeschooling to be on the same level of institutional education then its WP should be similar. Every WP page except this one cannot be poorly written. Anyway I moved the list back to its own WP page. A positive outcome is the list now has references and an explanation of the individuals homeschooling experience. Booker T Washington were really self taught so he was dropped. I hope this solution suits you, having the list on a separate WP linked to this one should keep people from adding the offending section.Geo8rge (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

world map

I discovered an incoherency between color and text. In the table below the map homeeducation is considrered generally legal in Norway, wich I think is correct. Norway therefore should be yellow and not red on the map.

In the same table homeeducation is considered illigal in Sweden. This is not correct. Yellow is the correct color for Sweden. Even if Norway is more liberal than Sweden both give a legal space for homeeducation. Another story is that a proposal for a new law has been presented last week wich is very similar to the german law. But it is not here yet!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himmelslund (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

homeschooling in Italy

from the map it seems that hs is illegal in Italy. But this is 90% false, as I have evidence of children homeschooled in Italy.

The only requirement is that the child must undertake annually an exam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.16.118 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, homeschooling in Italy is legal. I added the paragraph regarding Italy, with link to the Ministry of Education. The map should be corrected.--Gspinoza (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias + Bias != No Bias

In the section "Criticism of supportive achievement studies" there is a part that implies a statistical fallacy that comparing two self selected biased populations is comparable or as good as comparing two random selected populations. Rewording should correct this. Perhaps reordering the following sentences would fix the problem. What do you think? Change this:

"Some states that require testing allow homeschooling parents to choose which test to use.[79] When testing is not required, homeschoolees taking the tests are self-selected, which biases any statistical results.[80] An exception are the SAT and ACT tests, where homeschooled and formally-schooled students alike are self-selecting; homeschoolers averaged higher scores on college entrance tests in South Carolina."

To this:

"Some states that require testing allow homeschooling parents to choose which test to use.[79] An exception are the SAT and ACT tests, where homeschooled and formally-schooled students alike are self-selecting; homeschoolers averaged higher scores on college entrance tests in South Carolina. When testing is not required, taking the tests are self-selected, which biases any statistical results.[80] " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk2337 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate this i don´t understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.203.142.130 (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The second part of the proposed change might make more sense if it were reworded to say the following:

When testing is not required, the self-selected tests bias the statistical results.

I did not confirm the sources of this information. You will want to be sure that this is what they are promulgating. ElderHap (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

sexual harassment a reason for homeschooling

“ Across the country, it was estimated in 2003 that nearly 10 percent of American students — or more than 4.5 million — were targets of sexual harassment or abuse by a public school employee between kindergarten and 12th grade, according to a study by former Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft.

The study, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, said those numbers could be low because inappropriate behavior by educators is likely under-reported, Shakeshaft wrote.

”

That's from [1]. Should that be included in the article somewhere, or the study cited for sexual harassment being a reason to keep children homeschooled and away from rapists? 10% is an insane amount! Dream Focus 05:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless the study itself mentions that sexual harassment is a cause for parents to homeschool, it should not be cited in this section. It would be considered original research, since it's an editor and not a research team who would have thought of the new reason.bob bobato (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Legality of Homeschooling

The alternative article Legality of Homeschooling presents a table which matches this article's map but conflicts with its text. Please can a subject expert reconcile the two? The sources under International homeschooling above may be useful. If there is a consensus to revise or replace the map, help is available at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Certes (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Look in the section #Homeschool Legality World Map above for some comments. I have taken a look at the problem, and the map and the classification in the table seem higly dubious, but I do not have the knowledge required for correcting it.

Most entries here have sources, while many of the links on the mentioned page are non-informative or dead, probably because fewer people are working with it (and it hasn't been updated for a while). Two examples, that I checked because of the discussion above:

Finland: "Legal as alternative to the mandatory public school system. Written and oral examinations to check on progress are mandatory. – legal under restricting conditions, like a teaching certificate or permit"

Norway: "Illegal, public education is mandatory without known exceptions. – illegal"

In the case of Finland the categorization is strange, because I think it clearly should fall into "Legal under regulating conditions, such as mandatory tests and checks". This may be a pure error.

In the case of Norway the law seems to recognize homeschooling and the local homeschooling movement says it is legal. The source used for the table entry is the wikipedia article Education in Norway stating "Elementary and lower secondary school are mandatory for all children aged 6–16." But this is about schooling in general and not about mandatory public schools.

It is probable that there are similar problems with other countries. The original author complains that finding info on Europe is difficult because the multitude of languages and the issue not being widely covered.

--LPfi (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I helped write the article and map the first versions of the map. The countries listed as "Illegal, public education is mandatory without known exceptions." Are probably not correct as the sources are not good. I only added countries with reasonable sources, but other editors have added others. Zginder 2010-03-07T22:31Z (UTC)

I don't think homeschooling is legal in Portugal, either. The law in the link clearly states (art 2 n 3) that "mandatory education requires parents to register school-age children (6-18) at either public schools, private schools or other recognized education institutions" All of these require a licence from the state to operate, and have to follow the approved curriculum from the Min of Education. Also from the same legal doc, mandatory education applies to all children age 6-18 (art 1 n 1; art 2 n 1). The only exception is gypsies, who continue to get away with not sending their children to school, despite of the law. I am tempted to change the article entry to "Illegal" unless someone provides a better legal reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.3.15 (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for enhancement

The sentence "The Moores cited studies demonstrating that orphans who were given surrogate mothers were measurably more intelligent" does not make it clear who were these children compared with (I assume with orphans without surrogate mothers, but would be nice clarified). Could someone with access to the source check it, please? Mcsontos (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not objective

This entire article is heavily biased in favor of homeschooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.124.132 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a Controversies and criticism section. Please feel free to expand it with reference to reliable sources. There is no reason why an article about homeschooling should not be predominantly about homeschooling. Lame Name (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the NPOV tag the anonymous editor added. Without a more specific argument, there is no reason for that tag to be there. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

“It takes a village to raise a child”

“It takes a village to raise a child” There is a particular philosophy of homeschooling, often referred to as “unschooling,” which shares many similarities with the Sudbury model schools. John Holt was its best known proponent, and his writings have been invaluable to us in helping to explain just how learning can happen without teaching, and why on earth a child might choose to learn arithmetic or some other supposedly dreadful subject. ??

That section seems inappropriately worded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.110.27 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not formal education?

The first paragraph says it is an alternative to formal education. I think it is inaccurate to say that homeschooling is not formal education. In some cases, it definitely is; but in many cases, it is not. Anybody have any suggestions on how to fix this? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Change the word "formal" to "institutionalized" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.45.29.176 (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

homeschooling should be differentiated from what homeschooling is not

I think the definition of homeschooling should be differentiated from what homeschooling is not; being self taught and on the job training. Or at least some mention of the fact that there are educated people who did not attend formal school and who were not educated by their parents.. So in the list of notable homeschooled people it should have less about their achievements and more on what their actual educational experiences were. One modern legal definition is “a school primarily conducted by parents or legal guardians for their own children.” The new definition for a home school is “a school provided by a parent or legal guardian for his or her own child.” This might mean that some individuals like Booker T Washington were self taught, with little or no intervention from their parents.

It looks like a lot of sourcing is necessary here.

I see another editor is adding [citation needed] tags to many parts of the article, drawing our attention to statements that should be cited to specific sources. It will be good to look for more books (especially) and peer-reviewed review articles for citations to improve the verifiability of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In the section entitled "Philosophical and political opposition," a bulleted list of points is given, but they do not actually appear in the text any of the citations given in this section. Can whoever added them offer a reference?--71.94.170.163 (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Handicap in higher education section

This seems a bit weak:

Some evidence suggests that homeschooling handicaps students at the college and university level. Homeschooled students may be less likely to gain admittance to certain schools. This may result less from outright bias as concerns about socialization and educational breadth. Also, it's been suggested that candidates seeking professorships who are known to homeschool their children may be less likely to "get the job" than candidates who do not homeschool.[35] This claim is controversial and described as "pure prejudice, if not paranoia" by the source citing it.

The source linked to is saying that universities and colleges who believe that homeschooled children are less suited to higher education than school-schooled children (there must be a word for that! Heh). The source does establish the idea that there has been a suggestion that those seeking professorships who are known homeschoolers are less likely to get the job than non-homeschoolers, albeit with one anonymous anecdote. That source does not establish that if this were true, it is based on prejudice or paranoia.

I've removed the final sentence from the section. Those more interested in this article might want to add some more citations for this section or rewrite it. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I took this section out altogether. It makes a circular argument -- "homeschooling is a handicap if it hurts the student when applying for college" -- without presenting any evidence that this does happen. The source article itself is unsigned, and the people described in it are anonymous. Lists of colleges that have accepted homeschoolers are available and perhaps should be added elsewhere, if not already part of the wiki article. - klcwikimom 11:39 4 April 2011

Name of article

The term "homeschooling" is more American than Commonwealth English and suggests a structured and non-autonomous approach, which is unusual in the British Isles at least. I would claim that this title makes the article biassed in itself. The term "unschooling" is also used, which is again more common in the States than the UK, but is more specific. This bias could be addressed by renaming this "Home Education" and making "Homeschooling" a link page.

Nineteenthly (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Home Tutoring vs. Home Schooling Chart

Is it OK if I add this chart to the article? It succinctly clarifies many common misconceptions between home tutoring and schooling. I can cite it appropriately as well.JasonHoldEm1234 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic	In Home Tutoring	Home Schooling
Location	The student's home or public location	The student's home
Certification	No certification or license required	In most states it is recommended a home schooling program must be certified and approved by the local school district, although not necessary.
Instructor	Typically a college graduate, but in theory anyone can be a tutor	It is recommended to use a state certified teacher, with all the licenses and credentials recommended by both the state and local school district
Material Covered	K-12 and College Subjects	K-12; very rarely is home schooling held for college level courses
Time of Instruction	After school hours	Any time of the day, although typically during school hours

What kind of citations do you have? If you have very good reliable sources, this might be appropriate for the article. I'm not sure where it would fit though. It might also be too much emphasis on a minor topic. Princess Lirin (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The second and third items you list under Home Schooling are not true in my state, and I don't think they are true in most others, unless you are using a different definition of "Home Schooling" than I understand. LWG ^{Complaints here} 22:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick google search for "homeschooling laws by state" tells me that indeed the vast majority of US states do not require any type of certification. LWG ^{Complaints here} 22:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, I had missed a couple key words. I have fixed it. Please let me know if there are any other typos.JasonHoldEm1234 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Home Schooling History

Is there a reason this section cuts off at 1980? A lot has happened in the last 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.128.3 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No ordinary person has taken the time to write it yet (hint, hint). LWG ^{Complaints here} 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons

The intro gives a list of reasons parents choose homeschooling. What wasn't mentioned is that some children have problems getting along in a class environment. Should this be mentioned? Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Section not ready for article

I removed this:

Other research

UK: Paula Rothermel ROTHERMEL, P. (2002) Home education: Aims, Practices and Outcomes. PhD thesis, University of Durham. ROTHERMEL, P. (2004) Home education: comparison of home and school educated children on PIPS Baseline Assessments, Journal of Early Childhood Research Issue 5. ROTHERMEL, P. (2005) Can we classify motives for home education? Evaluation and Research in Education, 17(2)(3).

BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Motivations

There is a more recent NCES survey (2007) that summarizes the motivations for homeschooling: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf The data is similar to older studies, including the table in this article. However, the lede is not consistent either with the article itself or the more current data. The article lede states:

"Parents in the United States cite numerous reasons as motivations including better academic test results, individualized instruction, to help the public system with fewer kids, more hands on environments, to try alternative methods, poor public school environment, religious reasons, improved character/morality development, the expense of private education, and objections to what is taught locally in public school."

I don't know the history of this statement, but it is not consistent with the article. I propose something like the following for the lede:

"Parents in the United States cite numerous motivations for homeschooling their children. The three reasons that are selected by the majority of parents are concern about the traditional school environment, to provide religious or moral instruction, and dissatisfaction with academic instruction at traditional public and private schools."

The other reasons are less commonly voiced and could be mentioned in the body of the article. I would also like to edit the Motivations section to reflect the 2007 data but it may take a while given my editorial incompetence with tables! Desoto10 (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that the more current information is listed in the article "Home Schooling in the USA". Should we update the general article or replace the general Motivations section with a more worldwide perspective? Do we have many links to motivations in UK and other english-speaking countries?Desoto10 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes which can easily be reverted if someone objects. I took out the laundry list of parental motivations from the lede and replaced them with the sourced statistics given later in the article. I am still looking for similar statistics for the international community, but am not having much luck.Desoto10 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the reference in the lede to better test scores being a parental motivator as it was not clear that parents actually chose homeschooling for that reason.Desoto10 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Testing

The ref for the following appears to be dead:

"However, advocates of home education and educational choice counter with an input-output theory, pointing out that home educators expend only an average of $500–$600 a year on each student, in comparison to $9,000-$10,000 for each public school student in the United States, which raises a question about whether home-educated students would be especially dominant on tests if afforded access to an equal commitment of tax-funded educational resources.[35]'

In any case, it seems as though the $500-600 per year does not include lost wages from the homeschooling parent. The vast bulk of governmental schooling goes to salaries, not supplies.

It seems to me that it would be better if the two sections on "research" should be combined. The difficult nature of assesing the homeschooled vs. those not homeschooled should be pointed out at the start and then the results of studies listed. The section describing the conclusions of the Moores could be significantly shortened. Desoto10 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias

There are an enormous number of references here to "studies" publishe by non-reliable sources such as homeschooling advocates (some of whom directly profit from homeschooling), taken as if they were from objective venues. This whole article reeks of advocacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There are 46 references right now, could you call out some of them specifically as being potentially unreliable? ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the HLDSA is 7 of those sources, and they're known for providing a one sided view of the subject. They might be reliable, but incomplete. Ksevio (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The first place HSLDA is cited on the legal status of homeschooling in US states, a subject on which they are undoubtedly one of the leading authorities. The others are in the "Research" section, which in my opinion has numerous issues beyond just poor referencing. I will try to find time for a closer look at that section and its references to see what can be done. LWG ^talk 01:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential for unmonitored child abuse

An editor took exception to the statement, "There is no evidence to suggest that abuse among homeschoolers is more pervasive or severe than in government institutions." The citation for that statement is a broken link to a 1996 issue of the BYU Law Review. Can we find a live link to something more current? Also, "there is no evidence..." (asserting the null hypothesis) should be replaced with something like "X found no evidence..." and/or "Y found evidence..." Peter Chastain (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The only part of that section with any real information was the last part about a DC law. It doesn't seem like a very useful section without any reasoning why it exists. Ksevio (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)