Talk:Homeschooling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Homeschooling has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeschooling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
To-do list for Homeschooling: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  1. Check in regularly to help with consensus opinions on topics under discussion.
  2. Find related free-license images: children learning at home, samples of books, educators, etc.
  3. Research for anti-homeschooling legal actions/decisions, legislation, lobbies, unions, or other organized groups or movements.
  4. Research home education resources for legality, statistics, motivations, etc. for specific countries. Start with the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand.
  5. Various clean-up related tasks:
    1. Bypass "what links here" redirects.
Priority 2
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative education, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Alternative education. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] Archived #3

Archived discussions from 1/21/06-1/20/07 (152 kilobytes) NightFalcon90909 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Long?

I think this article may be a bit...overworked, and frankly it is still NPOV. I personally don't care much about homeschooling, but I will admit I tend to anti but I certainly think it should be legal.

The article isn't NPOV because it doesn't cover enough opposing views. The article is NPOV because it reads like an article that homeschoolers would write to tell people about their practice. The fact is though that this article really reads like a booster article, even though i know you are all trying to be neutral. It is still clear just from reading it that most of the work on this article is done by homeschoolers. I think the reason for that is that much of the article seems to be written as a response to criticisms of homeschooling. Instead shouldn't that be left for other sources? Same for the curriculum section.

Also in several places you go into some detail about things that are covered in their own articles, such as unschooling, unit studies, etc. This is not necessary. I guess what I am trying to say is that the huge about of x% of students do better with such and such passages in the article make it read like advocacy. We don't need to know that stuff if we just want to know what homeschooling is.

In my opinion this article should do what most do, answer the questions I came to this article for: What is homeschooling? Who does it? How common is it? Why do people do it? When did it start? You should be able to answer those questions in a lot less than 5500 words. Just my opinion. protohiro 09:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....a lot of this criticism may be justified.
However, as for the, "...I came to this article for: What is homeschooling? Who does it? How common is it? Why do people do it? When did it start? You should be able to answer those questions in a lot less than 5500 words...", well, some folks might want a more in-depth treatment than that.
Maybe a rework of the intro would be in order to put the more basic info at people's fingertips... Darentig 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV question is one that has come up many times. Upon reflection, and to be perfectly honest, a truly Neutral point of view is a rather utopian concept. Every single individual who seeks to contribute, criticize, or comment upon any subject at all is always going to undertake that task from some particular point of view. How many people are there out there with absolutely no opinion whatsoever about whether homeschooling or institutional schooling is better? (And, if you can find such a person, why should anyone bother to listen to them?)
The real question is whether the article fairly represents the pros and cons of homeschooling, both as a practice and as public policy, which I personally think it does. As noted in previous posts, I've even seen arguments against homeschooling that have been deliberately left out of this article just to keep from making homeschooling critics look stupid. (Or in other words, from a pro-homeschooling standpoint, the criticism was so vapid it actually would've been advantageous to our position to have included it in the article. That was from the NEA.)
I guess it's fair enough to say that the article reads like it was written by homeschoolers, but really, who else is going to write it? Public school teachers? It's going to have to be written by someone who's pretty familiar with the topic, which is pretty much...homeschoolers.
I understand the populist appeal of determining that the article should cover the basic "Who, What, When, Where, and Why," and in less than 5500 words to boot, but as it is there are still gaps in the article that need to be filled in (like when and how did homeschooling come to be so closely associated with evangelicalism). Frankly, when I come to an article I always want more information, not less. Darentig 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well stated! I agree w/ everything. NightFalcon90909 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The BEST way to keep NPOV is by simply stating facts (as should any and every article). If the article ventures into the personal sides or issues, then you run into POV problems, Wikiwars, etc. I personally don't think that "showing NPOV by representing all sides" works. In fact, I'm yet to see it work. Even if it does work, it compounds the subject and beats the versing to a pulp, there's more of a debate than simply a layout of facts. Yes, I know there's facts within showing two sides, but why do that if you can avoid it altogether? Just state the facts, prove those facts with references. You have a good article with NPOV because there is no POV in the first place. Stating just the facts also helps keep the size of articles down as opposed to making large sections dedicated to showing differing views. Colonel Marksman 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I feel that multicultural/black ethnic minority home education within the UK isn't represented enough in this article. There should be more links to external sites to do with this issue. Any suggestions? —Adventuremama 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing Views

I agree with (sorry, can't see your name anymore) about the need to include more opposing views...if we can do so in a way that is consistent with notability and verifiability standards. I have a concern that many wikipedia articles abandon these standards for the criticism section, and thus the claim like "some people think that homeschoolers have bad haircuts" gets included, because hey, sure, some people probably think that, and to not include criticisms would be NPOV. I've just put together on article about criticisms of free schooling / unschooling, and I have to say that the published, notable criticisms of a movement are not always what one might expect. So...my two cents. Ethan Mitchell 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I haven't seen any good opposing views ever. All the opposing views of homeschooling I have ever heard of or read about has been rebutted by scientific studies, facts, and polls. IOW, all the opposing views ot there are simply poorly thought conceptions; there's nothing solid there. I have my own arguements against homeschooling in some respects, but they're very minor and highly exclusive. Colonel Marksman 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not so much interested in what our viewpoints are. What I would like to see is that the page explains the types of opposition to homeschooling that exist, in as accurate a way as possible. Deciding whether or not those opposing views are 'good ones' is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Ethan Mitchell 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • As a former home educated person I have some opposing views, however I do not know how to actually place them inside of wikipedia and make the grade for qualified viewpoints. Does anybody have any suggestions? - EDIT - Per Wikipedia:Attribution I suppose there is no way to do so. I'll see you kids when my book is done.

[edit] Cost to homeschool families

This section was modified to include the following "Traditionaly, wives worked inside the home rather than outside the home, so this did not serve as a financial limitation until the economy change necessitating the two income family. In developed countries today, some families compensate by running a family business, working from home..." I have reverted it as uncited material. Additionally, it might be more social commentary than encyclopedic information about "Costs to homeschool families." Darentig 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are studies and data that can be cited from the ethnography "Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement," by sociologist Mitchell Stevens. Pegazzani 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Reasons to Homeschool" table

I like that replacing the image with an actual table. Thanks, Midnightcomm. Two things.

• I'd rather it go back on the left (to break up the article from having everything on the right).

• It needs to have it's previous attribution from below the image, "Number and percentage of homeschooled students, by reason for homeschooling: 1999, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)" I don't think that appears elsewhere. Darentig 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cited the table as described. The table is also aligned left, however, I don't like the way it appears in my browser. Perhaps it should have some whitespace around it? --Midnightcomm 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I say; whitespace around it. I moved it to the right and put Boy Edison and Fireside Education on the right, which seems OK, but the table definitely needs whitespace around it. Type is still too close, and the headers rule displays behind the table heading. I thought to try and do so, but I can't tell from the code what to do. Darentig 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added style="margin-left:15px;" to the table, which looks better IMHO Tomandlu 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide View Tag

I see that a Worldwide View tag has been added by Slf67. I don't dispute that the article is weighted toward the US, but I wonder how much that can be changed. It's my understanding that the homeschool movement originated in the US, and is still by far stronger there than in any other nation. Darentig 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it yesterday but didn't have time to explain at the time. I read this article and the line "white, college-educated, married, relatively affluent, evangelical christians" stopped me in my tracks. And then the main body referred to the work of Holt and the Moores, both obviously US centric. In my mind, as a British Australian, home education is a long standing choice that parents make if they feel they can better educate their children at home and have the time to do so. Most parents outside of the US educate home educate because of overcrowded, underfunded public schools, taking their children out of class sizes of 30 plus, and the parents have the time and expertise to do so. I also suspect the parental politics would be left of centre, but that's my personal observation. In parallel to this a US homeschool program has been developed with religious background over the latter half of last century. Now, if this article is about US homeschooling for religious reasons, then fine and spell it out clearly. But if this article is about educating children at home worldwide then there is undue bias towards the former view. --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...something to think about I suppose...to be honest, we have tried to represent the face of homeschooling in the other nations, but it's rather difficult from here and we don't get that much interaction from elsewhere except the occasional addition of a link or something. It isn't that the article is about US homeschooling for religious reasons, but it's dreadfully difficult to come up with pertinent, citable information otherwise, so it definitely leans that way. One reason there is so much info about American homeschooling is because there's a lot more information to reference. (Also, it seems to me that the proponderance of homeschoolers internationally still rest in that camp simply because of the sheer size of the American homeschool movement.)
I added that statement recently because someone had complained about the article having too much information and they only wanted the barebones facts. Maybe I should alter it to read "average homeschoolers in the US" or something...the statement does come from citable facts, but obviously all aspects do not apply to all homeschoolers. Our family, for instance, is not college educated, I am glad to say, or relatively affluent, I am not so glad to say, but the other aspects fit well enough. That's why I put average in quotation marks.
Schools here are also overcrowded and underfunded, but that does not seem to be sufficient impetus for most parents here to consider homeschooling. (Frankly, even if they were underpopulated and fabulously funded, they would not make a very good environment for anyone, much less children. Prisoners maybe.)
Curious to know why you identify yourself as a British Australian, rather than merely an Australian. Darentig 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be really interesting to dig up some information of say home schooling in rural areas, places where there is no compulsory modern schooling. But just to elaborate on the above, some people home school because they believe there is a huge difference between schooling and education, and that education is the bringing out of innate qualities, such as ability to express yourself through creative writing and speech, of mannerisms (human relations), etc Astounded Heffalump 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous People Homeschooled

What is everyones thoughts on having a section listing famous people who were home schooled? Or even partial schooling —The preceding Astounded Heffalump 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been an item of some dispute in the past. You can dig through the archives to see what has gone before. The gist of the most recent discussion is that such a list would have to be absolutely verifiable according to a set of standards which has yet to be agreed upon; all of which no one has taken the time and effort to attempt.
It might also be tricky to create such a list that does not come off looking like Trivia. Darentig 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "Typical American" homeschooler statement

Anon user 66.183.199.29: this is a legitimate factual statement drawn as a summation from the referenced material below. If you think you have some good reason to remove this statement from the article you need to discuss it here first. If you continue removing it with no explanation I will consider your action vandalism and have you blocked from Wikipedia. Darentig 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved the following comment to it's appropriate subject here. Darentig 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You cannot conclude from the data provided that homeschoolers are, on average, white, wealthy, etc. without a qualification that you are referring to American homeschoolers. Also, I dispute the assertion that a majority of even American Homeschoolers are "evangelical Christians." While they may homeschool for "religious/moral reasons" this does nothing to imply any particular affiliation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.199.29 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Hmm...ok I will grant you your assertion as to being evangelical. I still think that's quite true, but I have to agree that it is not cited in the article and will amend it accordingly until I can cite it.
As to the others, the statement already does qualify itself as pertaining to Americans, and the demographic info listed in the article clearly indicates that American homeschoolers are much more likely to be white. Not saying that being white makes homeschoolers special, or that homeschooling makes white people special, just that it is a statisical fact. Personally, I can't imagine what anyone, white, black or purple, is waiting on. I'll add another ref from the DOE study to back these statistics up.
Please note that I did not say "wealthy" but "relatively affluent", as the study does indicate – if somewhat indirectly. Darentig 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK (sigh). The whole point of the summary demographics statement was because protohiro had complained about too much info in the article (!) and not enough barebones facts, then Steve (Slf67) complained that it doesn't apply internationally, so I noted it as American, and, looking into 66.183.199.29's further objections I did have to modify it slightly, but at this point it really seems like the whole statement should fall under the US subheading of Demographics, and not up in the summary anyway. So I have moved it there and added some interesting Barna stats. I do have to agree, based on the stats I am seeing, that, although American homeschoolers are much more likely to be evangelical than the national population, evangelicalism only comprises a fairly small category of homeschoolers. Darentig 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by Anon 209.244.16.171

Sorry; most of these have been particularly worded for specific reasons.

• "...very roughly estimates" Typically, the word "very" would be redundant. If you follow the link however, you will see that this estimation is rougher than most and should be noted to the reader.

• "families"; the original material does not state this; it could mean 15,000 students.

• "Atheistic": not "an atheist", to follow the flow of the sentence, but the homeschooler is "atheistic".

• "white": that's the word the study used. Not Caucasian.

• "religious/moral": again, that's the wording of the study, not "theological or ethical".

• "evangelical": again, the wording of the study. Not discussing how strongly the beliefs are held, but that they are evangelical beliefs.

• "national norm": wording of the study; not "general population". Darentig 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] changes by 68.35.158.218

68.35.158.218 has added some good information, rewritten other information, and most importantly added a table. However, the text wrapping around said table is not working so Darentig... since you seem to be really working on this page, could you fix that since I have no idea why it is not working. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 13:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are seeing.....text wrapping looks right to me...I did make some changes to this new material to make the language more encyclopedic and balanced, and for clarification....if it still shows wrong you might have browser issue? I don't know...Darentig 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well whatever you did it is fixed now... maybe I am just crazy and it never was broken;-) N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wowa there!

I say there Darentig- are you sure all of those are spam? Some of them looked fine to me-

- * Gifted Homeschoolers Forum A California-based national association for families homeschooling gifted children. - * Home Education UK - Contains links to UK, US, European and Australian home education organizations. - * HEN Ireland - The Home Education Network- Support and lobby group for home educators in Ireland. - * IndigoExtra - provides information and links on home education in Europe. - * The Link Homeschool Newspaper Free, inclusive, national homeschool newspaper. Articles run the gamut of styles and philosophies. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that knowhomeschooling.com is hardly commercial. --Midnightcomm 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Well....spam might really be a poor term as a catch-all, but I have been looking at these for some time now and wondering if they really had a place here....I will admit that I had some qualms about a couple....but in looking at the policy which has been brought to our attention by Veinor, I think that few of the current links really fill the qualifications.
Actually, I am wondering if the external link section ought to be deleted entirely. I realize that many of these are not really commercial, but the links that get added in, and that have collected up, often seem to be a little...well....rinky dink I guess I would say...though that doesn't apply to all of these. Darentig 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing with the discussion of "spam" links. . . .

I have gotten involved in editing only three pages at Wikipedia and have found my editorial revisions revised, themselves, twice, by editors who are far more experienced here than I am.

One of those had to do with my addition of a link on the Homeschooling page to Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd., a major homeschool supply house.

Having, SINCE THEN, read the Wikipedia article about how to identify spam, I realize my link was legitimately deleted. However, I also sense a direction the external links should go, here, on the Homeschooling page.

The NHERI and HSLDA links make sense. The organizations are major sources of information (NHERI) and influence (HSLDA) for the homeschool movement in the U.S.

The Moore Foundation and Holt Associates links, however, though ostensibly related to primary content within the Homeschooling article, are really commercial links, when you take a moment to look.

Ivan Illich link: to an encyclopedia article. Looks legitimate.

Cato Institute article: also appears legitimate. It is a kind of "generic" comment.

My two cents, for what they're worth.

But after my experiences of finding myself on the "wrong end" of other editors, I will refrain from doing anything on the page itself at this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brightflash (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

They may be considered commercial links, but they're noteworthy commercial links; i.e. very much germaine to the topic. Kind of like a link to the Coke website in an article on soft drinks; yes, it's commercial, but you'd really be remiss not to have it. There's also a good bit of information on those sites too. Darentig 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosity

I didn't know people did this nowadays, it's very surprising to me. Although seeing how teachers here in Spain are less and less capable of educating children (there are more and more cases of children beating up on teachers!), it wouldn't surprise me if people start doing it.

However I cannot resolve this: How do those children get friends? --euyyn 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, but do you think that friendship was invented 150 years ago with institutional schooling? How did people get friends before that? Don't you have any friends that you met outside school?
Most of what passes for "friends" in the school systems are not really friends at all; more like fellow inmates. On the contrary, it is schooled children who are bereft; of a substantial family and real parenting. Darentig 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

::I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, but do you think that children that go to school can't have a substantial family with real parenting? Why not answer what seemed to be a reasonable question instead of being insulting? --Onorem 15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. (Seriously) Because this question is as if you dropped into a world where everyone had adopted a pointless practice of wearing scuba gear everywhere they go, for several generations so that no one had ever seen anything else, and when someone suggested there was no real reason to do this people asked, "..but how will you breathe?" It really wasn't meant to be insulting, but it really is that obvious an answer. Darentig 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

::::1. That's just sad. ::::2. Horrible analogy. Scuba gear doesn't make it easier to breathe everywhere you go. Growing up, I knew a handful of kids from church, and a handful of kids that lived (relatively) nearby. I knew hundreds of kids from school, and most of the "fellow inmates" that I considered friends then, I would consider friends 10-15 years later. It's not 150 years ago. Many children around the world have most of their social interactions at school. Yes, there are other places where people can gather and socialize, but many people in recent years aren't as exposed to those places, and it's a legitimate question to ask. --Onorem 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


People, this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not the topic itself. Discussion in this manner of the merits or otherwise of homeschooling is inappropriate. Please take it to e-mail or IRC or something like that. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


1. :-) I notice you side stepped the issue in an insulting way.
2. No, scuba gear doesn't make it easier to breathe everywhere you go; it's only for making it possible to breathe in a certain peculiar circumstance. Likewise, schools don't make it easier to learn; it's what people do whether you place them in an institution or not.
3. "Many children around the world have most of their social interactions at school. Yes, there are other places where people can gather and socialize, but many people in recent years aren't as exposed to those places" This is precisely my point. This peculiar "parocialism in time" has given people some rather unbalanced ideas and a miniaturized mindset about life. The reason I didn't "answer what seemed to be a reasonable question" in the way you expect is that a much broader frame of reference in needed by the inquisitor. Darentig 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind continuing this discussion in my user talk page so this talk page won't be flooded with it, which I agree is off-topic. In a village with many people doing homeschooling, as would have been the case 150 years ago, children can (must) socialize in the street. But it is difficult to socialize and make friends with people from other schools, so in a normal village or city (speaking of rarity) a homeschooled kid would have trouble making friends. Living together day by day with your friends in the school builds a particular culture inside the group, which makes it difficult for people from outside to join, and it strengthens the bonds formed. --euyyn 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/m/Talk%7EHomeschooling_2660.html"