> Literally zero evidence for this. On average, kids that are homeschooled walk away with higher levels achievement and fewer psychological issues than their traditionally schooled peers. They integrate just fine into society.
There is plenty of evidence of the contrary though, that kids born in families with low income and educational achievement do much much better when they are in a socially diverse school as opposed to a ghetto. Sure maybe homeschooled kids are slightly better off, but that comes at a huge cost for all the kids who have a single parent who works three jobs that will never be able to afford to homeschool them.
> You don't have kids.
You don't know that.
> But I am still a parent if the social order breaks down and the government disappears.
Every day hundreds of thousands of parents "break down" and government takes over for them. Government breaking down is a much rarer event.
> "secular education"
If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
> There is plenty of evidence of the contrary though, that kids born in families with low income and educational achievement do much much better when they are in a socially diverse school as opposed to a ghetto. Sure maybe homeschooled kids are slightly better off, but that comes at a huge cost for all the kids who have a single parent who works three jobs that will never be able to afford to homeschool them.
I was that kid, and putting other well off kids in my school did nothing to fix those issues. You're running on a theory with no evidence. Putting kids in a school just brings the kid down to the lowest common denominator, it doesn't have the opposite effect. High performing kids are likely to be picked on, even minority kids will get called out for "acting <insert racial stereotype>". It's works like cancer, not like vitamins. The negativity of the kids from horrible homes effects everyone, the positivity gets squashed by the system and social ostracization.
>If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
What if schools teach other misconceptions that get corrected in college. Like brontosauruses are a thing, or T-Rex's hunt prey. That the founding father's are practical holy figures and did no wrong. What if its a religious school district and they're the ones skirting past evolution, teaching bad concepts and you want to homeschool to correct it. What if you teach the kids secular stuff and the kid gets the politics and beliefs at home anyway and believes it because that's what their parents believe and have more influence over the values and beliefs that kid carries into life than a teacher ever can. You're running on a lot of assumptions that doesn't negate that fact that public schools largely suck, and even a half hearted attempt at home schooling has kids performing on average better than public schools because they suck so very much.
Here an article reporting on a study by the OECD, but I'm sure you'll be able to find more scholarly sources if you just took the time to research it.
The truth is homeschooling is almost exclusively an American (maybe I should say anglophone) phenomenon, in most of Western Europe homeschooling is just illegal or allowed in extreme cases and under very high scrutiny from the public school system, because data has shown that it does more harm than good.
Homeschooling is exclusively American because American schools are almost completely shit like most government provided services here and saying because German schools are good, American kids shouldn't homeschool is ignoring all the data that says US public schools are in trouble, on a steep decline and home schooling has for many, become their only viable alternative. Look at the colleges complaining about kids coming in who can't do basic problem solving or critical thinking. Anyway, I've linked this stuff so many times.
If a school in someone's area is crap and not addressing their child's needs a parent ABSOLUTELY should have the RIGHT to pull their kid out and seek a better alternative. Saying home schools are bad because public schools should be good and use data that has nothing to do with test scores, performance later in life. The social thing has been debunked multiple times. Sending a kid to school to learn to socialize has the Lord of the Flies effect, learning to socialize in a school, not from adults. Home schoolers are typically seen as more mature than their peers.
You're defending a dumpster fire with doctored data when their are news articles every day about how much trouble public schools and outdated the education system is, and using anecdotal out liars to prove home schooling is terrible. For every home schooler you show that had issues, I can show you an article about a kid who committed suicide because of bullying, who had a learning disability that can't be addressed in large classroom settings, who experience severe social anxiety because of the social hierarchy high school taught them about.
> Sure maybe homeschooled kids are slightly better off, but that comes at a huge cost for all the kids who have a single parent who works three jobs that will never be able to afford to homeschool them.
You are proposing to offset economic inequality by degrading the education of the privileged. Your goal should be improve the education of the disadvantaged instead. Raise all boats, don't drain the lake. It's obvious that the United States could spend much more on education and do a much better job with the schools they have. Pinning any significant portion of the "huge cost" of the current system on middle class homeschoolers seems like sophistry intended to avoid the abuses of the hyper-capitalist, atomized system and ignores the actual problem.
> Every day hundreds of thousands of parents "break down" and government takes over for them. Government breaking down is a much rarer event.
This doesn't address the issue at hand. If a parent breaks down and the government steps in, that isn't incompatible with permitting homeschooling in non-abusive contexts.
> If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
If your parents are extremists of any sort, you're not going to mitigate their toxic influence or prevent them from harming a child by eliminating homeschooling. Most bad parents still send their kids to public school. Public school is not a remedy for abuse.
> You are proposing to offset economic inequality by degrading the education of the privileged. Your goal should be improve the education of the disadvantaged instead. Raise all boats, don't drain the lake. It's obvious that the United States could spend much more on education and do a much better job with the schools they have. Pinning any significant portion of the "huge cost" of the current system on middle class homeschoolers seems like sophistry intended to avoid the abuses of the hyper-capitalist, atomized system and ignores the actual problem.
I think you're exaggerating the negative effects of sending almost everybody to public schools. Look at Scandinavia, France, Germany (or even southern European countries), the vast majority of people goes to public schools and it's not like the advancement of humanity has stopped there. A similar argument can be made for socialized medicine, a highly privatized system like the American one ends up being: more expensive, more iniquitous and less effective. If you really think that dismantling or undermining the public school system is not going to end like the medical system in the US, well I don't know how to convince you.
I think you're looking at different school systems and using it to leverage criticisms of home schooling in the US.
Fix public schooling in the US first, make it so it isn't so easy for home schoolers to out perform. Don't make kids guinea pigs while you figure out how to fix it. Then and only then can you level a critical eye on US home schoolers if the vast majority weren't doing a better job than public schools. If you're going to advocate for public school in the US, advocate in what ways that schools today by majority statistics are better than home schooling (socialization actually isn't one of them). Because all I see is a system that is 100 years out of date, anti-science (in terms of teaching methodology and pedagogy versus neuroscience and child development studies) and throwing money at problems that goes to the administrators not to teacher pay or reducing class sizes or anything substantial.
This is like people saying to fix the bus system before adding bus lanes that would increase congestion for cars. The system is broken because smarter kids or kids who come from more educated families are escaping it. The effect is that public schools in the US are becoming like public transportation in the US: only those who don't have any other option are using it.
A kid does not have the right to another kid’s education by forcing him to attend the same school and act as his crutch. If you believe they do, you should march down the the nearest hospital and offer up a kidney, a lung, and a lobe of your liver, because that’s what your theory of justice leads to.
>The system is broken because smarter kids or kids who come from more educated families are escaping it.
Yeah, no. Do you have any experience with the public school systems in the US, or are you just viewing this from Europe and engaging in some vigorous armchair analysis? The problems are manifold, and they're exacerbated by the fact that the school system is not nationally funded, but locally by local property taxes, so impoverished areas with stressed parents also get poorly funded schools.
I know some people who took part in Teach for America, and part of that experience was that they taught in some of the lowest performing schools. And one of their big takeaways was that the teachers in those classes couldn't maintain basic order, let alone teach effectively. Smart, well behaved kids aren't going to improve that situation, and it's going to seriously hamper their ability to get a good education if the teacher has to focus on keeping people in their seats instead of teaching.
It's clear to me that A) you don't have kids and don't have any experience with kids in school B) you led a very privileged life and had a better than average experience in school C) think smart kids should be held back or slowed down so the less fortunate kids can keep up and further dumb down and brain drain society because that's how it works in schools D) You're so ignorant on the subject you obviously are a victim of the public education system you're so adamant to defend.
Your analogy isn't worth addressing, its not even close to accurate. Its pointless to continue.
There is plenty of evidence of the contrary though, that kids born in families with low income and educational achievement do much much better when they are in a socially diverse school as opposed to a ghetto. Sure maybe homeschooled kids are slightly better off, but that comes at a huge cost for all the kids who have a single parent who works three jobs that will never be able to afford to homeschool them.
> You don't have kids.
You don't know that.
> But I am still a parent if the social order breaks down and the government disappears.
Every day hundreds of thousands of parents "break down" and government takes over for them. Government breaking down is a much rarer event.
> "secular education"
If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.