Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Financial Obligations

A new section called "financial obligations" has just been added. Since there is already a section called "cost to families" which actually has references, and since the "financial obligations" sections sounds suspiciously like original research, I think we ought to remove it. Does anybody object to that? Amillion (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your points and have rewritten this part of the article. I have taken out the first paragraph that gave examples for how homeschooling parents that stay at home may generate extra income. None of the studies I read indicate this to be the case, it's simply not being commented on. I did add a line stating it as possibility, unless other sources become available that's all it deserves. Instead I have put the point of the criticism in the first paragraph, being that the majority of homeschooling families leaves one parent at home. This is backed up with different statistical sources in the second paragraph. There is a paragraph going into the costs for educational materials compared with public schooling as well, but with less detail as this is not the primary financial obligation. I believe the only flaw it currently has is the one of only using US studies. This however goes for most of the article, likely because the US is the only country with over a number of homeschoolers in the thousands. Species8473 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a few comments/questions about the "Criticism: Financial obligations" section. 1) The purpose of the section isn't clear – what is the criticism? If one parent stays home and doesn't participate in the labour force, that isn't a criticism of homeschooling. 2) If the purpose is to state financial facts and demographics, then it should go in the main body of the article somewhere – probably in two places – one for demographics, the other for estimated costs of homeschooling. 3) If the Rudner article is indeed flawed, then why are we using the data? 4) The section isn't written very well, but I don't want to touch it as I am not familiar with the studies and it isn't clear to me what the purpose of the section is. Dumb All Over (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I understood it as saying that homeschool can burden families by forcing one parent to stay at home rather than earn money. Seemed like a weak criticism to me, but whatever. Wrad (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it weak, it's nonexistent. The cited sources say nothing about one parent being "forced" to stay at home, or one parent "excluded" from the labor force, as creating a financial burden. I removed the first two sentences of that section because we can't synthesize conclusions from published sources. However, without those two lead sentences in the section, the whole section no longer appears to be criticism, and should be moved elsewhere in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I merged some of the demographics information from this section (the Rudner and Belfield studies) with the "International status and statistics" section for the United States. Dumb All Over (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

References in popular culture

Should there be a section for this? I can think of a few off the top of my head:

• Mean Girls – the protagonist is homeschooled.
• Hannah Montana – in one episode, the character Lilly masquerading as "Lola" claims to be homeschooled in Canada.
• Charles Webb wrote a sequel to The Graduate called "Home School", the plot of which includes the protagonists fighting for the right to homeschool their children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigressofIndia (talk • contribs) 2008-02-06

NO. "Popular culture" sections are equivalent to "trivia" sections, and tend to grow without bound, adding zero value to the article. Please don't. See WP:TRIVIA. Trivia sections are strongly discouraged. -Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany section

I reverted the section on Germany as violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Seanwal11111 put it back with the biased phrasing removed (thanks, good job). However, it still has problems:

• Undue weight. See WP:UNDUE. The section is too long and has too much detail for a general article about home schooling. It needs to be made more concise. The particulars about court cases aren't necessary.
• Improper citing. Please don't just stick a URL between two "ref" tags. See WP:CIT for citation templates. They're easy to use and do all the citation formatting for you.
• Misrepresentation. The first source cited in that section doesn't support the accompanying text. The "source" is just a home page of a web site. If claims are made, they should have specific citations. What articles on that web site can be used instead?

Otherwise, the section without the POV verbage is good enough to keep, provided the problems above are addressed. -Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The first source cited is http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/default.asp -- that webpage is an aggregation of cases of parents getting arrested, losing custody of their children, etc., which is exactly what my text is saying. As one example from the list of cases available from that webpage, "The Dudeks... were tried, convicted and fined 900 euros (about $1,200) in May [2007] for not sending their children to school.... Additionally, the local Youth Welfare Office in Hesse filed a case against the family in the local Family Court [to take custody of their children]. But at a July 3 hearing, a judge ruled the Dudeks could keep custody of their six children." On another page we have "Dagmar and Tillman Neubronner were home at their small publishing house in the City-State of Bremen, Germany, when a knock came at the door. Outside were two German marshals who wanted to enter and see if there were any possessions they could seize and sell to pay the $6,300 fine levied against the family because they homeschool their children." There are loads of similar such websites on the internet and it seems to me that one I cited is as good as any of the others.

With regard to your opinion that the text is too detailed, I don't agree, but we can satisfactorily resolve this issue by creating a separate Wikipedia page headed "Home schooling in Germany", and linking to it from "Home schooling". I'll get around to doing it on or before Sunday, but in the meantime if you're impatient don't let me stop you from doing it yourself. seanwal111

The section about Germany is only a small fraction in length compared to the section about United States. And Germany is distinctive because it's (I believe) the only European country where homeschooling is illegal and violators are aggressively prosecuted. I've only wrote two paragraphs. The first states that it's outlawed, and the second states the moral or legal justification for outlawing it. What's wrong with that? seanwal111111

The first source doesn't comply with the verifiability guidelines. It would be better if you selected one or two representative articles to cite instead.

Trimming the Germany section down to the bare essentials, and writing a separate, detailed article about home schooling in Germany, is an excellent idea.

It's enough to state in this article that it's outlawed. The justification for that is best left to a separate article. Highlighting that in this article which is more about the general topic, violates the undue weight guidelines.

I'm not impatient. Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines. -Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The first source is the website of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a big website from a hugely-funded US non-profit organization that has staff lawyers that lobby in Washington and at state capitols, and which is constantly gathering news and other information related to home schooling legal issues. It's probably the premiere site in the English language for this issue. Certainly it's an advocate for home schooling, but the notion that its hard news is unreliable is not credible to me.

I firmly disagree that it violates the undue weight guidelines. It lies at the core home schooling issues. The attitude that makes it illegal in Germany lies in the discourse in all countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwal111111 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Have added information on the recent origins of German law Snow555 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hey folks! I'm thinking the first thing I'm going to do is put a tag on everything that doesn't have an inline citation. It's worked in other collaborations I've been part of. We just start by citing everything and then move from that point into expanding the article. Usually as we cite what's already here, we'll start running into what isn't here yet. Wrad (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has been selected as the WikiProject Homeschooling collaboration of the month. Members of that project should be notified about problems with this article at the project's forum. Thank you. DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

International homeschooling

We need to get all of our bases covered on this. Can someone make a color-coded map of the world showing legality of homeschooling across the world, also another possibly showing # of homeschooled in different countries?

I'm putting together a list here:

• Czech Republic – Legal since 1998 [1]
• Norway - ? 200 in 1998 [2]
• Sweden – Legal, low #s [3]

• South Africa – Legal since 1996, over 10,000
• Guam – Legal [4]
• Japan – Uncertain [5]
• Singapore – Legal since 2003 [6]
• India – Legal [7]
• Israel – Legal [8]
• Belgium – Legal [9]
• Bulgaria – Mostly Illegal [10]
• Hungary – Legal [11]
• Kenya – Legal [12]
• Netherlands – Illegal [13]
• Poland – Legal [14]

--Wrad (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that a couple maps could carry the legality by country issue better than the current section does. I think our list of countries should be reorganized into paragraphs about continents and larger geographic regions and should discuss more than legality. It should discuss history, popularity, etc.

• Homeschooling in Europe [15]

-- Wrad (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to work on this. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already made a starting map. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 15:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Where? - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 15:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a draft. File:Homeschool Legality-World.svg. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia—Legal. [16] Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 17:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the four categories of the map: Legal, legal but contested, illegal but uncontested, illegal. Let's list according to that. Wrad (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Should the U.S. by green? Zginder 2008-05-02T22:25Z (UTC)

Is there a source for homeschooling being legal in Greenland? As an article about Greenland states "education is free and compulsory for all children between the ages of 7 and 16". Note that Greenland is completely autonomous since 1979, only before that date it was a colony of European Denmark. Should we reform the European table into an international one? Or create extra tables for other continents? - Species8473 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we change the map legend to the following?

(Green) Legal under no conditions, or only registration

(Yellow) Legal under regulating conditions, usually being mandatory tests and checks

(Orange) Legal under restricting conditions, usually being a teaching certificate or permit required for parents

(Red) Illegal

• In the United States and Switzerland legal status varies by state, colored by most occuring

With that the United States remains yellow as by 1 and Swistzerland orange by 2 - Species8473 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling in Europe

I have done some research on homeschooling in European countries, and created a table to hold all the information. It's quite big so I put it on a seperate page.

Current gaps: Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Georgia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Serbia, Vatican City.

Everyone is encouraged to help with the gaps, feel free to take them out the list above when done. Extra sources and information for other countries are most welcome as well.

Current issues:

• Austria, stated as legal in article, but without any source (illegal in my list)
• Slovenia, stated as legal in article, but without proper source (illegal in my list)

Greetings, Species8473 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you use sources other than Wikipedia? Zginder 2008-05-19T20:44Z (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I agree with you that more sources are needed. Unfortunatly I only speak five of all the many languages used in Europe. I believe the Czech Republic status should be: "Legal under restrictive conditions by temporary experimental law for children aged 5-12"1. This is confirmed at a Czech government page adding "school attendance takes nine years, usually from the age of 6 till the age of 15" 2. I believe this means children have to go to a public school starting age 12. Species8473 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alaska

Shouldn't it be yellow, since it's part of the US? Wrad (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I'll try to fix it when I change Spain to green. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

I have nominated this article for peer review a second time. Criticism is welcome at the peer review page. Thanks. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeschoolers vs. homeschoolees

Resolved

 – I think it's pretty much been agreed upon here that we can refer to students as "homeschooled students" until there is enough sources to back up the fact the "homeschoolee" is the correct term for the student. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done quite a bit of work cleaning this article up and re-writing a few sections. Any thoughts on the changes I've made? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to see what you've changed based on the edit history. Give it a look yourself and you'll see what I mean. Amillion (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Educational games

The paragraph about educational games in the "methodology" section seems to be condoning a particular point of view, and it also seems out of place/irrelevant. This paragraph reads:

Recently, the parents of both home schooled children and compulsory education schools are using educational games to make learning fun. Educational games cross the barrier between both types of schooling. They are intended to give children a positive attitude towards learning, and self-motivation. In response to the popularity of educational computer games, a wide variety of subjects are now covered in these games. Free online schools including colleges have made home schooling an easier transition from compulsory education, because the computer teaches the child instead of a parent or teacher, allowing the parent time to work their job. Free job training can also be learned online for those who can't afford college tuition, or who live far from schools. Amillion (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just re-wrote it, although I feel there may still be some point of view left in that paragraph. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "homeschoolee" rfc

Is "homeschoolee" the only grammatically correct term for homeschooled students, and should it therefore be used regardless of whether or not it is used by outside sources, or is the term inappropriate for a Wikipedia article because it is not used by reputable sources? (In other words, should the extent to which a term is used by credible sources determine whether or not it is used on Wikipedia?)

• Don't use homeschoolee. Reputable sources are the key, and grammar is determined by the way words are actually used in real life, anyway. Wrad (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.190.144 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to forget about this for now; I'll do a little research on it and come back another time, maybe. Could you please withdraw the RFC? Thanks. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it so that other editors can weigh in on the issue, but I will remove your name from it. Amillion (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that there is another rfc on List of homeschoolees discussing the same issue with the intention of determining whether or not the current title is appropriate. Amillion (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad on his line starting with "Don't use homeschoolee..". The government12, media[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53457 1][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54377 2] and homeschooling organisations12 all use homeschooler(s)/homeschooled and not homeschoolee. I believe this issue takes far too much time and place over a non existing word. Species8473 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the use of "homeschooler", since Wikipedia should be catering to the vast majority, when having to choose between 2 still-up-in-the-air terms with which to identify something.--[ Dario D. ] 12:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"The following editors" tag

The tag on this page that says "The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources," although it explicitly states otherwise, does actually imply article ownership. Questions about verification and sources should be placed on the talk page where any editor can respond. I think that this tag should be removed. Amillion (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove it pending discussion. Amillion (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I you feel that it implies article ownership, then you can nominate the template for deletion, as you do not have grounds to remove it. I am going to re-add it, and you can add your name if you want. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, how do I nominate it for deletion? Amillion (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" seems to be a good rule here. You can assume that it implies ownership, or you can believe what it says, that the people listed can be sought for answers to questions regarding sources. Wrad (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Without doubting any good faith, I wonder what kind of advantage the template gives. It has been there for a couple of month now, while it doesn't seem like it has ever been used. More importantly though we have a perfect talk page right here, that does not rely on one editor being familiar with the specific subject or even worse be available and active at all. Logically concluded using the article talk page provides the best answers in the shortest amount of time for those seeking help or information. With another added advantage that all contributers to the article can keep track of and discuss on ongoing talks by monitoring one talk page. Currently the template is just another one in the list, being a distraction for other information. And if it is going to be used I'm missing the advantage as well. Species8473 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that following the template guidelines it shouldn't have been put there in the first place. It clearly states "do not place this template on the talk pages of controversial articles that are easily subject to POV wars". This page is full of complaints about POV and bias: opposing views, biased research, the page blithely offers positive studies as the truth, NPOV, heavily biased, NPOV again, efforts to edit out POV from research section. And those are only for the last year, many more of them in the archives. Species8473 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeschool Legality World Map

The map I'm commenting on: homeschool legality world I think some of the information on it isn't correct. Starting with the Netherlands, where I happen to live. Homeschooling is not completely illegal in the Netherlands, it just has very high requirments, is opposed by political parties, and we virtually have none. Belgium has a similar situation, home schooling is allowed, but only if the parents prove able. And although the number of homeschooled children is higher, it's still a very tiny percentage. Sweden I believe should be yellow, virtually no homeschooled children and opposed by major political parties. I think a good improvement for the map would be to change orange into meaning legal under restricted conditions. And with that I would think about anything that goes further then registration. Another improvement for the map would be if it gives an indication on the percentage of home schoolers. Countries like Poland, Ireland, Czech, and earlier mentioned virtually have none. - Species8473 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Map was meant to show legality not population. Zginder 2008-05-17T12:50Z (UTC)

I am aware of that, the part of the article it's next to however is on international status AND statistics. My idea is to add extra lighter/darker colors indicating the percentage of home schoolers. For example the United States and United Kingdom become dark yellow/green while Ireland, Sweden, Poland, the Netherlands (etc.) are given a light color. Unfortunately you're not giving your opinion on the idea. Another option would be an extra map. - Species8473 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of change the USA to green. Do you have sources that say it is legal in the Netherlands and Belgium? Zginder 2008-05-17T16:22Z (UTC)

In the Netherlands homeschooling is legal in case the parents can't find a public school fitting their beliefs in the area. In Belgium homeschooling is legal for parents with a teaching certificate. I have this information from the Dutch wikipedia article, it is accurate to my knowledge and in line with other Dutch sources I checked. The status "legal under restrictive conditions" fits best for the Netherlands and Belgium, and possibly other countries as well. China currently is the only orange country, while I believe it should be red in line with the article concluding illegal. For the United States I would say green, but the state of California orange. Legal under the restriction that parents have a teaching degree. Unless the court decides otherwise during the re-hearing in june. Sweden I believe should be yellow: http://www.thelocal.se/10982/20080408/ I haven't checked all the other countries, I do believe they could use one to ensure the maps accuracy. Do you happen to have a complete list of sources you used when creating the map? - Species8473 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not consider legal with teaching certificate, legal at all. The map has one area for the 48 states of the USA so I have to make it one color. Most of my sources are in the International homeschooling heading above, I also used [17] for other counties. I will change Sweden to yellow per that link and the one above I used before. Zginder 2008-05-17T22:10Z (UTC)

Can you comment on my idea of changing orange into meaning legal under restricted conditions? In both Belgium and the Netherlands a number of people is legally homeschooling. Note that Belgium currently is green on your map, apparently some find homeschooling is legal in Belgium, while other don't. Again showing the demand for the status I proposed. - Species8473 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What colors do you want the Netherlands and Belgium to be? Zginder 2008-05-17T23:12Z (UTC)

This is a map the Home School Legal Defense Association has made about the various stated in the USA. Could we use a similar system? Zginder 2008-05-17T23:18Z (UTC)

My proposal: Green: Legal, Yellow: Mostly Legal; may be disputed in most political subdivisions, Orange: Legal under restrictive conditions, Red: Illegal. The only issue we have to decide on will be where the borders are. Personally I think if a country only requires registration and/or testing it should be either green or yellow. For those are merely regulations instead of restrictions, and do not prevent a parent from homeschooling. Countries (or states) that require parents to have a teaching degree (Belgium/California), or only allow it if no public school suiting the parents beliefs is available in the area (Netherlands), are examples for the orange category for they are clearly restrictive conditions and do stop a group of parents from homeschooling.

The HSLDA map is nice, but the legend not sufficient for the world because it has no illegal status. A darker red can be added, but the largest issue currently is that we don't have all the data. The article has a written section on some countries, once existing data on regulations and restrictions has been added there, that information is ready to make entrance to the map. And at that time the legend can be expanded. - Species8473 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the map; if you have more changes to you would like made, change it yourself or reply here. Zginder 2008-05-19T12:50Z (UTC)

Homeschooling is most certainly legal in Norway; the local council can impose some form of supervision if they feel the need, but anyone can homeschool if they so wish. See for example the summary on the Norwegian homeschooling association. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Finland

For some reason Finland is orange on the map. Primary education is compulsory and controlled, but there is no obligation to attend a school (preschool is compulsory in some cases, but preschool is otherwise explicitely non-compulsory).

This is confirmed at Ministery of Education: Home schooling (Swedish).

There is no movement about homeschooling (that I know about) and nearly everybody is attending school, so it might be true that attending school is believed by many to be compulsory, but it is clearly recognized as a legal option.

The cases of homeschooling I have heard about have been about parents taking a year off abroad and arranging the education themselves, asking the children's teacher for advice before departure. In these cases attending a local school would not have been practical, for lingual or logistic reasons.

--LPfi (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Major flaws in Rudner study

Report: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

• Voluntary participation
• Student grade placement was decided by parents
• Tests were supervised by homeschooling parents
• Funded with money from HSLDA

Any comments on these points before I add them to the "criticism of supportive achievements studies" section? - Species8473 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of sources in Methodology section

Wikipedia requires content to be verifiable. Especially the methodology section seems to need work there. Under educational games fact templates have already been added. But all-in-one curricula, student-paced learning and community resources completely lack any sources. I trust this information wasn't made up, but things like "homeschooles often take advantage of.." and "groups of homeschooling families often.." should be backed up by sources and/or statistics.

I have checked on the history of the community resources section, and it appears to date back to March 2005. With an extra paragraph added at July 2007. Lucky enough Wahoofive is still among us so perhaps he has some sources.

Greetings, Species8473 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous Homeschoolers

Maybe we should discuss this? Do we want such a list in the article? Or prefer a section where it is also mentioned why they are notable? And who is to be in the list/section, who not? I personally have issues with Abraham Lincoln, Sandra Day O'Conner and Winston Churchill being in the list. The source used seems to list people as soon as they read a book at home once in combination with being famous. For example Sandra Day O'Conner in the list, she "attended the Radford School, a private academy for girls, from kindergarten through high school." 1 Even Albert Einstein made it to that 2 list, and he clearly was never homeschooled 3. Species8473 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice new list, I'm sure we can get it up to a thousand items in no time! However, it could classify as a copyright violation for the source. And I would say it is not a reliable source either. Species8473 (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain how Chad Kennedy (stated to be editor of some website, full of advertising and no visitors) is notable? I believe this person being in the list says enough about how reliable the source is. Another person in the list Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, is stated to be "self-taught"1. And Charles Evans Hughes was enrolled in a "private school"2. I'm not going to bother checking the entire list, these examples clearly show the source is not reliable. Species8473 (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I originally came to this section a few days ago wanting some basic facts on homeschooling. One of the questions that I had was "are they any examples of home-schooled students?". This section is useful and needs to be improved. Different people will have different opinions as to how many hours, days, or years and what kind of education qualifies as home schooling. The specifics are ultimately a matter of opinion; the fundamental issue is home education and the role that it plays in the development of the human person, and the kinds of people that consider themselves home schooled. We must reject any simplistic efforts to assume that all home schooling is of only one kind. There have been a diverse range of educational efforts throughout history. Snow555 (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a few days before your quest the wikipedia list of homeschooled individuals was removed. It was however removed for the same issues that this new list has. To quote the administrator that removed it: "I did think about just ruthlessly trimming this to properly sourced entries, but there would've been practically nothing left once we'd removed the entries sourced to blogs, a forum, user-generated content sites and HomeSchoolAcademy.com. More problematically, though, the exact definition of "homeschooling" is vague (for example, should someone who only became homeschooled as a teenager be included?). WP:NOT#IINFO appears to apply here, and I am also mindful of User:Ecoleetage's comments." (Black Kite). As WP:NOT#INFO applies here too, the condition of verifiability is even worse, and I have already proven it to be flawed on a number of examples earlier. I'm going to follow this example and remove it. For a new list I would prefer we come to a consensus first, and have made a proposal for that below this section. But with or without consensus, wikipedia policy should be followed. Species8473 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope User:Diligent Terrier can explain why it was justified to revert my deletion of the list over prior explained violation of wikipedia policies. Species8473 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the references needed tag. There is a reference to the full list, which is from a noted homeschooling cite. It is sufficient, but could be improved. To the people who keep placing various tags throughout the article, PLEASE start adding more citations instead of cluttering the article with tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManBuiltPrice (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the names are linked to other Wiki articles that mention that the person had some homeschooling; the citation that is used comes from a source that is generally reputable, as far as I can tell (no evidence has been presented to the contrary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow555 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already provided examples on where the source if flawed. Neither you nor DiligentTerrier have gone into those specific points. Also when someone removes this questionable source, or after I removed the list, it is being restored with as argument that it should be discussed. While the list was put there completely ignoring the discussion starting May 29th in the first place. This cause of action is almost as questionable as the used source. Species8473 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation I believe that the linked reports are generally accurate. I spent a lot of time on this (because of your skepticism). I could not verify ALL of the information, but the practice of finding one or two flaws to discard entire articles, which has mostly accurate and directly relevant information is unjustified.Snow555 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of the dispute over this unreliable adsense filled source, I will fix the double source entries again and work on the child abuse section instead.Species8473 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm challenging the Rosa Parks list entry, as I have been reading through a lot of internet biographies now, but have not found one of them stating she was homeschooled or anything along those lines. While a short biography about her states that she did go to a school. It does add to that the situation in the school was bad because of racism, but this alone indicates she went to a school. Another internet biography about her states: "When she completed her education in Pine Level at age eleven, her mother, Leona, enrolled her in Montgomery Industrial School for Girls".

I have also removed sources that provide merely a list of names. They are poor as reliable source and on verifiability, and not interesting for those looking them up for extra information on what kind of homeschooling the person received. I did not remove the "So – Why Do You Homeschool?" book as source, because this one does provide a limited amount of extra information.Species8473 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

About Rosa Parks, see [18]. Species8473, I don't appreciate it that several people go and find references and then you delete them because you have subjective opinions about their valididty. Unless you can show that the source is not clearly wrong, the source should stand on its own merit; let the reader decide.HomePolice (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Making the grade had two pages about homeschooling, at the end of the second page a small list of "famous homeschoolers". It does however give no additional information or source. And people that clearly were self-educated (such as Abraham Lincoln) are also in the list. If you think this was a great source you can put it back, and I will bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Or you can do this yourself. However, I believe it to be very counter productive as there are enough biographies on the internet and google books. They do provide a full useful section about what kind of education a person received. I'm not interested in discussing the homeschool.net source any further, if you don't agree with it's removal there are a ton of issues with it above you can waste your time on.Species8473 (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal for section about notable homeschooled people. With as goal to provide useful factual information. I have kept the discussion over deletion of homeschooled individuals in mind while creating it:

• As in line with wikipedia policy, there must be a proper source, such as a biography. If there is none the person may not be notable enough.
• The person must have been homeschooled, no schooling that better fits under self education or private schooling.
• The homeschooling must be notable. Someone that was homeschooled for only a very short time, or simply because the entire country had no educational system is not.
• Relevant information should be included, such as what kind of homeschooling the person received, and why. And what other education if applicable.

Example: Thomas Alva Edison, an American inventor and businessman, was taught reading, writing and arithmetic by his mother. Before that he left school for only three month, where he had trouble following the lessons. Most of his other education he received from reading books on his own.1 And for this example I would say it is questionable at point two and three, because most of his education seems to have been originated from self education through reading books. So that makes a good point for discussion.

Please state if you think this is a good proposal. Species8473 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if someone was homeschooled, they were homeschooled. Period. Their homeschooling does not have to be notable. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 13:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on this. From my own experiences with homeschooling (+19 years), there is much overlap between homeschooling and more formal education. Some schools, private and public, allow part-time enrollment by students who are educated at home. Some professional teachers, private and public, will tutor home educated students. Some students are homeschooled for only part of their education. I know other families here in Pennsylvania who are enrolled in a public school/charter school, counted in the state-wide roster of public school students, and have considered themselves to be homeschooledbpage (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason behind that proposed point is for the section to result into providing good examples of notable homeschooled people. Not a list of names as big as possible. I would say a section describing the homeschooling of ten notable people enriches the article far more then a plain list with any number of entries. Species8473 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but Wikipedia is based on facts, not what "enriches" articles. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is required by wikipedia policy1, and most particial, to come up with a clear membership criteria. If you think my proposed criteria have issues, we can try to improve them, or you can make your own proposition. I personally don't think someone that received homeschooling for two years, and received the rest of his/her education in public education, should be in this list. Species8473 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You personally do not think that. Sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Also please do not spoof comments from other users. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is however how this proposal works, if you have fundamental issues with it you can write your own. Without strict criteria it will be a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. For that I currently see no reason to change my proposal on that point. The reason for moving the comment by ManBuiltPrice was because it had nothing to do with this proposal, therefore it was completely justified. Species8473 (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If somebody went to Harvard (or any university) for two years and dropped out, that would be mentioned in most biographical articles; if so, why would a specific schooling experience at Home by famous individuals be excluded here?? Snow555 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because we are not writing a biography here, and this list or prose (as preferred by wikipedia policy) should only contain the most notable homeschooled people. If you don't agree with that, and have a better solution that will result in a list of reasonable size under clear criteria, you are most welcome to propose it. If you want to list all famous people that received some sort of education at home, I think this should be done at either a seperate website or seperate wikipedia article. This per Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO Species8473 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This was a reason the article was deleted. to many people that were not really homeschooled are on the list. I could remove the section as recreation of deleted content. We need strong criteria for inclusion or this article is POV.

I have made my proposal as the the criteria we should use.

• As in line with wikipedia policy, there must be a proper source, such as a biography. If there is none the person may not be notable enough.
• The person must have been homeschooled, when free public school were available or modern (post 1950 westerns who grew up in the middle of nowhere.).
• The homeschooling must be have been for at least one year.
• Relevant information should be included, such as what kind of homeschooling the person received, and why. And what other education if applicable.

Zginder 2008-06-02T15:21Z (UTC)

Only the first and second criteria seem good. The second is difficult because whether someone is homeschooled is a binary variable that has nothing at all to do with choice or necessity. The fourth criterion is problematic because of the subjective nature regarding what information is deemed relevant. HomePolice (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

History

I don't believe the current section is accurate. No sources have been added, and one of the editors has ignored comments on his talk page. But to the point, during the early middle ages European countries like France had free public education.1 And before that ancient Greece and Rome were known to have both voluntary and compulsory educational systems.2 Even if countries had no educational system at all, this does not mean "the vast majority of people were schooled at home". I would say that they simply received no education at all, as is the case in many third world countries today. Species8473 (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. "No formal education" is not the same as "no education". (for treatment of this and a full discussion please see the articles on "education" entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica- they are quite good), Much of the education most of us receive in life happens outside of formal systems; the book "the education of Henry Adams" is all about this.Snow555 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, great you found your way to the talk page. The words "schooled at home" are used, dictionary definition: "to educate in or as if in a school"1 And for homeschooling: "to instruct in an educational program outside of established schools".2 The current section states that until recently almost everyone was homeschooled, and for that I would like to see a proper source. Species8473 (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad for the discussion. I agree that there are many ways of schooling (and the notion of schooling itself have evolved much over the past 3000+ years, and varies considerably, so we would need to agree on essential features, which I would be happy to discuss). The word and meaning of "school" has changed a lot since its roots in antiquity (for instance, see the entry in the full version (20-volume) Oxford Dictionary of the English Language; it is quite good; it the Oxford (which is the standard Dictionary of scholarly research), the definition that seems most constant through the ages is "place of instruction" – would you agree with this?). Snow555 (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the definition "place of instruction" for a school. However, I don't find it very relevant. The question is if the term homeschooling fits in a situation where children never even learned how to read. And I would say no to that. The homeschooling this article is about I would say counts for situations where children receive schooling similar to in a school. Either way, I believe wikipedia is quite clear at this point, a reliable source is to be used. Currently there is no source at all. Species8473 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

After further study and investigation, education at home seems more universal than this article currently reflects. I have consulted a number of scholarly books on the subject; Erasmus of Rotterdam (in his book "Education of a Christian prince", Cambridge University Press, 1974) contends that proper education begins in the cradle, and this idea is found in other books as well. Most Children are educated both at home and outside the home until they are at least 5 years of age; after which they may be formally instructed in several ways, including formal schooling. However, many after school activities also have educational purpose, whether it be music lessons, martial arts training, religious training, or other extracurricular training that may be provided by parents, tutors, or specially-trained professionals. Each of these may happen in its own time and place, and contribute to one's education. Thus, home education can be understood as a part of education more generally; what is being discussed in this article is basically to what extent formal methods are used, when, and by whom. I have added Queen Elizabeth as an example of home education because this is a high-visibility example of what home education can be. Many young actors and athletes can't attend normal schools because of their schedules, and thus are given lessons in the home or elsewhere, by tutors. These examples help to illustrate a very great range of educational solutions. Snow555 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(our last messages crossed). I will try to find a reference, no problem. Snow555 (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Schooling and Instruction is a kind of education- one can not conclude, therefore, that one without schooling is one without education. Regarding a reference, I will repair the article; a full history of education, including formal schooling, can be found in various editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. I use this because it is more reliable than citing web-pages. This is very illuminating; I suggest that you read it. The 15th edition (1994) give a wide range of educational practices throughout history. The treatment of education in the classic ("scholar's") 11th edition (1910) states "the mass of people in every European country remained without schooling throughout the 18th century" (page 959). This does not necessarily mean that they were not educated (apprenticeships were common in those days, for instance). Snow555 (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "Child Abuse" section

The final paragraph of this section is indirectly related to homeschooling, it seems. This whole page should be neutral of this sort of innuendo, I propose. Snow555 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Child abuse is probably the number one argument used against homeschooling. There is a huge thread about this on richarddawkins.net, it has been linked to homeschooling in the media numerous times, and once by a [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54624 superior court judge]. The statistics back up the statement in the first paragraph. And add to that relevant information on child abuse reported by public school teachers. I believe the section is written neutral, stating there are "no studies available that show a direct correlation for homeschooling resulting in an higher amount of child abuse", even though it is at the criticism section of the article. Species8473 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But the media says many things, and Richard Dawkins is not exactly know for his even-handedness. To cite 2 or 3 media reports on a baseline of millions of home-schooling families is about as unfair as arguing against police departments because of one or two bad cops. Of for that matter, school districts for teachers who engage in abusive activities with students. This entry demands real numbers relating directly to homeschoolers, and some agreement as to what constitutes a significant incident rate of abuse. Additionally, I still think that this discussion seems to fit better in child abuse, not homeschooling. Snow555 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say Professor Richard Dawkins is a fine source, when subjects related to biology are involved. I have no idea what his opinion is on homeschooling, and referred to that forum topic only as extra source showing child abuse is often mentioned by people being critical of homeschooling. In the article I use CBS News and Marcia Herman-Giddens (DrPH, associate professor of public health, North Carolina Department of Maternal and Child Health in Chapel Hill) as source. I could add more sources, but I'm not sure if more of the same will improve anything. However, articles such as the ones from CBS have been in the news numerous times, and child abuse is often referred to in court cases and rulings. If you have a source that fits under your definition of "real numbers relating directly to homeschoolers" please do leave a link here. I believe currently the most relevant numbers are used, and where applicable they are critical against the criticism as well. Species8473 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. However, see pp 58-60 in the book "So why do I homeschool?". (see [19]. The author cites relevant statistics and comparisons, and examines some of the same studies that you cite. Overall, her evidence suggests that schools can be more dangerous than homes for students (and teachers), and that socioeconomic and cultural demographics may matter. In sum, I don't think that there is enough conclusive evidence to make strong claims about homeschooling and child abuse in a sweeping, generalized way.Snow555 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

She goes into the same CBS News cases. And says she doesn't think child abuse happens in isolation. And that families highlighted were all involved with protective services. However the Warren family "tried to keep social workers out" until it was too late. And on the same report Marcia Herman-Giddens (DrPH) states "there's so little supervision that they really are not protecting those kids". For the other cases there is not even a mention of protective services at work. With that Marcia Herman-Giddens states "there is a subgroup of people that are keeping them in isolation, keeping them from public view because the children often have visible injuries". Species8473 (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to report more than one side of the CBS News story, and have simply regurgitated it as a reliable source over and over again in spite of substantial controversy which arose as a result. You have cherry picked comments supporting your view from numerous articles in deliberate acts of contextomy. I have updated the article to give both sides of the story, including citing articles mentioning the members of congress who protested the CBS report. Your repeated returns to a single "expert" and the lack of any further citations since indicate to me that you are, in fact, simply bluffing when you claim you can provide any further RELIABLE citations. You have repeatedly attempted to bias the article over the last few weeks with your edits which makes it EXTREMELY difficult to assume good faith per Wikipedia policy. At this point, any changes would clearly demonstrate that you wish to excise any opposition to your belief (which appears to be based on a pair of dubious news stories from CBS). You have consistently selected the most biased way to express things while claiming NPOV, which you obviously have no grasp of. Your efforts have been facile and transparent, and your assumptions ludicrous. You clearly joined Wikipedia to edit this article, as it has been your only real activity since joining a couple of weeks ago. In most cases, when someone does something like this, they are called a troll. CokeBear (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote before, and you must have already read this: "I refute the point that the section relies on her opinion, as the opinion of the families advocate is also noted." I have also pointed to homeschooling court cases where child abuse is involved. And I do actually have many edits on the Dutch wikipedia – not one involved with homeschooling. Finally I would like to point out that, even though other parts of the article have been reported (by other editors – see archives) to read as homeschooling propaganda. Describing a critical point, even if seen as inflammatory by a certain group, should be possible under the "criticism" section of the article.Species8473 (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Snow555, that this section would be better placed in an article about "Child Abuse". This section suffers from "Undue Weight" (NPOV 2.3) in its focus on a few freak incidents and its reliance on the opinions of Marcia Herman-Giddens of the North Carolina Child Advocacy Institute. This section is irrelevant to homeschooling and I wonder whether the bias of one editor is effecting the neutrality of the article. Dumb All Over (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The news articles by CBS are notable because they have received a lot of attention. Google returns ~117.000 results if you search for keywords related to them. With accuracy in mind, I have checked the first five pages of results, and they are all about the news articles in question. I believe the opinion of Marcia Herman-Giddens is notable because she can be regarded as expert on child abuse and neglect1. And has been one of the people reviewing the cases in question. I refute the point that the section relies on her opinion, as the opinion of the families advocate is also noted. On your point of "bias of one editor", personally I see no reason to delete this section over the bias of one group of editors with newly created accounts.Species8473 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I see? Well, MY account is not newly created, and I agree with the people you are arguing with 100%. Your biases are obvious. You are trying to express an OPINION in a Wikipedia article – and that's a no-no. On top of that, I find it interesting that you would say something about "newly created accounts" when yours is, in fact, mere weeks old as well. It's time for you to move on, your contributions are simply meant to express your personal viewpoint and appear to be deliberately inflammatory. CokeBear (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we won't have any editors left if everyone with an opinion about the subject is to be excluded. And in line with that not many sources either, as all the supportive research presented in this article is done by or with money and/or in cooperation with the HSLDA and NHERI. The material you added further establishes my point that the news items are notable, and this part should not be subject to removal. I do believe it should be added that while 33 members of the congress signed this letter, 402 members did not. For example: ".. and 33 out of 435 members of Congress signed a letter adressed to..". On the material you added to the Janet Napolitano section, she has later stated to want mandatory kindergarten statewide 1. The current "No changes were deemed necessary or ever publicly proposed." contradicts that.Species8473 (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes to the Child abuse section are an improvement, however I am still of the view that the entire section should be deleted. It isn't at all clear that "Child abuse" is a valid criticism of homeschooling. The CBS News source does not establish this, and the integrity and neutrality of their reporting on this matter has been discredited. If "Child abuse" as an issue is going to be raised, it ought to be supported with much better verifiable sources. I have removed the section accordingly.Dumb All Over (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All sources have issues with neutrality, and though some parties have seen reason to discredit CBS News. I haven't seen anything about that in direction of Marcia Herman-Giddens. The letter from Congress members was signed by 33 members, but 402 members did not. And even if they would have all signed it, with a signature from George W. Bush as bonus, that would make it even more reason to keep this section. Here is a page on a homeschooling website listing some cases as well: Homeschooling in the Media. And some court cases where homeschooling was mentioned or the primary reason for the ruling: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58751 1] [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54624 2] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58053 3] 4.Species8473 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a request for a third opinion at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Species8473 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the section about child abuse is totally irrelevant for the article on homeschooling, and therefore should be completely deleted. The fact that we can find on internet a few cases where someone accused someone of child abuse involving homeschooling does not make it relevant for an encyclopedic text. Saying that "there are no studies indicating a correlation of child abuse with homeschooling" not only does NOT make it neutral, but also proves that what was written before has no relevance either to be here or on any other article. I also recommend that we should delete this article until this dispute is resolved. How can we do that? as it seems that it was tried before and Species8473 keeps undoing it. Mlonguin (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My fourth opinion (representing the vast majority of countries, that don't even allow homeschooling, and the vast majority of people, as even in the country with the most homeschoolers – the United States – only 2% of the students is homeschooled – before they go to a public school). Is that we wait for the opinion of one or more experienced and active editors that at least have the appearance of being more or less neutral.Species8473 (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree Mlonguin. The Child abuse section is totally irrelevant and should be deleted in its entirety. It appears that Species8473 is the only person pushing for inclusion of this section. Valid criticism is fine, but Species8473 appears to be uninformed about homeschooling and his contributions to this and other sections are not improving the article. Dumb All Over (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your point of view seems to be that, "valid criticism is fine" but doesn't exist and should me mixed in with HSLDA funded studies. Furthermore the number of studies you refer to can be counted on one hand, so wordings such as "numerous" shouldn't be used. Species8473 (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Fraser Institute paper notes that "researchers are prone to be suspicious of generalisations about the academic achievements of students educated at home...Having said that, study after study finds that homeschooled students tend to outperform their peers on a variety of tests." I am more than happy to see this qualification mentioned in the article, but in a neutral way and with an appropriate source, like the Fraser Institute paper. Dumb All Over (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Species8473, you say "we wait for the opinion of one or more experienced and active editors". I feel this this as a personal attack non related to the argument in dispute. My understanding is that the banner you put on the beginning of this article suggests there are no restrictions for who can or cannot vote. I would like to kindly ask you to keep this conversation civil, otherwise I have no other options other than asking admins/moderators to apply the wikipedia disciplinary policies to your userid. Mlonguin (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to do the latter, I do think it would be good if a neutral admin or moderator has a look at this. I merely observed you had not been active for some time. Raising the question if you were invited here to give your opinion. As seems to be the case for others as well. Please don't let me stop you from viewing yourself as an experienced and active editor though. Species8473 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Species8473, I think that I don't deserve another personal attack. I believe that what we are discussing here is wikipedia. I also don't understand how my wikipedia experience or habits has anything to do with the facts that are in dispute. I do agree, though that we should seek opinions of more experienced wikipedians. I will check the policies and see how I can help on this. Mlonguin (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy of removed section

Child abuse [section heading]

An argument against homeschooling has been that child abuse can occur in an environment closed to the outside world. During October 2003, CBS News broadcast two controversial reports about situations in which homeschooling parents killed their children, and one suicide case. Marcia Herman-Giddens, a member of the North Carolina task force reviewing the cases, concluded that home school laws "allow persons who maltreat children to maintain social isolation in order for the abuse and neglect to remain undetected". However, after the CBS News reports aired, National Review described the stories as "one of the most bizarre news judgements ever", and 33 members of Congress signed a letter addressed to (now former) CBS News president Andrew Heyward which stated in part, "You chose to take a handful of tragic incidents and, from them, cast aspersions on the entire homeschool movement. Your report was unfair and indicative of both bias and ignorance." Further assessments by other media sources brought into question the journalistic integrity of CBS News with regard to this report and others in the past.

A February 2005 child abuse case resulted in the Arizona state Governor Janet Napolitano stating that she would examine the state's laws on homeschooling. This prompted a response from County School Superintendent Kim Fields, who pointed out that public school children are also being abused and stated, "You can't stop abuse by changing an education setting." No changes were deemed necessary or ever publicly proposed.

I added the text above (which had been removed and restored) to aid discussion by uninvolved editors. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like a third opinion to include the "financial obligations" section that was removed along. This edit includes an updated version of the "child abuse" section: removal of criticism sections.

There are a number of sources that report about a connection with child abuse for it to be included in this article. Especially the two news reports by CBS News have received a lot of attention. With as many as ~117.000 google search results on related keywords. The reports include citations from an interview with DrPH Marcia Herman-Giddens who can be regarded an expert on child abuse. Another reputable news source, the New York Times, also makes the connection with homeschooling and child abuse in an article. Here Dr. Clive R. Belfield (Queens College) states that “limited compliance and follow-up” gave abusive families “an excuse to get out of being observed.” and Dr. Mitchell L. Stevens (New York University) "Home schooling removes children from a lot of that surveillance". Another source that can be used is Carla Katz (president of the Commmunications Workers of America) stating 1 "Home schooling creates gaps. Nearly 20% of all abuse cases are reported by schools. When children are outside the school system, extra protections are critical. There are no home schooling regulations that would require homeschooled children to see anyone from the public education system. There is no cross-referencing with the Department of Education to look for children who are in the ‘system’ but have not been seen by anyone." Species8473 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this section should be added back into the article. It is cited. It is notable. It is presented in a way that shows both sides. There's no reason it shouldn't be here. Wrad (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The letter from congress can be found here and could be sourced directly. Zginder 2008-06-05T22:22Z (UTC)

Third opinion

This dispute was listed at requests for a third opinion. I had not even read this article before finding it from there. I have read the disputed section, and read the statements here on the talk page. I must say that I am impressed with the civility of the discussion.

To start, the section was appropriately placed as a subsection of criticism. All attempts were made to provide an balanced view of the report. The initial source used was a reliable source, however I feel that the CBS news report has now gained more notoriety for its criticism and the outside response to the report than did the report itself. It describes a single incident that causes problems of undue weight being given in the overall article.

I do not consider WorldNetDaily to meet the standards required by WP:RS, and that leaves us with an unbalanced section – a definite problem with NPOV policy. Additionally, with all due respect to contributions on other projects, User:Species8473 is a SPA for all due purposes of this dispute on the en-wp. I don't believe that I should weigh those opinions as fully objective.

I do not believe there are sufficient reliable sources to justify inlcusion at this time, nor that there are enough reliable opposing opinions to balance the inclusion of one very suspicious, and highly controversial, report.

I believe such a section would be very appropriate for this article if and when multiple reliable sources are found to sustain such inclusion. Jim Miller (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the rules of the third opinion program, you should not have posted here, at least not under the name of that program. As it states on the third opinions requests page: "This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process." More than two opinions have been posted here and therefore your view is certainly not a "balance-tipper". I believe that your analysis is a bit off. WorldNetDaily, you admit, provides a valuable balance to the section. It is, therefore, a valuable and reliable source for that point of view. Wrad (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply As this is my first wp:3, you may be absolutely correct, and my opinion should be completely discarded. I saw the dispute as being between User:Snow555 and User:Species8473 with comments by others. My interpretation may have been incorrect. If that is the case, this issue may have been listed in the wrong place and should be taken to RfC for resolution. As for my analysis, I stand by it. Two questionable sources do not provide balance. Jim Miller (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: In practice, Third opinion project volunteers occasionally do make exceptions to the two-editors-only guideline. This does not obviate their validity. — Athaenara ✉ 00:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim Miller: "I feel that the CBS news report has now gained more notoriety for its criticism and the outside response to the report than did the report itself." In this update it was cut down to the National Review and the letter from congress members.

Jim Miller: "User:Species8473 is a SPA for all due purposes of this dispute on the en-wp. I don't believe that I should weigh those opinions as fully objective." This is an issue on both sides, see: 1 2 3 4.

Jim Miller: "I believe such a section would be very appropriate for this article if and when multiple reliable sources are found to sustain such inclusion." I Have posted extra source under "Copy of removed section". With that the section can be included again?

Anything on the "financial obligations" section that was removed along? Species8473 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm totally new to this topic, so I guess I'm a NPOV. My opinion is that unless there is a significant ratio of child abuse accusations to home schooled children, the child abuse allegations are irrelevant. I would like to see cited statistics showing that the ratio of child abuse is higher in home schooling than that in state (En-US: public) or public (En-US: private) schooling before this section should be re-introduced. Child abuse happens in both small and large schools, so until someone can produce stats proving the link between size of school (eg. 1, 100, 1000) and likelihood of child abuse, I fail to see it. For the record, I am state (En-US: public) schooled in the UK and was head of anti-spam at a large multinational computer security firm from 2004–2007 where I occasionally and infrequently provided technical assistance to Ceop at Scotland Yard for child abuse image investigations. Andrew Oakley (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not if child abuse takes place more within homeschooling families – there are no known studies into that direction. Several experts however have made the link with homeschooling and child abuse happening in an isolated environment. Two reputable seperate sources have reported about this: CBS news and the New York Times.123 More then enough for inclusion in the article.

Statistics we do have show that parents are responsible for the majority of child abuse. United Kingdom statistics show "80% of child abusers are the biological parents" (unicef). United States statistics show the same, as a report by the U.S. DHHS shows nearly 83% of victims were abused by a parent acting alone or with another person.1 This does not show child abuse happens more often within homeschooling families, it does show "child abuse also happens in schools" is not a very good argument. Species8473 (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since most pupils who attend traditional schools also live with their parents anyway (ie. they come home after school for play, tea, sleep, breakfast, weekends and holidays), the fact that most child abuse is caused by parents is irrelevant in distinguishing the notability of child abuse within home schooling. I fail to see why a child who is present in the same house as their parents for 16 hours a day (traditional schooling) is at a significantly lower risk than one who is present in the same house as their parents for 24 hours a day (home schooling). It isn't like child abuse takes 17 hours a day to perform; it can happen in a brief moment. If your argument compared (( home and traditional schooling )) to (( boarding schools )), where the child didn't live with the parent anyway, I might be able to see the connection, but it doesn't so I don't, sorry. Furthermore, most countries' school calendars – including boarding schools – include ten or more weeks of holidays, where the traditionally-schooled child is potentially in the parental home 24 hours a day, day in, day out, for six or more weeks on end. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If children are beat up during those 16 hours at home, or underfed, or ill and not sent to a doctor. It's more likely to be noticed at school, so steps can be taken, then if they do not go to a school. That's what DrPH Marcia Herman-Giddens 12, Dr. Clive R. Belfield 3, Dr. Mitchell L. Stevens 4 and Carla Katz 5 and others, state the issue to be – the lack of supervision. Species8473 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look at those sources: 1 "The Warrens were acquitted of child abuse charges but spent 45 days in jail for failing to secure a firearm." – ie. innocent of child abuse. The fact that the newspaper tries to spin it in some other way doesn't change the fact that they were not found guilty, and people are innocent until proven guilty. 2 Yes, good anecdote but no statistical comparison. Would be a good source if directly attributed to the people quoted in the story, ie. named quotes. However in the same article we have '"The cases that you've mentioned are very, very rare – extremely rare," says Young. "There's not a pattern there, there's not a trend," says Young. "It's not something you can point your finger at and say there's this vast undercurrent, because there's not." ' 3 One tiny quote using weasel words "children were said to be starved", again no mention of a conviction here and no hard stats; the only person quoted calls the problem "occasional" and the rest seems to be editorial spin; 4 Excellent supporting anecdote, but again another one-off rather than any wider statistical evidence (also seems to quote the same researchers, are we pandering to one or two researchers who have a particular pet theory as per the proven-false Satanic ritual abuse allegations in the UK in recent years?); 5 is entirely contrary to your argument and is an article dismissing the myth of increased child abuse in homeschooling. I think we need to separate two things; the increased opportunity for child abuse to happen (which can use some quotes from the professionals in articles linked by User:Species8473 and the total lack of evidence that such abuse is higher in homeschooled children. I'll see if I can re-edit this section to incorporate both of those sides. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not revisiting this sooner, but I was away from home for a week and unable to read the replies to my opinion. User:Species8473 has appropriately pointed out that I missed the fact that User:Snow555 is also an SPA for the purposes of this debate. That was my oversight. For the purposes of the Child Abuse section and my Third Opinion, I have done no independant research other than the sources used in the article.

As written, the proposed section still has issues with giving undue weight to limited sources. The phrase "An argument" sounds universal. I recommend that the first sentence be rewritten as "Some people have made the argument that child abuse can occur..." or preferably "At least one investigator has claimed that child abuse can occur..." in order to give the section proper weight. According to the citations used in the article, there are two sources of specific incidents out of more than one million homeschooled children in the US alone in 2003, millions more world-wide. With the sources provided, the language must be unambiguous as to how many reports are actually being cited, and their relative weight when compared to the total numbers, in order to preserve a neutral point of view. When appropriate language is achieved by concensus here, the current sources justify inlcuding the section if given proper weight.

I have also been asked to add an opinion regarding the Financial obligations section that was incorporated into this discussion by its deletion. This section seems to be seriously problematic. The first two sentences of that section, where the claims are made, are not cited. Without sources, those conlclusions are original research. The sources that are cited do not support the conclusions stated in those sentences. When those sentences are removed, the rest of the section makes very little sense. The entire sections failed to show that there is any undue burden on those families who homeschool, and that idea contradicts other cited statements in the article at Homeschooling#United States. I do not believe that this sections add anything to the article, nor does it contribute to a greater understanding of the subject. Without the OR sentences, the section does not even seem appropriate for a criticism section, because there is no sourced criticism.

I will continue to monitor the discussion here for a few weeks, and will be available if anyone here wishes me to provide additional opinions. Jim Miller (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

CBS News and the New York times have separately concluded there is enough to report on a connection between child abuse and homeschooling. That alone I would say is more than enough weight for a few lines in this article. It's also not realistic to suggest those are all reports in the media, or that all cases are even reported in the media. Here are some other cases: 12345. And you are over estimating the amount of homeschoolers world wide.

On financial obligation. The income families have is complete irrelevant here, and does not contradict the arguments. Perhaps the test subjects are homeschooling because they can afford it, just like they can afford being contracted with the Boston university (as is the case in the Rudner study). While other families can't homeschool, because they would have to start excluding one parent from labor force 1, and absorb the total cost of their child's education 2. If you would have read the entire section on the United States, you would have also read that for another tested group of homeschooled familied the income is about 10% below country average. Species8473 (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that any information on child abuse that Species8473 has found, if it otherwise meets Wikipedia standards, be included instead in the Wikipedia article on child abuse. It would make more sense to be included there as it would be part of a larger article and have some context (and presumably the people editing the child abuse article have more knowledge and familiarity in this area). By including these freak instances that were reported in the media in this article it causes problems of undue weight, and it would require a page or two of other information in order to put the innuendo (i.e. that there is some special connection between homeshooling and child abuse) in an appropriate perspective. Dumb All Over (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues brought up before deletion of the section was it's reliance on the opinion of Marcia Herman-Giddens. This has been resolved with extra sources. And we had a third opinion by Jim Miller stating the section to be "very appropriate for this article" with as only dependency there being multiple reliable sources.12345 There is a difference between what you call a "freak incident", such as this one from yesterday 6. Where homeschooling is being mentioned. And sources specifically reporting on a connection between homeschooling and child abuse as was done by CBS News and the New York Times 124. The latter is a perfect source as being the most read and awarded newspaper of the U.S. Species8473 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifiablility & Neutrality of Homeschooling fo Child Abuse

MightySmall (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like question the verifiability and neutrality of the very far fetched criticism of homeschooling for the purpose of 'Child Abuse'.

I would liken this to having section in "School" stating that one criticism of school is that some group up to be murderers, rapists, and child abusers, or that many schooled children have commited violent and sometimes deadly acts of violence. There are even many ancedotal examples of teachers using their position of power to abuse children, mentally, physically & sexually, but it would not be neutural to use them in a piece about the definition of schooling. While these may be 'true' are they are simply not neutral in terms of defining what a school is and what it does.

The section is on child abuse in combination with homeschooling, this is often used as critical argument against homeschooling. Adding to that it has been noted in the Germany's Federal High Court [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58751 1]. By a New Jersey Superior Court judge [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54624 2]. And even more recently it was part of the case that resulted in a ban on homeschooling in California [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58053 3]. Adding to that there is Marcia Herman-Giddens, a Doctor of Public Health who was in a team that reviewed a number of cases stating: "there is a subgroup of people that are keeping them in isolation, keeping them from public view because the children often do have visible injuries" 4.

There should be no doubt that this is used as a critical argument against homeschooling. As such it is presented in the article. There is another section in the article called "supportive research". I believe that to be not entirely neutral, but it's not a real issue as long as there is a place for critical arguments.

I have put back the reference improve template to the top, as there was no reason to 1 remove it. And moved the POV dispute template to the top, as there is a number of sections with such disputes (see other talk sections). Species8473 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be added back. It is part of the critical discourse on homeschooling, and I felt that the section was presented well (showing both sides). Wrad (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In looking over the references in the child abuse section, as well as the extant discussion and editing history, the heading for the section seemed inaccurate. I changed it from "Potential opportunity for abuse" to "Potential for undetected abuse" since as has been mentioned, there is no comparative research out there that points to more abuse going on in homeschool households than in households where children attend a school. It has not been established that homeschool households bear within themselves any specially elevated potential for abuse. One could only reasonably say that it might be more likely that abuse originating from within a homeschool household would be detected if the homeschooled children were instead attending a school. I'm not actually in favor of even retaining this section, as its presence seems arbitrary and overly weighted. No research makes any connection between homeschooling and increased levels of child abuse. If we as editors are including this section on the strength of the claim that the abuse of a homeschooled child is less likely to be detected, it would seem we'd have to append many Wikipedia pages with sections on "Potential for undetected abuse". For instance, abuse of children by Boy Scout troop leaders has been anecdotally associated, but it is hardly a salient aspect of The Boy Scouts, worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia on The Boy Scouts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usefulefforts (talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC) And apologies, I forgot to sign my name for the passage directly above! Usefulefforts (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what you say. I don't actually think it is a notable element of homeschooling, but the problem is that a significant minority of editors do, to the point that they have repeatedly recreated this section when it has been deleted in the past. That's why I, as a third party, tried to rewrite a neutral-point-of-view section from scratch, using only quotes from respected sources. Most of these sources agree that whilst there is a theoretical increased opportunity for undetected abuse, in reality there is no evidence of any raised levels of abuse compared to traditional schooling. Basically, if we have to have this section, then better it be written by a neutral third party than by someone with a particular viewpoint. PS. I like your revised section title. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable homeschooled individuals

I have requested a copy of the now deleted article, List of homeschooled individuals, and it can be viewed at User:Diligent Terrier/List of homeschooled individuals. We need to work on merging information from that page into this article. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 01:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposing that for the following reasons:

• It was removed by an administrator because it had verifiabilty and other wikipedia policy issues.
• Even the list we currently have in the article has verifiabilty issues. Such as Charles Even Hughes, who is stated to have been enrolled in a private school on wikipedia. While for Dakota Fanning, Brett Dennen, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer there is no proper source, and I haven't found one either. Four other entries have no proper source either.
• Before adding more entries, I believe we should discuss topics such as the criteria, and how big it should be.

Greetings, Species8473 (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Individuals with a citation can be added immediately. Others can be added temporarily with a {{fact}} tag. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of the earlier discussion, I have truncated the list on this main page to a few notable examples only and have created a new page for those who are seeking a more comprehensive list (which is linked). Note that the new page still needs additional footnotes. Hopefully, this will help settle some of the issues. Thanks.Snow555 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because there was already a page for notable homeschooled students and it was deleted. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3O, someone has appeared to help! (woohoo, mirite?).

I believe the content should be deleted per WP:TRIVIA. I have already made this opinion known at RS/N, yet no-one has replied. My other reasons for removal are also listed there. --Izno (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is being used to illustrate supportive research of homeschooling. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The majority of the figures in the section have nothing more than a name, which is certainly in violation of TRIVIA. The rest have a summary of their notability, which could already easily be found on the pages of those individuals. As explained previously at RS/N, the context in this way is already covered by Special:Whatlinkshere; there is little to no reason for this list of indiscriminate information to exist in this manner. If they were truly being used to illustrate the supportive research of homeschooling, included in this list would be analysis of the actual affect on those individuals of homeschooling, of which there is none. Further, if they truly were affected by their homeschooling to such a degree, that information should be provided on their assorted and individual pages. --Izno (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In effect, if you cannot show that these individuals were somehow important to homeschooling, other than the fact that they were homeschooled, I see little reason for the information to remain. --Izno (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A person who was homeschooled, and became famous can certainly be cited as supportive research of homeschooling; the section should only be transformed into sentences. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it doesn't fit as supportive research for homeschooling. There are no sources that state they became notable or famous because of their homeschooling. Biographies write one line about it, or ignore it altogether. As far as I looked into it, most that are currently listed later went to colleges or universities. The list is problematic on other parts too. It has no clear criteria, it contains people that are stated to be self-educated, and a lot of other entries without even a reference. I believe the points Izno makes are good. And what's next, a list of famous people that were not homeschooled under criticism? Species8473 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

They should certainly be included because homeschooling was a big part of their early life. The separate article was deleted per WP:NOT#INFO, which does not apply to this article. However WP:TRIVIA does and they should be written in sentences instead of a list. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It being a big part of their early life is your personal opinion. Not backed up by citations (as far as the section even has citations). Abraham Lincoln for example (first in the list), was self educated, and received very little schooling source. The proposal I wrote, had as point to exclude people that were "homeschooled for only a very short time". In your response you opposed that, and now simply claim that it "was a big part of their early life" – that contradicts.

The seperate article was deleted for other reasons as well (see here):

• Entries without source or a bad source (issue we still have)
• Vague terms of inclusion (issue we still have)
• WP:NOT#IINFO (issue we still have)

As an experienced editor, you are aware of it material must be verifiable. Yet you suggested the entries without source can be added temporarily 1. And since nobody else did, took it upon yourself 2. When the list is moved to a separate article you revert the edit 3, and when it is removed you revert again 4 adding "no edit warring please" in the edit summary.

For the three weeks this restoration of deleted content has been in the article, there have been no improvements on it's citation. You opposed my (also three weeks old) proposal for clear criteria 1, and despite a similar proposal by User:Zginder 2, there has been nothing constructive on that part. There really has been enough chance for you to work on those issues. You have not added any citations for your material, nor have you written your own proposal for criteria like I suggested 3. I don't believe that puts you in a position to revert and state "no edit warring please" when it is being removed. Temporarily filling an article with uncited material was a bad idea in the first place.

A third opinion we had was remove, even though not binding, your revert was questionable and among other things a violation of burden of evidence. Species8473 (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I will echo Species' sentiments. You have not demonstrated that these individuals are of note in any way, shape, or form to homeschooling, or of homeschooling to them. Furthermore, I am frustrated by your accusation of edit warring, and what looks to be the use of an automated reversion (Twinkle/Rollback) in reverting me, when that was my first edit to the page. I will revert your edit in another day, if you can not find what I and Species are asking for, which both he and I listed earlier under this thread of discussion. You chose not to answer either of us, which is what led to my removal of the information, as it seemed that the thread's discussion was over; it plainly seems that both policy and guideline say that the information should be removed from this article. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some information in this section is verifiable, and is backed up by appropriate citations. Furthermore, it is not of a trivial nature. It should be retained. Snow555 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "Criticism of supportive achievement studies"

I propose that this section be removed for the following reasons: 1) There are no sources cited for this section. 2) The section appears to consist of opinion rather than fact. 3) The portion dealing with demographics would be better placed in a section on demographics. 4) The section is vague. 5) The article is about homeschooling, not statistics. Dumb All Over (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is one citation in that section, which should be kept and moved somewhere else. Otherwise I'd say, go ahead and remove it. While you're at it, you might try figuring out what to do with the next section about financial obligations – it isn't criticism at all, just interesting demographics. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. The reference was moved to the section on "Test results", and I added another supporting reference to the 2007 Fraser Institute Paper. There is a lot of information in that Fraser Institute paper btw – I highly recommend that editors read it as it would help improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumb All Over (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove sections that are in the article for a long time in a period of hours again.

First of all the "criticism of supportive achievement studies", even though this section needs citations, if you have read something about homeschooling you know that things said are true. Look through the NCLBA article, and you will read that the tests are indeed mandatory for public schools, while "homeschooled students are not subject to this requirement." And if you would have read the studies involved you would know they indeed have a voluntary participation. etc.

The financial obligations section has also been in the article for a long time, and has been worked on by a number of editors that apparently do see a place for it in this article. The basic point here is that with homeschooling one parent for the average one or two children has to stay at home. While in schools there are groups of children.Species8473 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the Fraser Institute study, and it acknowledges both that "There are good reasons to be suspicious about easy comparison between the test scores of home schooled and other students, since it is difficult to ensure comparable testing conditions of levels of student participation, among other reasons." and the "lost income when a parent leaves the labour force to home school" as an argument. Species8473 (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Fraser Institute paper is an excellent source. Please use it in the section on "Test results" in a factually neutral manner. The problem with the original criticism section is that there were no sources, and it was put forward as a criticism of homeschooling per se. The appropriate qualification has to do with the generalisations that can be made from the results of the studies. The Fraser Institute paper notes the qualification and says "Having said that, study after study finds that homeschooled students tend to outperform their peers on a variety of tests."Dumb All Over (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue with those studies is that they are funded by and/or done in cooperation with organizations such as HSLDA. With that there are good reasons to have doubt about how neutral those studies are. Another issue is that participation has been voluntary, through self selection. Even though HSLDA doesn't seem to acknowledge this, this makes it likely that a group of people where the homeschooling is not going so well, is left out. You may do away with this as speculation in your next entry on this talk page, but a mention that the groups are self selected under criticism is perfectly fine. And I don't allow you to destroy the criticism section. Species8473 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the Child abuse discussion area, but as I suggest below, please put the qualifications mentioned in the Fraser Institute paper in the "Test results" section in a factually neutral manner. A separate Criticism section is unnecessary and gives undue weight to esoteric issues of study design. Dumb All Over (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is an option to integrate that part of the criticism section under the supportive research section. I don't however believe that is a good reason to simply delete the entire section. (I have moves the comments before this to the correct line.) Species8473 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the first line of the Verification policy on Wikipedia, Species: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (emphasis in original). Without citations, that section is in violation of policy and should be removed. It doesn't matter how true it is. Either we add citations soon, or we remove it. Wrad (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Test results section under Supportive research relies heavily on material from the Rudner study. Read it and you will find that it is based on 1) voluntary participation (with self-selective bias as result), 2) that the student grade placement was decided by parents, 3) that tests were supervised by homeschooling parents, 4) that the study was funded with money from the HSLDA for an unknown part. I had already put those points here. You could even conclude here that the real issue here are the flaws in the Rudner study. Species8473 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that adds sources to the section we're discussing. Wrad (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, in an encyclopedia we don't "conclude" anything about the cited sources, per WP:SYNTHESIS. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Species8473: Please don't perform wholesale-restoration of questionable material. I have reverted your edits, and restored the section to which you added a citation. The Financial section was NOT criticism and portraying it as such misrepresents the sources cited; do not restore that unless it's done in a demographics section. If you want questionable material to appear in this article, propose it here on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that everything in the section is true, but it has resisted several persons' efforts to find sources for it, so, sadly, it has to go. Wrad (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have earlier removed a part of this section while those lines were supported in detail by as much as three sources in the next paragraph. One of the sources for the section actually is titled "home-school costs can add up fast". And in it is stated that "The cost of home schooling goes much higher" when it is being compared with the public school system. I'm asking you to put back the sections, other parts of the article are much more problematic, and for some reason they don't seem to be subject for instant removal. Here is a source clearly stating "home schooling costs parents more than sending them to state schools", "because the person who does the teaching cannot go to work full time" 1. I will wait an hour for any response from other editors. Species8473 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused. I thought we were talking about the achievement studies section. In any case,no one is going to argue that homeschool costs parents more. It's obvious. If parents homeschool, they still have to pay the same taxes as everyone else to support the public school system. Then they have to spend more on top of that for the homeschool. What people will argue, though (and accurately) is that homeschool has a lower cost per student than public schools do. These are two very different arguments. Wrad (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The section makes claims about the application of statistics by editors that have a limited understanding of statistics and how they are used. The claim being made was that because samples are drawn from two populations that are possibly different (because of selection bias) that no comparisons whatsoever can be made. This argument has some merit but is too general. To state that some self-selection happens and then to extend this to all tested populations is not a valid inference. On the other hand, some states require home schooled students to take the same tests as those given in conventional schools, and the average differences found elsewhere remain present. Finally, just because group differences can not be verified statistically does not mean that they don't exist. The only claim that can be made is that statistics are not valid in these cases. Snow555 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

College Admission

Is there a reference for this: "The lack of "formal" records and transcripts (kept by school districts) can be a problem for home-schooled students that wish to enter college." It appears to be conjecture. Multidimensional (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)multidimensional

Put a tag on it. It seems obvious, but it really isn't necessarily true nowadays. Wrad (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New to this and do not know how to "tag". Multidimensional (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)multidimensional

You can place the following template inline: {{Fact|date=June 2008}} - Species8473 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "Criticism: Greater costs" section

It seems to me that information on cost estimates from various studies, to the extent they help the article, ought to be included in the main body of the article and not as criticism. Also, the costs for homeschooling materials and resources are essentially the same regardless of whether one or two or neither parent or guardian is in the labour force. The fact that one parent typically stays home can be included in a section on demographics. Dumb All Over (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

One parent staying at home is regarded to be a cost by separate sources.12 As such it's mentioned in the article. Species8473 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinction between accounting costs and opportunity costs: Cost Also, the article shouldn't assume one parent is excluded from the labour force.Dumb All Over (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's crystal clear what kind of costs they are, the cost of "excluding one parent from labor force". There are two studies available that show this to be the case for the majority of homeschooling families.112 If people want to know the exact percentage they can read the cited study. Species8473 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't clear at all. There is a difference between a higher actual price paid in dollars (accounting cost) and the cost of lost working opportunities (opportunity cost). We need to be careful that we make it clear that homeschool may have a high opportunity cost (and add those two sources you mention) while not confusing it with the accounting cost. Wrad (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of homeschool.net

Removed source for violation of terms under what wikipedia material can be used. Such as that it must be licensed under GFDL and have acknowledgement of authorship.WP:C Instead it's stated to be copyrighted by the owner of the website. That really is not acceptable. One clear violation is in the methods section of the website, as being a straight copy of what we have under Methodology. The same goes for the Legality page being a copy of international status and statistics. Other parts of the website are copies of older revisions of the wikipedia homeschooling article. It also has objectionable amounts of advertisements and is a bad source. Species8473 (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of this Hilary Duff is now without source. And I have not been able to find a replacement source. Biographies only state she studied Checchetti ballet at an early age, not at home.12 I have added citation needed tags to other entries as well, but they are unrelated to the removal of this source. Species8473 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of OR on literacy

The relationship between schooling and literacy is very complex, and the empirical data is very poor. Right now, the article says that during the 19th century 'many children were educated in private schools or in the home' and that 'illiteracy was common and many children were never properly educated.' The citation for this is a map, not an article, and the conclusions we are supposed to draw from the map are so obviously OR that they have to be explained, at length, in the footnote:

An 1872 map of illiteracy in the United States shows that illiteracy was most common in the southern states which were late in adopting compulsory schooling. See: Illiteracy in the United States 1872, From The Statistics of the Population of the United States, Compiled from the Original Returns of the Ninth Census, 1872. Although this illiteracy was partly due to white resistance to education of negroes prior to reconstruction, the map shows that southern locations without large populations of former slaves also had high levels of illiteracy. Public schools were first introduced in many parts of the South during Reconstruction.

I'm removing this pending some better discussion of the schooling/literacy issue, maybe not in this article. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Better Article Structure/Supportive Research and Criticism sections

It seems like the structure of the article could be improved. Especially the way in which supportive research and criticism are offered in two separate chunks, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast the information contained in the two sections. For instance, in the supportive research section, there are some statistics on the relatively high rate of civic involvement in adults who were homeschooled. In the criticisms section which comes after the S.R section, a conjecture by Rob Reich that homeschooling leads to lack of civic involvement is offered. I"d like to propose that the information in the two sections be re-arranged by categories (economic, social, civic, academic, etc,) into two new sections, one called Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for Families and Individuals, and another entitled Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for Society at Large. Usefulefforts (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of separate supportive and critical subsections is that this is a controversial topic and by separating them, we assure that full-throated opinions in each direction can be expressed without countering arguments that may not be conclusive. --Zeamays (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Education by Private Tutors Homeschooling?

I deleted Queen Elizabeth from the list of famous homeschoolees on the grounds that education by professional tutors does not really fit the accepted definition of homeschooling. I was rightfully corrected on this because the article as it now stands does allow for that in the definition in the first paragraph. I would like to change the definition to delete mention of the use of professional tutors. My rationale is as follows:

• Most people understand homeschooling to refer to education of children by their parents, another family member or a close personal friend in the home. Such a teacher may or may not have formal teacher's training. The relationship of the teacher to the student is primarily as a family member or close personal friend of the family.
• Historically, small schools run by professional tutors were conducted in the homes of their wealthy patrons. Neighboring children and children of servants might or might not be invited. These were considered schools primarily on the basis of how many students there were, not whether the education was conducted in a home.
• A professional tutor on the other hand is always a trained teacher and an employee. Being educated by a professional tutor in the home is just a matter of location. The school may be very small (one or two students), but it is more like a school than a family relationship.
• Consider the school founded by a character in Emlyn Williams, The Corn is Green. The school is in a home, but no one would consider it a case of homeschooling.

I would like input on this issue. --Zeamays (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's as simple as this: anything that is registered with the government of the given country is a school; anything that isn't is considered is form of homeschooling. There are also such things as Homeschooling schools and co-ops which are the situations where there are multiple teachers, multiple students and multiple grade levels. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Diligent: Then how will you deal with countries and eras with no government "registration" of private schools? There are many examples. Do you then want to make government regulation part of the definition of a home school? I doubt it. Regarding "such things as Homeschooling schools and co-ops," Shakespeare would have asked, "Does a rose by any other name smell so sweet?" They are schools by another name. Try to convince me otherwise, if you can. I'm open-minded. --Zeamays (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a tutor, and I tutor homeschoolers (as well as school students.) I don't think any of the families that hire me as a tutor feel like they are not homeschooling because they hire tutors. In fact, I would guess that a pretty large percentage of homeschoolers engage in some form of hired instruction, whether its classes at the local community center or tutors. The word 'homeschooling' is fairly recent, and using it retroactively to refer to different phases in the history of education raises WP:OR issues. I think it is germane to the article that many homeschooling authors (I'm thinking of Holt and Llewellyn) identify various historical figures (or whole societies) as homeschoolers. But the article should not make that claim itself: we should use the term to refer to people who used the term to identify themselves--even if they hire tutors--or else we should quote someone else's definition. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethan Mitchell: Question, did your clients hire you (and others?) as the main educators of their children, or did they hire you to supplement lessons given by themselves and other unpaid friends and family members? The education of Royals and other elites is typically done by a hired staff, with little teaching by their parents. --Zeamays (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have at least two students who I believe do not get any formal instruction from their parents; their parents simply act as a coordinator for other forms of education, including tutors. I am going to add some less anecdotal langauge, with a cite... Ethan Mitchell (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. The first sentence of the article even says that homeschooling can be by professional tutors. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Diligent Terrior has a good point. Professional tutors should be deleted from the definition of homeschooling. What is meant by the word "homeschooling" is not schooling by tutors, which is something else entirely. Homeschooling should not be defined entirely by where the teaching and learning occur, but by the fact that the teaching is being directed and controlled by their parents or other relatives. In this context, again consider Emlyn Williams, The Corn is Green, where a school is in a home, but the children aren't being homeschooled. It was common in earlier times (and may still be true in some places) for educated people to open schools in their homes. --Zeamays (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Color use for status in the country sections seems confusing and may be a little POV

The use of a bold red for illegal and disputed status in the country sections and bold blue for legal seems a little POV and also misleading for readers because of the standard use of red to indicate a clickable link to an empty article and the blue being very close to the color for extant articles.

Don't words do enough to distinguish between the statuses? And if not could we use colors that don't have meaning within the wiki markup and that avoid the "red=stop" and similar conotations that could be considered POV? -- SiobhanHansa 13:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been worrying about that too for a while. The use of red for illegal status seems very much like we're saying illegal status is bad. —Angr 13:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the colors. -- SiobhanHansa 13:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics in Motivations section

The statistics in the motivations section do not coincide with the links provided later in the section. Since the table itself was not cited, I have no way of knowing if they were drawn from some other version of the source. Perhaps I am missing something, so I wanted to allow for comments. Nevertheless, in lieu of any objections, I will update and reference the table. WDavis1911 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling legal in California

See [20]. The article and the map should be updated. Wrad (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither the article nor the map indicates anything special about California compared to the rest of the U.S. There's nothing here to update. Homeschooling in the United States already mentions the ruling that homeschooling is legal in California. —Angr 06:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason the US is yellow on the map is because of California. Homeschooling is now completely legal, no? Wrad (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is California the only reason the U.S. is yellow? It's hard to know how to interpret the yellow since the color legend on this page says something different from the color legend on the image description page. —Angr 07:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I helped make the map, including making the first version, and the USA is yellow because of the restrictions, some states put on homeschooling, such as state determined curriculum or mandatory standardized testing. These still exist in California, but New York and Pennsylvania have even more restrictions than CA. Zginder 2008-11-14T20:58Z (UTC)