SJ may have some persuasive points, but if the standard were ever applied to education (those who use it pay, or at least pay extra), then much of our society would fall apart over the strain of trying to determine who should pay for all sorts of things.
Not that I'm against that, necessarily. But the point of health insurance and unemployment insurance, etc, is spreading the cost among everyone.
I see education spending as pretty much the same as defense spending: you have no real way to gauge exactly what benefit you are getting for your dollar.

....on the other hand, the point of insurance formerly was to spread the cost of catastrophic illnesses or injuries that no one could anticipate out among the whole population, a "safety net", as it were, for strange outcomes that no could be expected to prepare for. Now, however, people purposely engage in extremely risky behaviors but still expect to be able to force society to foot the bill, so if that is the model SJ mentions, maybe he has a point....

And yet, there are many plans that would make more sense than ones currently in use that cannot be implemented because they are simply unworkable. Meaning that there are people who live close enough to the edge, or perhaps are even greedy/selfish enough that if they were put in a position to pay for the children's education, their kids wouldn't be educated. What do you in those cases?

Another question to ask is, if we assume that schools need better funding, whether the burden for extra funding should fall equally on those who have children and those who do not. That's a question that I have a difficult time answering, although my usual response is "yes." StumpJumper has often championed the opposite view, though, and some of his arguments are quite persuasive.

Even if you assume that those who use the services of schools should pay more, you cannot automatically extrapolate that to "those who have children." There is a growing number of us who have children, yet do not use public schools (both private schoolers and homeschoolers). At least in my area, this is a source of some consternation for the school officials, since their state funding is a direct result of the number of students enrolled, so they lose (in my district) $5000 per year, per student, who is not enrolled.

I won't presume to speak for SJ on the subject, but you do have a good point. I generally believe that we all benefit from teaching students to a certain level. Both because they need to be taught how to be employable and how to take part in society as productive citizens. Of course, I also feel that schools aren't quite meeting those goals.

Dana, you bring up an excellent point--and a second point, too. Parents who choose to educate their children privately also pay for that education twice (which is one of the reasons I'm such a strong advocate of vouchers). They pay the government once for an education that their children won't be getting, and then they pay again for a private institution to (hopefully) give their children a better education than the public school would provide.

So, you're absolutely right--raising expenditures on schools (and raising taxes to support those expenditures) actually further punishes parents who choose to pay for a private education for their kids. Their already disproportionally higher cost of education becomes even more out of line with those who send their kids to public schools. When faced with that reality, I wonder how many of them support increased taxes and spending on public schools?

Thanks very much for correcting me on that one.

After investigating the whole history behind public education (which by the way is not free and costs as much as some private school tutions in certain areas), I am even more firmly grounded in my endeavor to educate my four lovely daughters at home. I wish to produce people who think and are able to articulate well what they know and believe; politcally; religiously; whatever the context. I am able to spend about $1500 per child and can give more time and attention to their questions and individual interests than a teacher juggling 25-20 students each year. My daughters consistently out test their publically educated counterparts. Wait- yes, I know, "what about socialization?" (Never has any culture prided itself so sophmorically like the United States on putting people together who are the same age and called it beneficial). Well, they can carry conversations with elderly, toddlers, children their own age, and anyone who speaks to them. They can discuss a variety of issues not usually understood or attempted by their peers. If this will make them unusual in the end, then so be it. At least they will be unusually enabled to care little for it and continue enjoying the liberty of a mind trained to THINK and PRODUCE unlike their comtemporaries who will be limited to consuming and following. O.K. I know that many of us are very good speakers and writers who came through the public education system seemingly unscathed. But I propose that we really recall very little and fondly remember a handful of teachers whom we liked and even fewer subjects that kept our interest. I may go just a step farther and say that I think that what most of us really know, we learned only as we continued our perusal of information and personal interests as adults. Yes, we learned to recognize letters and combinations that formed words. We learned numbers and formulas and calculations, but very few of us were challenged to think for ourselves. Thus the great experiment of pumping people out of the doors of the buildings of education to fill the factory jobs (yes, much needed, not demeaning them) i.e. the hourly wage earners, has very much succeeded, hasn't it?

Whew- will try hard not to steal your post again guys! Soap box removed, diatribe over! You can all breathe a sigh of relief!

P.S. not edited due to time of day!

Rae,

good for you. I'm glad your children have the advantage of a parent who can homeschool. How do you propose to help those who cannot (or will not) afford to do so? And are the children responsible for the parents they are born with?

just, you know, asking.

I'm very often branded as elitist and anti-education, since I'm firmly in favor of vouchers to allow people to vote with their pocketbooks, but I do think that education is an important investment that we have to make.

My thoughts are that schools are failing because there aren't enough people invested in them. (At least here in Montana.) Our funding here comes stricly out of (real) property taxes, along with some federal funds.

In the larger schools, you have more people who don't pay taxes than do, so they don't feel a lot of ownership toward education. It isn't their money being blown, so they don't really care. Not only that, but they do not have to bear the consequences of increased levies.

If you've ever owned rental property, you know the difference between how renters care for a building compared to how owners do. (Not saying that all people who rent, trash the place, but overall, I think it's true.) So, in order to improve education, we need a larger segment of the population with direct, tangible ownership in the system. You can't see your federal dollars coming back to the school, but you can damn sure see it when you pay your property tax bill.

Another problem with public education is that the tail is now wagging the dog. The school boards are increasingly rubber stamps for the administration. Rather than setting the standards, and charging the administration with following them, the administration tells the board what they want, and most often get it. I don't know how it is in any other districts, but everywhere I've been in Montana, if the teachers don't endorse a school board candidate, that candidate doesn't stand a chance of getting elected.

What was this post about? Oh yes, funding. Ultimately, I think I come down on SJ's side of the argument. With a little more ownership, I think that parents are most likely going to be a little more motivated to make sure their kids work hard, and come out with something worth having. (Rather than having free babysitting for 8 hours a day.)

Not only that, but with an ownership stake in the system, people might be more motivated to regain control of their systems, and dictate to the administration what they expect, rather than vice versa.

Since my name keeps coming up in this thread I should probably go on the record with my position. A full treatment will take more than I am willing to put into the comments, but I am the most anti-public education person most of you know. If I were king I would abolish the teachers union and privatize the entire system. My belief is that having children is a choice and those who are unwilling to meet the financial obligations of that choice shouldn't make it. If you don't have kids you shouldn't be paying for schools. Period. Anything else is insanely socialist and diametrically opposed to fundamnetal beliefs of our system.

Yeah, well, I didn't want to say it for you.

That wouldn't have been nearly as much fun.

My belief is that having children is a choice and those who are unwilling to meet the financial obligations of that choice shouldn't make it. If you don't have kids you shouldn't be paying for schools. Period. Anything else is insanely socialist and diametrically opposed to fundamnetal beliefs of our system.

Wow. So ... much ... to ... unpack. I don't even know where to begin. :-)

On this issue, the word "radical" fits me pretty well. This week is extremely busy for me so I won't be able to write about this at the length that it deserves until Sunday, at the earliest. i will post at length on it, though. As soon as I dig my fire-retardant undies out of storage, that is. Best to be prepared for the ensuing flames...

I think Craig of MTPolitics summed up the position I agree with.
Interestingly, I'm also a product of the Montana public school system....
Also interestingly, I went to perhaps the richest school in the state.

As to the "socialization" bugaboo, when I talk about "socialization", I mean that I would not have found my love of music and acting if I hadn't had the opportunities and encouragements to join choir, band, and drama. I only did some of them because my friends were also interested. Putting on a play with your siblings for your mom/teacher cannot compare to that, and an ensemble of siblings playing a song together cannot compare to playing in a school band.
Yes, you can join some activities even without being in the school. I haven't seen any studies that indicate either way, but I suspect the involvement of home-schooled children in those situations is far lower than those attending classes.
Thus, my plan is to let my kids go to school during the day, then homeschool them at night (plays, games, science projects, book reports, historical movies + discussions, etc).

I simply don't know. As a citizen, I still pay the taxes that would support my children going to a public school room. I am not a homeschool Nazi- I do think that the masses will be educate by manner of public funding and it should therefore be much better than it is or has been. As I was listening to the cost for a Super Bowl ad, it made me sick to think that there are millions of dollars being made by a corporate station that could be donated to several thousand schools or charitable organizations.

My oldest daughter attended public school for part of first grade and all of second grade. Children showed up on the coldest days of the year with no coats. Children came to class with no pencils. Children came to class two hours late. Children returned to school with incomplete homework assignments. When teachers attempted to discuss these issues with the parents, they were given excuses and viciously attacked for not "doing their job." I am not so sure that the problem isn't monetary funding, but a lack of funding of the hearts of children by their parents. I don't doubt that parents love their children, but I think that many are challenged to simply sit down, look their children in the eyes and communicate with them- "Be Here Now."

P.S. I have been accused frequently of "having enough money" to home educate. It is no different than being told I am "fortunate to make enough money to stay home with my children." We don't have many things people have, and those that we do, we have saved for them. Yes, we have made indiscriminate monetary decisions and are paying for them, but I gladly sacrifice my wage earning ability (and all the consuming power it lends) to focus on the children whose lives I grew in my body and nourished from my own breasts. I feel that shaping the lives of four females will be a greater contribution to the world; our country; our community; our neighborhood; and our family and theirs than I could have made to the economy or my husband's wallet.

Actually, Nathan, our children enjoy a rich social life. I would purport that because I know them well, I am able to allow them more room to pursue their interests. Our oldest daughter has had the last three leads roles in our local (not home education association) Children's Community Theatre. Her sisters are now following in her lead. This year, they will be opening for one of the Tony-Award Winning Shakspeare Festival plays. They have participated in Literature Festivals and met real authors of some of their favorite books with technique classes provided to encourage and enrich their creative writing style and technique. They are competitive swimmers, with one having an Olympic dream. We often joke that they could quite possibly be the only sister medly relay in a future Olympic Games. They are accomplished and talented pianists. They participate in piano competitions.

Of course, not all home educated children are this involved. Some parents are insular. I have not personally experienced many of those people in my encounters with the home education communities in which I have lived.

Nathan, I think that your children will thrive. I think all it truly takes is parents who take the time to be the primary educators in their childrens lives- talking with them about what they have seen and heard, asking them questions, etc. We have seen many examples of poor, intelligent butuneducated parents who made their children a priority, not a decoration. in their lives.

P.S. Stumpjumer- can't wait. A good bonfire always warms the body and the soul!

Rae,
I agree with what you're saying, but I'll bet you don't live in a community of just 5,000 people...

Part of my thoughts on "socialization" are because I grew up in that situation, with the nearest town 45 miles away. If it wasn't being done by a school organization, it wasn't being done, period. There was no community youth theater (although there was a community theater group that occasionally had children's parts...), there was no civic symphony group, no town swim team, etc.
But then, I guess if I think about it, public education is rarely a problem in such small communities, anyway, so maybe I'm full of hot air.

All of my prejudices about the education come from growing up in a small town. I can't imagine making a friend that you don't see every day in school and then can walk over to their house after school....so I guess I don't understand basic farmlife or urban life right from the start...

Oh, I am sorry to tell you this, Nathan, but when we started educating our children, we lived 25 miles from a "town" of 4800. The closest speck on the map had a population of 230. Then we moved closer to said "town" and finally into "town" before my husband received a promotion and we moved to the West. We now live in a "city" of approximately 22,000. The swim team back in Iddy Biddy was better than the one here. They also took piano there and participated in Parks and Rec soccer (guess what- yes, better back in Iddy Biddy). I think that it is what you make of it. I had to start a few things here that weren't previously. I thought when we considered moving here that it would be so wonderful to be in a larger town- but found that any community is only as good as it's citiznes are civically minded.

I also graduated from a small town- a class of 65. So, I have experienced living in a small town both as the student and the parent. School was what I made of it and a great portion of that was how much encouragement I received from my parents. They encouraged me to participate in numerous activities- speech/debate, school plays, yearbook, basketball, and band. I loved it all. The leaf doesn't fall too far from the tree and so my daughters consequently have some similar interests. I want them to enjoy life. I want them to enjoy learning- not from some burnt out teacher who only has one year-ONE YEAR- to know them, but from someone who knows them initmately and desires only the absolute best for them. I didn't have the ideal life as a child, either, so I also empathize with finding great comfort with seeing the same dependable faces each day- as my girls have- and afternoons spent with a good friend. When my girls finish their school work, they often head over to a friends home for an hour or two. They have sleepovers and attend parties and hang out on lazy Sunday afternoons with a friend or two.

I have known some terrific public educators and administrators in both small and large districts. They have the same complaints- lack of parental involvement; parents undermining school authority when children are disciplined encourages disrespect; teachers getting burned out by lack of communal effort and support. When a child continually shows up with incomplete assigments and a poor attitude, what is a teacher to do? One little girl in E's class repeatedly had lice. The teacher's spouse owned an appliance store. They personally went to the child's home and offered a deal on a washer and dryer set- cost only. The man wouldn't get up off the couch and stop staring at the cable show that he was so engrossed in. They treated her everyday at school; they sent her home and she came back with freshly laid nits. They asked her to stay at home and the teacher personally took her school work to her only to have none of it completed when the child was finally lice-free and allowed to return to school. This teacher was so frustrated and enraged that this child was subject to such apathy and ignorance. This goes on everywhere. Remember- Kliebold and Harris came from fairly well-to-do families and neighborhoods, so this isn't just an income level issue.

P.S. Nathan, I love that you are discussing and thinking about all of this at a time when you don't really have to (that is, I gleaned that you don't have children yet). This will make you better prepared for facing these issues with your own flesh and blood looking up at you.

Nathan--

Knowing where you went to school, you're being pretty generous with your definition of town! ;)

This site has a lot of information that may answer relevant questions conerning home education: http://www.nheri.org/

I am sure if anyone googled vouchers, they could some information there, as well.

Rae,
Nope, I have 2 kids. But neither are school-age yet. My 4-year-old is already fully bilingual in Chinese and English and can read and write in both languages, as well (but only about 30 words in each). He's amazingly impressive with spacial relationships (it would take too much to go into the specifics now).
My daughter isn't as good at applications-style stuff, but shows signs of being just as brilliant in understanding concepts...

The thing is, because of my daughter and military duties, my son was in daycare for about 18 months, whereas my daughter has not gone even one day. And I can tell a huge difference in how they interact with other people. To be honest, my son didn't really learn anything in daycare, because we've been involved with teaching him stuff at home...but although my daughter plays with kids in the neighborhood and in Sunday School, she doesn't have the "getting along" skills my son has.
...or is that just personality differences? The sample size in any one person's experiences is too small to say for sure, I think.
...or is it just a temporary advantage my son has that my daughter would make up in time regardless of whether or not she would go to daycare or school? That's possible, too, because the kids that learn math almost by rote from their eager parents' flash-card regimen pretty much never hold that advantage past the first month of kindergarten.

So who knows?

I do know that I enjoyed high school, but it was no challenge. At all. I am not exaggerating when I say I never once took homework home in high school. I did it all at lunch or in class during lectures (yeah, I did math homework during history lectures and vice versa...).

So I want my kids to experience school. If it's a bad experience, I'll have no qualms about taking them out. The only thing that will ever challenge them is what we do at home, I'm sure.

The other issue is that there are a number of colleges that look askance at homeschooling regardless of the scores the kids get. Two possible reactions to that: don't homeschool, or push to eliminate that sort of discrimination.

My reaction is to try to give my kids the best of both worlds: the advantage of homeschooling on nights and weekends to challenge them and tailor their education to their needs and interests, and regular school during weekdays to give them the experiences that I cherish.

I also have to add that my military career means that I will probably be at home drawing retirement pay by the time my son is 15 and my daughter 13, so that gives me an advantage other parents don't have. I plan on using that advantage.... :)

Craig,
Hey, we had a gas station and a Taco John's! What more do you need to define civilization?!?!

...um, by the time we moved away, we had a movie theater, bowling alley, and pizza place, too.

Gah, how pitiful is it to claim "having a bowling alley" as grounds for towndom...?

Sorry, there Nathan, but still glad that you are thinking about it instead of numbingly sending them off to school "just because they are 5."

Hmmm. Our number two daughter is a bit more, um, shall we say "assertive." We have only four, but I have been around many children and have observed this behavior as fairly typical of second borns, regardless of gender. So, I don't know....

And, just one more teeny tiny thing about home education? And then, I promise not to swipe another comment section for my own again. Actually, it's not as difficult as some might believe for a homeschooled teen to enter a university, public or private. (Cut and paste this: http://learninfreedom.org/colleges_4_hmsc.html). Our daughters all plan to attend university to get an education, not learn a trade, but a higher education. Many home educated kids CLEP out of the basics and are able to move into the more initmate classroom settings of the higher level classes.

We had all the same concerns and thoughts before we bit the bullet, so none of what you are questioning or mentioned is new or undiscovered (so far ;) ). I think your children will benefit no matter what simply because you seem to be concerned for their well-being and realize that you are rearing adults, not children.

Nathan, I really enjoy being challenged in discussion. Thanks!

O.K. Stumpjumper, where is that dissertation?

Rae,
Um, I think ZB and SJ like for people to "hijack" discussion threads, at least as long as they stay generally on the subject and stay civil. We all learn things this way.
Am I right, guys?

Absolutely. I'm fairly certain that you guys end up adding more value to the conversation than I do, anyway.

Talking about comment threads getting interesting, you might also want to revisit the budget thread below. A new voice is most certainly working to shake things up.

Nathan--

I was thinking more that your town *was* the only town w/ in 45 miles.

Yeah, ZB, I just didn't want to go there about adding value... [grin]

Yes, you can join some activities even without being in the school. I haven't seen any studies that indicate either way, but I suspect the involvement of home-schooled children in those situations is far lower than those attending classes.

Sorry to be jumping in a bit late (I had no idea things in this thread were so interesting!) but this isn't statistically true. In fact, it's statistically the exact reverse. Sophorist has a great post on the subject here.

Dana- fab link (and how did you get it to do that? I don't see the magic "link" button). I think all that info is available at the National Home Education Research Institution web site.

Nathan: The more the merrier! If Z and I wanted to limit conversation to just the two of us, we'd use e-mail. I like to think that we aren't simply paying lip service when we say that we want a diversity of opinion.

Dana,
That site showed the opposite of what?
"More involved in the community" is not the opposite of "less involved in school activities". "Higher rates of advanced degrees" is not the opposite of "some colleges do not recognize the validity of homeschooled education"....although on that last one, I should point out that from what I've heard, the colleges that do not recognize that validity do so only on the basis of political reasons...

Anyway, what I'm getting from all this is that Homeschooling is a great choice for many people, that if you want to do it you can make it work for your kids. I particularly liked Rae's point that if something doesn't exist for your kids to be a part of, you as the Homeschooling parent can bring it about.

...and yet, I don't really think this should be a discussion of "which" is "better". Some families cannot Homeschool. Some families are not willing to make the sacrifices and take the effort. For instance, every Homeschooling parent I've spoken with is of above-average intelligence and more self-motivated than most people I know. So in some ways, it's like arguing that being a professional writer is better than working in an office. Well, yes, on the whole...but some people don't have the skill, talent, or discipline to be a writer....

The only thing that still troubles me about Homeschooling exclusively is that you then deny them the school experience. Those of you who had bad school experiences will say that's no loss. I had bad experiences at school, definitely, but overall it was positive. I have friends I am still in touch with today that I'm convinced I would not have met if I'd been homeschooled. I have tried things I wouldn't have experienced if I'd been homeschooled.

Thus, I'm going to try and give my children the best of both worlds.... Which isn't trying to upstage anyone. I think it depends on the children, and depends on the parents. It is a very valid point that the parents that are committed and disciplined and concerned enough to homeschool would be committed and disciplined and concerned enough to be involved with their child's education even if they weren't homeschooled, so the webpage Dana provided on the advantages of homeschooling may actually just be the advantages of having involved, dedicated, concerned, intelligent, educated parents....

Nathan, I sure hope that I didn't convery that one is better than the other. I just wanted to let you know that some of the questions you had, have time tested answers: socialization, extra-curricular activities, college admissions, to think of a few. I would agree with you that not all parents can home educate. I am asked many times how I do it. Truthfully, and sincerely desiring not to get off on a religious tangent, I have personal conviction to do this. So, it's like any other commitment that I have made: owning a house and making the payments, a doctor's appointment, my marriage; I do what I know I should do because to not do it would be wrong. My sister-in-law is not mentally stable enough to do this. I think that her children have an advantage of attending a school each day so that they get routine and stability.

You sound like an intelligent and concerned parent and I am sure that your children will do well in life because you will make sure that what they learn has life application. Talking with your children while you listen to the news on the radio; while you read a book; when they have questions; at night before bed; having dinner together as a family as frequently as possible to allow for intimacy as a family together; all of these things give opportunity to shape your child's attitude toward learning and life.

Our oldest daughter E has a birthday that falls after the cut off date for entrance into schools. We had her tested to see if she could do early entry (she missed the cut off by 28 days). When the teacher finished testing her, she was impressed, but cuffed her encouraging comments with, "Don't worry, by about third grade everyone seems to kind of even out on their learning level." My husband and I walked away, not soothed, but intrigued. Why, we wondered. Does that mean that if E is now working at a fourth grade level, that all the other children will rise to the same level? We did some research and found out that it was quite the opposite: those who were advanced, receeded a bit. That was not encouraging to us at all. We didn't want for her love of learning and ability to be stumped. We wanted for her to be able to continue at her own level, not be held back. We kept her at home for Kindergarten. I had examined the goals for the class and since she already had shape, color, number, letter recognition, I thought we could move on ahead. She attended first and second grades, but was sent to the third grade reading and math in first grade, and then to the fourth grade reading and math in second grade. When the end of teh year arrived, we re-evaluated where she was and how they would be able to continue accomodating her rate of educational development. They would sinmply have to keep sending her up to the higher grades. After thinking about it, we decided to keep her home and continue her education at a more individual pace. We didn't want her as an eight year old to mixing company with eleven year olds. We were concerned that although she could comprehend the required reading, it might not be age appropriate. So, thus our story of choosing to be responsible for our children's education.

We are involved, as mentioned before, in enough activites that we feel allow for making friends and encouraging personal development of talents and individual gifts. I understand your concern for making friends, my best friend was my high school best friend and college roommate. My girls best friends are the ones whom they have known since they were quite young. E has had the same best friend since they met at age three in a mother's day out program. In fact, her parents flew her 1500 miles out to see us since we moved in 2002. We will send E out there this summer. They keep in constant contact, thanks to internet and wonderful long-distance programs. We affirm friendships that we see are benefical and reciprocal in value for the girls.

Whew! All that said, I still don't know the answer for the schools. My humblre prescription remains the same: more time spent together with parents. Not just quality time, but quantity, as well. Read "Tom and Huck Don't Live Here Anymore"- it articulates very well what I think.

Now, must go teach a math lesson to my second grader and help her with making her second poster in her series of the Five Classifications of Vertebrates. The older two are reading The Children' Homer and we will discuss it when they return from Shakespeare Play practice. Then they will head out to swim team practice and we will have dinner together followed by books and then bed. I tell you all this to say, it happens because R and I make it happen. We choose for it to come about. And there are people who are accomplishing far more than I am- public educators and home educators alike. (no time to edit)

Rae,
I didn't feel like either you or Dana were trying to convert anyone.
But homeschooling is such an emotionally charged issue, both for and against, that I wanted to make those aspects (that it's not for everyone, that one isn't necessarily better than the other) clear.
Heck, I have a co-worker who derides homeschoolers as being overprotective and oversheltering! But she's a statist liberal feminist, so there you have it.

Rae - You just put in the HTML directly. To input a link you type "thewordyouwanthyperlinked" (without the beginning and ending quote) and it should work.

Nathan,

That site showed the opposite of what?
"More involved in the community" is not the opposite of "less involved in school activities".

I wasn't aware you were limiting "involvement" to school activities. I don't have a link with such detailed information about school activities vs. "community" activities, but there are 2 things to bear in mind: 1) homeschooled students by and large tend to be involved in more extracurricular activities, however that term is defined in various studies that have come out, and 2) many things cross the bounds of "school" and "community." The point I was trying to make is that homeschooling in and of itself is not a barrier to involvement in non-scholastic activities.

"Higher rates of advanced degrees" is not the opposite of "some colleges do not recognize the validity of homeschooled education"....although on that last one, I should point out that from what I've heard, the colleges that do not recognize that validity do so only on the basis of political reasons...

I think the relative point there would be the shockingly low number of homeschooled students who reported they felt that homeschooling had been an impediment to their attaining higher education wherever they chose.

...and yet, I don't really think this should be a discussion of "which" is "better".

I don't think anyone but you is seeing it as a "better" or "worse" analysis. I never said it was better, Rae never said it was better. No one else in this thread has said it was better. We have simply said that it is an alternative, and one that she has made, and I intend to make, work. Certainly in my own case I feel it's better than the alternatives available to me. But I'm not naive or presumptuous enough to say that it's what everyone (or even most people) should do.

I mean no offense, but you seem to be taking my praise of homeschooling as a criticism of parents in general who choose public schooling, and of you in particular. That is not my intent.

The only thing that still troubles me about Homeschooling exclusively is that you then deny them the school experience.

I suppose that's true to a degree, though if they're involved in school-sponsored extracurriculars they will get some of that. Of course, you said "homeschooling exclusively," so I assume you mean none of those extracurriculars. If so, I'd say that yes, in that case they would be denied the school experience. But the simple truth is that we (parents) cannot provide our kids with every experience there is. We have to choose which are most important to us, and prioritize. The "school experience" is pretty darn low on my scale. But then, I intend to encourage my kids to be involved in some extracurriculars, anyway. :)

Those of you who had bad school experiences will say that's no loss. I had bad experiences at school, definitely, but overall it was positive.

For what it's worth, I loved school, excelled at it, and was involved in all kinds of academic and non-academic activities. I would not have been a good candidate for homeschooling, since my parents were both incapable and unwilling to educate me, and unable to afford private schooling. In that scenario, public schooling was the best choice for me, as a student.

I have friends I am still in touch with today that I'm convinced I would not have met if I'd been homeschooled. I have tried things I wouldn't have experienced if I'd been homeschooled.

Fair enough. But my guess is that homeschoolers would say the same about public schooling.

Again, I'm not trying to imply that anyone is a BAD parent, or making BAD choices by sending their kids to public school, either part-time, exclusively, or with homeschooling as supplementation. Just that it's not the right choice for me and mine.

Rae,

Shoot. That didn't work. Email me at dana@quiltindex.com and I'll tell you how it works. :)

Dana,
I apologize, I think I came across as too emphatic once again.

What I meant by "I didn't feel like either you or Dana were trying to convert anyone." was that I thought both of you were just sharing your positive experiences with homeschooling your children and allaying some common fears about difficulties. In that, you succeeded admirably.

I was just chasing some minor rabbits down holes. The form of my response was because you said the site "showed just the opposite was true", but when I looked again at what I wrote, I can see why you put it that way, because I didn't clarify what I meant by "these activities". I certainly did imply it to be community involvement, but what I meant was school groups like choir, drama, sports.
I have no personal experience with homeschooling, and haven't really researched it. I know that children do great with personalized attention. The amount of time wasted by a teacher merely maintaining discipline is staggering. It seems stupid to have teachers waste so much time in lesson plans and the like as well. Homeschooling is the ultimate in "doing things at the lowest possible echelon" philosophy that I've learned from the military and believe so strongly.

...and yet in the context of funding public education (I admit we've gotten far of that aspect), I can't say that homeschooling is a sufficient answer. It's great for the kids and family who can and want to do it, but I doubt it will ever happen in enough numbers to affect school funding excessively. I realize neither of you were advocating it as a solution, merely sharing your experiences, but I couldn't just drop that aspect of this thread.

In fact, the more people homeschool, the more valid I think SJ's point of not wanting to fund the education of other people's kids becomes. Which is an interesting gut reaction I didn't think I would have.

Actually, Rae and Dana *are* arguing that homeschooling is better, but that would seem to be - i don't know - uncouth or something.

I would also add that statistical comparisons between home schooling and public school are always going to be skewed because a) home schooling is incredibly small compared to the total public school population, and b) home school parents tend to be of a different "caliber" (for lack of a better term) than non-home schooling parents.

So you get something of a chicken-and-egg syndrome. Did home schooling cause the children to be so well-educated, or were the children well-educated because of parental involvement, which led to the home schooling.

A closer comparison, IMHO, would be between home school children and children in *private* schools. I would be willing to bet (not having studied any research on the matter) that home school children and private school children would *both* beat public school children statistically. I don't know how they would fare against each other.

Finally, as Rae mentioned, some people don't have the ability to home school. I would assume that there is at least *something* like a normal curve as far as intelligence distribution goes. There are some very, very intelligent people, and some people who are dumb as a stick. And then there are a lot of average people in the middle. Not all of those people are going to be able to do homeschooling.

fascinating discussion, however. I work at a religious college, so this type of thing is always being debated.

Oh, Bryan, I was hoping to avoid the accusation of arguing (wink).

I vote for parent involvement- a study has shown that children who are home educated by a mother who has not even completed high school fair just as well as those whose mother has a graduate degree.

Just another tidbit of information for people to skrap about.

Nathan - Thanks for bringing us back to the funding aspect of education (which is, after all, what the post was about. hee!). I can't recall where, but just a day or two ago, I read a blog entry (I'll come back here and post the link if I run across it again) that said - after adjusting for inflation - we are spending twice as much per-capita on education as we did in the mid-60s, and six times as much as we did at the turn of the century. That's just staggering to me.

Rae,

I know this post is rapidly disappearing into the ether, but do you have any actual link to that study re: homeschoolers whose mothers haven't finished high school and those whose mothers finished graduate school? I'd like to examine the methodology on that study.