Homeschool is superior to government provided schools

In accordance with my opponent's rules for this debate, my focus in this round will be only for the establishment of a case statement. I will negate the resolution and argue for the CON, establishing the following parameters:[Observations]1: My opponent cannot include online schools as an example in her case because they are or can be government provided and funded. This is then an example for the CON.2: As the CON, my only obligation is to prove that homeschools are not superior. I can achieve this by either proving that government-provided schools are of tantamount or superior quality to homeschools.3: The resolution asks us to evaluate if homeschools are superior to government-provided schools. The PRO's burden then is to prove that homechools are intrinsically better in order to win this debate.[Contentions]Contention 1: Homeschools are not intrinsically superior.The quality of homeschools depends on the conditions of the environment at which the lessons are being given. Much of my opponent's evidence would lead to the conclusion that homeschools would be a stronger alternative than government-provided schools, but it would fail to look toward the actual populations that homeschool or have the means to homeschool. Homeschooling would be a good alternative if two parents were the optimal parents, but what homeschooling were done in a household where a parent were abusive, a drug addict, etc.? Sub-point 1a: Homeschooling depends on the conditions of the home. The United States Census Bureau explained the following on the characteristics of homeschooled children: " To better understand trends in home schooling it is helpful to know what similarities and differences exist between home-schooled children and those in regular school... Household variables had stronger effects -- family structure, mother's education, father's education, region of residence. The main effect of income was not significant. However, the square of income had a relatively strong effect. This indicates that the families most likely to home-school their children are of middle income -- neither rich nor poor." [1] Sub-point 1b: Homeschools are not universal.The success of homeschools depends also on the feasibility for the parents in question. Homeschooling is first only for the economically feasible: "Homeschooling is not for everyone, warn the experts, and there are some important issues that should factor into a parent's decision. While the cost of supplies and teaching materials are relatively small, (Ray estimates an average of $400-600 per year, per child), having one or both parents take on the teaching role may require a shift in the familys financial dynamic. We live in a two-income world and if youre homeschooling, someone needs to stay home at least part time, so you have that loss of income, says Kochenderfer. For the most part, homeschooling is less expensive than a private school education, but more expensive than a public school." [2] This is, of course, under the assumption that a parent will be the one taking the instruction and under the assumption they possess the ability to be able to teach well. If not, they'll need to hire a tutor, who may be expensive. "Students in two-parent households made up 89 percent of the homeschooled population, and those in two-parent households with one parent in the labor force made up 54 percent of the homeschooled population. The latter group of students had a higher homeschooling rate than their peers: 7 percent, compared with 1 to 2 percent of students in other family circumstances. In 2007, students in households earning between $25,001 and $75,000 per year had higher rates of homeschooling than their peers from families earning $25,000 or less a year." [3]Contention 2: Homeschools are fertile for indoctrination of religious fundementalism.As Kunzman explains: "Nevertheless, religious conservatives likely remain the largest subset of homeschoolers, at least in the United States. The relative freedom and flexibility of homeschooling allows parents to craft an educational environment that reflects their values and priorities, and religious conservatives find such an option particularly appealing." [4]Sub-point 2a: Homeschooling parents do homeschool with the intention to indoctrinate."Parents give many different reasons for homeschooling their children. In 2007, the most common reason parents gave as the most important was a desire to provide religious or moral instruction (36 percent of students). This reason was followed by a concern about the school environment (such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure) (21 percent), dissatisfaction with academic instruction (17 percent), and "other reasons" including family time, finances, travel, and distance (14 percent)." [3]Sub-point 2b: Religious fundementalism is negative for society."Religious Conservatives have been pushing to remove sexual education out of the classroom. They believe that abstinence-only education is the only kind of sexual education that should be taught. The abstinence-only education program omits information about birth control, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases (STD), and AIDS. These programs are supported by congressional funding and instituted by the states. People for the American Way (2004) reports that President Bush supports abstinence-only programs and has increased federal funding for the programs, winning him the praise of conservative Christian leaders. Other countries are also frustrated with the U.S. policy that focuses on moral issues such as abstinence, abortion, and restricting health education. One main reason countries are upset with the U.S. is because President Bush withheld 34 million dollars from the United Nations Population Fund (Monkerud, 2005). This money was to be used to aid family planning, sex education, and to champion sexual and reproductive rights. However, President Bush says any funds received by groups are not to be used to provide any information on abortion. In this year the U.N. had two million unwanted pregnancies. President Bush’s initiative to withhold funds could have been a leading cause of the pregnancies (Monkerud, 2005). Religious conservative groups seem to share common moral beliefs that they think necessary to force on other countries. Foreign policy of the U.S. and every nation in the world could be jeopardized by these actions. Another issue that is brought to attention is the belief that only creationism should be taught in schools. The issue of teaching creationism in pubic schools has recently been brought to the forefront by religious fundamentalists. In the past years, public schools usually teach the science-based evolution theory and don’t refer to creationism. It is regarded as a religious explanation. Christian conservatives argue that creationism is a theory and should be presented along side of, if not instead of, evolution. According to the National Center for Science Education, legal debates in public schools between creationism and evolution are now going on between 17 states (Goldenberg, 2005). Some liberals view this as a way for conservative Christians to sneak a form of fundamentalist values into public school through science programs." [5] This is not even to mention the idealisms formed against homosexuality.[1] http://www.census.gov... [2] http://www.foxbusiness.com... [3] http://nces.ed.gov... [4] http://www.iejee.com... [5] http://www.lsu.edu...