Public school is better for developing life skills than Home Schooling

I will refute your refute your refutations. :P "My opponent says homeschooled children are taught the same core curriculum. If you look at my source, then you will see that weeding a vegetable garden can be considered a science lesson and walking a dog can be a nature experiment. Seriously? You say to me this is core curriculum? To me it is almost laughable."Well since they are doing better on national standerdize tests on all subjects, then then be learning more. "My opponent also says home schooled students get better scores, but what he is failing to tell you is that the students that take these types of tests are self-selecting, in other words, it is up to the parent if their child is to take this test, so you can't argue that homeschool students overall are doing better than their public school counterparts."Yes true, but it is mandatory to take the SAT's, and those tests where considered in the studies above. Also most kids take ERB's or the EXPLORE tests. And they still get better scores. So the ones take it do better, and just because a parent choses doesnt deny the valididy of the studies. Just because you have an option doesnt mean that the studies are flawed. And also that should hurt your case, since there are less kids than it would be harder to get a good average, so these kids must be smarter."Also, I would like to point out, like I mentioned above, that typically a homeschool student belongs to a family that have obtained bachelor degrees and masters; by law, the only qualification a parent or guardian needs is a high school diploma or GED at best."Hey, wait a second, you are critizising the teachers in home schools. Yet it seems as though this doesnt matter much ecause the kids are doing better in life, socially (yu didneven refute that) and on standardised tests. So if the teachers in homeschools are so bad, why are their stidents doing better? Just ask thet to yourself. "To counter this argument I will refer back to my statements above. Children that come from homeschooling are typically High income, VERY well educated families that hold HIGH expectations for their children to excel socially and academically and do not take in to account the total number of homeschooled children since this number is unknown."2 things:1. This is contradictory to your statement above, you are saying that most people that h their kids in homeschool are smart and educated, but up their you said they werent. So you contradicted yourself. Also if they are highly educted and wealthy than the kids are in good hands. 2. Jus because people are rich and smart means what their k does in the futere? I am in an upper class family, and my parentsnew other rich people when they where young, and some of them are poor, drugies, and murderers. So the class doesnt matteu do later in life, look at bill gates, started poor, and is now rich. The same can happen to rich people, started rich, ended poor. So this argument is flawed. "Once again, his numbers are not showing the total number of student's homeschooled. "Do you need every single person? Many stidies that are accurite only have a smalle of the population, yet they are accurute. Also the self-selection still means nothing. Most of the homes and the public schoolers are average intelegence, you needn't be smart to do well on those tests, yet one must be...educated. So according to this on average a home schooler is smarter. Self-selection means nothing. You think only smart homeschoolers get forced to do it, but that is false, this argument to has some flaws. "First, public school is technically free, I mean the taxpayers do pay for it, but there is a reason you can claim educational credits on your taxes. You could argue that it really isn't cheaper considering that the parent has to buy or rent books depending where you live and free to the student attending public school. Cheaper to the tax payers, but you are paying taxes either way. Overall it is only cheaper depending on you choose to teach your child."Well, heres the thing, they do save every one money, not just you, ebcaus of taxes. Many people get taxed, so saving 10 billion dollars a year means you save someone somwhere in america some money. So you save your money, and someone elses. Also you claim that some people t a free ride, which is true, but the majority of taxpaers in america pay these taxes. Now I have proven that home schooling is now I will point out how the current schools in america are bad. (schools obviously). Rigid personnel rules and regulations. Those schools with little to no interference from outside supervisors or regulators on hiring and firing decisions tend to be the most effective schools as measured by student performance. Tenure is not the only barrier to successful school organization. School organizations that call for greater differentiation among teachers and pay some teachers more than others on the basis of performance or drawing power rather than seniority clash with government-mandated salary schedules. Positions and salary levels are decided by the state without any relationship to a particular school’s situation. To foster successful reorganization of schools and more effective and efficient use of teachers, school systems or even individual schools must be able to employ their teaching staff as they see fit and pay them accordingly. If a school has a hard time finding a good science teacher it should be able to set the salary for that position at a level which will attract qualified persons. Uniform salary schedules were originally enacted to address racial and social inequities among teachers, not as a “better way” of organizing the teaching force. These inequities have largely been addressed and can be prevented by other means. But like so many governmental policies, uniform salary schedules have outlived their usefulness. Reorganization might involve paying teachers of one subject more than teachers of another subject, or paying a good teacher with ten years’ experience more than a mediocre teacher with 15 years’ experience. A civil service system. A related set of problems for American public education stems from the early twentieth-century view that public services can and should be delivered by a regimented, compartmentalized civil service. All indications are that the teaching profession will best be organized in the future as firms providing specific services to schools, rather than as a unionized set of government employees with tenure and little performance-based accountability. They should, in other words, come to resemble law firms. In teaching firms, more senior partners would enjoy tremendous name recognition and respect, attracting clients for the firms while imparting their proven teaching strategies to junior partners and associates. Monopoly. It’s not an attack on teachers to suggest that they, like all other workers, respond to incentives. When a school enjoys monopoly control over its students, the incentive to produce successful students is lacking. When student performance doesn’t correlate with reward on the school level, individual teachers see no need to go the extra mile to help students when the teacher next door receives the same rewards for merely babysitting. And without the pressures of competition in education, parents are bothersome nuisances rather than clients who might potentially go elsewhere if not satisfied. Centralized decision-making. When decisions on such issues as the makeup of the history curriculum or the daily school schedule is mandated from above, school leaders lose initiative and school policies become disconnected with the students and teachers they supposedly exist to serve. [1] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...