Brick and mortar schooling programs are not a better form of education than online/home education.

I am very sorry I took so long to post my argument, it was my sister's birthday over the weekend and I spent most of my time celebrating the occasion. Thank you for being patient. Now without further delay, I shall launch my rebuttal. 1. From: "Customization and Learning Speeds" - "In Ontario (my province of residence), a parent does not need to complete any sort of certification in order to home-school their children. If the parent is not required to learn about child development and child education, how can they be qualified to decide which studies and learning strategies will be most beneficial to their child?" - I would like to point out that this argument is a Red Herring. My opponent does not directly refute my arguments, and instead introduced a new issue to the debate. The point, however is a reasonable one and I will give my rebuttal to it later on in the discussion. (see 5.) For now I will only point out that I my arguments were based on the flexibility of home education, not on the "qualification" of the teachers. My argument still stands. 2. From: "Quality of Education" - "The quality of home education versus school education is difficult to gauge simply by grade marks, especially since it is not a requirement for all homeschooled students to be tested and graded in the same way that students in classrooms are." - Again, my opponent has created a Red Herring as a rebuttal. My argument was not based upon overall grade marks of various students taking various tests as your response would imply. Instead, my conclusions were based upon students taking a specified set of tests followed by a comparison of results. The fact that homeschool students are not required to be tested in the same way as public schooled students is irrelevant. There is no point in asserting that the ways of testing students in different situations vary, it is only natural for this to be the case. Even amongst the brick and mortar system tests vary greatly from school to school, yet it makes absolutely no difference in the overall quality of education. Again my assertions remain unrefuted. - "In Ontario, it is a homeschooling parent's choice whether or not to test and grade their child. This makes it very hard to know whether a child has absorbed their studies and is prepared to pursue higher education if that is their choice." - This is a difficult point to debate, simply because many localities have a different set of laws on this issue. However, in my home state of Pennsylvania it is required to submit a strict record of a students work to the local school district each year. This is done through an "evaluation." Each year the parent of the student is required by law to schedule an evaluation with an "evaluator" that has been approved by the local school district. The evaluator determines whether the student is receiving a good education by first interviewing the student, then viewing his or her work throughout the year. By comparing the students completed work to the strict guidelines for education in PA, the evaluator is able to write a report to the school district so that they can assess whether the student is getting a proper education. The evaluator is also able to guide parents that are less experienced in the education of their children. This combination of curriculum guidelines and yearly evaluation creates a situation where each child is ensured the best education possible, and the best situation heading into higher education. While in Ontario, it is not required to submit an evaluation to the school district, there is curriculum guidelines to ensure the same quality of education as would be received in a brick and mortar school. 3. "History" I concede that my opponents claim that a small percentage of people would have been educated publicly before the 1900's is valid, however in discussing this point a very interesting idea has been brought to the table. My opponent states that, "...children were responsible for helping their families economically. They worked alongside their siblings, parents, and other relatives to make money. Families taught their children informally back then, and their lessons generally focused on developing practical skills such as farming and hard labor for boys, and sewing and cooking for girls." I would ask, is this not also necessary in today's times? I would argue that these "practical" skills are very important, even more important than many of the "skills" taught in schools today. Unlike a publicly educated student, a home educated student is able to observe firsthand how his parents pay the bills, or how they deal with politics and the media. While a public schooled student receives information about these subjects in their classes, they do not usually have the opportunity to apply that information until they are forced to live in the real world. In almost any situation, it is clear that experience and practice will win over pure knowledge to any degree. 4. "Socialization" -"Also, homeschooling does not offer students the benefit of social interaction with others to the same extent as classroom learning does. How are homeschooled students able to practice the social skills necessary for their future lives outside the home, without the opportunity to interact with a variety of different people as they could do if they were being taught in school?"- I will start by saying that it is a misguided conception that home educated students have less social interaction than brick and mortar students. It is a very common belief that homeschoolers are antisocial "shellfish" that rarely leave their house. However many people do not know that homeschool students are often enrolled in programs based from their local school such as sports, band, sometimes cubs, etc. These activities are able to provide the socialization needed to create a healthy student. In fact, based on firsthand observation of homeschool students among publicly schooled students, I have been able to see that the homeschool students excel in every way even next to their public school friends. Because my opponents argument was based on lack of social interaction, its refutation stands in the testimony that this is simply a misunderstood concept of the homeschool community. 5. "Qualified?" -"Brick-and-mortar schooling offers students fully qualified teachers who can direct their studies in the most productive way. These teachers are backed up by their training and experience. Homeschooled students do not have the benefit of qualified teachers, which puts them at a disadvantage to their classroom-taught peers."- In this argument my opponent seem to assume that to be "qualified" one must necessarily be "certified." This is not at all the case. Qualified can be defined as: "Having the abilities, qualities, attributes, etc., necessary to perform a particular job or task" This definition of the word is able to show that what is needed to be "qualified" is not a certification, and that parents of homeschooling children are just as able to provide a good education as long as they have common sense and are able to choose curricula that meets he requirements of the state. Based on not only this fact, but also the flexibility of home education, the standards of education imposed, the monitoring and guidance provided by evaluators, and the ability of the students to witness firsthand how to deal with real-word issues; it must be concluded that home education is in no way subordinate to public education and that home educated students are at no disadvantage to those who have been educated publicly. Sources: http://ontariohomeschool.org... http://www.edu.gov.on.ca... http://www.pahomeschoolers.com... http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca... www.thefreedictionary.com/qualified ... Fantastic job! I eagerly await your response.