Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 3

message: Why does this section exist?  If homeschooling is somehow directly relevant to their notability, then it should be important enough to make its way into the content; if not, then why bother to mention them at all?  Unless there's serious objection, I think this random list of people should be deleted.
I forgot to timestamp that last paragraph when I wrote it.  It's been almost a week.  If the list is still there tomorrow and no one's raised an objection, I'll zap it.  aruffo 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschooled individuals 

message: I began to look through this article just with a mind toward eliminating bias, and I was first startled, then dismayed, then appalled to discover just how much of this article is hearsay, supposition, and opinion.  If I deleted everything that didn't pass muster according to that measure there would hardly be anything left at all.
I've been looking through WP policy pages lately and I know there's a way to flag statements for missing sources.. I'll probably find that out again and come back later.  aruffo 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just tag every unsupported statement with .  The problem with this topic is that it's a difficult one for researchers to tackle.  There's a strong suspicion that a fair amount of homeschooling is conducted by nutcases who, by definition, aren't going to participate in an academic study.  One of the largest and most detailed studies on homeschooling family characteristics was conducted using data generated by Bob Jones University, so even that data has a self-filtering mechanism built in.  With that duly noted, I wish to encourage you to insist that this article's editors stick to the research and report facts, not opinions, suppositions, or weasel phrases as "some believe" etc.  Best wishes.  Rklawton 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha!  Cute with the "nutcases" citation needed, there, Unschool!  Heh.  All right.. phew.. I'm not going to even attempt to do this all at once.  Bit by bit, that's the way to see this one through. aruffo 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am greatful that you saw my humorous intent.  But seriously, Wikipedia's biggest problem may be unsupported statements.  I'm sure it's volume would drop by 95% if everything had to have a citation. Unschool 05:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with you there.  I don't really have a problem with unsupported statements as a general principle, because I figure that people will generally write what they know to be true, and it's better to have a statement that can be verified and disputed than to refrain from writing anything at all.  That's why my initial evaluation of this article was not one of verifiability, but of severely ingrained bias.  Even giving the writers the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity and desire to be objective, the entire text reeks of the basic erroneous supposition that people must be "taught" or they will not learn.  For example, each of the famously unschooled people mentioned are quickly dismissed as having had some alternative form of schooling-- Edison had a tutor, Roosevelt and Wilson went to college, Lincoln "acquired schooling".  Why is it necessary to ascribe the brilliance of these men to the fact that they were subjected to schooling of any kind?  It's possible that what they learned, they taught themselves, and the schooling was (educationally) a waste of their time.  It is possible, perhaps even probable... but without sources and verification it is pure speculation, and it is equally speculative to suppose the opposite case. aruffo 09:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the reversion I just performed... I know there are plenty of unsupported statements in this article.  At least we can avoid make it worse!  In the meantime, it would be great if efforts were applied to supporting (or deleting) what's here, or adding only supported statements, rather than adding still more unverifiable opinion.  aruffo 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion vs Research 

message: I have put together a draft of a new version of this article based on the above discussion. Please read it and give me your input. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your version is a big improvement. You should post it. Amillion 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're on the right track. I had mentioned recently that the legality section was beginning to overwhelm the article. I hadn't even thought at the time about it adding to the already overwhelming US bias. "Homeschooling internationally", maybe?. Although I haven't gotten around to adding it yet, I've been tracking down leads for homeschooling in other countries. Although there is some info to be found for about two dozen countries, the only ones with anywhere near enough to have articles of their own (so far) are the UK and possibly Australia. So what about Homeschooling in the US, Homeschooling in the UK, and HS in Australia? Leave everybody else on the main article until it becomes necessary to get there own? That way, all countries will get a brief mention, and you can click through on a specific country if you want more info. Thoughts? Master Scott Hall 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you went too far. Most of the "motivations" and "social effects" and "academic results" are most likely identical in other industrialized countries, even though all the evidence cited is American. I'd support, however, moving the legal stuff to Legality of homeschooling in the United States or something similar since that's not going to be internationally applicable. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right about motivations, social effects, results, etc. being similar worldwide. I just hesitated in putting them in the international article because it is highly assumptive, not to mention, the applicable statistics we have pertain exclusively to U.S. I would also agree that "legality" could use its own article, especially due to the abundance of specific state laws that have yet to be touched. I was just focusing on getting the U.S. POV problem cleared up first. I still think that the main HS should be worldwide, with satellite articles focused on individual countries. After finding an abundance of international HS resources, especially in other English speaking nations, we would be putting ourselves in the awkward position of defending why the main HS article has a strong US bias. I think "Homeschooling" (international article), "Homeschooling in the U.S.", "Legality of HS in the U.S.", and then "Homeschooling in xxx" (as needed) makes a lot more sense to me. We could incorporate the other sections mentioned above into the int'l article as we verify them. Anyone else have an opinion on this one? Thanks, Master Scott Hall 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of homeschooling, as described in the article, seems to be basically a US one, with some extensions in other English speaking nations (cultural proximity? Religious concerns?), and rather inexistent elsewhere. For instance, homeschooling is legal in France but  marginal and not worth mentioning (a few hundred families), and most people there never heard of it. For that reason, I tend to think that an article about homeschooling has a US bias simply because it's massively a US phenomenon (for reasons that it would be interesting to explore). Gilles Tran 13:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gilles Tran, this is something that has been discussed by several contributors to the WikiProject Alternative education. One possibility is to turn this into a national-neutral article and to spin-off more focused nation-specific articles as they are needed. This has been done, sort of, with the Legality of homeschooling in the United States. Additional input on this is always welcome. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I notice that Schoolrown ("school your own", yes?) has just added a counterpoint against the heavy bias I was talking about-- by going to that highly negative viewpoint of schools and schooling.  While I agree completely with what Schoolrown has written, and I believe that observation is part of the ongoing debate, it is nonetheless an equally personal (that is to say unsubstantiated) viewpoint.  I'm expecting to be rather cautious and gradual in my own edits, but as time goes on I would like to see more "legitimate" substitutions for opinions like this-- if they are not entirely supplanted by the results of studies and surveys which have neutral data to report (premises and conclusions, being opinions, aren't really neutral, despite supposed "scientific objectivity"); at least we may have the opinions of published opinion leaders with verifiable information (e.g. John Taylor Gatto or John Holt). Aruffo 04:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. bias 

message: Surely we can have a better image that Jefferson, with a disclaimer could be considered to have been homeschooled.?  I'm not sure I have any personal images to release, but I couldn't have been the only Wikipedian raised in a household whose kitchen included desks and textbooks against the wall. :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The word homeschooling has no meaning in relation to the eighteenth century, when there were no standardized schools. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble finding any free-license images on the internet, but I agree that the pic of Jefferson must go; it was added in drive-by fashion a while ago. Maybe we could put a request at requested images.  — orioneight (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Edison or Einstein? They both had a major international impact & were homeschooled after compulsory education began. I will look for images of their youth uless someone object or had a better suggestion. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather have a picture of homeschooling (i.e., child at a table with books and a parent teaching in a home setting) as that is what the article is about. Locating free-license images is not proving easy though.  — orioneight (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, but I also have searched rather exhaustively for copyright-free images depicting just that--to no avail. Would you support the two I mentioned until a better alternative can be found? Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I would like to suggest, in an effort to add int'l balance, that we trim down the list of homeschooled individuals and add some more int'l examples. Also as mentioned above, "homeschooling" as an alternative form of education has only existed since the mid 1800's (1854, Massachusetts), so the list should only include people who would have been educated after that time. Master Scott Hall 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hall that a person would not be considered homeschooled for the sake of this article if they were schooled before compulsary education because in that time that was the way of education.  This article is about the choice to be schooled at home (no mater how we spell or title it) as opposed to in a classroom setting.  My opinion excludes Jefferson, whose picture is at the top. Lrldcs 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Albert Einstein from the homeschooled individuals list, since nothing on his own article suggests he was homeschooled, and even lists schools he attended. He didn't complete his high school diploma, but that's a technicality. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. When I put the Edison photo up, I found that Einstein did indeed attend school from age 5-15. Some of the others mentioned in this article need to be re-examined also, per previous conversations on this page. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschooled individuals 

message: This article makes relatively no mention of home education in mainstream culture.  Off the top of my head, I can think of a few episodes of various TV shows which portrayed some kind of homeschooling.  I also remember a CBS show a long time ago about a traveling missionary family who homeschooled (Promised Land).  Does anyone know any more?  — orioneight (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB search for "homeschooling" yields several films . Also, if memeory serves: Mosquito Coast, Harrison Ford movie, early eighties. I don't know the protocol of entering films with citations—if you do, feel free. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 15:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschooling in popular culture 

message: Is there an indication that anti-vaccinationists in states with legislation requiring immunisation before school entry are over-represented in the population schooled at home?Midgley 16:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is listed next-to-last in the Homeschooling motivations section of the article. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations 

message: The second paragraph of the article says in the term homeschooling emerged in the late 1970's.  An ancestor of mine, Isaac Newton Carleton ran what he called a home school from 1884 to 1901.  It's name was Carleton School for Boys.  I have a copy of a circular he had printed in 1894 that calls it that.  I was wondering if it was better to say that the term was re-invented or be more specific about the context.  Carleton didn't make any claim that he invented the term.
*Carleton, I.N. The Carleton School for Young Men and Boys, Bradford MA: James Ward Jr., 1894.
(Original held by Rauner Special Collections Library at Dartmouth College)
Rbcwa 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rbcwa, It doesn't surprise me that someone was using those two words together that far back. In fact, I would bet that Mr. Carleton was not the first—or the last to do so. What the article says, and this has been well-documented over the years by many other notables in the field, is that John Holt was the first to use, in a widely-recognized published work, the word homeschooling. Though not by much, there is a difference. Using the words home and school together in a phrase to describe home-based education is no real stretch—it's only common sense and I'm sure it was done thousands of times before 1978. But Holt, who was already making great strides in reintroducing this form of alternative education, put the phrase together to make a new word. This new word went on to be the most commonly used term of the last 25 years to describe this field. BTW, the circular you mentioned would be a great piece of material to add to the Homeschooling article. I would have to check, but I believe its being published before 1923 makes it fair use, and thereby usable on Wikipedia. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to point you to WikiSource with that - so that we can have the whole text up :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschooling as a term 

message: According to a U.S. Census survey, the parents of 33% of homeschoolers cited religion as a factor in their choice, 30% felt the regular school had a poor learning environment which completely contradicts the graph right beside it, which indicates significantly *more* parents are homeschooling because they believe the education system is insufficient, not for religious reasons. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statistics are taken from two separate sources. The graph refers to an National Center for Education Statistics survey conducted in 1999, while the article itself cites a 2003 U.S. Census Bureau study. My guess is that a four-year time lapse paired with different methods of survey account for the difference. I double-checked and confirmed the accuracy of both sources. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the article so this distinction is made clearer. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (from the website that spawned the table:) *Parents homeschool their children for many reasons that are often unique to their family situation. "Other reasons" parents gave for homeschooling in the Parent-NHES:1999 included the following: It was the child's choice; to allow parents more control over what their children were learning; flexibility; and parents wanted year-round schooling.  aruffo 20:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats

message: I would like to bring to everyone's attention Mike Fortune-Wood's website (www.home-education.org.uk). I have been informed by several people within the UK home-education community that his website is full of plagarised and unconfirmed information. It would be best to find better sources for the parts of the article that cite his website. --Spe88 16:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Fortune-Wood's website 

message: In the UK there is an organisation called Education Otherwise that specialises in Home Education. There does not seem to be an article for this, or at least not that I can find. What shall we do about this? (PrettyxVacant 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education Otherwise 

message: As an individual with very close personal links to the homeschool community, I find the remark that "homeschooling can also be very inexpensive" grossly inaccurate.  Of course there are varying levels of monetary expense.  However, homeschooling is rarely practiced without great sacrifice, even at its most inexpensive.  Monetary sacrifice is rarely negligible, but may be far less signigicant than other sacrifices. --Jack 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the wording is a little extreme. At least, it's not as expensive as many people think. A government school spends several thousand dollars per student -- I seem to remember it being >$10,000/year in some locales, but I'm not sure. A child could be homeschooled for around $1,000/year (often less). So, compared to a government or private school, homeschooling is considerably less expensive. --TangentIdea 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Costs of clothing and supplies required for regular school likely more expensive vs. simpler and more casual home attire and make-do at home; costs for books and curriculum can be minimized based on choice or completely eliminated if local libraries are adequate; transportation costs may be reduced; health costs may be reduced if child is not exposed to germs rampant in children in school; parental participation in fundraisers will be minimized.  On the other side, a stay-at-home parent is required, reducing possibilities of second income in traditional family; utilities costs will be higher due to use by child at home.  Much depends on the approach of the homeschooling parents; recreating the public school in the home would be pretty expensive, but unschooling at home can be virtually free.  Alan Nicoll 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good points there, Alan.  Thanks.  In my first comment, I hadn't considered unschooling.  Most of the homeschooling I've been exposed to has taken a more curricular approach.  However, most homeschooling requires a major time commitment on the part of at least one parent.  Furthermore, it is inevitably more expensive to care for a child at home, than to allow someone else to provide for him elsewhere.  Conversely, homeschooling offers an opportunity for children to learn to contribute to the family as productive members; I am very much in favor of this approach.  I have considered economic methods in the past, and found cost-effective homeschooling quite plausible.  Nevertheless, "very inexpensive" may be inappropriate when the cost of economical homeschooling is compared to the cost of "free" public education. --Jack 07:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps so, but then how do you value the lost contributions to society from students who are ground into "the workforce" by the schooling system?  What would have been the opportunity cost if Thomas Alva Edison had remained in school and subsequently used his "education" to secure a steady pencil-pushing job for some accounting office?  The hidden costs of schooling, to society and to human personality in general, are impossible to gauge.  For the facts that are available, it'd be groovy if someone were to source a study about what a family typically spends on home education-- especially versus what gets spent at a public or private school, and on what.  aruffo 14:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inexpensive??? 

message: I've started the Charlotte Mason Page.  Any help from members of the home schooling community would be appreciated.  Thanks Lfinder 19:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Charlotte Mason Page

message: The article's first paragraph seems to preclude tutoring as a method (in whole or in part) of homeschooling.  Specifically, it states "by their parents."  However, the first paragraph in the History section includes mentoring and tutoring as part of home-education for some rather wealthy families (add Teddy Roosevelt to the list).  Can we make it clear in the first section what homeschooling comprises?  Must homeschooling be conducted specifically by parents, or is it simply "teaching under the governance of the parents."  What if my neighbor helps with math?  What if we take frequent trips to libraries, museums, factories, and battle fields?  Certainly that's not at "home."  I think the salient point to homeschooling is that the student's studies are governed directly and entirely by his or her parents and without compromise.  Any suggestions for clarifying the main section?  Rklawton 20:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tutoring

message: Just perusing this article, and the Quotes section really caught my eye in a bad way. It seems very POV, more like something you'd see in a brochure supporting homeschooling than an encyclopedia article. It's very strange that this article admits that a majority of Americans still don't support homeschooling as a concept, and then there's this section that's basically "here are a bunch of vague quotes from great thinkers that appear to support homeschooling." The relevance of, say, Socrates' "To find yourself, think for yourself" is really suspect. I'd like to see this section completely eliminated. --Masterofzen 12:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I think the Einstein quote sort of addresses the system of public education - at least as it was fifty years ago.  But the rest has nothing to do with homeschooling.  Rklawton 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed this section.  It was added only recently and contains platitudinous quotes unrelated to homeschooling; most of them would be better suited in the Autodidacticism article.  You are correct to say that this section raised POV concerns as well.  If anyone would like to add quotes to the article, please ensure that they are indeed related to the article at hand.  — orioneight (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes section 

message: In the notable homeschooled persons section, I recognized several names of historical figures who I knew were educated before public education, and therefore before Homeschooling as a philosophy was created. I think that people who grew up before public schooling was instituted (George Washington, for example) should not be in the list; the basis of Homeschooling is choosing not to be educated in a public school. To point out the difference, if Elvis was marooned on an island with nothing but vegetables, that would not qualify him for a "notable vegan" list. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
:I must disagree with the premise that a discussion of "homeschooling" should be limited to the time period after mandatory public education came about, although it is true that "home schooling," viewed historically, definitely takes on peculiar  characteristics and implications after this point in time. However, the entire reason for that peculiarity is not that there is anything peculiar about homeschooling itself, but rather, because of the rise of the very peculiar institution of mandatory public education. Granted, Washington's parents educated him at home more of necessity than a conscious choice based on particular convictions, but the point remains that Washington became one of the great men of history despite (or I should say exactly because of) the fact that he was denied a formal education and was taught at home, living amongst his own family. (Not at all that home schooling, of itself, will produce in your child a great man or woman of history, but that the environment tends much more to the flourishing of a child as he or she grows up. Not only so, but I think that if you take a look at the writings of both noted and unnoted men and women in the American colonies, you will find a level of literacy that the educated product of the public school system over the last half century or more simply does not compare with.)
:Also, Elvis, in your analogy, is a "chooser" with no choice, thus rendering him ineligible as a notable vegan, one who makes a choice (of vegetables). Washington is not the chooser, he is the "product," if you will, of the choosers, his family. Though they also (presumably) had no choice in the matter, Washington is nonetheless the result, not the decision maker. And a (largely) admirable result at that. Darentig 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable homeschooled persons 

message: The article, it say:
:Some countries have highly regulated home education programs which are actually an extension of the compulsory school system, while others have outlawed it entirely. In many other countries, while not restricted by law, home education is not socially acceptable and, therefore, virtually non-existent.
Any chance of some specific examples? --A-body-of-water 06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples?

message: I confess it-- I'm getting a bit testy and that's prompted me to start carving out useless and unsupported bits which have sat just because no one's yet cared to do anything about them.  I appreciate those editors who sincerely want to make a positive contribution to this article, but I will challenge and resist any additions which do not provide objective, verifiable facts.  "Most people", "Some say", and any other weasel words, as well as external links offered in place of legitimate references, will be instant targets to avoid further clutter.  Clearing the existing clutter of unsupported statements and links-that-should-be-references will be a more gradual task.  aruffo 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported Statements 

message: OMG, as a homeschooler, I find the comments about us being "housewives" and "white" quite offensive.  I am removing these statements and the entire chart/section - homeschooling has changed so radically over the past five years that your research is completely outdated, misleading, and offensive to the majority of homeschoolers who are not necessarily "white," rarely high-income (as they have given up a second income or part of one to homeschool), or religiously motivated.     68.97.192.23 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: You know, a long time a go the links on this page were cropped down to just a few that represented many various factions of homeschooling, while I won't change what has been done in talking away all link, it does seem to me that homeschoolers ARE the authority on homeschooling.  Links to non-profit homeschooling organizations DO have a plce here - IMHO, but perhaps it would start an ongoing link problem?  68.97.192.23 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links question 

message: I think everybody just needs to calm down and eat some fruit or something...
There's nothing wrong with being white, and there's nothing wrong with being a housewife..
unless of course it isn't true..
..I know that homechooling hasn't changed radically in our home over the last five years...
Frankly, the whole "article" is disjointed and of little value, and as for that silliness at the top about families hiring, "a young yankee like Stephen Douglas"... what in the world is that all about?
The article has no real flow or centrality except that it keeps using the word "homeschooling."
I second aruffo's earlier motion that the whole thing be gutted and reduced to a stub. Darentig 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's going to be jammed full of opinion, speculation, supposition, self-promotion, spam, and other unverified and subjective information, yes, absolutely.  aruffo 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sugardaddy, no, I don't think it should be a stub. I think it should be an article. Right now it's a hodgepodge of silliness, closer to some sort of web discussion/argument than anything. We have homeschooled for something like 16-17 years now, with about 17-18 left to go, and personally believe that public "education" (as commonly conceived of) is completely wrong (read philosophically incorrect/immoral) from it's very foundation and can never be made right no matter what anybody does because it is, at its roots, in contradiction to God's plan for the family. So I am certainly not saying that homeschooling ought not have decent article, just that it does not. Darentig 11:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fruit 

message: I have remoived spam for two math suppliers in the math section - there are hundreds of math curricula available to homeschoolers - are we to provide them all free ad space? 68.97.192.23 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: Sugarcaddy (or anyone else):  please do not restore or add unsupported and unverified statements.  This article has enough of that already.  Cite your sources with appropriate references (not external links) or don't add.  If you disagree, we should request arbitration, as our opinions of appropriate content may prove strong enough and different enough to invoke the need for "official" Wikipedia guidance on what should be done.  aruffo 03:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported statements redux 

message: Intro
The introductory section seems to be quite suitable, with the minor exception that there is no mention of "de-schooling."
History
I would suggest the History section be struck entirely.
The 1st part of this section is over-generalized at best, and plain silly at it's worst, i.e. "a young Yankee like Stephen Douglas", or "were taught farm chores and rudimentary arithmetic and spelling", the accuracy of which varies considerably at different times and regions of the US (assuming, as it does, that the US is the orientation of the article. It's always possible that someone outside the US might be online...)
The second part SEEMS a reasonable contribution, for an American perspective, but is wholly lacking in citations.
Population
I likewise submit that this section should be struck in its entirety or reduced to the one sentence regarding the US, which has the only (seemingly) reliable citation. Of the others which even have a citation, Australia's seems rather dubious (the author of this web page admittedly has no figures for Australia and arrived at the figures shown by applying the percentage of homeschooling families in the total population of New Zealand to the total population of Australia, without any indication of why this would be an acceptable means of calculating this figure), Ireland's link is to a page which does not discuss the topic, and the UK's figure appears to be the personal guess of the website author.
Motivation
Most of this section seems reasonably communicated except that it is lacking in citation. Perhaps the two sources cited in the opening sentence are the sources? It doesn't say and I haven't tracked them far enough to determine.
However, under "Socialization" the second part reading "Many homeschoolers interact with other homeschooling families. Children in towns often interact with public schooled neighborhood children. Some even participate in public school sports or form homeschool leagues. Many homeschoolers are members of church youth groups, where they meet and socialize with students of various education backgrounds, including public schools, private schools and other homeschoolers." should be struck or moved elsewhere. This section is about the Socialization concerns of the homeschooling parents as a motivation to homeschool, not answering the socialization concerns of homeschool critics. (I left this comment in for consideration even though this statement has already been removed.)
Also, in the first section of "Socialization," I do not see any relevance in the statement about "time spent on family vacations."
Darentig 18:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm completely in agreement with "cite or strike".  Seconded.  aruffo 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Me  three. If anything, there appears to be a bias to completely dismiss the importance of this topic, for example erasing any details about math programs popular among homeschoolers, or any links that would actually be of use to somebody intending to use  this article as a guide to successful homeschooling. This article should serve as a useful resource to someone  considering homeschooling their children, or seeking additional information on successful curricula and methods rather than as a platform to attack  the practice as wierd and misguided. It's ok to note some people have reservations, but it's not the place on WP to judge it as a valid or huge mistake on people who chose this route. --Sugarcaddy 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Revision 

message: If anyone understands the significance of the recent edit by Tintazul (+cat, +iw pt) would you please explain it to me? Sorry but I cannot tell what he did.
I am removing the "Young Yankee" from the history. That's all of that I can stand. Darentig 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tintazul and "A Young Yankee" 

message: Ok..removed the neutrality marker and replaced it with a "citations" marker, which fits much better. Also moved the worldview tag to the top of the article since it really applies to the article as a whole, not just one section.
Rather than deleting Child Edison entirely I moved him to the history section, which seemed fitting.
Now it hasn't really been discussed properly, and with apologies to whomever placed it to begin with, but I deleted the image of the child in a suit at the computer ("Braedon Hacking") simply because I didn't think it really fit the image of homeschooling children very well. At least not any that I have known...also, he really looked like a kid just staring at the computer more than being homeschooled, or actually doing anything at all for that matter... Darentig 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits 26Sept06 

message: I reverted this anonymous edit for two reasons: 1. This section is about "Homeschooling Demographics" not "Homeschooling in other Countries." 2. The article is supposed to have a worldwide view. What's the reference country if the countries listed (AU, NZ, USA, CAN, UK & EIRE) are "other countries?" Darentig 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschooling "in other Countries" 

message: Amillion, we're kind of working on this article here. If you come in with a hatchet and start dismembering it wholesale, it makes it kind of tough to keep up with where we are.
Any changes should really be discussed here on the talk page first, just like the issue about the title change. Darentig 12:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Darentig.  Although I definitely echo Amillon's sentiment, I've accepted that the better strategy is to verify what's there rather than to chop it all away. aruffo 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean to be disruptive to the editing of this article, I was just trying to help. I'm still kind of new to Wikipedia, and I'm still learning how things work here. Amillion 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool. After all, you can't do anything that can't be undone. BTW, sorry if that came across a little harsh there, just couldn't resist the pun...Darentig 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No thanks, Amillion. 

message: Anonymous at "Cost to homeschool families", don't just remove citation requirements without a consensus, unless you have the citation.
Tracebooks, please don't add links that go nowhere. Also, that part about the curricula didn't read very well.
Anonymous at U.K., this looks like potentially noteworthy info, but it needs to be cited and not just asserted. We are trying to get this whole article away from that. Darentig 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting multiple edits 3 Oct 06 

message: This section ends with the following sentence: "In this view, time spent on family vacations is a valuable part of the child's development, and should not be subject to the limitations of a school calendar."
The existence of this sentence makes no sense to me. Is there any reason not to delete it? Darentig 18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations to homeschool/Socialization 

message: The last line in this section reads, "Two recent studies by the Home School Legal Defense Association, a home education advocacy group in the United States, dispute the claim that the academic quality of home education programs is substandard.[20][21]"
I see no reason for this to be included in the Criticism section...should it moved or deleted?Darentig 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of homeschooling 

message: OK, I have added some material to this section. It's still a work in progress, but I think it's safe to delete all the old "Citation Needed" material, and we can build from here. I haven't noticed that anyone's particularly attached to that old material anyway...Darentig 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Quiverfull could use more editor eyes. Since it is related to homeschooling somewhat, I thought I would place this here. CyberAnth 09:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quiverfull

message: In "Social Findings", one finds the sentence: "The outcome of our societal insistence on forcing children into the regimentation of formal schooling is a sequence, beginning with Uncertainty, leading to Puzzlement, then Frustration, Hyperactivity, Failure and finally Delinquency." That sounds much like a quotation or at least a paraphrased theory. Please cite the source or delete. Thanks.
:Source is already cited at the end of the paragraph. That is the finding of Dr. Ray Moore.Darentig 17:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pls. cite source in or rework Social Findings 

message: I reverted this edit for two reasons. One is that no source was cited to back it up. But even if it had, this was inserted parenthetically into a section showing the findings of a research study. That would then cause it to appear that the study had found these two sources as the two largest religious sources of material, which obviously isn't the case. 
Cite your sources! Darentig 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert religious material links, Bob Jones et al... 

message: OK, I was interested to read about the "Peter Craggs" case that was supposed to have aired on Australian 60 Minutes, but I can find no trace of any such story looking for "Peter Craggs" or "Right Love" or when cross referenced to "homeschool", homeschooling", homeschooled", "home educate", "home education", or "home educated", either in a google search or on the Australian 60 Minutes website. I am going to wait a couple of days to see if someone can demonstrate that this is legit, and then remove it if not.Darentig 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian criticism 

message: If anyone is working on the "criticism" section, here is a reference to the NEA's actual comments that could be integrated:
http://www.nhen.org/LegInfo/default.asp?id=261
If no one else is interested, I'll get to it someday.
--KCodSchool 06:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have seen this, and to honest, this is the best I have found that they have to say. Since it really just amounts to a lot of thoughtless whining, it's really hard to give it any serious thought or space. Mostly, this is already covered in the criticism section. You may have seen the discussion above where we were kicking around another page from the NEA's site and trying to determine whether to use it, but frankly, it was such pitiful stuff that to have used it would have looked even more biased in favor of homeschooling. Darentig 16:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not my claims. And they have been openly against homeschooling.Darentig 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEA 

message: The History section really needs a fourth subsection: Evangelicalism, or something like that. Beyond all dispute the vast majority of the homeschool movement is evangelical, but how did it get that way? This I have not found. Outlaw homeschooling certainly wasn't christian in nature in the 70's (Or was it?) when Holt and the Moores were introduced to the idea, yet by at least 1990, if not the mid-eighties, it was heavily so. We are evangelical ourselves and have been homeschooling since 1990, but never heard, or heard of, any call for christians to homeschool their children....or at the time even new that this was the case......I know that Ray and Dorothy Moore were christians, but they never issued any "call to evangelical christianity". Could it be that it was just a completely spontaneous grass roots shift? Anyway it is an important part of the story. Does anyone know how that came to be? Darentig 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that no one does yet know; it's a book waiting to be written. In fact, there's a lot which is not known about homeschooling. What are you doing the next few years? —Wahoofive (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: Evangelicalism 

message: Noted the addition of a (inoperable) link by 24.117.243.40 to a new Wikipedia page with this title. Frankly, the article looks like a vanity page to me, but I thought I'd hang on a minute for a reason to consider that this link might be legit before deleting. Darentig 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blueprint education 

message: ...and while I'm at it, I've been looking at this Calvert school link too. The vast majority of hits I find on the web about it are from their own website, or derivitives thereof. I have to purposefully exempt their stuff from my Google searches, and even then I keep getting it. Does anyone know of any reason to consider this one outfit particularly important to homeschooling, and not just a spam link? Darentig 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no response on this one so far. I am deleting this link: Looks like a spam link to me, and these people are primarily a private school anyway. Darentig 14:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be appropriate to have a link to the Wikipedia article, however. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that's my question. Technically it wasn't really a spam link, but a link to the W article that, frankly, looked to me like a vanity article. I'm not opposed to having the link if anyone can vouch for the relevance of it, but the article itself has no citations, and RE: all the points I made above. For the time being I'll put it back, but, well....Darentig 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say, based on anecdotal evidence, that Calvert is the leading supplier of school-in-a-box for homeschoolers who want a prepackaged curriculum. I have a friend who is around 50 now, but she used Calvert when growing up (her parents were missionaries in Japan). Calvert provided everything, including pencils. They've been around since 1905 and claim to have served over 500,000 students; currently they claim to have 22,300 "distance learning" K-8 students enrolled. See . Definitely not just a vanity article (although I agree their W article is crappy). —Wahoofive (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvert school 

message: The page speaks of a German state of Heidelheim. I don't think it exists.
Neither the English nor the German Wikipedia has a page on Heidelheim. As far as I can tell, while the larger area comprising the cities of Mannheim and Heidelberg is sometimes referred to as "Heidelheim", this seems to be a rather modern term and has never been an official name. The only place in Germany ever officially called Heidelheim seems to be this village of 120 inhabitants:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Heidelheim,+Wunsiedel+im+Fichtelgebirge,+Bavaria+Germany&ie=UTF8&sll=50.148447,12.054676&sspn=0.01892,0.039825&om=1&z=16&t=k
http://www.heidelheim.de/heidelheim/index.php?mod=page&action=view&id=1
This article says that Heidelheim didn't have a school until 1810.
:Let's drop the Heidelheim if no source turns up to prove the claim about it.
:89.57.151.135 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have removed Heidelheim. I don't think it's really germaine to the article anyway...Darentig 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidelheim??? 

message: The following statement was added under Criticism:
"Home-schooling performed for religious reasons raises objections similar to those encounted in parochial schools and other non-secular educational settings."
I think the statement is supposed to be worded, "Home-schooling performed for religious reasons raises objections similar to those encountered by parochial schools and other non-secular educational settings."
I have removed it and saved it here for the following reasons:
• It isn't footnoted. Sorry to be a stickler on this point, but we still have a lot of the old un-documented material to be dealt with in this article, we've worked hard to get this article footnoted properly with sourced information, and we really can't allow the introduction of uncited material at this point.
• It's unclear. A: What are the reasons referred to? These aren't listed. If they were listed, shouldn't this statement then become a separate paragraph within the Criticism section, with this as the introductory statement to the paragraph and the reasons following? Unless it isn't a separate subsection, but merely an addendum to the current paragraph it resides in, as in, "And oh, other religious schooling, like parochial schools, also suffer this sort of criticism"? If so, it may be true, but it shouldn't be here simply because this is an article on home education, not parochial (or any other) schools. I hope wasn't added just to create a link to the Parochial schools article....?
Darentig 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parochial Schools 

message: Under Legality of Homeschooling, and anon editor has slightly modified the text "...while others have outlawed it entirely.." to read "...while others, such as Germany, have outlawed it entirely."
Technically, according to the understanding the article has been operating under, this addition ought to be struck as being uncited, but it is a minor addition to an old uncited statement that has stood for some time now.
I am familiar with the recent incident to which Anon most likely refers: it is a true injustice. Makes me very glad I don't live in Germany.
Anyway, in this case, I am adding a citation mark to the statement. I think there is still a bit of material hanging around that could use that statement. Darentig 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Such as Germany 

message: I removed entirely the statement form Cwabray answering a criticism of homeschooling. Although I do agree with the statement, it is uncited.
More than that though, the "criticism" section is a common and reasonable section in Wikipedia articles and is there to list criticisms, not counter them. It is perfectly reasonable that an encyclopedic article about homeschooling should list the criticisms of homeschooling opponents. To be honest, these criticisms are the best that we have found to represent the anti-homeschooling position, and they really do a good job of making homeschool opposition look groundless and foolish without even bothering to answer them.
But again, please; cite your source or leave it out! No original research or opinions. Darentig 12:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism