Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 2

message: I cut down the homeschooling methods section, reducing overhead verbiage and eliminating pro/con arguments which were aimed at "how to choose the right method for YOUR family" which doesn't really belong in Wikipedia -- same with advice about curriculum fairs and buying used materials. I also eliminated this entire paragraph:
:A family interested in homeschooling should first decide what their educational goals are, and then research options and resources through the Internet and the public library. It can be helpful to attend homeschooling events to meet homeschoolers, learn about various topics and inspect educational materials. Curriculum shops, Web sites and mail-order houses can help locate conventions and conferences, as can a search of the Internet. Most families find a trip to a homeschooling convention fascinating, because of the number and scope of options. Some find the options overwhelming and do better by finding a local homeschool group and learning from experienced homeschoolers.
--Wahoofive 19:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends whether you intend to abide by state laws or try to "fly below the radar."  I understand that some states are pretty restrictive about homeschooling.  I'd first recommend researching the state requirements on one of the web sites that provide this information, then decide whether to jump through the hoops or to subvert the dominant paradigm at the possible expense of trouble later.  Alan Nicoll 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jump through the hoops.  Try getting your son or daughter into a great college when their education was "flown below the radar." Jump through the hoops, for your childs sake.  — orioneight (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really can't see any harm in finding out what hoops are in place before making your intentions known.  But then, I have no particular knowledge about what the more restrictive states are requiring these days, so perhaps I err on the side of caution.  The horror stories I've heard are decades old; caveat emptor.  Alan Nicoll 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough . . . I guess the most important point is to keep good documentation of everything, just in case.  — orioneight (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods 

message: The distinction in the Overview section between formal and informal is not clear.  In an attempt to fix this I have added an "i.e. state run" after the first use of the word "formal."  After looking at the edit I am not certain that is the best way to make this distinction.  Any ideas? The reason for the controversy is betwixt Government run schools vs. Citizen run schools.  --BenjaminHare 08:09, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
:I condensed the paragraph to eliminate "formal." I also removed the reference to Geronimo since it seems misleading to include a native American -- they might even object to considering their tribal education to be "home schooling." —Wahoofive (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal vs. Formal 

message: Would the person who keeps moving "Eclectic curricula" to the top of "Methods" please explain why? I have a suspicion it's just to give higher prominence to your pet link, but if you have a better reason, please mention it here. To me it makes more sense to put descriptions of organized curricula first, then eclectic and unschooling afterwards. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections 

message: Just curious Wahoofive, why did you remove the word 'universities' from the article and change it to merely community college (in 'Community Resources')?  I was homeschooled in highschool, and took regular classes at a state university with a selective admissions program (albeit part-time).  From what I understood, this was a fairly common practice among homeschoolers (though it may have only been among my peers). Also, I am in no way an advocate of homeschooling, and I appreciate the way you've help keep this article NPOV.   - orioneight (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware this was a widespread practice. Go ahead and put it back. The NPOV thing has been a challenge because it's very difficult to find reliable sources which actually marshall arguments opposing homeschooling. Most arguments against it seem to be straw-man arguments created by pro-homeschoolers who want to rebut them. I think the reason most people don't homeschool isn't because they actually think it's wrong, but because they'd rather have the kids out of the house all day. (Teachers' unions and Departments of Education are an exception, but they seem to think pretending it doesn't exist is a better strategy.) —Wahoofive (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Community college

message: I removed the following sentence, added by 80.2.248.156 at the bottom of the "Legality" section:
:Some poeple argue that this requirement may not necessarilly be satisfied by attendence at a state school in some cases.
This may be something legitimate, which is why I'm putting it here, but on this page we're pretty suspicious of weasel words like "some people argue". Also, I'm not sure which cases are being referred to. Special-ed students? Or maybe this is just a back-door attempt to criticize the state schools for being ineffective. —Wahoofive (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv edits by 80.2.248.156 

message: Ok, I would absolutely *love* to find out if Mike Jones was really homeschooled or not... that cracks me up.  Is his position on the list just a joke, or can someone post some kind of verification on that?
:I've reverted, because the three names added to the list do not claim to be homeschooled on their respective pages, and are, in my opinion, not exactly comparable to the names already there.  Not to mention, the anon who added them is a known vandal.  — orioneight (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Homeschoolers 

message: We cannot come up with a sigle sentance to acknowledge that home schooling has a vareity of motivations?  I mention the valedictorians because here in San Jose, the Mercury News lists all of the local valedictorians and the also note when they are home schooled.  That does not deserve one sentace in the opening section? -- Fplay
: Oh, I thought someone undid my line (browser refresh problem).  Nobody undid my little contribution. Ignore me. -- Fplay 19:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't revert your addition , but I'm tempted to. It's a topic presented in much greater detail in the article. It's not clear to me why this info needs to be in the introductory section. Futhermore, the word "valedictorian" has little meaning in this context, and "resorted to" is a pretty biased phrasing, and the implication of the contrast is that homeschooling for cultural or "personal" reasons is incompatible with academic excellence. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted that editorial, for a number of reasons.  It is all speculation that is unsourced.  This single-sentence paragraph is completely out of place in the introduction.  It is not clear what is meant by 'valedictorian', and as an engineering student with a homeschool education, I take offense to someone claiming that my education was "resort[ed] to."  I don't think homeschooling is a last resort for anyone; it is a choice.  Lastly, the sentence has horrible grammar—how does a reputation produce valedictorians?  How is a reputation resorted to?  Ugh.  — orioneight (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations... 

message: I've reverted this diff, because it changed several gender-neutral pronouns into wordy gender-specific pronouns.  This change also added full stops to the end of all items in bulleted lists.  These are not sentences, so a period should not be used (most of the items could not stand alone as independent clauses).  I did note the spelling error and minor tense shift, and have now fixed those.  — orioneight (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by [[User:Charivari|Charivari]] 

message: I added Bode Miller to the list of homeschooled. This fact was reported on CBS' 60 minutes on Sunday, 1/8/06. First, I know this article is well-guarded, and I wanted to make sure that we're not just including intellectuals. If he is out of place, please discuss. Second, I am uncertain as to the protocol for referencing/citing a television article. Please advise, or just do it. --Master Scott Hall 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's verifiable, sounds good.  I toy with the idea that perhaps we don't need the section at all, but as long as we have it, sounds like a good addition for well-roundedness. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bode Miller 

message: I understand the rationale behind the deletion of much of the POV information that turns up in this article, but is there any recourse? Many other articles have sections near the end that allow for pro/con POV. They are usually still neutral, but allow for the different sides to at least be described while permitting little-to-no propaganda. Are these articles wrong also?
If, after concensus, this kind of section is found to be inappropriate, are there other ways that this information can be made available via wiki? A Portal, for instance?
Support for my questions: Abortion, Capital punishment, Corporal punishment all have sections within the article devoted to support/criticism; Some subjects like have entire articles devoted to the sides of an issue. i.e. Liberalism/Conservatism, Pro-life/Pro-choice.
To put it all in perspective in terms of where I'm coming from: I am considering homeschooling my children, but have not made up my mind. I support different aspects of both systems. I think it would be nice to have access to the info which is be left out of this article.
I agree that POV should be labeled appropriately so that the reader knows that they are reading POV, but denying access to any info seems anti-wiki to me. I agree that it would have to be heavily patrolled, but that seems to be the case already.--Master Scott Hall 21:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, NPOV does not stand for no point-of-view, but rather neutral point-of-view, which means that while the encyclopaedia itself cannot hold an opinion, it can present common opinions in a neutral way.  I believe this article does that, as it discusses motivations for, as well as opposition to, homeschooling.  Most of the 'POV' information removed from this article takes the form of a random opinionated editorial, which is unsourced and unverifiable.  I am not sure what kind of information you feel you're being denied access to, perhaps you could elaborate?  — orioneight (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand it to be neutral vs. no point of view as well. That isn't the issue, sorry to leave that impression. I couldn't agree more with the decision to sweep away many of the biased things that are weasled into this and other articles. Neutral point of view is, after all, paramount in encyclopedic writing. The things that I am refering to are some of the how-to paragraphs and links that seem to get swept up as well. I agree that they may not be appropriate here, but is there a more appropriate place for this info--within WP? Homeschooling has many more questions than can be answered by an encyclopedia article in its purest form. Would a Portal with a link from this article be an appropriate solution for the wealth of information that is available, but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature. I don't mean denial as a conspiracy, just as a lack of solving the issue of what to do with non-encyclopedic yet useful info.--Master Scott Hall 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been unable to find ANY websites which are really anti-homeschool. This is why I have been active in opposing pro-homeschool POV, because there's no way to provide balance, other than random comments by school superintendents and the like. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That kind of makes sense, but is lack of opposition the only arguement for censoring the positive? Lack of opposition only leads me to believe that no one would be offended by a little supportive info. Someone mentioned in earlier discussion that perhaps the opposing party's method of countering the pro-homeschooling camp is by ignoring it in hopes that it will go away. Limiting pro opinion due to lack of anti only benefits the latter--which is not, I think, your intention at all. In nutrition, the lack of arguement against the necessity of water for human survival does not mean that we should not be able to hear the benefits of water.--Master Scott Hall 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you be more specific in what you'd like to see in terms of additional "pro" discussion? What I've been most assertive in reverting is when people add counter-arguments after the "con" arguments which are presented.  My view is that each side's arguments should be able to stand on their own without rebuttals. But certainly the article isn't perfect. What would you like to add? —Wahoofive (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. I realize that websites are not the only source of info, either pro or con, but this is a movement discussed primarily by word-of-mouth. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. I think I am coming across the wrong way. I am not pointing fingers. There isn't anything I think is being done wrong. I am just trying to resolve what to do with some of the how-to and similar information--information that does not necessarily belong in this article, but should be available to WP users anyway. I have read (sorry, I don't remember where--inside WP, or out) that one of the goals of the project was to make the whole of human knowledge available, free and in one place. The tutorials and how-to's are biased by default, but still very valuable. But relegating them to the void of unfindability of the www seems to go against the purpose of an over-all Wiki goal.
I am just asking...since how-to, and similarly inappropriately biased informational assets, are not appropriate in main articles(and rightfully so), is there a better place to file, sort, edit, present them inside the Wiki system. Portals? Wikisource? Wikibooks? others? I don't think anyone is attempting to suppress information. I just think that some of the deleted info should have a home elsewhere inside the walls of Wiki.
Again, I apologize if I came across accusingly before. That was not my intent. I am merely trying to get to the bottom of one of the big issues regarding the future of this article (and, I can only assume, many other articles, as well). --Master Scott Hall 16:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a short page at WikiBooks about Homeschooling:  Perhaps we could move some of that information there? As a soon-to-be former homeschooler, I would be interested in helping to expand it. --TangentIdea 16:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoorah, that's what i'm talking about. Anyone else have any constructive input like this? (PS, I am still curious about a Portal. Anyone know more about how they are supposed to work, or if that would be another possible solution?)--Master Scott Hall 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I apologize, now I understand what you're asking.  Look here. Wikicities is an online-community type wiki host.  The homeschooling Wikicity has articles such as History of Homeschooling, Styles of Homeschooling, Reasons to Homeschool, Favorite Homeschooling Books, etc.  I'm sure they need contributors there, and Wikicities is just the place for the kind of information you describe, and the information does not have to conform to the strict NPOV rules of the encyclopaedia.  I'm sorry I did not completely understand before, but I surely hope this helps! B-)  — orioneight (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The list of motivations needs to be worked over. I think the list items need to either be in sentences or non-sentences, but not mixed. I vote for non-sentences, to get the points across, but keep them concise. Master Scott Hall 16:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See if it looks better now. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. I was tempted to just do it, but wanted to get at least a little input first. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 20:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations 

message: I have searched at length for court cases on this subject. Most recent (last 10 years, or so) court cases concern smaller issues in state courts like homeschoolers' access to public activities and resources; computer labs, extra-curricular activities, graduation ceremonies, etc., with the vast majority, if not all, favoring the homeschooler. It seems opponents gave up on fighting the concept of homeschooling years ago. Do we need to actually document all of these attempts, or should we wait for more requests to do so. It seems the legal section of the article is fairly large as it is. If we do need more legal precedent documentation, we'll probably need to spin it off into it's own article, as it already dominates this one. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 23:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal decisions 

message: Apart from the random rant, which usually focuses on the religious aspect of homeschooling, the only organized opposition of any kind that I can find is from the National Education Association, whose only recent published stance is in regard to their lobby effort to combat the diversion of school funding by way of vouchers to "Help to close achievement gaps by blocking measures that are ineffective and would divert public resources to private, religious, or homeschool K-12 uses", which really says nothing negative about homeschooling itself, just that they are tired of everyone's hand in the cookie jar. I think that we will have to live without much documented opposition to this issue. I would like to reference Undue weight, which states "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." I believe the lack of documented opposition to this constitutes a tiny-minority view. The fact is that no one or group of any respectible public standing opposes this issue, or knows that they are fighting a losing battle and has given up their public fight. Anyone else on this one. I think its time to put this one to bed. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear what your conclusion means. You'd like to rewrite the article as if there were no opposition? or as if the opposition is from some lunatic fringe? I think that would be a mistake. This article itself states that as of 2001 54% of Americans opposed homeschooling. To say the least, I wouldn't call that a tiny minority. Just because it has no organized spokespeople doesn't make it nonexistent. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all. That would be a huge mistake. Correct me if I'm wrong; I thought there was a conversation in which several people, including yourself, were debating whether to either stop adding support or find more criticism because they are out of balance. It seems that we are spending a lot of time searching for criticism that just isn't there. I am simply saying that we should let the criticism that we have be good enough, and not worry about the support being out of balance. The opposition is apparently not outspoken or organized enough to take a stand, so that has to influence how much support we include. As homeschooling grows, maybe more opposition will organize and present itself, at which time it will be welcome here. This article is approaching a point where it may be a candidate for a featured article. I just think we should focus on the "spit and polish", so we can declare this article "up to Wiki standards", send it to peer review, and move on to the next one. The example it sets is what we'll have to work with on the rest of this project. I evidently come across as a nut-job, which I assure you I'm not (but, don't they all). I just don't want to be overly cautious about balance, one way or the other. Does that make more sense? Thanks, Master Scott Hall 14:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, personally, would rather be overly cautious about balance.  I read Wikipedia because I know that I will get facts, and only facts—the fact in this case is that the majority of Americans are opposed to homeschooling.  That is what we must report.  What harm can there be in being careful to maintain neutrality?  — orioneight (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, undue weight doesn't exactly apply here, since opposition to homeschooling is a majority sentiment; if anything, it is underrepresented here.  I would like to include something about the UC Berkely lawsuit and controversy revolving around the A Beka biology book, when I find the time.  — orioneight (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll never pass Featured Article if our "con" arguments are unsourced. They're very fussy about sourcing and references at WP:FA. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is part of my point; the lack of sourcable opposition is damaging the quality of this article. The majority of opposition that we have is pulled from anecdotal references which are not necessarily citable. Master Scott Hall 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused. What problem are you trying to solve? We only need mediation or RFC (or polls) if there are editorial disagreements. Rather, we seem to agree that there's a lack of verifiable content and we wish we had more. If you had a poll, what question would you ask? Maybe Article Improvement Drive would be better. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also confused!  Mediation?! What exactly is the problem? We all agree that we wish there was more documentation on homeschooling opposition.  Maybe you could describe what you'd like to add to the article, and we could work from there.  — orioneight (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not homeschooled, nor do I even know anyone who is, or has. I had a very satisfactory public education. I am not arguing from any point of view. There is nothing specific that I would like to add. There just seems to be a lot of concern about balance. I think that the only reason there should ever be a concern about balance is if either side of the arguement is not allowed every opportunity to make his case. In this instance, the opposition (of homeschooling, not of me) has made what arguement they want and apparently chooses to remain silent (at least for the time being). Yes, we all agree that there is no substantial opposition to be found. I get the impression, from above conversations, that fear of imbalance, coupled with lack of opposition, means that this article needs to slow down the addition of supportive information. If supportive content is added in an appropriate, neutral manner (I am not talking about fansites, how-to's, belief-skewed, defensive, out of context, tyrannical ranting, why's-everybody-always-pickin'-on-me content, but more documentable, citable, sourcable, content like studies, polls, test results, etc.) then it belongs here. Appropriate supportive material cannot be withheld due only to the fact that equally appropriate critical material is in short supply. This is called censorship, not point-of-view. If this is not the point that is being argued, then there is no arguement. Master Scott Hall 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm certainly not arguing to exclude any sourced information. I only want such "con" arguments as we have to stand without rebuttal. (I will say, however, that few of the "pro" sources cited on this page don't fall into the fansite or other categories you mention.) —Wahoofive (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: Does anyone else think that the legality section (maybe even the whole article) is a little biased for the U.S?  Just how common is home education outside the US? I'm going to go digging around for some non-U.S. legal info later; if anyone has insight that'd be great.  — orioneight (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as are most other articles in this category. There few places where options are given, or even allowed. I believe fairly substantial movements have been made in the UK, Some in Australia and France, and maybe a little in Canada. Most of the rest of the world has either a very rigid compulsory system or a free-for-all (third-world countries mainly). Maybe you will have better luck finding international examples than I did. If we can't find much, maybe some of it will find its way to the article over time. Good luck, I will try some more as well. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm finding more than anticipated. The UK leads with about 100,000 homeschooled, Australia follows with about 15,000. The remaining first- and second-world countries are well behind with most having under 5,000 and only a few having more than 1,000. Any ideas on how to integrate this material into the article? Do we want a country-by-country breakdown? Other ideas? As for fully developing info on international homeschooling, I think we should focus on the countries with the most well-developed systems (UK & Aus). In cases where there is little-to-no HS, maybe look into why. That may be some well-needed opposition material. Master Scott Hall 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the Homeschooling internationally from a third-level heading to a second-.  This way, it is not a subtopic of the US section (which was recently expanded by an anon).  In addition to the abstract paragraph there, we could add third-level headings for countries we find information on (UK, Aus, etc.). If you're finding information on homeschooling abroad, by all means, add it (I haven't been able to research yet—my boss walked in and I had to switch back over to Excel :-)  — orioneight (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality