Talk:Homeschooling

	This article has been selected as the WikiProject Homeschooling Collaboration of the Month for March 2008!
	Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard.

Not objective

This entire article is heavily biased in favor of homeschooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.124.132 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a Controversies and criticism section. Please feel free to expand it with reference to reliable sources. There is no reason why an article about homeschooling should not be predominantly about homeschooling. Lame Name (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the NPOV tag the anonymous editor added. Without a more specific argument, there is no reason for that tag to be there. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This article still seem extremely biased in favour of home schooling. I am not read up enough on the topic (yet) to start remedy this making it more balanced, but this really is a major concern and I'm not convinced the "criticism" section is enough. Leord (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the NPOV tag should NOT be here. The person who thinks it is NPOV behaves as if this topic is necessarily a polemic. The fact is that 30 years of research finds generally positive (and no negative) things associated with homeschooling. The article is sound enough; I have been doing research on homeschooling for 32 years. I will return to provide current research citations. The 2-year-old "neutrality" flag should be removed.Blacktailwiki (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

homeschooling should be differentiated from what homeschooling is not

I think the definition of homeschooling should be differentiated from what homeschooling is not; being self taught and on the job training. Or at least some mention of the fact that there are educated people who did not attend formal school and who were not educated by their parents.. So in the list of notable homeschooled people it should have less about their achievements and more on what their actual educational experiences were. One modern legal definition is “a school primarily conducted by parents or legal guardians for their own children.” The new definition for a home school is “a school provided by a parent or legal guardian for his or her own child.” This might mean that some individuals like Booker T Washington were self taught, with little or no intervention from their parents.

Name of article

The term "homeschooling" is more American than Commonwealth English and suggests a structured and non-autonomous approach, which is unusual in the British Isles at least. I would claim that this title makes the article biassed in itself. The term "unschooling" is also used, which is again more common in the States than the UK, but is more specific. This bias could be addressed by renaming this "Home Education" and making "Homeschooling" a link page.

Nineteenthly (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Homeschooling is a correct term in the United States, meaning either structured or unstructured, autonomous or non-autonomous. "Home Education" is used internationally. I say, change the page so that "Homeschooling" in the title means "Homeschooling in the United States." "Home Education" and other terms can be separate pages specific to other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.189.116 (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the title is misleading. Home schooling and home education are two completely different things. We home educate our children and I wouldn't dream of home schooling them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.200.77 (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Home education is what this page should be called - homeschooling is a subset of home education. All home schoolers are home educators but not all home educators are home schoolers. I'm surprised nothing has been done to rectify this. I don't know how to change the name of the article or I would have done it.

Bias

There are an enormous number of references here to "studies" publishe by non-reliable sources such as homeschooling advocates (some of whom directly profit from homeschooling), taken as if they were from objective venues. This whole article reeks of advocacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There are 46 references right now, could you call out some of them specifically as being potentially unreliable? ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the HLDSA is 7 of those sources, and they're known for providing a one sided view of the subject. They might be reliable, but incomplete. Ksevio (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The first place HSLDA is cited on the legal status of homeschooling in US states, a subject on which they are undoubtedly one of the leading authorities. The others are in the "Research" section, which in my opinion has numerous issues beyond just poor referencing. I will try to find time for a closer look at that section and its references to see what can be done. LWG ^talk 01:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

HSLDA is in favor of homeschooling, so are not objective in some areas, but are very informative and up-to-date concerning homeschooling laws around the world. Also, they DO NOT profit from homeschooling, they lose money defending parental rights!

The problem with sources and references is that there are two sides here both with very clear agendas. Any research done by home educators and organisations that support them will of course be favorable toward home education. At the same time school districts and bodies that represent teachers have a vested interest in denigrating home education - if more parents home educated more teachers would be out of jobs - and so their research is likely to be biased too. In the UK, teaching unions and school districts (local authorities) actively campaign against home education because every child being registered to a school works to the self interest of these bodies. Research and stats published by them have usually been biased, misleading and deceptive. Even the Parliamentary Group (of the UK government) tasked with the home education brief warns against this problem of misleading information from these specific vested interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.93.215 (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Improvement of sources needed.

I am looking through the sources of some of the sections in this article, and I thought I should write down the result of this while I remember it.

History The first part of this section which outline the birth of western public education has some sources that don't exactly come from the highest authorities on the history of education. Reference 3 is from the von Mises institute, which seems to be a political organisation and think tank. Reference 5 and 6 are from an homeschooling organisation. Referce 7 is not working, but the article can be found searching the Sutherland Institute website, where the link currently takes you. The article was published in a student edited journal from Bringham Young University Law School.

Research The first reference, 22, is to a list of studies on a homeschooling advocacy organisation. Most of the studies listed are from their own organisation or otherwise not from peer reviewed journals, but a few are. I haven't looked in to what they say in any detail, but if they support the claim that is referenced, they could be referenced directly instead. Reference 23 is to a self-published book by the same organisation (but that is stated in the text). The 26th reference is from the same source. Reference 30 is from another homeschooling site (and doesn't direct to the article intended any more).

Concluding, there is room for improvement, providing neutral references to this article. I probably won't do it myself, but hopefully someone else will. The Encyclopædia Britannica has an article about homeschooling. Maybe this could be used as a neutral source for the Wikipedia article.

Pastisch (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Academic articles on educational evidence of homeschooling Peer reviewed academic article on home schooling http://eric.ed.gov/?q=%22%22&ff1=subHome+Schooling&id=EJ1054568 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01619560701312996?src=recsys Isenberg http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01619560701312996 link to pdf http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ682480.pdf Brian Ray http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02732173.2014.895640 link to pdf Joseph Murphy has summary of previous research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bias, Neutrality

I see that this has been discussed before, but this has to be the most one-sided biased article I have ever read. Even the "criticism" section explains the data in a light favorable to homeschooling. "Here's what the critics say.... But here's why they're wrong." I'm guessing what we have here is an ambitious group of editors who watch this page religiously and are much more devoted than anybody from the other side, creating a situation where the neutrality is constantly moving back in one direction. This needs addressing by more experienced Wiki editors than myself.

In fact, as I look through the edit history I see numerous examples of cited comments, studies, examples, and information that is contrary to homeschooling being deleted or undone with no explanation. Ridiculous. I understand that you're a proponent of homeschooling, but at least admit that there's a legitimate dispute on this issue.tallgaloot (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to some of the revisions that incorrectly removed content? ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just real quick here, there is a big amount of cutting from February 7 and February 25 of this year that removed large sections of cited criticisms with no explanations except "cut cut cut" or "cutting"tallgaloot (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

this appears to be the diff tallgaloot is referring to. Most of the changes made consisted of streamlining overly-lengthy wording, while keeping the content pretty much the same, however it does appear that some of the criticism section was removed. Tallgalloot, could you give your rationale for why the article is now less neutral than it was prior to these edits? -- LWG ^talk 19:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My argument would be less about any specific edits and more about the fact that this article is lacking in any sense of balance. Homeschooling is a hotly contested issue with many arguments on both sides. California almost made it illegal for crying out loud. But a reading of this article leaves one believing that there's no disagreement or controversy, or if there is all the evidence leans in one direction. All of the information on this page lists over and over how students who are homeschooled do better in life, college, etc. No real reference to previous allegations of abuse, studies which show the opposite to be true, or any other real criticism of the movement.tallgaloot (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Homeschooling is a hotly contested issue with many sides--- I agree. However, many homeschoolers actually do better in life, college, etc. As for allegations of abuse, why would an abusive parent jump through flaming hoops to homeschool their child? Studies which show the opposite to be true-- name them. Any other criticism for the movement-- go right ahead. Be prepared for a swarm of logic-learned homeschoolers to descend on this page and debunk them. Homeschooling WORKS-- I am fourteen years old, a homeschooler, and have two novels on Amazon. The third is on the way. I finished Algebra 2 in eighth grade, competed in the state Geo-Bee, and am perfectly normal among homeschoolers. We don't need studies to "tell" us what we already know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.189.116 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. My intention is not to get into a debate on homeschooling and even if I was, this is not the appropriate place to do so. Wikipedia is not a place to push any kind of agenda. These articles should present a balanced, unbiased approach to every topic. tallgaloot (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick look online, here's some sources for people who may want to take a look: http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueid=278&subIssueID=316, http://www.aeaonline.org/news/pdf/NEA%20Resolutions.pdf, Welner, K., “Contextualizing Homeschooling Data: A Response to Rudner,” Education Policy Analysis Archives (7:13), 1999., http://www.northjersey.com/news/030310_Ex_wife_testifies_that_husband_impregnated_their_daughters.html, http://www.paradisepost.com/news/ci_14378467, https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/ (not a legit source on its own, but points to some good information), http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/sw_mich/Home-schooling-hid-Calistas-abuse, http://www.wkow.com/story/16945455/probation-agent-recently-at-child-torture-victims-house, http://gazette.com/article/93341, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/12bodies.html?_r=5&ref=education&, http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/dc/200807230.asp, http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/articles/EPRU-0503-104-OWI.pdf, http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/Sean_Paddock.pdf, http://centerforchildwelfare2.fmhi.usf.edu/kb/bppub/NubiasStory.pdf, http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2016875109_hana28m.html, http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/55652, http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/47591, http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/15056, http://gradworks.umi.com/3489233.pdf, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/05/homeschooling-to-hide-abuse.html (some notes on various entries about this topic), http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110908104009.htm (discusses that positive research is based only on "structured homeschooling", http://www.middleschool.net/negative-homeschooling.htm.

Much of the data demonstrating higher scoring on standardized tests (as far as I know there have been 2) are based on sample groups which may not be indicative of the group at large, does not demonstrate that these students would do any worse in public school, and represent a self-selected sample (those who choose to start and continue homeschooling, assumedly because it works for them). In short, the data demonstrates a strong correlation, but no causation.

I am on neither side of the homeschooling debate, I was simply flabbergasted to discover how much this article was a piece of advocacy like every other homeschooling site on the internet. I came to this page for the sole purpose of hearing a balanced view after having a discussion with some friends and discovered not even Wikipedia was carrying an unbiased approach to the topic.tallgaloot (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

>I just read this now. Had to comment on here. I know nothing of homeschooling and am not American, I am perfectly neutral to the topic. When I read this article, I was shocked by how one sided it was, it is particularly un-encyclopedic as is, even the "criticism" section contains comments telling why opponents are wrong! Nothing about sociability of these kids? 5 second of reflexion on the topic made me think it could be a limitation of the system... hence a potential criticism of it too... Pretty shocked by the poor ethical standards here. [FLO]

An unfortunate fact is that very little research has been done on the subject by unbiased parties. Almost all the information out there is either deliberately promoting or deliberately disparaging the practice. As homeschooling has been controversial in recent years, it is unacceptable for us not to discuss the debate over its effectiveness/drawbacks, but because it hasn't attracted much respectable research it's very difficult to do so in a balanced way. At best we can try to balance the spurious, cherry-picked data from one side with the spurious, cherry-picked data from the other. -- LWG ^talk 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said in another heading, I also find the lack of neutrality shocking. I am also international and I am by these standards entirely neutral on the topic. I know there are valid criticisms to homeschooling, though I have not read up on it (why I came to Wikipedia, which normally takes the high road).

I find it very hard to believe this is the quality of research and coverage on homeschooling from the international community. There are tonnes of studies on education. Perhaps professionals are dismissive of positive homechooling findings? If so perhaps that is worth mentioning? Even in the unlikely scenario there is a massive lack of sources, perhaps diet the article down so there is roughly equal positive and negative material? Leord (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I highly recommend that we try to keep criticism in the criticism section, and keep the reader aware of how polarizing the subject is, and that not all Homeschools are created equal. I also want to remind certain users that neutrality is based on how much you know, not how little. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A designated criticism section is not usually the best plan. First rate Wikipedia articles on far more contentious topics (abortion for example) manage to successfully integrate negative criticism into the article. This benefits the reader in that they do not read the criticism section to find the critical response to each point and flows more naturally. It is harder to write though, but should that really stop anyone? --Sigeng (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Is homeschooling better than public or private schooling? Unequivicably. As a person who has done all three I can tell you that much. However, I would hope the criticism section would be debunked elsewhere. At the very least address the attitudes of the people who disagree with homeschooling should be recorded. Most information you find will support homeschooling but I would like to see some reference to the vitrolic attitudes I've encountered. Chrononem ☎ 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there problems with the sources cited in the Criticism and Controversy section of the article? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is that it immediately debunks every critique that it brings up... and inside the critique section. I don't really have a solution. I'm not the person to correct this, I hated my time in public school and many people had a much worse time than me and no escape from it... this is one issue I cannot bring myself to view objectively, but do I think the article needs work. Chrononem ☎ 01:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Good Homeschooling can be better than bad public/private schooling. Likewise the inverse is also true. There is very little research in this area because the homeschooling lobby makes it hard to track who is home schooled. This page reads like a press release from the lobby. The criticism sections (for some reason there are two of them) are vague and don't go into the valid critiques. The "research" section just goes to show how much bias there is by being separated into "supportive" and "criticisms". Good research should show results, not be attempting to push an agenda. Likewise, WP's coverage of the research should present it as verifiable facts, not take a stance on if it supports or criticizes the subject.Ksevio (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dogtooth (film)

Recently a discussion has come up about whether this film should link to the homeschooling entry in the See also section. I removed the link, but someone who is familiar with the film and homeschooling may want to add this entry to their watchlist or comment if the issue comes up again. - CompliantDrone (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus is not to move per WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Homeschooling → Home Education – Home education redirects to this homeschooling article, but it should be the other way around as home education is the term with the wider meaning. Home schooling is but one form of home education. Apart from home schooling there are other forms of home education such as ustructured and autonomous. The term homeschooling is used predominantly in the US and Canada - and used errorneously to mean home education by those who don't know the difference - while the term home education is used in most of the rest of the world. Besides, we already have a "Homeschooling in the US" article that covers the article title policy. Meat and 2 veg (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose on the face of it. I see no references or proof. And "homeschooling" is such a ubiquitous term in the United States and Canada... even if you could prove your assertion that "Home education" is used outside of the U.S., this still would have to stay here due to WP:RETAIN. Red Slash 00:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. "Homeschooling" has 4,350,000 hits on Google, "Home education" has 932,000. - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose does not appear to be the common name (though you can try demonstrating it), for our purposes; even outside North America, homeschooling is at least a widely used term. As for the argument that the term isn't precise, I don't buy that the definitions you lay out are used in practice, and we have articles on topics within homeschooling/home education, such as unschooling. —innotata 05:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Homeschooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150112060657/http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/articles.php?aid=97 to http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/articles.php?aid=97
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090921065742/http://www.hsc.org:80/professionals/briefhistory to http://www.hsc.org/professionals/briefhistory
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150112051234/http://www.oakmeadow.com/resources/articles/WSJArticle.htm to http://www.oakmeadow.com/resources/articles/WSJArticle.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313231804/http://sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/Choice-based_Educational_Innovation.pdf to http://sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/Choice-based_Educational_Innovation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)