Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Methods

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)

The best way to get started is to call the local board of education, inquire about the requirements of homeschooling and ask them to tell you how to get in touch with the local home school group. Or find a way to get in touch with them yourself. They can tell you everything you need to get started. Darthmalt

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)

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)

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)

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)

More removals

Removed this from the "Academic results" topic. It's worthwhile material, however, and should go somewhere:

Research in the UK from University of Durham by Paula Rothermel shows that the parent's own education level did not correlate with outcomes for their home educated children.

Many advocates say that serious academic study should originate with primary sources, rather than with textbooks of questionable quality and possible bias.

--Wahoofive 19:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paula Rothermel is going to publish a book on her findings - it's currently under a working title, but home educators get advance copies. When the book is released, we should put that in the article and referr to the book. --Spe88 18:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Removed idividual form Notable homeschooled individuals, currently the article for that person is under dispute. See article: Megan Elisabeth Smith as well as it's page for deletion --Jake 06:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Recent revert

I removed the following paragraph added by User:Papetti at the end of "Social Development":

One could argue that homeschoolers are indeed socialized, simply socialized in a different way. People who grew up homeschooled tend to see the nuclear family as the basic unit of society, while those in public schools tend to see the family in the context of society at-large. By the same logic, private schools could be said to inculcate a meritocratic or even aristocratic view of society. Questions of schooling are not about socialization or non-socialization, but about which kind of socialization a child should recieve.

The purpose of this article isn't to debate, but just to present a neutral point of view. Most of these points are already present in the article, but you're welcome to edit it if it isn't clear enough. —Wahoofive | Talk 22:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that is because many certified teachers choose to home school their own children. If you want to play a constructive role, perhaps you can balance this with some truancy sites, or pro-schooling or pro-education sites that have a government school emphasis. The other POV does not have to be critical of homeschooling, just praising of something that is quite the opposite.--Silverback 02:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

How is that POV? That paragraph simple says that it 'could be argued'. BASICwebmaster 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

See Avoid weasel words. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

I guess I'm gathering from this discussion that sites about homeschooling from people who actually do it (especially if they're Christian) aren't allowed. So, I've also removed the diary of a homeschool family in Scotland. You can't have that site listed and not allow others to do the same. Also, I find the comment about"homeschool spam sites offensive". Would you define this? A link to my site was eliminated apparently and it is ALL about content. I guess just not the kind that's wanted here. (unsigned comment by User:LindaKelley)

Hi, Linda, and welcome to Wikipedia! My wife and I are avid homeschoolers, although our little boy isn't really old enough yet. My wife was 100% homeschooled for 12 grades as were her sisters, and we will be doing the same for our children.

A long time ago, this article had way, way, way too many links. Everybody and their dog showed up and added a link to their site about homeschooling, some of which was little more than a list of names in the family and a statement that "we homeschool." That didn't contribute to making a good encyclopedia article on the subject, so several of us did a hatchet job and threw out a lot of links. And I mean, a lot of links.

Since then we have to be restrictive about what gets added or it will grow again and cause the same problem. So a link can't be added unless it is somehow a unique and specific significant resource. So HSLDA needs to be there, and any sites of comparable significance, but in general we don't want to link to every single homeschool website we can.

You did right in removing the other site. That should not have been there, either.

In general it isn't a good idea to link to your own sites on Wikipedia, just as Wikipedians are in general not supposed to write articles about themselves or about specialized fields of research that they are the primary researchers in. It's better to let impartial third parties decide if a particular site really adds enough to an article to be included. There are actually people who show up and try to add links to their website on scores of articles. I've gone and cleaned up after some of their messes.

Personally, I've got a website for members of my faith but I've never added it to the related article on Wikipedia because I'm too close to the site to judge whether it belongs or not. Some day if other people reading about the subject deem my site to be that good of a resource, they can add it. But we have to avoid self-promotion.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and I encourage you to get involved in editing articles of several different types. You'll be amazed at what a learning forum wikipedia is, and if you're homeschooling I think you will find it to be a great resource. Jdavidb 20:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Jdavid,

Thank you for your very nice note of explanation for what has happened here. I am new to wikipedia and the rules. However, I was under the impression that if you have a site that is a resource on a certain topic you could add it here. Many, many people add content to the articles here by adding links to their sites. I thought as long as the site was a legitimate site with real content that was encouraged. So, I guess that was a misperception. By the way, I didn't mean to leave my post anonymous. I thought the link would be automatically added (I'm not very high-tech). Don't you think there is a place for an article about families who homeschool with links to various family sites (of all types)? Linda Kelley http://www.christian-parenting-source.com

The rule of thumb that I use (although it's not official WP policy) is that encyclopedia articles are mainly intended to inform people who aren't involved in the topic. Generally you look things up in an encyclopedia that you don't know a lot about; if you need in-depth info about a topic you're already familiar with, there are better resources. Accordingly, this article is more likely to be useful to someone who doesn't homeschool or know anything about it — homeschoolers already know everything in this article — so sites with personal anecdotes or how-to links wouldn't be all that helpful.

To sign your posts, use four tildes (like this: ~~~~). —Wahoofive (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I would think that people who aren't involved in the topic would be the ones most likely to benefit from anecdotes and practical how-to's. To avoid proliferation external links, it would be nice if they joined a web ring, and just linked those here. But currently we are in no danger of having too many links.--Silverback 06:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding the diary from Scotland link. I didn't remove it because I don't want to be a big meanie. I'll let you guys with more knowledge decide if it should or shouldn't be here. i still believe sites from people who are homeschooling (with information on how-to get started, what curriculum is available, etc.) is extremely valuable somewhere. Maybe it shouldn't be on this page. Perhaps this page is more about the "definition of homeschooling." Then the Scotland link needs to go too if that's the case. Perhaps an editor needs to explain to the person who keeps posting the Scotland link about our discussion. Thanks for all your help. LindaKelley 13:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I know you are trying to make a point by deleting the Scotland link, but you really should edit in good faith. If you think your external link should be there, put it in. Whomever deleted it the first time, is not necessarily the last word on the subject.--Silverback 14:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I DIDN"T delete the Scotland link today. It's still there. That was my point. I deleted it yesterday (twice) to make my point as you say--because although someone kept adding the Scotland link, someone also kept deleting mine. Then JDavid deleted it after my post saying "neither site should be there." I think it should be there (I liked their site and thought it added to the article). My only point is it's a little unfair to leave theirs and not mine. If I add it and mine gets deleted and theirs doesn't that is discrimination. I'm just trying to get WHOEVER to be consistent. I stated today (in my previous post)I wasn't going to delete their link anymore regardless of what someone does to mine. So, I AM editing in good faith and trying to get you guys to play fair in the process. LindaKelley 15:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, the Scottland one is more interesting because homeschooling isn't as common there. I have put your link back in. There is currently a need for more links, perhaps we will reconsider when they become a problem.--Silverback 18:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. Homeschooling in Scotland is more unique and I hadn't really thought of it that way. I appreciate your putting the link back. Thank you. If it becomes a problem, I'll understand if it has to be removed. Onward and upward to something else. LindaKelley 20:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

External links

I have reorganized the external links into three categories. Please feel free to change it as needed. However, there are far too many such links. This article does not need to be a resource for HS parents, and there's no need to list publishers of homeschool materials, for example. --Wahoofive 18:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many extern links. To curb this problem in other articles that experience "link creep," notices have been added as comments in the extern links sections. Such as this one:

<!-- DO NOT ADD your pet site here without discussing it on the Talk page first. If you add a site without discussing it first, it will be reverted, no questions asked. Click the "Discuss this page" link to start a discussion on why you think your site should be added. -->

It's worked exceptionally well in other articles. Some sites are sometimes still added without discussion, but they are quickly reverted and the section stays nice and tidy. :-) Before we do this, however, the Extern links section will have to be heavily trimmed first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:28, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. What criteria could we use to determine which sites are worth keeping? I'd move we eliminate all the "Resources for homeschoolers" links and most of the "pro-homeschooling" sites (maybe keep the first two plus WikEd Wiki). I'm the one who sorted the sites this way (from one big list), and I did it based on a pretty cursory examination, so maybe the "neutral" sites aren't. I propose that our focus should be sites about homeschooling, not how-to or "you can do it" or sites which are primarily advocacy (I think there's a distinction between sites which advocate HS directly to the reader and sites like HSLDA which are about organizations which advocate elsewhere than their website). We also need to try to keep some non-US sites. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just trimmed down the external links and added the comment tag shown above. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest adding the Homeschool Legal Defense Association http://hslda.org/ Obviously very much a pro HS site but lots of information about homeschooling and legal cases involving homeschoolers. Many dealing with truancy, some with curfews, and some with legislation.

That link is already there. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed POV

Removed the following paragraph for POV reasons:

As educational choices become abundant through a vast array of educational products and services available, computers, and the internet, the idea of homeschooling is becoming more accepted. With more and more school misconduct, some of it violent and deadly, and illegal activity such as pedophelia committed by trusted adults, more people are becoming supportive of parents deciding to homeschool.

This may all be true but needs some verification. —Wahoofive (Talk) 18:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem with this statement is that similar (such as pedophelia) could occur at home as well as at school. Similarly, domestic violence is a continued problem. Unless it can be proven that rates of violence and child abuse (sexual, verbal, or physical) are lower at home than in school, the statement is pointless. If it's included it would need to note that the rates are equal, or possibly greater, so it serves little purpose but to confuse the issue. I agree, more information would be needed to qualify the statement. Nick Kerr on 28 July, 2005 at 10:09 (GMT)

Informal vs. Formal

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)

Order of sections

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)

Links limiting and edit

Since you would like to limit the links on this page to non "how to" and of course keep this page unbiased, I have removed the "Christian worldview" spam links

Above comment by User:71.113.236.158, who also wrote an extensive comment on my Talk page accusing me of having a hidden agenda to impose a Christian fundamentalist viewpoint on this article by removing the "how to" links. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am neither a fundamentalist nor a homeschooler. My only agenda is to make Wikipedia better. Removing "how-to" links is in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Since it seems (based on the comments on my talk page) that this anonymous poster removed the links to HSLDA and Old Schoolhouse in retaliation for my supposed Christian bias, I have reverted the change. However, I encourage a third party to review those links to see if they're really valuable resources for WP readers. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the links you've removed are non-germane. Homeschool Laws & Legalities, for example, seems appropriate. Also, I don't see anything about "how-to" links on Wikipedia policy. --Nectarflowed ^T 06:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a link to balance the HSLDA link -- it is a consumer guide to HSLDA. I also agree with the previous poster who said that there is nothing in Wikipedia policy against how-to links. While I can see the need to limit links, I have to insist that if limiting is practiced, it must be done in a balanced fashion - what about special needs homeschooling, gifted homeschooling or Islamic homeschooling? When the Christian-biased links are kept, it the requires a balance of links to other groups. How much do you want to limit? Etc.

(unsigned comment by User:71.113.239.101) —Wahoofive (talk) 05:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest all of you to reveiw the general rules about external links (which are discouraged): m:When should I link externally and Wikipedia:External links. mikka (t) 07:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read both of those, but it's not clear how they apply. Are these how-to sites "high content pages that contain neutral and accurate material" (as some believe) or are they (as I believe) fansites? It's impossible to provide a POV balance because there are (as far as I can tell) no significant anti-homeschooling websites.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are way too many links here, of any flavor. I've taken the step of trimming some of them that I believed to be too specific or not authoritative/official/useful. I don't have a stronger reason than that to remove any of them, so I won't object to replacement of any I've removed in error. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You took a prety big hack at some of the signature links of homeschooling.--Silverback 23:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The intent was to take a pretty big hack. Of the links here, which are the ten most important? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeking convention on handling external links

This article is inevitably going to continue to appear inviting for anyone in the world to add their homeschooling site. I propose the regular editors of this article agree to follow this convention:

• new links from anonymous editors will be automatically reverted with the message: "rv added link; please discuss proposed new links on the talk page before adding" (Maybe we should modify that message to also concisely indicate that we have a problem with links being added too freely.)
• new links from editors with accounts that have never done anything but add links be treated the same as anonymously added links
• clear linkspam be deleted without any wasted time: for example, the beauty pageant link guy who keeps showing up
• new links from editors with accounts (real accounts that have been used to actually edit multiple Wikipedia articles) may be left in, but subsequent editors should bring them up on the talk page where we can decide if we want to keep them. (Again, links of little clear value can still be deleted and discussed on the talk page.)

Jdavidb 18:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion above, this has been an ongoing problem. Automatic reverting seems like a clumsy and non-wikifriendly tool. I think a deeper problem is the philosophical one of whether sites which primarily contain practical resources for homeschoolers belong here. I think as "fansites" they don't, but obviously many people disagree, and there's no actual prohibition on links to how-to sites. Wikipedia:External links —Wahoofive (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as the links are not commercial spam, they should be allowed to accumulate and then weeded occasionally. I think we should aim for diversity, especially welcoming non-US sites, and sites from not yet representated countries. Perhaps the best way to manage and occasionally weed is to have sections where we protect the best reference sites, and instead of deleting new URLs that are added, just move them to the appropo how-to or country section, this way we assume each site is added in good faith, and we give it some time in the sun. We may have to take more labor intensive measures if this becomes problematic, but so far it hasn't.--Silverback 00:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the big issue here is that Wikipedia is not a link farm, and that's exactly what the extern links section is turning into. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, as a more modest start, then, I think I will add the following warning as a comment in the External links section:

Please note that Wikipedia is not a link farm. This article cannot and should not contain links to every homeschooling site on the web. We have often had to go through culling links when this section has grown gigantic. Please do not use this article to promote your own homeschooling site. Please exercise discretion in adding other links. Notable websites known by a majority of homeschoolers are probably appropriate; new websites and family websites are probably not. If you are unsure, please propose your link on the article's talk page and wait for consensus among editors as to whether it should be added or not.

Please edit the above paragraph if you have a better idea on what the warning should say. Jdavidb 17:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is a good idea, but it can be much shorter, it is about a dozen links long. How about a just a wikilink, with the label "Reference or representative sites only. This list will occasionally be pruned." I must disagree with Frecklefoot however. This is not a "big issue". NPOV is a big issue, number of links and article length are minor issues, and we are several links away from "link farm" status. When the links become so numerous that the usefulness and managability become issues then we need to do some weeding. Hopefully, when links are fairly equal, we can delete the older ones first, since more recent links are more likely to still be monitored. --Silverback 22:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Too many extern links are not a big issue, just a big hassle IMHO. I just want to point out that wikilinks won't work in commented code. Since it only shows up in edit mode, there is no way to see it rendered for the wiki software to format the link into a clickable wikilink.

FWIW, I've done something similar in other articles that attract way too many links. It helped. Only once did it get removed, claiming it was un-wiki like to have such a message. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Community college

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)

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)]]

rv edits by 80.2.248.156

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)

Funding

 "...lowering the amount of government money public schools
 would receive if more children were attending the publicly-funded school,..."

In Wisconsin at least, we do not get money from the state. We still have to pay our public school taxes though. And if there was less students at a public school they would not need as much funding.

Notable Homeschoolers

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)

Motivations...

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)

I didn't revert your addition [1], 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)

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)

Changes by Charivari

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)

Bode Miller

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)

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)

POV

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is a short page at WikiBooks about Homeschooling: [2] 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)

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)

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)

Motivations

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)

See if it looks better now. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Legal decisions

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)

Opposition

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't propose that we include anything but facts. NPOV is the single most important pillar of Wikipedia. I am simply saying that there is an enormous void in factual, verifiable, documented, or organized opposition. The survey finding that 54% oppose, but it does not say why. The real problem is that those who oppose are not speaking up, so we have nothing to build on. It is their right to do so, so apparently its not that important to them. They were asked a "yes" or "no" question, which they answered and then went on with their lives. They don't really seem to care. As a result, only anecdotal opposition can be found. Most of this kind of evidence is highly repetitive and unscientific. I am not trying to exclude anything that is documentable and provable, pro or con. I think we have a good article with as much criticle view as can be found at this point in time. If anyone knows where there is more, go get it. I'm exhausted on this. That being said, I am just glad that we all seem to be civil about it. Should we poll the group? Is this a good time to ask for outside help. Anything but assuming bad faith will be constructive. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. The UC Berkeley lawsuit is good stuff, but concerns Christian schools. I don't find any reference to Homeschooling. Master Scott Hall 19:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Legality

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)

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)

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)

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)