This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
A new section called "financial obligations" has just been added. Since there is already a section called "cost to families" which actually has references, and since the "financial obligations" sections sounds suspiciously like original research, I think we ought to remove it. Does anybody object to that? Amillion ( talk) 08:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a section for this? I can think of a few off the top of my head:
I reverted the section on Germany as violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Seanwal11111 put it back with the biased phrasing removed (thanks, good job). However, it still has problems:
Otherwise, the section without the POV verbage is good enough to keep, provided the problems above are addressed. - Amatulić ( talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Have added information on the recent origins of German law Snow555 ( talk) 15:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks! I'm thinking the first thing I'm going to do is put a tag on everything that doesn't have an inline citation. It's worked in other collaborations I've been part of. We just start by citing everything and then move from that point into expanding the article. Usually as we cite what's already here, we'll start running into what isn't here yet. Wrad ( talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We need to get all of our bases covered on this. Can someone make a color-coded map of the world showing legality of homeschooling across the world, also another possibly showing # of homeschooled in different countries?
I'm putting together a list here:
-- Wrad ( talk) 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Wrad ( talk) 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a draft. Image:Homeschool Legality-World.svg. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Russia—Legal. [16] Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 17:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the four categories of the map: Legal, legal but contested, illegal but uncontested, illegal. Let's list according to that. Wrad ( talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source for homeschooling being legal in Greenland? As an article about Greenland states "education is free and compulsory for all children between the ages of 7 and 16". Note that Greenland is completely autonomous since 1979, only before that date it was a colony of European Denmark. Should we reform the European table into an international one? Or create extra tables for other continents? - Species8473 ( talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we change the map legend to the following?
With that the United States remains yellow as by 1 and Swistzerland orange by 2 - Species8473 ( talk) 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have done some research on homeschooling in European countries, and created a table to hold all the information. It's quite big so I put it on a seperate page.
Current gaps:
Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Georgia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Serbia, Vatican City.
Everyone is encouraged to help with the gaps, feel free to take them out the list above when done. Extra sources and information for other countries are most welcome as well.
Current issues:
Greetings, Species8473 ( talk) 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be yellow, since it's part of the US? Wrad ( talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for peer review a second time. Criticism is welcome at the peer review page. Thanks. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done quite a bit of work cleaning this article up and re-writing a few sections. Any thoughts on the changes I've made? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph about educational games in the "methodology" section seems to be condoning a particular point of view, and it also seems out of place/irrelevant. This paragraph reads:
Recently, the parents of both home schooled children and compulsory education schools are using educational games to make learning fun. Educational games cross the barrier between both types of schooling. They are intended to give children a positive attitude towards learning, and self-motivation. In response to the popularity of educational computer games, a wide variety of subjects are now covered in these games. Free online schools including colleges have made home schooling an easier transition from compulsory education, because the computer teaches the child instead of a parent or teacher, allowing the parent time to work their job. Free job training can also be learned online for those who can't afford college tuition, or who live far from schools. Amillion ( talk) 08:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is "homeschoolee" the only grammatically correct term for homeschooled students, and should it therefore be used regardless of whether or not it is used by outside sources, or is the term inappropriate for a Wikipedia article because it is not used by reputable sources? (In other words, should the extent to which a term is used by credible sources determine whether or not it is used on Wikipedia?)
Homeschooling :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.190.144 ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The tag on this page that says "The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources," although it explicitly states otherwise, does actually imply article ownership. Questions about verification and sources should be placed on the talk page where any editor can respond. I think that this tag should be removed. Amillion ( talk) 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The map I'm commenting on: homeschool legality world I think some of the information on it isn't correct. Starting with the Netherlands, where I happen to live. Homeschooling is not completely illegal in the Netherlands, it just has very high requirments, is opposed by political parties, and we virtually have none. Belgium has a similar situation, home schooling is allowed, but only if the parents prove able. And although the number of homeschooled children is higher, it's still a very tiny percentage. Sweden I believe should be yellow, virtually no homeschooled children and opposed by major political parties. I think a good improvement for the map would be to change orange into meaning legal under restricted conditions. And with that I would think about anything that goes further then registration. Another improvement for the map would be if it gives an indication on the percentage of home schoolers. Countries like Poland, Ireland, Czech, and earlier mentioned virtually have none. - Species8473 ( talk) 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
For some reason Finland is orange on the map. Primary education is compulsory and controlled, but there is no obligation to attend a school (preschool is compulsory in some cases, but preschool is otherwise explicitely non-compulsory).
This is confirmed at Ministery of Education: Home schooling (Swedish).
There is no movement about homeschooling (that I know about) and nearly everybody is attending school, so it might be true that attending school is believed by many to be compulsory, but it is clearly recognized as a legal option.
The cases of homeschooling I have heard about have been about parents taking a year off abroad and arranging the education themselves, asking the children's teacher for advice before departure. In these cases attending a local school would not have been practical, for lingual or logistic reasons.
-- LPfi ( talk) 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Report: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
Any comments on these points before I add them to the "criticism of supportive achievements studies" section? - Species8473 ( talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires content to be verifiable. Especially the methodology section seems to need work there. Under educational games fact templates have already been added. But all-in-one curricula, student-paced learning and community resources completely lack any sources. I trust this information wasn't made up, but things like "homeschooles often take advantage of.." and "groups of homeschooling families often.." should be backed up by sources and/or statistics.
I have checked on the history of the community resources section, and it appears to date back to March 2005. With an extra paragraph added at July 2007. Lucky enough Wahoofive is still among us so perhaps he has some sources.
Greetings, Species8473 ( talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should discuss this? Do we want such a list in the article? Or prefer a section where it is also mentioned why they are notable? And who is to be in the list/section, who not? I personally have issues with Abraham Lincoln, Sandra Day O'Conner and Winston Churchill being in the list. The source used seems to list people as soon as they read a book at home once in combination with being famous. For example Sandra Day O'Conner in the list, she "attended the Radford School, a private academy for girls, from kindergarten through high school." 1 Even Albert Einstein made it to that 2 list, and he clearly was never homeschooled 3. Species8473 ( talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the references needed tag. There is a reference to the full list, which is from a noted homeschooling cite. It is sufficient, but could be improved. To the people who keep placing various tags throughout the article, PLEASE start adding more citations instead of cluttering the article with tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManBuiltPrice ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the names are linked to other Wiki articles that mention that the person had some homeschooling; the citation that is used comes from a source that is generally reputable, as far as I can tell (no evidence has been presented to the contrary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow555 ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm challenging the Rosa Parks list entry, as I have been reading through a lot of internet biographies now, but have not found one of them stating she was homeschooled or anything along those lines. While a short biography about her states that she did go to a school. It does add to that the situation in the school was bad because of racism, but this alone indicates she went to a school. Another internet biography about her states: "When she completed her education in Pine Level at age eleven, her mother, Leona, enrolled her in Montgomery Industrial School for Girls".
I have also removed sources that provide merely a list of names. They are poor as reliable source and on verifiability, and not interesting for those looking them up for extra information on what kind of homeschooling the person received. I did not remove the " So - Why Do You Homeschool?" book as source, because this one does provide a limited amount of extra information. Species8473 ( talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
About Rosa Parks, see [18]. Species8473, I don't appreciate it that several people go and find references and then you delete them because you have subjective opinions about their valididty. Unless you can show that the source is not clearly wrong, the source should stand on its own merit; let the reader decide. HomePolice ( talk) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposal for section about notable homeschooled people. With as goal to provide useful factual information. I have kept the discussion over deletion of homeschooled individuals in mind while creating it:
Example: Thomas Alva Edison, an American inventor and businessman, was taught reading, writing and arithmetic by his mother. Before that he left school for only three month, where he had trouble following the lessons. Most of his other education he received from reading books on his own. 1 And for this example I would say it is questionable at point two and three, because most of his education seems to have been originated from self education through reading books. So that makes a good point for discussion.
Please state if you think this is a good proposal. Species8473 ( talk) 12:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made my proposal as the the criteria we should use.
Z gin der 2008-06-02T15:21Z ( UTC)
Only the first and second criteria seem good. The second is difficult because whether someone is homeschooled is a binary variable that has nothing at all to do with choice or necessity. The fourth criterion is problematic because of the subjective nature regarding what information is deemed relevant. HomePolice ( talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the current section is accurate. No sources have been added, and one of the editors has ignored comments on his talk page. But to the point, during the early middle ages European countries like France had free public education. 1 And before that ancient Greece and Rome were known to have both voluntary and compulsory educational systems. 2 Even if countries had no educational system at all, this does not mean "the vast majority of people were schooled at home". I would say that they simply received no education at all, as is the case in many third world countries today. Species8473 ( talk) 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The final paragraph of this section is indirectly related to homeschooling, it seems. This whole page should be neutral of this sort of innuendo, I propose. Snow555 ( talk) 17:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Snow555, that this section would be better placed in an article about "Child Abuse". This section suffers from "Undue Weight" (NPOV 2.3) in its focus on a few freak incidents and its reliance on the opinions of Marcia Herman-Giddens of the North Carolina Child Advocacy Institute. This section is irrelevant to homeschooling and I wonder whether the bias of one editor is effecting the neutrality of the article. Dumb All Over ( talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that the section about child abuse is totally irrelevant for the article on homeschooling, and therefore should be completely deleted. The fact that we can find on internet a few cases where someone accused someone of child abuse involving homeschooling does not make it relevant for an encyclopedic text. Saying that "there are no studies indicating a correlation of child abuse with homeschooling" not only does NOT make it neutral, but also proves that what was written before has no relevance either to be here or on any other article. I also recommend that we should delete this article until this dispute is resolved. How can we do that? as it seems that it was tried before and Species8473 keeps undoing it. Mlonguin ( talk) 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Child abuse [section heading]
An argument against homeschooling has been that child abuse can occur in an environment closed to the outside world. [1] During October 2003, CBS News broadcast two controversial reports about situations in which homeschooling parents killed their children, and one suicide case. Marcia Herman-Giddens, a member of the North Carolina task force reviewing the cases, concluded that home school laws "allow persons who maltreat children to maintain social isolation in order for the abuse and neglect to remain undetected". [1] [2] However, after the CBS News reports aired, National Review described the stories as "one of the most bizarre news judgements ever", and 33 members of Congress signed a letter addressed to (now former) CBS News president Andrew Heyward which stated in part, "You chose to take a handful of tragic incidents and, from them, cast aspersions on the entire homeschool movement. Your report was unfair and indicative of both bias and ignorance." [3] [4] Further assessments by other media sources brought into question the journalistic integrity of CBS News with regard to this report and others in the past. [5]
A February 2005 child abuse case resulted in the Arizona state Governor Janet Napolitano stating that she would examine the state's laws on homeschooling. This prompted a response from County School Superintendent Kim Fields, who pointed out that public school children are also being abused and stated, "You can't stop abuse by changing an education setting." No changes were deemed necessary or ever publicly proposed. [6]
- ^ a b A Dark Side To Home Schooling (Oct 13, 2003 CBS News)
- ^ Home Schooling Nightmares (Oct 14, 2003 CBS News)
- ^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35336 Congressmen slam CBS for homeschool story] (Oct 30, 2003)
- ^ "Letter from the Members of Congress" (PDF). 2003-10-22. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
{{ cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
( help)- ^ The CBS Record on Truth (Sept 14, 2004)
- ^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42822 Abuse case prompts rethink of homeschool laws] (Feb 12, 2005, WorldNetDaily)
I added the text above (which had been removed and restored) to aid discussion by uninvolved editors. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like a third opinion to include the "financial obligations" section that was removed along. This edit includes an updated version of the "child abuse" section: removal of criticism sections.
There are a number of sources that report about a connection with child abuse for it to be included in this article. Especially the two news reports by CBS News have received a lot of attention. With as many as ~117.000 google search results on related keywords. The reports include citations from an interview with DrPH Marcia Herman-Giddens who can be regarded an expert on child abuse. Another reputable news source, the New York Times, also makes the connection with homeschooling and child abuse in an article. Here Dr. Clive R. Belfield (Queens College) states that “limited compliance and follow-up” gave abusive families “an excuse to get out of being observed.” and Dr. Mitchell L. Stevens (New York University) "Home schooling removes children from a lot of that surveillance". Another source that can be used is Carla Katz (president of the Commmunications Workers of America) stating 1 "Home schooling creates gaps. Nearly 20% of all abuse cases are reported by schools. When children are outside the school system, extra protections are critical. There are no home schooling regulations that would require homeschooled children to see anyone from the public education system. There is no cross-referencing with the Department of Education to look for children who are in the ‘system’ but have not been seen by anyone." Species8473 ( talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This dispute was listed at requests for a third opinion. I had not even read this article before finding it from there. I have read the disputed section, and read the statements here on the talk page. I must say that I am impressed with the civility of the discussion.
To start, the section was appropriately placed as a subsection of criticism. All attempts were made to provide an balanced view of the report. The initial source used was a reliable source, however I feel that the CBS news report has now gained more notoriety for its criticism and the outside response to the report than did the report itself. It describes a single incident that causes problems of undue weight being given in the overall article.
I do not consider WorldNetDaily to meet the standards required by WP:RS, and that leaves us with an unbalanced section - a definite problem with NPOV policy. Additionally, with all due respect to contributions on other projects, User:Species8473 is a SPA for all due purposes of this dispute on the en-wp. I don't believe that I should weigh those opinions as fully objective.
I do not believe there are sufficient reliable sources to justify inlcusion at this time, nor that there are enough reliable opposing opinions to balance the inclusion of one very suspicious, and highly controversial, report.
I believe such a section would be very appropriate for this article if and when multiple reliable sources are found to sustain such inclusion. Jim Miller ( talk) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm totally new to this topic, so I guess I'm a NPOV. My opinion is that unless there is a significant ratio of child abuse accusations to home schooled children, the child abuse allegations are irrelevant. I would like to see cited statistics showing that the ratio of child abuse is higher in home schooling than that in state (En-US: public) or public (En-US: private) schooling before this section should be re-introduced. Child abuse happens in both small and large schools, so until someone can produce stats proving the link between size of school (eg. 1, 100, 1000) and likelihood of child abuse, I fail to see it. For the record, I am state (En-US: public) schooled in the UK and was head of anti-spam at a large multinational computer security firm from 2004-2007 where I occasionally and infrequently provided technical assistance to Ceop at Scotland Yard for child abuse image investigations. Andrew Oakley ( talk) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not revisiting this sooner, but I was away from home for a week and unable to read the replies to my opinion. User:Species8473 has appropriately pointed out that I missed the fact that User:Snow555 is also an SPA for the purposes of this debate. That was my oversight. For the purposes of the Child Abuse section and my Third Opinion, I have done no independant research other than the sources used in the article.
As written, the proposed section still has issues with giving undue weight to limited sources. The phrase "An argument" sounds universal. I recommend that the first sentence be rewritten as "Some people have made the argument that child abuse can occur..." or preferably "At least one investigator has claimed that child abuse can occur..." in order to give the section proper weight. According to the citations used in the article, there are two sources of specific incidents out of more than one million homeschooled children in the US alone in 2003, millions more world-wide. With the sources provided, the language must be unambiguous as to how many reports are actually being cited, and their relative weight when compared to the total numbers, in order to preserve a neutral point of view. When appropriate language is achieved by concensus here, the current sources justify inlcuding the section if given proper weight.
I have also been asked to add an opinion regarding the Financial obligations section that was incorporated into this discussion by its deletion. This section seems to be seriously problematic. The first two sentences of that section, where the claims are made, are not cited. Without sources, those conlclusions are original research. The sources that are cited do not support the conclusions stated in those sentences. When those sentences are removed, the rest of the section makes very little sense. The entire sections failed to show that there is any undue burden on those families who homeschool, and that idea contradicts other cited statements in the article at Homeschooling#United_States. I do not believe that this sections add anything to the article, nor does it contribute to a greater understanding of the subject. Without the OR sentences, the section does not even seem appropriate for a criticism section, because there is no sourced criticism.
I will continue to monitor the discussion here for a few weeks, and will be available if anyone here wishes me to provide additional opinions. Jim Miller ( talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
MightySmall ( talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like question the verifiability and neutrality of the very far fetched criticism of homeschooling for the purpose of 'Child Abuse'.
I would liken this to having section in "School" stating that one criticism of school is that some group up to be murderers, rapists, and child abusers, or that many schooled children have commited violent and sometimes deadly acts of violence. There are even many ancedotal examples of teachers using their position of power to abuse children, mentally, physically & sexually, but it would not be neutural to use them in a piece about the definition of schooling. While these may be 'true' are they are simply not neutral in terms of defining what a school is and what it does.
I think this section needs to be added back. It is part of the critical discourse on homeschooling, and I felt that the section was presented well (showing both sides). Wrad ( talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In looking over the references in the child abuse section, as well as the extant discussion and editing history, the heading for the section seemed inaccurate. I changed it from "Potential opportunity for abuse" to "Potential for undetected abuse" since as has been mentioned, there is no comparative research out there that points to more abuse going on in homeschool households than in households where children attend a school. It has not been established that homeschool households bear within themselves any specially elevated potential for abuse. One could only reasonably say that it might be more likely that abuse originating from within a homeschool household would be detected if the homeschooled children were instead attending a school. I'm not actually in favor of even retaining this section, as its presence seems arbitrary and overly weighted. No research makes any connection between homeschooling and increased levels of child abuse. If we as editors are including this section on the strength of the claim that the abuse of a homeschooled child is less likely to be detected, it would seem we'd have to append many Wikipedia pages with sections on "Potential for undetected abuse". For instance, abuse of children by Boy Scout troop leaders has been anecdotally associated, but it is hardly a salient aspect of The Boy Scouts, worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia on The Boy Scouts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usefulefforts ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC) And apologies, I forgot to sign my name for the passage directly above! Usefulefforts ( talk) 04:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a copy of the now deleted article, List of homeschooled individuals, and it can be viewed at User:Diligent Terrier/List of homeschooled individuals. We need to work on merging information from that page into this article. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 01:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edits because there was already a page for notable homeschooled students and it was deleted. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
They should certainly be included because homeschooling was a big part of their early life. The separate article was deleted per WP:NOT#INFO, which does not apply to this article. However WP:TRIVIA does and they should be written in sentences instead of a list. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this section be removed for the following reasons: 1) There are no sources cited for this section. 2) The section appears to consist of opinion rather than fact. 3) The portion dealing with demographics would be better placed in a section on demographics. 4) The section is vague. 5) The article is about homeschooling, not statistics. Dumb All Over ( talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to quote the first line of the Verification policy on Wikipedia, Species: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (emphasis in original). Without citations, that section is in violation of policy and should be removed. It doesn't matter how true it is. Either we add citations soon, or we remove it. Wrad ( talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Species8473: Please don't perform wholesale-restoration of questionable material. I have reverted your edits, and restored the section to which you added a citation. The Financial section was NOT criticism and portraying it as such misrepresents the sources cited; do not restore that unless it's done in a demographics section. If you want questionable material to appear in this article, propose it here on the talk page. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The section makes claims about the application of statistics by editors that have a limited understanding of statistics and how they are used. The claim being made was that because samples are drawn from two populations that are possibly different (because of selection bias) that no comparisons whatsoever can be made. This argument has some merit but is too general. To state that some self-selection happens and then to extend this to all tested populations is not a valid inference. On the other hand, some states require home schooled students to take the same tests as those given in conventional schools, and the average differences found elsewhere remain present. Finally, just because group differences can not be verified statistically does not mean that they don't exist. The only claim that can be made is that statistics are not valid in these cases. Snow555 ( talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reference for this: "The lack of "formal" records and transcripts (kept by school districts) can be a problem for home-schooled students that wish to enter college." It appears to be conjecture. Multidimensional ( talk) 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)multidimensional
It seems to me that information on cost estimates from various studies, to the extent they help the article, ought to be included in the main body of the article and not as criticism. Also, the costs for homeschooling materials and resources are essentially the same regardless of whether one or two or neither parent or guardian is in the labour force. The fact that one parent typically stays home can be included in a section on demographics. Dumb All Over ( talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Removed source for violation of terms under what wikipedia material can be used. Such as that it must be licensed under GFDL and have acknowledgement of authorship. WP:C Instead it's stated to be copyrighted by the owner of the website. That really is not acceptable. One clear violation is in the methods section of the website, as being a straight copy of what we have under Methodology. The same goes for the Legality page being a copy of international status and statistics. Other parts of the website are copies of older revisions of the wikipedia homeschooling article. It also has objectionable amounts of advertisements and is a bad source. Species8473 ( talk) 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The relationship between schooling and literacy is very complex, and the empirical data is very poor. Right now, the article says that during the 19th century 'many children were educated in private schools or in the home' and that 'illiteracy was common and many children were never properly educated.' The citation for this is a map, not an article, and the conclusions we are supposed to draw from the map are so obviously OR that they have to be explained, at length, in the footnote:
I'm removing this pending some better discussion of the schooling/literacy issue, maybe not in this article. Ethan Mitchell ( talk) 10:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems like the structure of the article could be improved. Especially the way in which supportive research and criticism are offered in two separate chunks, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast the information contained in the two sections. For instance, in the supportive research section, there are some statistics on the relatively high rate of civic involvement in adults who were homeschooled. In the criticisms section which comes after the S.R section, a conjecture by Rob Reich that homeschooling leads to lack of civic involvement is offered. I"d like to propose that the information in the two sections be re-arranged by categories (economic, social, civic, academic, etc,) into two new sections, one called Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for Families and Individuals, and another entitled Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for Society at Large. Usefulefforts ( talk) 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The advantage of separate supportive and critical subsections is that this is a controversial topic and by separating them, we assure that full-throated opinions in each direction can be expressed without countering arguments that may not be conclusive. -- Zeamays ( talk) 20:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted Queen Elizabeth from the list of famous homeschoolees on the grounds that education by professional tutors does not really fit the accepted definition of homeschooling. I was rightfully corrected on this because the article as it now stands does allow for that in the definition in the first paragraph. I would like to change the definition to delete mention of the use of professional tutors. My rationale is as follows:
I would like input on this issue. -- Zeamays ( talk) 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ethan Mitchell: Question, did your clients hire you (and others?) as the main educators of their children, or did they hire you to supplement lessons given by themselves and other unpaid friends and family members? The education of Royals and other elites is typically done by a hired staff, with little teaching by their parents. -- Zeamays ( talk) 16:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Diligent Terrior has a good point. Professional tutors should be deleted from the definition of homeschooling. What is meant by the word "homeschooling" is not schooling by tutors, which is something else entirely. Homeschooling should not be defined entirely by where the teaching and learning occur, but by the fact that the teaching is being directed and controlled by their parents or other relatives. In this context, again consider Emlyn Williams, The Corn is Green, where a school is in a home, but the children aren't being homeschooled. It was common in earlier times (and may still be true in some places) for educated people to open schools in their homes. -- Zeamays ( talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The use of a bold red for illegal and disputed status in the country sections and bold blue for legal seems a little POV and also misleading for readers because of the standard use of red to indicate a clickable link to an empty article and the blue being very close to the color for extant articles.
Don't words do enough to distinguish between the statuses? And if not could we use colors that don't have meaning within the wiki markup and that avoid the "red=stop" and similar conotations that could be considered POV? -- SiobhanHansa 13:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The statistics in the motivations section do not coincide with the links provided later in the section. Since the table itself was not cited, I have no way of knowing if they were drawn from some other version of the source. Perhaps I am missing something, so I wanted to allow for comments. Nevertheless, in lieu of any objections, I will update and reference the table. WDavis1911 ( talk) 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
See [20]. The article and the map should be updated. Wrad ( talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
A new section called "financial obligations" has just been added. Since there is already a section called "cost to families" which actually has references, and since the "financial obligations" sections sounds suspiciously like original research, I think we ought to remove it. Does anybody object to that? Amillion ( talk) 08:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a section for this? I can think of a few off the top of my head:
I reverted the section on Germany as violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Seanwal11111 put it back with the biased phrasing removed (thanks, good job). However, it still has problems:
Otherwise, the section without the POV verbage is good enough to keep, provided the problems above are addressed. - Amatulić ( talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Have added information on the recent origins of German law Snow555 ( talk) 15:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks! I'm thinking the first thing I'm going to do is put a tag on everything that doesn't have an inline citation. It's worked in other collaborations I've been part of. We just start by citing everything and then move from that point into expanding the article. Usually as we cite what's already here, we'll start running into what isn't here yet. Wrad ( talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We need to get all of our bases covered on this. Can someone make a color-coded map of the world showing legality of homeschooling across the world, also another possibly showing # of homeschooled in different countries?
I'm putting together a list here:
-- Wrad ( talk) 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Wrad ( talk) 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a draft. Image:Homeschool Legality-World.svg. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Russia—Legal. [16] Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 17:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the four categories of the map: Legal, legal but contested, illegal but uncontested, illegal. Let's list according to that. Wrad ( talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source for homeschooling being legal in Greenland? As an article about Greenland states "education is free and compulsory for all children between the ages of 7 and 16". Note that Greenland is completely autonomous since 1979, only before that date it was a colony of European Denmark. Should we reform the European table into an international one? Or create extra tables for other continents? - Species8473 ( talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we change the map legend to the following?
With that the United States remains yellow as by 1 and Swistzerland orange by 2 - Species8473 ( talk) 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have done some research on homeschooling in European countries, and created a table to hold all the information. It's quite big so I put it on a seperate page.
Current gaps:
Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Georgia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Serbia, Vatican City.
Everyone is encouraged to help with the gaps, feel free to take them out the list above when done. Extra sources and information for other countries are most welcome as well.
Current issues:
Greetings, Species8473 ( talk) 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be yellow, since it's part of the US? Wrad ( talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for peer review a second time. Criticism is welcome at the peer review page. Thanks. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done quite a bit of work cleaning this article up and re-writing a few sections. Any thoughts on the changes I've made? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph about educational games in the "methodology" section seems to be condoning a particular point of view, and it also seems out of place/irrelevant. This paragraph reads:
Recently, the parents of both home schooled children and compulsory education schools are using educational games to make learning fun. Educational games cross the barrier between both types of schooling. They are intended to give children a positive attitude towards learning, and self-motivation. In response to the popularity of educational computer games, a wide variety of subjects are now covered in these games. Free online schools including colleges have made home schooling an easier transition from compulsory education, because the computer teaches the child instead of a parent or teacher, allowing the parent time to work their job. Free job training can also be learned online for those who can't afford college tuition, or who live far from schools. Amillion ( talk) 08:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is "homeschoolee" the only grammatically correct term for homeschooled students, and should it therefore be used regardless of whether or not it is used by outside sources, or is the term inappropriate for a Wikipedia article because it is not used by reputable sources? (In other words, should the extent to which a term is used by credible sources determine whether or not it is used on Wikipedia?)
Homeschooling :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.190.144 ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The tag on this page that says "The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources," although it explicitly states otherwise, does actually imply article ownership. Questions about verification and sources should be placed on the talk page where any editor can respond. I think that this tag should be removed. Amillion ( talk) 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The map I'm commenting on: homeschool legality world I think some of the information on it isn't correct. Starting with the Netherlands, where I happen to live. Homeschooling is not completely illegal in the Netherlands, it just has very high requirments, is opposed by political parties, and we virtually have none. Belgium has a similar situation, home schooling is allowed, but only if the parents prove able. And although the number of homeschooled children is higher, it's still a very tiny percentage. Sweden I believe should be yellow, virtually no homeschooled children and opposed by major political parties. I think a good improvement for the map would be to change orange into meaning legal under restricted conditions. And with that I would think about anything that goes further then registration. Another improvement for the map would be if it gives an indication on the percentage of home schoolers. Countries like Poland, Ireland, Czech, and earlier mentioned virtually have none. - Species8473 ( talk) 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
For some reason Finland is orange on the map. Primary education is compulsory and controlled, but there is no obligation to attend a school (preschool is compulsory in some cases, but preschool is otherwise explicitely non-compulsory).
This is confirmed at Ministery of Education: Home schooling (Swedish).
There is no movement about homeschooling (that I know about) and nearly everybody is attending school, so it might be true that attending school is believed by many to be compulsory, but it is clearly recognized as a legal option.
The cases of homeschooling I have heard about have been about parents taking a year off abroad and arranging the education themselves, asking the children's teacher for advice before departure. In these cases attending a local school would not have been practical, for lingual or logistic reasons.
-- LPfi ( talk) 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Report: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
Any comments on these points before I add them to the "criticism of supportive achievements studies" section? - Species8473 ( talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires content to be verifiable. Especially the methodology section seems to need work there. Under educational games fact templates have already been added. But all-in-one curricula, student-paced learning and community resources completely lack any sources. I trust this information wasn't made up, but things like "homeschooles often take advantage of.." and "groups of homeschooling families often.." should be backed up by sources and/or statistics.
I have checked on the history of the community resources section, and it appears to date back to March 2005. With an extra paragraph added at July 2007. Lucky enough Wahoofive is still among us so perhaps he has some sources.
Greetings, Species8473 ( talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should discuss this? Do we want such a list in the article? Or prefer a section where it is also mentioned why they are notable? And who is to be in the list/section, who not? I personally have issues with Abraham Lincoln, Sandra Day O'Conner and Winston Churchill being in the list. The source used seems to list people as soon as they read a book at home once in combination with being famous. For example Sandra Day O'Conner in the list, she "attended the Radford School, a private academy for girls, from kindergarten through high school." 1 Even Albert Einstein made it to that 2 list, and he clearly was never homeschooled 3. Species8473 ( talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the references needed tag. There is a reference to the full list, which is from a noted homeschooling cite. It is sufficient, but could be improved. To the people who keep placing various tags throughout the article, PLEASE start adding more citations instead of cluttering the article with tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManBuiltPrice ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the names are linked to other Wiki articles that mention that the person had some homeschooling; the citation that is used comes from a source that is generally reputable, as far as I can tell (no evidence has been presented to the contrary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow555 ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm challenging the Rosa Parks list entry, as I have been reading through a lot of internet biographies now, but have not found one of them stating she was homeschooled or anything along those lines. While a short biography about her states that she did go to a school. It does add to that the situation in the school was bad because of racism, but this alone indicates she went to a school. Another internet biography about her states: "When she completed her education in Pine Level at age eleven, her mother, Leona, enrolled her in Montgomery Industrial School for Girls".
I have also removed sources that provide merely a list of names. They are poor as reliable source and on verifiability, and not interesting for those looking them up for extra information on what kind of homeschooling the person received. I did not remove the " So - Why Do You Homeschool?" book as source, because this one does provide a limited amount of extra information. Species8473 ( talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
About Rosa Parks, see [18]. Species8473, I don't appreciate it that several people go and find references and then you delete them because you have subjective opinions about their valididty. Unless you can show that the source is not clearly wrong, the source should stand on its own merit; let the reader decide. HomePolice ( talk) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposal for section about notable homeschooled people. With as goal to provide useful factual information. I have kept the discussion over deletion of homeschooled individuals in mind while creating it:
Example: Thomas Alva Edison, an American inventor and businessman, was taught reading, writing and arithmetic by his mother. Before that he left school for only three month, where he had trouble following the lessons. Most of his other education he received from reading books on his own. 1 And for this example I would say it is questionable at point two and three, because most of his education seems to have been originated from self education through reading books. So that makes a good point for discussion.
Please state if you think this is a good proposal. Species8473 ( talk) 12:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made my proposal as the the criteria we should use.
Z gin der 2008-06-02T15:21Z ( UTC)
Only the first and second criteria seem good. The second is difficult because whether someone is homeschooled is a binary variable that has nothing at all to do with choice or necessity. The fourth criterion is problematic because of the subjective nature regarding what information is deemed relevant. HomePolice ( talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the current section is accurate. No sources have been added, and one of the editors has ignored comments on his talk page. But to the point, during the early middle ages European countries like France had free public education. 1 And before that ancient Greece and Rome were known to have both voluntary and compulsory educational systems. 2 Even if countries had no educational system at all, this does not mean "the vast majority of people were schooled at home". I would say that they simply received no education at all, as is the case in many third world countries today. Species8473 ( talk) 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The final paragraph of this section is indirectly related to homeschooling, it seems. This whole page should be neutral of this sort of innuendo, I propose. Snow555 ( talk) 17:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Snow555, that this section would be better placed in an article about "Child Abuse". This section suffers from "Undue Weight" (NPOV 2.3) in its focus on a few freak incidents and its reliance on the opinions of Marcia Herman-Giddens of the North Carolina Child Advocacy Institute. This section is irrelevant to homeschooling and I wonder whether the bias of one editor is effecting the neutrality of the article. Dumb All Over ( talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that the section about child abuse is totally irrelevant for the article on homeschooling, and therefore should be completely deleted. The fact that we can find on internet a few cases where someone accused someone of child abuse involving homeschooling does not make it relevant for an encyclopedic text. Saying that "there are no studies indicating a correlation of child abuse with homeschooling" not only does NOT make it neutral, but also proves that what was written before has no relevance either to be here or on any other article. I also recommend that we should delete this article until this dispute is resolved. How can we do that? as it seems that it was tried before and Species8473 keeps undoing it. Mlonguin ( talk) 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Child abuse [section heading]
An argument against homeschooling has been that child abuse can occur in an environment closed to the outside world. [1] During October 2003, CBS News broadcast two controversial reports about situations in which homeschooling parents killed their children, and one suicide case. Marcia Herman-Giddens, a member of the North Carolina task force reviewing the cases, concluded that home school laws "allow persons who maltreat children to maintain social isolation in order for the abuse and neglect to remain undetected". [1] [2] However, after the CBS News reports aired, National Review described the stories as "one of the most bizarre news judgements ever", and 33 members of Congress signed a letter addressed to (now former) CBS News president Andrew Heyward which stated in part, "You chose to take a handful of tragic incidents and, from them, cast aspersions on the entire homeschool movement. Your report was unfair and indicative of both bias and ignorance." [3] [4] Further assessments by other media sources brought into question the journalistic integrity of CBS News with regard to this report and others in the past. [5]
A February 2005 child abuse case resulted in the Arizona state Governor Janet Napolitano stating that she would examine the state's laws on homeschooling. This prompted a response from County School Superintendent Kim Fields, who pointed out that public school children are also being abused and stated, "You can't stop abuse by changing an education setting." No changes were deemed necessary or ever publicly proposed. [6]
- ^ a b A Dark Side To Home Schooling (Oct 13, 2003 CBS News)
- ^ Home Schooling Nightmares (Oct 14, 2003 CBS News)
- ^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35336 Congressmen slam CBS for homeschool story] (Oct 30, 2003)
- ^ "Letter from the Members of Congress" (PDF). 2003-10-22. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
{{ cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
( help)- ^ The CBS Record on Truth (Sept 14, 2004)
- ^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42822 Abuse case prompts rethink of homeschool laws] (Feb 12, 2005, WorldNetDaily)
I added the text above (which had been removed and restored) to aid discussion by uninvolved editors. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like a third opinion to include the "financial obligations" section that was removed along. This edit includes an updated version of the "child abuse" section: removal of criticism sections.
There are a number of sources that report about a connection with child abuse for it to be included in this article. Especially the two news reports by CBS News have received a lot of attention. With as many as ~117.000 google search results on related keywords. The reports include citations from an interview with DrPH Marcia Herman-Giddens who can be regarded an expert on child abuse. Another reputable news source, the New York Times, also makes the connection with homeschooling and child abuse in an article. Here Dr. Clive R. Belfield (Queens College) states that “limited compliance and follow-up” gave abusive families “an excuse to get out of being observed.” and Dr. Mitchell L. Stevens (New York University) "Home schooling removes children from a lot of that surveillance". Another source that can be used is Carla Katz (president of the Commmunications Workers of America) stating 1 "Home schooling creates gaps. Nearly 20% of all abuse cases are reported by schools. When children are outside the school system, extra protections are critical. There are no home schooling regulations that would require homeschooled children to see anyone from the public education system. There is no cross-referencing with the Department of Education to look for children who are in the ‘system’ but have not been seen by anyone." Species8473 ( talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This dispute was listed at requests for a third opinion. I had not even read this article before finding it from there. I have read the disputed section, and read the statements here on the talk page. I must say that I am impressed with the civility of the discussion.
To start, the section was appropriately placed as a subsection of criticism. All attempts were made to provide an balanced view of the report. The initial source used was a reliable source, however I feel that the CBS news report has now gained more notoriety for its criticism and the outside response to the report than did the report itself. It describes a single incident that causes problems of undue weight being given in the overall article.
I do not consider WorldNetDaily to meet the standards required by WP:RS, and that leaves us with an unbalanced section - a definite problem with NPOV policy. Additionally, with all due respect to contributions on other projects, User:Species8473 is a SPA for all due purposes of this dispute on the en-wp. I don't believe that I should weigh those opinions as fully objective.
I do not believe there are sufficient reliable sources to justify inlcusion at this time, nor that there are enough reliable opposing opinions to balance the inclusion of one very suspicious, and highly controversial, report.
I believe such a section would be very appropriate for this article if and when multiple reliable sources are found to sustain such inclusion. Jim Miller ( talk) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm totally new to this topic, so I guess I'm a NPOV. My opinion is that unless there is a significant ratio of child abuse accusations to home schooled children, the child abuse allegations are irrelevant. I would like to see cited statistics showing that the ratio of child abuse is higher in home schooling than that in state (En-US: public) or public (En-US: private) schooling before this section should be re-introduced. Child abuse happens in both small and large schools, so until someone can produce stats proving the link between size of school (eg. 1, 100, 1000) and likelihood of child abuse, I fail to see it. For the record, I am state (En-US: public) schooled in the UK and was head of anti-spam at a large multinational computer security firm from 2004-2007 where I occasionally and infrequently provided technical assistance to Ceop at Scotland Yard for child abuse image investigations. Andrew Oakley ( talk) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not revisiting this sooner, but I was away from home for a week and unable to read the replies to my opinion. User:Species8473 has appropriately pointed out that I missed the fact that User:Snow555 is also an SPA for the purposes of this debate. That was my oversight. For the purposes of the Child Abuse section and my Third Opinion, I have done no independant research other than the sources used in the article.
As written, the proposed section still has issues with giving undue weight to limited sources. The phrase "An argument" sounds universal. I recommend that the first sentence be rewritten as "Some people have made the argument that child abuse can occur..." or preferably "At least one investigator has claimed that child abuse can occur..." in order to give the section proper weight. According to the citations used in the article, there are two sources of specific incidents out of more than one million homeschooled children in the US alone in 2003, millions more world-wide. With the sources provided, the language must be unambiguous as to how many reports are actually being cited, and their relative weight when compared to the total numbers, in order to preserve a neutral point of view. When appropriate language is achieved by concensus here, the current sources justify inlcuding the section if given proper weight.
I have also been asked to add an opinion regarding the Financial obligations section that was incorporated into this discussion by its deletion. This section seems to be seriously problematic. The first two sentences of that section, where the claims are made, are not cited. Without sources, those conlclusions are original research. The sources that are cited do not support the conclusions stated in those sentences. When those sentences are removed, the rest of the section makes very little sense. The entire sections failed to show that there is any undue burden on those families who homeschool, and that idea contradicts other cited statements in the article at Homeschooling#United_States. I do not believe that this sections add anything to the article, nor does it contribute to a greater understanding of the subject. Without the OR sentences, the section does not even seem appropriate for a criticism section, because there is no sourced criticism.
I will continue to monitor the discussion here for a few weeks, and will be available if anyone here wishes me to provide additional opinions. Jim Miller ( talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
MightySmall ( talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like question the verifiability and neutrality of the very far fetched criticism of homeschooling for the purpose of 'Child Abuse'.
I would liken this to having section in "School" stating that one criticism of school is that some group up to be murderers, rapists, and child abusers, or that many schooled children have commited violent and sometimes deadly acts of violence. There are even many ancedotal examples of teachers using their position of power to abuse children, mentally, physically & sexually, but it would not be neutural to use them in a piece about the definition of schooling. While these may be 'true' are they are simply not neutral in terms of defining what a school is and what it does.
I think this section needs to be added back. It is part of the critical discourse on homeschooling, and I felt that the section was presented well (showing both sides). Wrad ( talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In looking over the references in the child abuse section, as well as the extant discussion and editing history, the heading for the section seemed inaccurate. I changed it from "Potential opportunity for abuse" to "Potential for undetected abuse" since as has been mentioned, there is no comparative research out there that points to more abuse going on in homeschool households than in households where children attend a school. It has not been established that homeschool households bear within themselves any specially elevated potential for abuse. One could only reasonably say that it might be more likely that abuse originating from within a homeschool household would be detected if the homeschooled children were instead attending a school. I'm not actually in favor of even retaining this section, as its presence seems arbitrary and overly weighted. No research makes any connection between homeschooling and increased levels of child abuse. If we as editors are including this section on the strength of the claim that the abuse of a homeschooled child is less likely to be detected, it would seem we'd have to append many Wikipedia pages with sections on "Potential for undetected abuse". For instance, abuse of children by Boy Scout troop leaders has been anecdotally associated, but it is hardly a salient aspect of The Boy Scouts, worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia on The Boy Scouts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usefulefforts ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC) And apologies, I forgot to sign my name for the passage directly above! Usefulefforts ( talk) 04:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a copy of the now deleted article, List of homeschooled individuals, and it can be viewed at User:Diligent Terrier/List of homeschooled individuals. We need to work on merging information from that page into this article. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 01:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edits because there was already a page for notable homeschooled students and it was deleted. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
They should certainly be included because homeschooling was a big part of their early life. The separate article was deleted per WP:NOT#INFO, which does not apply to this article. However WP:TRIVIA does and they should be written in sentences instead of a list. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this section be removed for the following reasons: 1) There are no sources cited for this section. 2) The section appears to consist of opinion rather than fact. 3) The portion dealing with demographics would be better placed in a section on demographics. 4) The section is vague. 5) The article is about homeschooling, not statistics. Dumb All Over ( talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to quote the first line of the Verification policy on Wikipedia, Species: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (emphasis in original). Without citations, that section is in violation of policy and should be removed. It doesn't matter how true it is. Either we add citations soon, or we remove it. Wrad ( talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Species8473: Please don't perform wholesale-restoration of questionable material. I have reverted your edits, and restored the section to which you added a citation. The Financial section was NOT criticism and portraying it as such misrepresents the sources cited; do not restore that unless it's done in a demographics section. If you want questionable material to appear in this article, propose it here on the talk page. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The section makes claims about the application of statistics by editors that have a limited understanding of statistics and how they are used. The claim being made was that because samples are drawn from two populations that are possibly different (because of selection bias) that no comparisons whatsoever can be made. This argument has some merit but is too general. To state that some self-selection happens and then to extend this to all tested populations is not a valid inference. On the other hand, some states require home schooled students to take the same tests as those given in conventional schools, and the average differences found elsewhere remain present. Finally, just because group differences can not be verified statistically does not mean that they don't exist. The only claim that can be made is that statistics are not valid in these cases. Snow555 ( talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reference for this: "The lack of "formal" records and transcripts (kept by school districts) can be a problem for home-schooled students that wish to enter college." It appears to be conjecture. Multidimensional ( talk) 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)multidimensional
It seems to me that information on cost estimates from various studies, to the extent they help the article, ought to be included in the main body of the article and not as criticism. Also, the costs for homeschooling materials and resources are essentially the same regardless of whether one or two or neither parent or guardian is in the labour force. The fact that one parent typically stays home can be included in a section on demographics. Dumb All Over ( talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Removed source for violation of terms under what wikipedia material can be used. Such as that it must be licensed under GFDL and have acknowledgement of authorship. WP:C Instead it's stated to be copyrighted by the owner of the website. That really is not acceptable. One clear violation is in the methods section of the website, as being a straight copy of what we have under Methodology. The same goes for the Legality page being a copy of international status and statistics. Other parts of the website are copies of older revisions of the wikipedia homeschooling article. It also has objectionable amounts of advertisements and is a bad source. Species8473 ( talk) 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The relationship between schooling and literacy is very complex, and the empirical data is very poor. Right now, the article says that during the 19th century 'many children were educated in private schools or in the home' and that 'illiteracy was common and many children were never properly educated.' The citation for this is a map, not an article, and the conclusions we are supposed to draw from the map are so obviously OR that they have to be explained, at length, in the footnote:
I'm removing this pending some better discussion of the schooling/literacy issue, maybe not in this article. Ethan Mitchell ( talk) 10:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems like the structure of the article could be improved. Especially the way in which supportive research and criticism are offered in two separate chunks, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast the information contained in the two sections. For instance, in the supportive research section, there are some statistics on the relatively high rate of civic involvement in adults who were homeschooled. In the criticisms section which comes after the S.R section, a conjecture by Rob Reich that homeschooling leads to lack of civic involvement is offered. I"d like to propose that the information in the two sections be re-arranged by categories (economic, social, civic, academic, etc,) into two new sections, one called Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for Families and Individuals, and another entitled Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for Society at Large. Usefulefforts ( talk) 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The advantage of separate supportive and critical subsections is that this is a controversial topic and by separating them, we assure that full-throated opinions in each direction can be expressed without countering arguments that may not be conclusive. -- Zeamays ( talk) 20:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted Queen Elizabeth from the list of famous homeschoolees on the grounds that education by professional tutors does not really fit the accepted definition of homeschooling. I was rightfully corrected on this because the article as it now stands does allow for that in the definition in the first paragraph. I would like to change the definition to delete mention of the use of professional tutors. My rationale is as follows:
I would like input on this issue. -- Zeamays ( talk) 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ethan Mitchell: Question, did your clients hire you (and others?) as the main educators of their children, or did they hire you to supplement lessons given by themselves and other unpaid friends and family members? The education of Royals and other elites is typically done by a hired staff, with little teaching by their parents. -- Zeamays ( talk) 16:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Diligent Terrior has a good point. Professional tutors should be deleted from the definition of homeschooling. What is meant by the word "homeschooling" is not schooling by tutors, which is something else entirely. Homeschooling should not be defined entirely by where the teaching and learning occur, but by the fact that the teaching is being directed and controlled by their parents or other relatives. In this context, again consider Emlyn Williams, The Corn is Green, where a school is in a home, but the children aren't being homeschooled. It was common in earlier times (and may still be true in some places) for educated people to open schools in their homes. -- Zeamays ( talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The use of a bold red for illegal and disputed status in the country sections and bold blue for legal seems a little POV and also misleading for readers because of the standard use of red to indicate a clickable link to an empty article and the blue being very close to the color for extant articles.
Don't words do enough to distinguish between the statuses? And if not could we use colors that don't have meaning within the wiki markup and that avoid the "red=stop" and similar conotations that could be considered POV? -- SiobhanHansa 13:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The statistics in the motivations section do not coincide with the links provided later in the section. Since the table itself was not cited, I have no way of knowing if they were drawn from some other version of the source. Perhaps I am missing something, so I wanted to allow for comments. Nevertheless, in lieu of any objections, I will update and reference the table. WDavis1911 ( talk) 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
See [20]. The article and the map should be updated. Wrad ( talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)