The Disadvantages of Home-Schooling

A small stint in homeschooling and going by what the DCFS and the teachers' union tells you is not accurate. This is pure opinion and speculation and is not representative of all homeschools. There are so many stereotypes out there it's maddening to try to correct them all, but as a liberal, urban, educated Pagan mother of an only child in a dual-income family who believes in sparing the rod, I feel it is my duty to nip these sorts of stereotypes in the bud.

Yes, there are bound to be awkward kids who are homeschooled, but this is not the norm. Not all kids are extroverted, even the ones thrown into every extracurricular available; the fact is, some kids are just plain shy. There are unfortunately also going to be children who will end up with less than an adequate education, and children who are abused, and children who are under way too much pressure to excel. I am not arguing these sorts of things happen, but I feel obligated to point out these problems exist in public schools, private schools, parochial schools and what have you. Good schools, including good homeschools, bring out the best in children. Bad schools, in all their guises, result in children unprepared for the world.

We homeschool our son because it is what we feel is best for him. The local high school is atrociously poor academically and outright dangerous! I live in Chicago, and incidents of children being victimized is not a rare occurrence. Sadly, the media is fairly on target in this circumstance. If having our son "socialize" with near-animals, overseen by teachers who are merely there to collect a check is your opinion of a solid education, then I must humbly and respectfully disagree.

I am sorry you had an unhappy experience, but I would appreciate it if opinionated articles like these were not disguised as fact.

Thank you.

Lori Dake wrote:

A small stint in homeschooling and going by what the DCFS and the teachers' union tells you is not accurate. This is pure opinion and speculation and is not representative of all homeschools. There are so many stereotypes out there it's maddening to try to correct them all, but as a liberal, urban, educated Pagan mother of an only child in a dual-income family who believes in sparing the rod, I feel it is my duty to nip these sorts of stereotypes in the bud.
Yes, there are bound to be awkward kids who are homeschooled, but this is not the norm. Not all kids are extroverted, even the ones thrown into every extracurricular available; the fact is, some kids are just plain shy. There are unfortunately also going to be children who will end up with less than an adequate education, and children who are abused, and children who are under way too much pressure to excel. I am not arguing these sorts of things happen, but I feel obligated to point out these problems exist in public schools, private schools, parochial schools and what have you. Good schools, including good homeschools, bring out the best in children. Bad schools, in all their guises, result in children unprepared for the world.
We homeschool our son because it is what we feel is best for him. The local high school is atrociously poor academically and outright dangerous! I live in Chicago, and incidents of children being victimized is not a rare occurrence. Sadly, the media is fairly on target in this circumstance. If having our son "socialize" with near-animals, overseen by teachers who are merely there to collect a check is your opinion of a solid education, then I must humbly and respectfully disagree.
I am sorry you had an unhappy experience, but I would appreciate it if opinionated articles like these were not disguised as fact.
Thank you.

Aren't you doing the same thing? Your whole post is based, not on statistics or fact, but on personal experience.
The facts are that home-schooled kids, if not provided some manner of socialization (sports, clubs, etc.) will not get the proper socialization skills as other children. And the reality is that people spend a vast majority of their lives in social settings (work, family, friends, marriage, etc.) Without those skills, children of home-schooling find life outside of school very difficult and isolating.
You state, that it's up to the school to bring out the best in children. I disagree. I believe that it's up to the parents to instill those values in children that will allow them to bring out the best in themselves. I don't believe in bad schools; I believe in bad teachers and bad students.
And the reality is that, just because you love your child, doesn't mean you're going to be a good teacher, nor they a good student.

There's not really a way for kids to get numerous friends if any at all. The only friends they can get are their neighbors.

Regardless of whether or not a kid gets properly socialized or not, here are some other disadvantages to home-schooling:
1. Money. School Districts, whether they're poor or wealthy, have more money than a single family (and the families that have more money than a school district send their kids to boarding school anyway). They have access to programs and equipment that an HS family could only dream about.
2. Access. School Districts have access to field trips that an average citizen would not. Sure schools and families can go to zoos, aquariums, planetariums and museums, but schools can also get into water-treatment plants and other utilities that the average person cannot access.
3. Variety. HS people always say, "My kids don't just learn in the classroom, they go to museums and planetariums, etc." But what if your town doesn't have any of those? I'm lucky, I live 30 minutes outside of Chicago, so I have access to all those things. But what about smaller towns in other States? Schools there can have examples and equipment brought in for the kids to see.
4. Regulation. This is my biggest argument against HS, there's regulations concerning what's being taught. Even with regulation, there's no one to really check on what a HS kid learns, since the teacher is also the parent. But there's hundreds, sometimes thousands of parents who are keeping an eye on what the school is teaching their kids.
5. Personal Time. Kids need to get away from their parents to develop properly. They need to be able to form their own opinions and be able to ask questions. At the very least they just need time for themselves (as do Mom and Dad). How can a child ever learn to think for themselves if they're constantly under the yoke of their parents' beliefs?
Preparation for Life. Later in life, they're going to have to physically go to a job. Why wait? Get 'em used to getting up in the morning and leaving the house now.

Ultimately, I believe that HS is not about what's right for the children, but about the Parents' own selfishness. But, that's my opinion.

The main disadvantage to home schooling is that children do not have the opportunity to swim nude with their classmates, or have the pleasure of seeing a misbehaving student receive a bare-bottom spanking in front of the class.

MaltaMon wrote:

The main disadvantage to home schooling is that children do not have the opportunity to swim nude with their classmates, or have the pleasure of seeing a misbehaving student receive a bare-bottom spanking in front of the class.

Hmm, Dorval Canada? That's not where MaltaMon is from.Oh wait, it's Bob pretending to be others as always. Bob,your obsession with naked children is disturbing.Furthermore, stop disrupting threads with your pedophile fantasies.

Yadayadayada....

The main advantage to home schooling is that the child will be safely out of the reach of sick perverts in Dorval, the sort that wait outside the school gates and the local pool hoping for a glimpse of young boys.

Sort of like what Phil the Pill does back in Salford.

iamwhoiamm wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmm, Dorval Canada? That's not where MaltaMon is from.Oh wait, it's Bob pretending to be others as always. Bob,your obsession with naked children is disturbing.Furthermore, stop disrupting threads with your pedophile fantasies.

You've been on the forum at least as long as I have, iamwhoiam, and if you look at posts under my own name, I have never indicated that I am gay or a pedophile.
You're probably familiar with the Letters section of the National Lampoon. Once, a letter asked, "Are your letters real, or do you make them up?-Bob Guccione, New York".
Obviously, Mr. Guccione didn't write that letter, but we all got the joke.
If you still haven't figured out the point of my alter ego posts, then you really are thick. You are an annoying troll, to be sure, but I had you pegged a little higher on the evolutionary ladder than cretins like tnmtndude and CaDad. How disappointing.

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
You've been on the forum at least as long as I have, iamwhoiam, and if you look at posts under my own name, I have never indicated that I am gay or a pedophile.
You're probably familiar with the Letters section of the National Lampoon. Once, a letter asked, "Are your letters real, or do you make them up?-Bob Guccione, New York".
Obviously, Mr. Guccione didn't write that letter, but we all got the joke.
If you still haven't figured out the point of my alter ego posts, then you really are thick. You are an annoying troll, to be sure, but I had you pegged a little higher on the evolutionary ladder than cretins like tnmtndude and CaDad. How disappointing.

You post as others, attributing to them opinions they don't hold,but which you do.I have indeed been on this forum as long as you(probably less so),so I know why tmntndude attacks you,and why CaDad did the same,and it's because you hold these opinions/ideas that you try to attribute to others.Remember the nudity threads that were deleted?Back then,Sir Arthur posted his CFNM crap along with his sexual fantasies involving kids, and you seemed to be in agreement with him.Now that Sir Arthur is gone and you're here almost by yourself, you're trying to backtrack,pretending you never held the ideas you try to attribute to others.However,I know otherwise.As you pointed out,I've been here as long as you.So spare me whatever pretense you have for your "alter ego" posts.Whatever reasons you want to claim, that fact remains that you're impersonating others.

Like I said, I pegged you as sharper than the other two, but obviously I was wrong.
I have never posted in favour of sexual fantasies involving kids, or supported those who did.
Read my post above (#10) again, since you obviously just don't get it.
Spare me your groundless accusations, moron.

Bob wrote:

Like I said, I pegged you as sharper than the other two, but obviously I was wrong.
I have never posted in favour of sexual fantasies involving kids, or supported those who did.
Read my post above (#10) again, since you obviously just don't get it.
Spare me your groundless accusations, moron.

Just because all those nudity threads were deleted doesn't mean what you wrote and who you supported is forgotten.You can claim otherwise,but those who remember the old threads know better.

While your opinion of me may have changed, my opinion of you has remained the same.I've always pegged you as an idiot.You couldn't hold your own against me then, and you can't now.

You've had it in for me ever since I (correctly) pointed out that you misquoted Sir Arthur. I didn't even agree with him, I just pointed out your error.
And you, i-am-a-baby-lala-i-am just couldn't take it.

And as to holding my own against you, there's nothing to hold. I know what I posted, and if you still don't get the joke, you have a poor memory, or you're a liar, or are just stupid.

I'll go with the "just stupid", and having said that, will not debate the issue any further.

Bob wrote:

You've had it in for me ever since I (correctly) pointed out that you misquoted Sir Arthur. I didn't even agree with him, I just pointed out your error.
And you, i-am-a-baby-lala-i-am just couldn't take it.
And as to holding my own against you, there's nothing to hold. I know what I posted, and if you still don't get the joke, you have a poor memory, or you're a liar, or are just stupid.
I'll go with the "just stupid", and having said that, will not debate the issue any further.

You ignorantly thought I misquoted Arthur,but then looked like an idiot(along with arthur) when I linked to his post and everyone could read for themselves how he said exactly what I said he said.So I reiterate: You've never held your own, and you never will.

Yep, "just stupid".....

Bob wrote:

Yep, "just stupid".....

Typical response by someone who has no argument.

I won't get sucked into a "Did!"/"Did not!" argument with you.
Sorry, won't take the bait.

Bob wrote:

I won't get sucked into a "Did!"/"Did not!" argument with you.
Sorry, won't take the bait.

There is no argument.There's only the facts,and your revisionism.

I see that a=am-a-yob-and-a-knob-i-am claims there is no argument, but keeps posting trying to argue.
What a yob. What a knob.
What a moron.