The Instigator
Turdle
Con (against)
The Contender
Raumulus
Pro (for)

All children should be home-schooled

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Turdle has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 170 times Debate No: 105871
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Turdle

Con

Unfortunately, your statement that 'all Children should be home-schooled for their primary education' is completely unlogical, unreasonable and impractical. There are multiple flaws. The reality is, there are a large number of families who send their children to school plainly because they lack the educational and/or teaching capabilities to teach their own children. Parents in this situation would have two main options; they can either hire a private tutor, which would be very costly or, attempt to teach their own children which would be very time-consuming. Both options would yield much lesser benefits to their children to if they just sent them to almost completely free, government-funded education.
Raumulus

Pro

Thanks to you, Turdle, for this debate challenge. It's an interesting idea, that I'd like to develop further.

When considering whether "all Children should be home-schooled for their primary education," the obvious first question is: in a perfect world? or in ours?

My resolution is that when not constrained by financial means and education, it is preferable for parents to home-school their children until the sixth grade.

Firstly, I think there is a simple solution by which no family should be too impoverished to provide home-schooling. Simply, if a voucher system is implemented to pay for public and private schools, those vouchers should also be redeemable for school supplies and programs. In that way home-schooling would be just as free as government-funded education.

Secondly, concerning the time-consumption: any valuable occupation produces something valuable, and anything valuable is proportionally worthwhile; that is to say, however great a thing is in value, a proportionally great amount of effort and time is justified in producing that thing. This is obvious, but what next follows is grossly overlooked globally, and specifically in American society. The most valuable product is a good child; good children grow into good men, good men compose good societies, and good societies produce happiness, which is the absolute end of human action. Therefore children warrant the largest amount of time spent on anything. Therefore the proper education of children can never be fittingly considered "too time-consuming."

Practically speaking, however, so much time on child-education such that they cease to produce the wealth to provide for that education. This crosses into the solution of the voucher system, but of course, on the whole, the majority of families need to be producing more wealth than they consume, or the society is doomed. This problem is naturally solved by having two parents, I'd say. The one works outside the house, the other educates and house-keeps. If the income from one parent should not be sufficient, then again, the voucher system.

So then, these are the ways that the problems of time and financial constraints might be dealt with. Now, I'll just briefly argue why for this family not restricted by time or money, it's best to home-school for the early years. The early years of the child are his most formative years. By spending the majority of these years in close fellowship with his family, the child is able to properly form the familial bonds which are the smallest and most crucial thread in the fabric of society. Of course, this relies on the parents properly being able to instruct the child. This of course, they would know, if their parents had before them taught well. This begins with philosophy, however, where one first learns how to live properly.

It's a simple argument, I'm interested to hear your comments.
Debate Round No. 1
Turdle

Con

Hello Raumulus, I would also like to thank you for accepting my debate request and presenting your reasonable and well-written, understandable counter-argument.
However, there are still some practical flaws with home-schooling, even if a voucher system similar to the one you mentioned was implemented. Quite simply, the cost for the government to manage and fund such a program would be astronomical. When considering a perfect family, in the context of home-schooling capabilities, you mention parents not constrained by either their educational level or finance. You also mention two parents, both of which would have to be mentally and physically healthy, with one capable of finding a sustainable job, capable of meeting the needs of two to three dependants while the other parent has the capabilities to stay home and educate their children. However, families like these are a minority group.
Let me give you an example. There is a very large percentile of families in countries such as America, Australia and Canada where both of the parents are first-generation foreign migrants. As you would expect, both parents would usually face language barriers and cultural barriers. You also haven't considered a large number of families supported by only one parent. The reality is, the majority of families fail to check all of the required boxes to allow for effective home-schooling (in comparison to the current choice of education), therefore, requiring aid and support from your suggested voucher system. Usually, this would have the be in the form of a private tutor. If the government were to subsidise a private tutor for every disadvantaged family, you can only imagine the cost. National economies would also face considerable damage as many healthy, working tax-payers are all of a sudden resigning their jobs to stay home.
Additionally, I would like to address your implication that home-schooling leads to better, more functional members of society. I would like to point out once again that we are not in a utopia, there are a huge number of families in Western societies in which parents are in fact a bad influence on their children. Home-schooling would only increase the bad influence from bad parents onto their child(ren) and defeat the point of education - which is to provide an 'opportunity' to grow and improve upon previous generations.
Ultimately, I do agree with your statement that the early years of the child are his/her most formative years. However, I strongly disagree that familial bonds are 'the smallest and most crucial thread in society.' I do not wish to sound heartless, however, society is run on the bonds formed between people of the same interests and intellects. For example, medical researchers do not work with their family to conduct investigations, they work with other like-minded people who have also dedicated their time and intelligence to similar subjects. They have to be capable of cooperating with a wide range of personalities and opinions in the public, from their fellow medical researchers to their investors to their managers and whatnot. The main point is, one of the main things children learn in primary school is how to appropriately socially interact. They learn how to work with each other, share knowledge, take care of public/shared property and so on. School is undoubtedly a slightly dulled down, simpler version of our society.
Every afternoon, these children will return home to their parents and spend time with them. There are also weekends and holidays for family bonding time. Children understand that they have familial support, however, they also learn not to rely on it and learn crucial societal skills.

This is the logic I stand by and personally, I see no need for a new educational system to be introduced.
I look forward to your rebuttal.
Raumulus

Pro

I enjoyed reading your argument, here are my thoughts.

Now again, I must be clear about my resolution, which is that when not disabled by insufficient funds, or insufficient teaching ability, the home-schooling is to be preferred over public-schooling. Which is to say, in "Utopia," as you would have it, the children receive their primary education at home. So then, I will first address your objections through this lens, and then address the feasibility of implementation, although implementation is not directly relevant to my resolution.

Firstly, I will skip to your first objection to the absolute value of home-schooling, that "there are a huge number of families in Western societies in which parents are in fact a bad influence on their children," and that "[h]ome-schooling would only increase the bad influence from bad parents onto their child(ren) and defeat the point of education - which is to provide an 'opportunity' to grow and improve upon previous generations." If parents are bad for their children, then they should not be raising those children in the first place. I think few would agree that it is a healthy dynamic for children to be living with bad parents, regardless of whether they attend public school. The only legal pretense under which a child is allowed to stay with parents is that they are more good for the child than bad. Therefore public school should not be preferred as a means to escape the bad influence of parents

Secondly, concerning your objection concerning society: that "familial bonds are [not] 'the smallest and most crucial thread in society,'" but that "society is run on the bonds formed between people of the same interests and intellects." You give for example that "researchers do not work with their family to conduct investigations, they work with other like-minded people who have also dedicated their time and intelligence to similar subjects." This would be a valid point, if the aim of society were scientific progress, or any given sort of production, other than the production of good citizens. Familial bonds are indeed the fabric of society because it is through these relations that children truly learn appropriate social action. This is because love, that is, good-will, is the basis of proper social interaction. I posit a few things in this idea: that love is the natural reason for a man to treat another well, and that love exists naturally between family members and not between strangers, and that one must learn how to build the proper habits in order to treat loved ones fairly. The conclusion I draw from these things is that children should first form habits to properly treat those they have a natural love for, and thence apply those habits to those they have no natural love for. Simply put this: that every child should learn to love his neighbor as his brother, but first must learn how properly to love his brother. In light of this principle, I say that home-schooling is preferable as a primary education.

Large public schools simply cannot provide the emotional care that young children require. As you were saying, in this phase of life, children are encountering all sorts of new situations that they have no experience with, such as working together, and sharing. According to human nature, these sorts of interactions will always result in some form of conflict; and at the heart of every conflict, is always emotion. In order to learn how to properly respond to and manage these emotions, children require a great deal of individual attention. In a public class-room setting, this is simply not possible. There are a few factors which contribute to this impossibility. Firstly, the number of students is simply too great, and the schedule too rigid, to allow each child the extensive individual counseling he requires. Secondly, the teacher, or principal, or any other school staff member cannot possibly have as profound a relationship with a child as the child's parent can, and therefore is not able to deal with the child with the same level of understanding and love. Thirdly, as most emotional situations at school are going to occur between students, the parents' respective authority over their children makes resolution of classroom conflict very difficult. Because each parent favors his own child, each is more likely to see through a bias, blaming the other's child as the offender. Whereas in a home environment, a parent is able to arbitrate and council each child, without bias towards either, loving them equally. This solution to this issue is attempted in the form of principal arbitration, however this is largely ineffective, as the child is most unwilling to receive discipline and counseling from a teacher, while his own parent disagrees. This is an example of the benefit of experiencing conflict first within the family.

I do remind you, however, that I am not advocating for home-schooling up until adulthood. Middle and high-school are the perfect opportunity for children to experience a heightened level of independence, and put into practice more continually their social skills, learned within the family.

Of course it is also important to remember that while being home-schooled in the early years, there are plenty of communities for the children to be involved in such as sports, arts groups, and local friends. These are the first trial grounds of the habits cultivated in the family, it is important that these trials take a secondary position to the actual formation of the habits.

That being said, a few words on the practicality of the home-schooling. A private tutor for every disadvantaged family are of course not a feasible solution, you're right on that. However I do think you're overestimating the general price of the home-schooling. For instance, the government could establish whatever method they deem best by which to evaluate the quality of education, and individual companies could compete to provide packages of materials to educate with, which would drive prices down. Combine that with the lack of primary schooling facilities or teachers to pay for, I think that education could indeed be much less expensive, with similar academic results. The fact that some parents would be taken out of the workforce is a good point, but as said earlier, the proper raising of children is the most worth-while activity, so the slightly reduced economic growth should be accepted. They would only be out of the workforce until their child enters the sixth grade anyhow, so the economic retardant would be very slight indeed.

On the point of certain parents being too poorly educated to teach their children, this brings into question the value of the public education system as a whole. If our public education program is effective, than those graduated should have all the education necessary to teach the same curriculum. Especially considering the fundamental nature of the first fifth grades.

But again, if any family should have some extraneous circumstances, which for whatever reason entirely leave them unable to home-school, then an education should be provided to them, at the public expense. The fact that some families may be unable to home-school, does not effect whether home-schooling is the most preferable.

Therefore, I summarize my case, that home-schooling is preferable to public schooling, because it provides for the proper development of relational habits.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.