The Instigator
phantom
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
salve
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Getting rid of home schooling in America

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,503 times Debate No: 15712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

phantom

Con

Pro will be arguing that home schooling should be gotten rid of in America, and why.
Con will be arguing that home schooling should be kept legal, and why.

Definitions:
(1) Home schooling: Doing school at home. It can be only at home, or both at a co-op and at home.
(2) Co-op: A way of doing school for home schoolers when a group of home schooled kids go to a place (could be a church or house) to meet and have classes. Usually it's just once a week that they meet, but you can also join more than one co-op. The classes will usually be taught by parents of the home schoolers, and homework will usually be given out to do during the week.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rules:
(1) No semantics.

(2) Debaters must use proper conduct. No abusive language, rude remarks etc....

(3) Debating will start in round two. First round for acceptance.


I look forward to having this debate!

salve

Pro

I will be arguing that home schooling should be banned in America-that is, that it should be compulsory for all children to attend a school registered by the government, something that would, for obvious reasons, exclude home schooling.

I accept the definitions you've set out.

Good luck, Phantom. I'm looking forward to the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
phantom

Con

First I would like to thank my save for excepting the debate.

Argument

Convenience:

Some times it is much more convenient for parents and kids to be homeschooled. For example what if a family moves around a lot, for some reason such as one of the parents career. The parents might want their kids to be homeschooled so that they don’t have to change schools so often.

If a kid has social problems, mental problems, or physical problems the parents might not want him to go to a school. Or what if a kid has problems that the parents know would cause him to be unpopular and made fun of at school.

What if the kid gets bullied a lot and hates his life, and hates going to school. Being home schooled my whole life I have met many other home schoolers. I have met or seen kids with mental or social problems, but I find them to often be happy, and actually liked by others.

Finance:

If parents don’t want their kid/kids going to a public school, because of what is being taught their or for some other reason, private schools might be too expensive.

I have been home schooled my whole life, I am currently in two co-ops. This is my first year in a co-op. The idea that home schooled kids don’t get enough socializing is for the most part bogus. I know and have known lots of home schooled kids and none of them appear to have that problem. Besides if a kid thinks he is not meeting enough other kids, that problem can be easily fixed. He can simply stop being home schooled and go to a school. Or he could join a co-op which are way cheaper than schools and are sometimes even free.

Home schooled kids have a good reputation of being smart people. I get mostly B’s or A’s, but for some reason home schoolers generally get good or average grades. Like my sister who is in the honors program at her college :) Of course many kids who go to school get good grades too. But the point is being homeschooled does not mean your education is going not going to be as good.

salve

Pro

I thank Phantom for his reply; I'll respond to Pro's two arguments, then go on to my contentions.

Rebuttal

Convenience

My opponent claims homeschooling is more convenient:

1. 'If a family moves around a lot...the parents might want their kids to be homeschooled'.

This asserts that moving schools is a great inconvenience-it is a minor inconvenience at most. Changing schools won't actually hurt a child-socially, at least children have the opportunity to make new friends when they go to a new school, instead of staying at home, as my opponent proposes. Academically, the curricula in different states of America is not so very different that children can't re-adjust to a new state curriculum.

2. "
If a kid has social problems, mental problems, or physical problems the parents might not want him to go to a school. Or what if a kid has problems that the parents know would cause him to be unpopular and made fun of at school."

Similarly:

3."What if the kid gets bullied a lot and hates his life, and hates going to school."


Firstly, the idea that children who have social, mental or physical problems are not catered to by schools is just wrong. In both private and public systems, not only can these children be brought up in a regular school and given special care, they can also be placed into a different school for people afflicted by the same condition, such as schools for autistic children. [1] Secondly, social, mental or physical problems will not make children unpopular; they can still make friends who are understanding of these problems. However, when they are homeschooled, they cannot make any friends at all.

Finance

My opponent suggests that many students must be homeschooled because their parents disagree with what is being taught at a public school, and they can’t afford private schools.

1. My opponent never gives any reason why any parent would not want their child to be taught at a public school. If the parents have an objection to evolution, it is still the child’s right to be taught modern science in a public school, and creationism can often be taught alongside evoution.

2. It’s much more expensive to homeschool a child than send them to a private school. Homeschooling requires one parent to give up their job; given that the average wage in the US is around $42,000 [2], this is a massive financial blow. Furthermore, it requires parents to buy teaching books, an added cost. If parents were really this worried about finance, they would not homeschool their child.

Iin the same argument, my opponent brings up two more points, that seemed to be unrelated to the finance argument.

Firstly, he says socialization is not a problem for homeschooled kids because “I know and have known lots of home schooled kids and none of them appear to have that problem.” This argument just doesn’t add up; my opponent’s personal experience is not enough evidence. As I will expand on later, there are socialization problems with homeschooling; it stops students from engaging with a broad range of people. The other evidence my opponent puts forward is that “if a kid thinks he is not meeting enough other kids…He can simply stop being home schooled and go to a school.” My opponent assumes that socialization is a highly objective measure; that you wake up one morning and realise you aren’t socialized.

Secondly, he alleges that homeschooled students do better than students who aren’t homeschooled. Again, the reasons for this are that “Home schooled kids have a good reputation of being smart people. I get mostly B’s or A’s;” rumour and Phantom’s personal experience aren’t good enough evidence. In my second argument I will explain how it hurts the academic performance of students.

Arguments

1) The government's responsibility to regulate the education system

My opponent never argued any right for parents to homeschool their children, but in any case, it is the government's role in our society to ensure that all children get a decent level of education; the reason why this is true is that education is a human right. Under the status quo, we can see the government's role in laws requiring all children to go to school and furthermore, the amount of funding governments put into public schools; the US goverment spends around $9000 for every student every years just to ensure they get this decent level of education [3]. As I will argue later, homeschooling hurts schoolchildren's education, both academically and socially; thus, the government has a responsibility to regulate it.

2) Academic

Homeschooling means that a student's academic performance is hurt:

  1. Parents who homeschool their children aren't qualified teachers. Teachers need to go through a system of tertiary education, both in their own subject and in teaching as a whole, to become teachers; parents who homeschool their children don't have these qualifications, and thus won't be able to do the job as well.
  2. The relationship between teachers and students can’t be emulated by a parental relationship. An important part of this relationship is the respect one has for the other; however, when this relationship is parental, any fights teens may have had with their parents will spill over into a lack of respect for the parent who is teaching them, causing them to concentrate less.
  3. Part of learning at school is the exposure to different opinions; not only because it is something students will have to get used to when they enter society, but also because it helps them to develop their own beliefs. When homeschooled, only one view will ever be taken into account. Consider, for example, the teaching of evolution; while at a public school evolution and creationism may both be put forward, a homeschooled student is likely to be exposed to only one side.
  4. In some subjects like science, knowledge has changed drastically from when parents were at school; ideas like evolution or continental drift were only accepted into scientific knowledge recently. Parents are unlikely to understand these ideas.

3) Social

Homeschooling children will mean that they are not exposed to other children their own age; this will not only harm their intellectual development, as I’ve already explained, but also their social development. Schoolchildren need other students their own age so that they can learn to make friends, meet people with different views and become less shy as they grow older. These are all skills children will need later in life, skills not provided through homeschooling.


Homeschooling harms students at school and outside.



1:http://autism.about.com...

2: http://www.worldsalaries.org...
3: http://www2.ed.gov...





Debate Round No. 2
phantom

Con

My opponent claims homeschooling is more convenient:

That’s distorting my words a bit. I’m not saying it’s more convenient for everybody. I said MAY be more convenient. Which I think is an undisputable fact.

This asserts that moving schools is a great inconvenience-it is a minor inconvenience

I have moved a total of three times in my life (from America to Cape town South Africa, from Cape town to Johannesburg SA, and from Jo’burg to Maryland).

And like I said I have been homeschooled my whole life. It is actually a great convenience to be homeschooled. When I moved to America from South Africa we were so busy, it really helped for us to be home schooled.

What about schools, people have committed suicide because they were bullied and made fun of so much. So you can’t just point out all the problems of home schooling, when there are also many problems with going to a real school.

Problems are unavoidable

"Firstly, the idea that children who have social, mental or physical problems.."

What about bullying. Are their special schools for those who get treated badly?

If home schooling is legal than parents have more choices about their childrens education. If home schooling were illegal than parents would have to send their kids to a school even if home schooling would fit their life style better.


The government does make sure we're doing what we're supposed to.

When the end of the school year comes we will have to have an evaluator come to our house and make sure we have done everything according to the laws of home schooling that have been set out.

My work has to get checked at the end of every school year. We must fill out forms, show grades,

You are arguing that regular schooling should be the only form of schooling. I’m saying home schooling and regular schooling should both be legal. There are conveniences and inconvenience for both of them. But if only regular schooling is legal that can cause inconveniences.

More flexibility the family has much more flexibly in meeting theirs and their kids needs if they have both of these choices set out.

It’s much more expensive to homeschool a child than send them to a private school. Homeschooling requires one parent to give up their job


Most parents don’t each have a job. And in times like this I think many mom's wouldn't be able to.

this is a massive financial blow

Furthermore, it requires parents to buy teaching books, an added cost.


We have a simple way of helping that problem. We just reuse text books, and you still have to buy books for a regular school. And it’s not like text books are expensive.

“if a kid thinks he is not meeting enough other kids…He can simply stop being home schooled and go to a school.” My opponent assumes that socialization is a highly objective measure; that you wake up one morning and realise you aren’t socialized.

It’s not like parents are anti schooling. At one point in my life I told my parents I wanted to go to a school the next year, they were perfectly fine with that. I never ended up going to school though as I changed my mind.

My opponent never argued any right for parents to homeschool their children, but in any case, it is the government's role in our society to ensure that all children get a decent level of education;


I wasn’t saying I got good grades. A’s and B’s are about average at my co-op.

Experience does give my an advantage as I have been home schooled my whole life

Parents who homeschool their children aren't qualified teachers. Teachers need to go through a system of tertiary education, both in their own subject and in teaching as a whole, to become teachers; parents who homeschool their children don't have these qualifications, and thus won't be able to do the job as well.

This a common miss understanding. The home school curriculums are made so that the student is able to do most of the work on his own. So that you don’t need a teacher. For example, for my Algebra I watch a video every day. Then I have to work out problems, then after my problems are checked I watch another video that explains all the problems so that I can see what I did wrong.

Parents have to take on a big responsibility when they decide to home school. They will take it seriously.

Part of learning at school is the exposure to different opinions; not only because it is something students will have to get used to when they enter society, but also because it helps them to develop their own beliefs. When homeschooled, only one view will ever be taken into account. Consider, for example, the teaching of evolution; while at a public school evolution and creationism may both be put forward, a homeschooled student is likely to be exposed to only one side.

That isn’t true. I think home schooled parents make sure their kids have knowledge of other ideas. I just took a course that concentrated almost completely on other religions, And I’m taking one next year too.

In some subjects like science, knowledge has changed drastically from when parents were at school; ideas like evolution or continental drift were only accepted into scientific knowledge recently. Parents are unlikely to understand these ideas.

That shows the common lake of understanding of home schoolers. Like I said my parents don’t even teach that much. I can ask them for help but the material is all in the books (which are continually being updated) all I have to do is go back to previous chapters.

Home schooling is a right.

I see from your profile that your for abortion (even late term). Why should woman have the right to get their babies killed. But parents not have the right to home school their kids?

Missionaries. If you’re a missionary to another country when you visit America how are you going to school your children?

There are countless reasons why a parent might not want their child to go to a school because of beliefs.

Most home schoolers go to more events then a regular school boy. Thus they meet more kids their age, ad socialize .

salve

Pro

My opponent attempted to defend a system that sees unqualified parents using videos to try to substitute for a real education and qualified teachers.

This debate has come down to three issues:

  1. The right to homeschool
  2. The academic effects on homeschooled children
  3. The social effects on homeschooled children


1) The right to homeschool

This was something my opponent only addressed indirectly, through his discussion of the convenience and flexibility homeschooling brought. My opponent claimed a right to homeschool children existed because it "MAY be more convenient". My opponent's logic that for people who moved houses frequently it would be more convenient to homeschool their children was faulty because curricula are not that different between states in the US and special language or special needs schools are an openly available option, and because, contrary to my opponent's claims that children with special needs could be bullied, children are not simply bullied because of their background, and, even if they were, this option of special schools is still available. Con only responded to this by saying that:

"It is actually a great convenience to be homeschooled. When I moved to America from South Africa we were so busy, it really helped for us to be home schooled."

This personal experience is simply not enough; my opponent never responded to my reasoning, and his experience is not at all representative.

Furthermore, even if this right did exist, it would not overrule the government's responsibility to ensure every child gets a decent level of education, as I discussed as my first argument. This responsibility exists because education is a basic human right; all children should receive a high-quality education, something that, as I will argue later, homeschooling does not provide, academically or socially; we can see the government's responsibility to provide a decent level education in the very fact that school is compulsory. This was something my opponent never responded to.

My opponent asked during the debate why I support the right to abortion but not to homeschool. Leaving aside the fact that this was well beyond the gambit of this debate, this is because a woman has the right to autonomy over her own body; whereas a parents has no right to stop their child from getting a decent education.


It was established in this debate that the right to homeschool children did not exist as it did not offer the advantage my opponent claimed of conveniency; furthermore, even if it did exist, this right is incredibly unimportant compared to the government's responsibility to ensure every child receives a decent level of education.

2) Homeschooling's Academic Effects

The next issue in this debate was how homeschooling affects a child's academic potential. In round two, I put forward three (originally four, but two have merged) reasons why. These reasons and my opponent's responses to them are:

  1. In round two, I argued that parents who are homeschooling their children would not be as good at teaching as teachers. Teachers have had extensive training both in their subject and in teaching as a whole; they are better trained than parents, especially when knowledge in some subjects, especially science, have changed greatly since parents were at school. Con refuted this by saying that "you don’t need a teacher. For example, for my Algebra I watch a video every day." A video will never be able to teach as well as a real person; a video can't be asked questions, can't tell the student where they've gone wrong, can't give them the individual help and advice that students need.
  2. The relationship between students and teachers is one of mutual respect and even of fear, something that can't be emulated by a parental relationship; squabbles between a teenager and their parents will spill over into poorer academic results. This was something my opponent never responded to.
  3. Homeschooled children don't have access to the range of opinions and subjects schooled children do. Homeschooled children are likely to be only taught one side on issues such as creatonism against evolution, while these ideas are taught side-by-side at a school; an important part of learning is exposure to different opinions and learning to make your own decision, independant of their parents. My opponent responded to this by claiming that "I think home schooled parents make sure their kids have knowledge of other ideas. I just took a course that concentrated almost completely on other religions, And I’m taking one next year too." Again, my opponent's personal experience isn't representative of the broader population; parents are much more likely to expose their children to only their own view.


My opponent claimed that current government regulations on homeschooling mean that the work of homeschooled children is kept to a certain standard. There are several problems with this; for one, governments have no current ability to compel a parent to send their child to a regular school; homeschooled students could be failing without the government being able to do anything. Secondly, even if homeschooled children pass, they could still do better in a regular school.

The example my opponent gave here of a missionary whose children would be academically better off when, after moving to America, they were homeschooled. He never explained this, so I presume it was a question of language barriers. In this case, being homeschooled would mean that the language barriers are never conquered, as the missionary too would have difficulty with English. However, going to an ESL school would solve this problem.

Homeschooling hurts children academically; a video is never enough to teach a child.


3) Homeschooling's Social Effects

In round two, I argued that children who are homeschooled aren't exposed to other children their own age; as such, their social development is harmed because they can't learn to make friends and have relationships with those outside their close family circle.

My opponent's only response was that "
Most home schoolers go to more events then a regular school boy. Thus they meet more kids their age, ad [sic] socialize ." He never explained this; homeschooled children have school alone with their parents while children who are not homeschooled have school with their peers.

Homeschooled children's social development is greatly harmed because they don't spend enough time with their peers; while children at regular schools receive genuine socialisation, homeschooled children interact with those outside their family circle only rarely.

The government has a responsibility to stop homeschooling because all children deserve a decent level of education, a basic human right. Because homeschooling hurts children academically and socially, please vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jpvn14 5 years ago
jpvn14
I would vote con (haven't confirmed either), because...I know a lot of homeschoolers, and they are all smart. 10 doctors, 5 dentists, and even a surgeon.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Yeah good debate. Don't worry I can't vote either (haven't confirmed my identity) and wouldn't any way unless you had.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
Posted by salve 5 years ago
salve
Thanks for the debate, Phantom, it was fun. Also, can I ask that you not vote because I'm unable to (not American).
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Yikes I posted that 1 minute and 30 seconds before the time ran out.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
"First I would like to thank my save for excepting the debate."

How did that happen!!!!
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Their are no specific rules about what we do in the rounds. But yes you can do that. We can present new arguments and add to our arguments throughout the whole debate however.
Posted by salve 5 years ago
salve
Looking forward to this debate. But just in terms of format, I take it that I'll be allowed to rebut your arguments and present my own in round two and we'll both just do rebuttal in round three?
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
such as.......?
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
Can we make a semantical argument about the no-semantics rule?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 5 years ago
DylanAsdale
phantomsalveTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Public education is broken, and Con does good job of reinforcing that. I didn't like the whole "no semantics" rule though, since without semantics, there is nothing left.
Vote Placed by IamZero 5 years ago
IamZero
phantomsalveTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay.
Vote Placed by Guardian 5 years ago
Guardian
phantomsalveTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: After reading the debate I believe Con was better in all catagories.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
phantomsalveTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did a really good job. I would have loved to see more links for both sides. This also would have been great as a 4 or 5 round debate, since the 1st round is set for acceptance and the last for finishing up, you only had 1 real round to debate. But all in all, loved it.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
phantomsalveTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments from the con
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
phantomsalveTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Phantom did an excellent job, I would have liked to see the government "programming" of children brought up, and the statistics that shows EVERY homeschool deals out far better grades than any public education program, but Con did indeed show with two basic arguments that Homeshooling was still better.