The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Homeschool is superior to government provided schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,115 times Debate No: 24707
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




1st Round - acceptance ONLY!!!
2nd Round - Opening arguments ONLY NO Rebuttals until 3rd round
3rd Round - REBUTTALS
4th Round - Closing arguments/rebuttals


I accept the debate. It's nice to be debating you again.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you. Nice to be debating you too!

Opening Arguments Only!!!!!

Whether you home school your kids or put them in a government provided (public) school is an option you as a parent may decide as one of our precious freedoms that we as Americans have. How do you decide on which environment is better for your children to grow up in? Here are some interesting facts I have found when researching home school.

•Children who are home schooled "... may be more socially mature and have better leadership skills than other children ..." - Richard G. Medlin, Ph.D. (NHERI)

•Recent studies demonstrate that 98% of home taught children are involved in two or more social/community beyond the home each week, including such things as 4-H, Bible Clubs, Scouts, Ballet Classes, Music Lessons, Sports, Field Trips and Sunday School.

•The Galloway-Sutton Study, which examines five success indicators, showed home schooled children (with the exception of the psychomotor) excelling above other students in the academic, cognitive, spiritual and affective-social categories.

•On average, home school students, grades 1–4, perform one grade level above their public and private school counterparts. The achievement gap grows in grade 5; by 8th grade the average home school student performs four grades higher than the national average. (SADC)

•Students who have been home schooled their entire academic lives have the highest scholastic achievement. The difference is more pronounced during the higher grades; students who home school throughout high school continue to flourish while in that environment. (SADC)

•Kate Grossman, Chicago Sun-Times reported noted, "The number of homeschoolers receiving National Merit Scholarships has increased more than 500 percent: from 21 in 1995 to 129 in 2003." (HSLDA)

Not only does home school help a child succeed socially and academically but it also provides them with a secure stable educational environment and does not force them to face peer pressure, sex, drugs, bullies, and all other immoral things the secular world has to often. Although they may face it in the future, It is proved that if faced with these these things while the child is still ageing, they are almost 6 times as likely to give in as if they were faced with it as an adult.

Home school gives parents more say in how their children grow up, and what kinds of things they are exposed to. It also gives more Religious Freedom. Many families feel their religious and spiritual beliefs are an important part of who they are. Home schooling provides the opportunity for parents to incorporate their beliefs into their daily lives.

Well-Rested Kids. As more and more studies are illustrating, sleep is vital to the emotional and physical well-being of kids, especially teens and preteens. The effects of early morning classes can be devastating to many children, especially those who are not morning people. After realizing that lack of sleep and hours of busywork often left her boy in a zombie-like stupor, Haya has decided to try home schooling: "My oldest (age 13), is up at 6:30 in order to catch the bus at 7:15 and start school at 7:30. He comes home at 3:00 and does homework — sometimes until midnight. He's often exhausted. I'm hoping that when we home school next year, the dark circles under his eyes will disappear and his real personality will emerge again."

This also provides parents with a better schedule as they don't have to work around the public school schedule and are free to go on vacation or go to public places during the week where otherwise it would be prohibited or discouraged.

Hopefully, in my argument I have disproved the false theories that home schooled children lack academic and social skills and home schooling is far fetched for the average family.

I am interested in Cons point of view. Remember this round is only for opening arguments. You may rebuttal in the next round.
Thank You!!!!



In accordance with my opponent's rules for this debate, my focus in this round will be only for the establishment of a case statement. I will negate the resolution and argue for the CON, establishing the following parameters:

1: My opponent cannot include online schools as an example in her case because they are or can be government provided and funded. This is then an example for the CON.
2: As the CON, my only obligation is to prove that homeschools are not superior. I can achieve this by either proving that government-provided schools are of tantamount or superior quality to homeschools.
3: The resolution asks us to evaluate if homeschools are superior to government-provided schools. The PRO's burden then is to prove that homechools are intrinsically better in order to win this debate.


Contention 1: Homeschools are not intrinsically superior.
The quality of homeschools depends on the conditions of the environment at which the lessons are being given. Much of my opponent's evidence would lead to the conclusion that homeschools would be a stronger alternative than government-provided schools, but it would fail to look toward the actual populations that homeschool or have the means to homeschool. Homeschooling would be a good alternative if two parents were the optimal parents, but what homeschooling were done in a household where a parent were abusive, a drug addict, etc.?

Sub-point 1a: Homeschooling depends on the conditions of the home.
The United States Census Bureau explained the following on the characteristics of homeschooled children: " To better understand trends in home schooling it is helpful to know what similarities and differences exist between home-schooled children and those in regular school... Household variables had stronger effects -- family structure, mother's education, father's education, region of residence. The main effect of income was not significant. However, the square of income had a relatively strong effect. This indicates that the families most likely to home-school their children are of middle income -- neither rich nor poor." [1]

Sub-point 1b: Homeschools are not universal.
The success of homeschools depends also on the feasibility for the parents in question. Homeschooling is first only for the economically feasible: "
Homeschooling is not for everyone, warn the experts, and there are some important issues that should factor into a parent's decision. While the cost of supplies and teaching materials are relatively small, (Ray estimates an average of $400-600 per year, per child), having one or both parents take on the teaching role may require a shift in the familys financial dynamic. We live in a two-income world and if youre homeschooling, someone needs to stay home at least part time, so you have that loss of income, says Kochenderfer. For the most part, homeschooling is less expensive than a private school education, but more expensive than a public school." [2] This is, of course, under the assumption that a parent will be the one taking the instruction and under the assumption they possess the ability to be able to teach well. If not, they'll need to hire a tutor, who may be expensive. "Students in two-parent households made up 89 percent of the homeschooled population, and those in two-parent households with one parent in the labor force made up 54 percent of the homeschooled population. The latter group of students had a higher homeschooling rate than their peers: 7 percent, compared with 1 to 2 percent of students in other family circumstances. In 2007, students in households earning between $25,001 and $75,000 per year had higher rates of homeschooling than their peers from families earning $25,000 or less a year." [3]

Contention 2: Homeschools are fertile for indoctrination of religious fundementalism.
As Kunzman explains: "
Nevertheless, religious conservatives likely remain the largest subset of homeschoolers, at least in the United States. The relative freedom and flexibility of homeschooling allows parents to craft an educational environment that reflects their values and priorities, and religious conservatives find such an option particularly appealing." [4]

Sub-point 2a: Homeschooling parents do homeschool with the intention to indoctrinate.
"Parents give many different reasons for homeschooling their children. In 2007, the most common reason parents gave as the most important was a desire to provide religious or moral instruction (36 percent of students). This reason was followed by a concern about the school environment (such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure) (21 percent), dissatisfaction with academic instruction (17 percent), and "other reasons" including family time, finances, travel, and distance (14 percent)." [3]

Sub-point 2b: Religious fundementalism is negative for society.
Religious Conservatives have been pushing to remove sexual education out of the classroom. They believe that abstinence-only education is the only kind of sexual education that should be taught. The abstinence-only education program omits information about birth control, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases (STD), and AIDS. These programs are supported by congressional funding and instituted by the states. People for the American Way (2004) reports that President Bush supports abstinence-only programs and has increased federal funding for the programs, winning him the praise of conservative Christian leaders.
Other countries are also frustrated with the U.S. policy that focuses on moral issues such as abstinence, abortion, and restricting health education. One main reason countries are upset with the U.S. is because President Bush withheld 34 million dollars from the United Nations Population Fund (Monkerud, 2005). This money was to be used to aid family planning, sex education, and to champion sexual and reproductive rights. However, President Bush says any funds received by groups are not to be used to provide any information on abortion. In this year the U.N. had two million unwanted pregnancies. President Bush’s initiative to withhold funds could have been a leading cause of the pregnancies (Monkerud, 2005). Religious conservative groups seem to share common moral beliefs that they think necessary to force on other countries. Foreign policy of the U.S. and every nation in the world could be jeopardized by these actions.
Another issue that is brought to attention is the belief that only creationism should be taught in schools. The issue of teaching creationism in pubic schools has recently been brought to the forefront by religious fundamentalists. In the past years, public schools usually teach the science-based evolution theory and don’t refer to creationism. It is regarded as a religious explanation. Christian conservatives argue that creationism is a theory and should be presented along side of, if not instead of, evolution. According to the National Center for Science Education, legal debates in public schools between creationism and evolution are now going on between 17 states (Goldenberg, 2005). Some liberals view this as a way for conservative Christians to sneak a form of fundamentalist values into public school through science programs." [5] This is not even to mention the idealisms formed against homosexuality.

Debate Round No. 2



"Home schooling depends on the conditions of the home."

There is no evidence that homeschoolers are at higher risk for neglect or abuse than publicly or privately schooled children. In fact, there is reason to believe that neglect and abuse are actually less common in home school situations. Moreover, 85 percent of child fatalities occur in children younger than six years of age, before children begin their formal schooling in any form.

Children are not more likely to be abused or neglected in home school as if they were in public school.

"Home schools are not universal."

Parents do not have to be the primary teacher. In fact, most students growing up in high school are more independent because they have learned how to work by themselves, therefore, parents would not have to give up work or hire a tutor full time any more than they would if they were in public school.

"Home schools are fertile for indoctrination of religious fundamentalism."

While religion does have a big part in why many people home school, it is not the primary reason. Even if it was, it is proved that a child who has grown up in a religious home has a higher regard for society.

"Home schooling parents do home school with the intention to indoctrinate."

Parents should have a say in what their child is around. Teachers also spread their beliefs among students and have a strong influence on them.

"Religious fundamentalism is negative for society."

Many charities and homeless shelters and hospitals are entirely funded by donations from religious people all over America. This country was founded upon the belief in God. Many people strive everyday to be better people because of their faith in God. Religion, if properly directed, has a very powerful and positive influence in society.



My opponent particularly has a lot of studies that she cited, and many of the things she said are things that I've discussed in my own case. Already you can see that the entirety of my case works as counters. Therefore, I'm going to go down my opponent's case while making references to substantiate as well as defend my claims. As my opponent didn't argue my observations, they are extended across the flow.
Quality and Effectiveness of Homeschools: My opponent seems to have misunderstood the point of my Contention 1 and Sub-point 1a. I'm not saying that homeschooled children have any more probability to abuse and neglect. I'm saying that BECAUSE they don't have any more probability for abuse and neglect (and may in fact have less probability for abuse and neglect), it may show an appearance in the data that homeschools are better than government-provided schools. My opponent doesn't consider the lurking variables in her research, including family conditions, socio-economic status, and other factors that could determine the effectiveness of a homeschool, as I explained in my sub-point 1a. If my opponent is telling us that little or no abuse occurs in these homeschools, or drug abuse, or etc., we immediately see that this is a lurking variable explaining the effectiveness of homeschools in her research. Would a homeschool be just as effective in an environment where there's abuse, neglect, drug use, alcoholism, gang activity, or other negative conditions? Because the current data only looks at homes that don't have such problems, we won't know, and if my opponent is trying to prove that homeschools are intrinsically better than government-provided schools (O3), homeschools should be able to function in such an environment. All I'm saying is: if there were homeschooling in such negative conditions or in a neighborhood with dangerous activity, the data would look a little differently. What my opponent has proven is only that this model of schooling works in environments such as the ones that the studies look at and are able to look at. She hasn't proven that homeschools are better simply because they're homeschools. This rebuttal applies to pretty much every single study concerning the characteristics and advantages of children in homeschools.
Universality: First, I would need to see the study my opponent is looking at to understand what the study meant when it said that homeschool students have learned to do work by themselves. I also need to see a study about how effective a learning environment with no parents would be as well. In my studies, most homeschool students had at least one parent at the home (in homes where mostly two parents were existent). In any event, despite the fact that parents nor tutors have to be the ones to take up the teaching responsibility, it doesn't erase the other costs of materials that can mount to $400-600 per month. Many families can afford that, but what if they can't? In my evidence, I even stated that experts on this trade have said that homeschooling isn't for everyone in terms of economics. Not only does this show you that homeschooling can be exclusive, but if further drives the point of my sub-point 1a: that homeschools are not intrinsically better, and their quality (like any school) depends on the quality of the environment.
Religious Fundementalism: This is where my opponent and I agree on many things and disagree on one. Both my opponent and I agree that parents do bring children to homeschools to indoctrinate. My opponent says it's not the primary reason, but if she looks back at my evidence, we can see that most parents that bring children to homeschools is because of religious reasons. Whether or not this is a good thing is where our agreements end. My opponent has no evidence that children from religious upbringing have a stronger regard for society. Furthermore, I agree that parents have a say what their child is around in reasons of practicality, like if the schools have gang violence, drug problems, or something that directly affects the health of the person. However, when the parents are bringing children to a different setting simply because of a confliction of religious beliefs, the action becomes from practical to arbitrary. Teachers also spread beliefs, but unlike homeschools, they don't make it the word of rule in schools. I'm still supportive of the freedom of religion, including to children. Many good things have come from religious fundementalism, including what my opponent has stated, but secularism has done the same good things without the cost to society that I mentioned. The agenda of religious fundementalism is not just to provide help, but enforce beliefs in the community that are detrimental to its structure and cohesiveness as well as the inherent rights of people. This is what I explained in my case.
Debate Round No. 3


Opponent has clearly won. All votes to him.


My opponent has conceded all of the rounds and the entirety of the debate to me. Please vote for me.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Pro could have won!!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I found no evidence in favor of con in a google search
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Great arguments to both sides. I'd really like to see how Con gets his/her evidence, you seem much more resourceful than me :P