[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Two. No Immunizations Required – Most American school children have their immunizations checked and completed about the time they enroll in school.


You can think of home schooling as a loophole in the immunization requirements of most states. My wife and I have reviewed volumes of data and evidence and concluded that children are better off being immunized against the common childhood diseases for which immunizations are safe and readily available.

This makes more sense now. I see your point, and agree with you on this one.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The common misperception here is that homeschooling parents need to or actually serve as the primary instructor for all classes and courses. Through middle and high school, most homeschooling parents outsource an increasing amount of coursework to options that are more qualified than they are, especially in math, science, and foreign languages. Of the 24 high school credits needed to graduate, our own children will average about 14 credits earned in a setting taught by a source other than a homeschooling parent.

I am planning for articles in the coming weeks describing some of the best available resources in math and science for homeschooling parents to outsource those courses. Of course, parents of public and private school students may also consider whether some of these options are better than the choices may be a better match for their children than the options at their local schools.

That's all fine and dandy, but I'm sure those options cost money. What if a parent that thinks, as you do, that the public system isn't adequate, but they don't have the money to send their child to private school, and choose to home school instead? That child is likely to be inadequately educated in the same areas that the parent is inadequately educated or weak because the parent cannot afford to take advantage of those other options.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

That's a fine opinion. It's up to each parent to consider the relative value of socialization and academic rigor as it pertains to their own children and the brick and mortar schools available in their own district.

Peter and John ended up travelling widely in the Roman world and needing to communicate the gospel to more languages and cultures than will likely ever be encountered by the average Louisiana public school graduate.

All you've done is confuse me more on this point, and make your initial point even more pointless. It further proves my point that society was different 2000 years ago when Peter and John were traveling and had to "communicate the gospel to more languages and cultures than will likely ever be encountered by the average Louisiana public school graduate."

How does their evangelization relate to the life of a home school student in 2016? What home school student is traveling to "communicate the gospel" and has to know many different languages to do so?

It's an irrelevant comparison because it has no commonality. Was there even a choice between brick and mortar schools and home schooling 2000 years ago? How do we know what education the apostles had? Was the education system the same as it is today?

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Sure. But given the available resources of today, a family need not be wealthy to provide a very high quality home school education to their children. Even outsourcing the majority of our children's coursework, we are spending a small fraction of what Louisiana parents invest in their children's private school education or what taxpayers are paying for each student's public education. We are averaging less than $2k per year per child, and most of that is related to their science projects which are a great experience, but definitely an elective expense.

Cost was not really my point. The decision of Roosevelt's parents was not made even majorly because of their ability to home school him. He was a very sickly child, and home schooling was the best option. The fact that they were wealthy just made that decision easier.

The decision for Roosevelt to be home schooled was obviously different from the decision for Tim Tebow to be home schooled. Tebow was an exceptional athlete; health was not a problem. In fact, the Tebows' decision to home school was based on the desire to instill Christian values in their children.

My point is, just because a few famous people were home schooled doesn't mean anything. Each person makes that choice for a different reason. They didn't become famous or successful solely because they were home schooled. That is purely anecdotal evidence for why home schooling is successful, but there is no way to prove that they became who they were because of home schooling.

No doubt, they are good examples of home school successes, but I feel we are going to have to agree to disagree as to the significance of home schooling to who these people were. I mean, let's face it, Tebow's fame has little to do with him being home schooled. He was a Heisman Trophy winning Quarterback and 2-time National Champion at the University of Florida. None of that had anything to do with his home schooling, because he wasn't taught how to be a great QB in home school. Hell, he played at a public school.