I don't think anyone is claiming homeschooling has no value. However, the state has a vested interest in having a populace that is educated to some degree. To ensure that, oversight of some nature is required. At the base level, there are 2 models for achieving that. Either require some level of testing for the students (e.g. GED exam), or try to ensure that those doing the teaching are "qualified".
The pitfall of option 1 is that it often means catching issues too late. By the time they are testing, kids can already be behind and have missed critical learning periods. As Strangler pointed out, there are some well known developmental stages that are best for learning certain things. Missing those phases can have long lasting effects on a child's learning ability.
The pitfall of option 2 is that it does beg the question of what exactly defines "qualified", and there's no easy answer to that. It would certainly squeeze out a lot (not all, but a lot) of non-traditional options.
Option 2 has advantages, though. It mitigates the pitfall of option 1 in that it provides reasonable assurance that they'll be getting good info from the start, rather then finding out too late that they're missing things.
Quote:
|
I remember almost nothing of 95% of what I learned in school.
|
I'd venture to guess that's not true. That's a perception caused by misrepresentation of the role of education. Any good teacher will tell you that education is less about facts than about learning how to interact with the world. Facts and tests are there as useful tools to gage progress, but most people have lost sight of the real purpose of education. You may have forgotten 95% of the specifics, however the basics of critical thinking that you received through your education are there whether you like it or not. This is why I, and most real educators, detest "No Child Left Behind." The focus is on factual regurgitation, not critical thinking.