...it's about withdrawing from an evil society so their kids can get baked in their own oven. Christian fundamentalists, right wing militia types, granola crunching hippies--these are the face of the home school movement, and it's justifiable to wonder whether it's in the kids best interest to home school the kids for political rather than educational reasons.
I'd like to see some statistical basis for this, rather than a couple of anecdotes and what the media portrays. In addition, my experience with opponents of home-schoolers is that they are more worried about people being raised with political viewpoints contrary to theirs. Their concern for the kids and a quality education is minimal. But our country thrives on the variety of political viewpoints, not a hive-mind developed by a government education system.
...typically, they're weird kids who've obviously spent too much time in a weird home environment and lack enough socialization to get along well once they're back in the public sphere. That's the danger of home schooling.
Again, this is anecdotal, and not universal. Besides, it appears that Slashdot thrives on these type of people, so shouldn't we work to create more of them? There are plenty of these types of people in the public school system as well, and there are other ways to address these types of issues.
For the record, I was not home-schooled. I spent the middle half of my elementary education in a private school, and the rest in public schools. I have many friends who home-school, so I have seen the benefits compared to the alternatives.
For those that oppose home-schooling, do they seriously think that the government does a great job of educating children? I can't believe there are so many that oppose home-schooling, yet Slashdotters in general rail on the poor quality of the American education system.
To me, home-schooling is a great alternative. Parents in general care the most about their children, not the government. Obviously there are the exception (child abusers, etc.), but that's not necessarily an argument to ban all home-schooling outright.
Seems like as long as the children can pass the standardized tests (SAT, etc.), we should support it. In fact, studies have been done that show that home-schoolers often do better than public school students. For example:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
Anecdotally, my sister found that some colleges actually prefer home-schoolers for this reason.
Not true, there is plenty of disagreement. You should read a book called 'Cracks In The Crescent', about a man who was a madrassa teaching assistant and muadhin (calls Muslims to pray) for Islam until he became disillusioned with all the discrepancies and contradictions. He provides countless examples to back up his point.
One of the more humorous examples is a story where he proves to several Muslims that Islam teaches that they will all go to hell.
The thing is, that's not quite right. Flexible pavements, such as those with asphalt or bitumen-based rolling pavement, don't require any more maintenance than rigid and semi-rigid pavement roads. The only reason that may lead to premature repairs is if they suffer from draining problems or if the foundation suffers from excessive settlement, which is caused by poorly designed and/or built roads.
Like I said, LCCA required. Asphalt does not answer all pavement woes (neither does concrete). Your defense makes it sound like you work for the asphalt industry.
...Nearly one in four Americans has some sort of disability, so savvy publishers who don't want to lose out on a big chunk of marketshare find it worthwhile to comply.
That's a bit misleading... how many of those have a disability that actually matters when it comes to web disability.
I think of all the people I know (yes, it's more than 4... good for a nerd), and I can only think of a handful that might be slightly disadvantaged when using a non-standard page.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.