I respect people who choose this as the best option for their child, but how do they come to that conclusion? Having lived in the US and been to school there I can see there is a huge difference in standards, and my cousin has moved her son a couple of times as New York City is a hard place to find a school, but no way would she homeschool besides she has to work. What about sports and team events? Most Olympic athletes were discovered via school teams. I played netball at school and then got chosen to play for the county, and that could never have happened if I was homeschooled. My friend's father was an eminent scholar and wrote a text book that is used in most US schools, and he was not homeschooled. I am sure his father was experienced enough to do so, but he chose not to as it wasn't the best option.
I doubt this discussion is ever going to conclude, but I just wanted to also say I worry about these kids missing out on peer to peer interaction, and as you just mentioned @Theo, not having access to extra curricular activities, which as we all know are essential to the development of a child. Are all parents able to pay for those for their homeschooled kids, because I'm guessing if they aren't with a school they won't come free? I also hear a lot of parents in favour of homeschooling going on about focusing solely on the strengths of their kids, and I can't help but think that this cherry picking is likely to work against the kids. I mean, just how far does this cherry picking go? Are these kids taught the core (compulsory) subjects, or do the subjects get looked over because they don't like them. There's a reason why some subjects are compulsory, and that's to ensure that when they leave school, children are at the very least literate. Somehow I don't think this is something every single parent will know, especially if their education is lacking.
