Swilkie - I am with you. I like the idea of children being able to learn at their own pace but I really think this becomes difficult once the child reaches the stage where the parent has to catch up. I have tried teaching University students before outside my main subject. I found it exhausting trying not to let on that I had only learnt most of the material just hours before. We managed it but it was far from easy and I dreaded the questions! The difference between being taught by someone who really understands and enjoys a subject compared with just looking up the information and answering the questions is immense. However, to be fair not all teachers are up to that level either. I can see the point in homeschooling for children who have special needs or if there really is no suitable school. Otherwise it is just a lifestyle choice that I don't believe offers any particular benefit and there are plenty of disavantages.

All the talk of having lovely children, mixing with other children of different ages and being able to do maths while shopping is ridiculous - every child has these opportunities whether homeschooled or not. It is not as if they spend 24 hours a day at school. I am a strong believer in parental involvement in education - especially learning to read and instilling a love of learning and curiosity. I really have nothing against the homeschooling option and am glad everyone is so happy doing it. I would hate not to be able to take my child out of school for a while if they were really unhappy. However if it makes you self-righteous and defensive I think I shall stick with the real world - faults and all.

I agree with you that it is about time we kicked up more of a fuss about the public school system. The government seems to want to keep running it into the ground and forcing people into the private sector or even homeschooling. Free education for all is a fundamental right.

Swilke and Sajo,

Please don't get the idea that home educators do not respect other parent's choice to send their children to school.

In fact many of us support our friends with children in school to the point where it is to us that they come when they need to talk about school problems. Perhaps because I am outside the system, they seem more comfortable to pour out their problems to me. I couldn't count the times I have had a friend crying on my couch about their children's school problems. They know that I will listen, sympathise and understand and that I will also honour their choice to work through the problem with the school as best they can. They also know why I have made the choice to home educate, they understand and accept that without feeling any pressure to do so themselves.

In addition many of us care for other people's children during school holidays or on curriculum days whilst their parents work.

The choice of school education is the other half of our own choice and we therefore honour that choice. At the moment Victorian home educators are fairly defensive but that is only because our choice is being threatened.

I would like to thank Ludwina for listing some great reasons to home educate, I agree with every one. Bullying may have been part of the decision to leave the school system, but this list says a lot about why we choose to stay out of it. Having said this, I do support other parents making the decision to send their children to school, however, I would like to see this being a more informed decision, not as it is now where many people don't realise there is any other choice.
I've also noticed that some posters are making the mistake of thinking that home educated children only learn from their parents. My children learn from me if they want to learn something that I know, otherwise they learn from somewhere (or someone) else.
I think another missed point, is that we only learn when we want to and no one can teach us something that we have no interest in. And unfortunately, the way subjects are presented at school can make them seem very dull. I was always bored by history at school and learnt very little, but since leaving school, I have found history to be fascinating.
Those of us who choose to home educate, are very committed to our children’s ongoing happiness and well being, and no teacher, or government official, is ever going to care more about our children than we do.

Thank you everyone for the information and debate you have provided here. I have done some reading on home education and am very attracted by the idea - especially as the time to return to school looms closer.

But I am worried about this change to the law. I don't really understand it. Homeschoolers already have to provide 'efficient and regular' instruction don''t they? What is the law change and what difference will it make?

Can someone explain simply what it all means?

Sajo, how is your world more real than that of a person whose child or children gained an education without formal schooling?

Defending a form of education that many have chosen but is still a minority choice, that is unfunded, and that is under threat from proposed new legislation, by pointing to how it has worked (e.g. one poster's sons are doing very well at university without formal schooling) is not self-righteousness.

There is a gap between how people imagine home-school would be, and how it is. Home educators have posted their experiences here, answered questions or countered assertions that are misleading: an important one being whether it is possible to gain entrance to tertiary-level education without formal schooling. How is that self-righteous?

Carol G.

Marnie Lee,

The fundamental difference is this legislation shifts the emphasis from proving that your child is receiving an education to proving that you are complying with regulations. A child might be receiving an excellent education but his parents could be fined/prosecuted for not complying with regulations.

The added problem is that the government refuses to reveal what these regulations will be until after they have passed the legislation compeling us to comply with them. Their only comment has been that the regulations will ensure that home educators meet 'minimum standards'.

'Minimum standards' sounds all very well in the popular press, but what does it really mean? The general population might expect it to mean that every child will reach an acceptable academic standard in the 3Rs. Home educators are already ensuring this by providing 'regular and efficient instruction' and the onus is on them to be able to prove it.

However, I doubt very much whether this is what the government means because they are setting 'minimum standards' for their own schools also. Any teacher will tell you that there are some children who are just never going to meet the academic expectations regardless of curriculum/regulations etc. The government won't set standards for its schools that it can't meet so the minimum standards are more likely to set down curriculum, teaching methods, hours spent on each subject and so on. None of these things guarantees the kind of minimum standards parents expect.

Much of the benefit of home education is that the parent can tailor the education to meet the child's needs - providing more practice at one thing, moving on from things the child has mastered and trying alternative methods when something doesn't suit his learning style. This beneift could be lost by conforming to regulations and reproducing the school system in the home - a system which has already failed the child.

There is a chance that the regulations won't be onerous but because the government won't make them public, we suspect that making them public would not reflect well on them.