> If a decent percentage do poorly (15-25%), then it is enough to condemn the practice overall - at least in its current form. There aren't nearly enough contro

> If a decent percentage do poorly (15-25%), then it is enough to condemn the practice overall - at least in its current form. There aren't nearly enough controls to eliminate this sort of thing, and I think it is probably more expensive to do so. I also think that - apart from test scores - these kids are less likely to be forced to deal with folks different from themselves and a bit less likely to be introduced to concepts their parents disagree with. as always, the relevant question is "compared to what?". lots of american public school systems are still deeply segregated and produce astonishingly poor outcomes for their students. the part about being exposed to concepts parents disagree with is a good point, but certain homogeneous christian communities have had some success getting divine creation presented at least side-by-side with evolution (see "teach the controversy"). many public schools still give very watered down versions of slavery and dealings with native americans as well. the high school I went to (in an east coast city and not too long ago) only covered abstinence in sex ed. we were never taught about condoms or other contraceptives. the potential for propaganda in public schools is the same, just at scale. in a democratic system, it's hard to teach things that parents don't want. I guess the most extreme views probably cancel out a bit as you scale up the system, but this has the tradeoff of baking in the status quo even more thoroughly. implemented correctly, I don't think oversight and coordination would be a bad idea (although if it worked, we might consider applying it to our public/private/charter schools as well). I don't agree that all homeschooling should be banned until such measures are in place.