Over the years, the main argument I have heard against homeschooling has been “socialization.” Anti-homeschoolers can’t argue results because homeschoolers perform as well or better than their public school peers, so they attach that stigma of homeschoolers being sheltered and anti-social. Then I remember what socialization meant when I went to school (cliques, bullying, fights in the halls, disruptive students, etc.), and I just laugh at their argument.
Homeschooling depends entirely on the parents;good parents can do a fine job homeschooling.There has to be some means of checking though.
But homeschooling in my case would have been disastrous with a father who had only derogatory anecdotes of school(including his college time) and a mother who struggled with math.Neither helped with homework.Father had no use for learning or reading not directly part of his conception of farming, and an oft-expressed distrust of science and anyone who wore a suit.Plus a dislike of”city people” and most churches.If not for required school attendance ,either public or parochial, I would have hardly seen anyone my age.
For socialization, there's after school activities like 4H, scouting, etc. Plus hanging out with neighborhood kids.
My area has after-school sports organized under the township rather than the school, so any resident child can join the softball and soccer teams.
You also have homeschool groups, where the homeschool kids of an area can do field trips, do plays, etc.
And when I went to public schools, you know what we heard from the teachers ALL THE TIME?
"You're not here to socialize!"
Translation: Prison protection gang.
That is what cliques are. Protection gangs. Much of the dysfunctional socialization learned in prison-like schools must be unlearned if a person is to succeed in the workplace, community, and family. Thankfully, humans are adaptable and it seems that most make the transition to healthier socialization habits.