If we had new cars, new clothes, or went out to eat every day, we could not afford this, but instead we drive cars that are 10 yrs old, buy thrift store clothes when possible or on such a super sale that they are practically giving things away, and we shop with coupons. All because we believe in our choice. I think in a lot of cases, people think it is an economics choice, but really if you look at how much money you must spend to go to a corporate type job with clothes, gas, plus daycare, you find that your lifestyle can then be cut just a little more if you want to homeschool. (Of course this doesn’t apply to single parent households and other situations of hardship.)

With all that being said, there is nothing wrong with making the choice not to homeschool your kids – everyone needs to make the choice that is right for them. We are not a “one size fits all” kind of culture.

But, that being said – this SHOULD be a state and local issue – the reason it is NOT is because of the Dept of Education, which I believe is a completely useless and un-Constitutional part of the gov’t. Education should belong strictly to the state and local gov’t – once again, we don’t need the Fed gov’t to assume that they know more just because someone sent them to Washington – after all, they came from a state (with only the DC guys being the exception).

FYI- I have a BS in Marketing but none of that matters to my children who just know me as Mommy.

You do realize that this is a white women’s argument only. Blacks and latinas don’t have the option of staying at home.

YOU ARE TRULY IGNORANT.

Signed,
A black woman and stay at home mom for about 9 years and counting. Oh and by the way “ise not on foods stamps!”

In urban areas, like Philly where I live, homeschooling moms tend to be more affluent – granola if you will – and make the choice to stay home based not on economics.

In many rural areas, like where I grew up and where my brother and his family lives now, homeschooling moms tend to be less affluent and often make the choice to stay home based on a combination of economics and curriculum. In rural NC, where I grew up, if you wanted to send your child to private school, your only option was a religious private school – this is not the case in larger, more urban areas. More choices necessarily mean a wider range of parents choosing all kinds of alternative education.

And this brings me back to my point in my post… why would you provide federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks for one form of alternative education and not others?

It’s not solely an economic argument. As demonstrated in the comments here, folks homeschool for a number of reasons – not all of them have to do with economics.

I think one of the key pieces here, and Miranda hit upon it, is religion. Homeschooling may often be done for religious reasons. Private school, similarly so. But private schools that have religious components – parochial schools included – tend to be overtly religious which brings up the spectre of the division of church and state when you consider vouchers or tax breaks. Homeschoolers don’t have that same concern – and maybe that’s where Romney was going. He could appeal to his base without raising constitutional issues.

Should religion matter when it comes to tax breaks? Is excluding a credit based on a relationship to religion wrong? What do you think?

1. There are large amounts of homeschooled children in Utah, usually due to religious concerns of what is being taught in “liberal, secular” schools.

2. Romney is aware that, though he is from Michigan (and just won the primary there), his largest and staunchest block of supporters is in Utah, and he obviously needs play to that.

For the record, I am LDS. My son will be attending public school. I will probably NOT be voting for Romney.

I am a rare breed in Utah: liberal, Mormon and not voting for Romney.