quote:

---

He needs enough bulbs to plant 11 beds of tulips. Each bed holds 24 tulips, and bulbs come in cases of 6.

---

And as soon as you know how to set up the problem, the calculator does the rest. But I was never good at basic math and went on to Cal 3 and Intro to Number Theory, so I'm a little biased.

Again, I'm mostly quibbling. I completely agree that there's a base level of education that you're expected to be aware of. Without it, you may be looked down on and miss out on valuable oportunities.

History I'll quibble with you again on. I think it's probably the single most important subject and the worst taught. The date of some war is not the point of history. What lead to the war, what personalities and economic conditions and political maneuverings made it a complete surprise or nearly inevitable is the point of the thing. That's what never changes and allows you to see the patterns of the present.

<steps down from soap box> Ok. Done now.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Strictly speaking, the problem you outline is arithmetic. That said, I think being able to calculate percentages, knowing how compound interest works, and having a basic grasp of probabilities are necessary for anyone who doesn't intend to make a living by inheriting rich parents.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
AR: I agree with you that memorizing dates isn't anywhere near as important as understanding how world economies and governments work. We're basically on the same side of the argument.

My question then, is why avoid testing? I imagine that the goal of testing is to insure that each student meets some minimum level of knowledge and skill for each age level. If I'm wrong in that, someone please correct me.

That being the case, I'm confused as to why home schooling parents would be against testing. In theory, a home school education should be better than a public school education, so the children should be able to ace the tests, while still spending much more time on whatever are more important educational pursuits.

If a home schooled child can't pass a basic test, which even the most remedial of public school children are expected to pass, then clearly there's something wrong, and perhaps the child would actually be better off in public school. That just seems like common sense.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I would agree that all those things are necessary. I would not agree that they need to be learned in a specific "grade" or that the state needs to test my children on them.

My four year old adds and subtracts basic fractions. She's very close to reading. She writes her name and several other words, recognizes all letters of the alphabet (upper and lower) and knows their sounds, and can tell you the difference between a triangle and an octagon.

Her education is not going to be neglected, I assure you. I just think that teaching to a test is dumb, that if she is ever tested she'll do fine, but I wasted so much of my childhood on tests that I had to take because my school district got money for me taking them but that told them I had "learned" things that I did not learn in school (by the time we got to things in school, I had usually done them 2 or 3 years before) that I don't see the value in my kids taking them. Furthermore, I want them to be free to learn at their own paces. I know that my four year old tends to resist a concept for months, sometimes years, then suddenly leap ahead far past most kids her age. I just don't think she would be served well by testing. At all. And since I want to be able to teach her the way I want to teach her and let her learn the way she learns, I want the state to keep its nose out of my business. That's all.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I'm disgusted by the implications of this ruling, frankly, because I don't think that homeschooling should be allowed in any way, shape, or form. A national school system is the most appropriate venue for assuring acculturated obedience to the Collective.

Seriously though the ruling was the most sensible outcome.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Okay, I was about to smite you with the Ketchup of Righteousness.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
kq- the problem is not all parents are as good as you. And of course, the bad homeschoolers seem to get the most notice. There are some kids who are homeschooled who can barely read and can not do basic math. This puts these kids at a huge disadvantage for their entire life and I can see why the state does not want to just sit back and let that happen. If parents are capable of homeschooling, and add into it a good social network so the kids are socially adjusted, homeshooling is probably the best place for most kids. But parents who are not suited for homeschooling can make homeschooling the worst possible situation for kids.

edited to make wording less judgemental

[ August 10, 2008, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: scholarette ]
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I would also be concerned that by keeping a child away from testing, they would be at a disadvantage if they wanted to go to college. Many colleges make the SAT or ACT an important factor in admission, and knowing how to take tests can be nearly as important as knowing the material.

I also hated taking tests in school, but when I got into the college I wanted to, and when I knew how to pass my classes while there, I was very happy to have gotten quite good at test taking.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
scholarette, I wouldn't say "bad parents." It's just that not all parents-- or kids-- are suited to a homeschool environment.

MightyCow, I don't intend to "keep her away from testing." If she every wants or needs to take a test, for any reason, I'll let her. And of course we'll prep for the SAT/ACT (if they're still in use by then.) But I just don't think that the state needs to test her like they do public school students when the tests are designed to measure progress based on objectives we don't share.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
But what do you do about the parents who are not going to prep their kids for anything, the ones who are unfit to school their children?
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Even the states that require no regulation whatsoever of homeschools, like Oklahoma, make provision that parents who homeschool must ensure that their children are learning; it can't be a cover for truancy. It's not going to come up, of course, unless there's an investigation for abuse or neglect or criminal activity on other grounds, but it's there.

I don't think there's really any solution that can serve everyone-- except that most parents who homeschool do do their best. The ones that don't are few and far between. Sure, their best might not be as good as a public school might in some cases-- but I do firmly believe in a parent's right to direct the upbringing and education of his children, and you just can't go too far in oversight without stepping on that. If parents choose to enroll kids in a school, then they have entrusted the education part to the state, church, or other body outside themselves, and that's a different matter. But if they choose to school their children at home, they have direct control of that education and just because their idea of what that education should look like differs from my idea, does not mean I can or should stop them, or say that their children are not best served by it. Only time will tell that, and in the end I hope that kids will be able to learn if they want to.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"I would also be concerned that by keeping a child away from testing, they would be at a disadvantage if they wanted to go to college. Many colleges make the SAT or ACT an important factor in admission, and knowing how to take tests can be nearly as important as knowing the material."

I used to teach SAT prep for The Princeton Review. The math portion was easy to teach, relatively...you can suck hard at math, and still get a good score, if you've studied their course material. The verbal is considerably more of a problem, however. You can't pick up a quick 100 point increase in your average verbal score in a month or two, unlike the math portion. I think that a good test prep course like TPR, along with some home practice, would probably suffice for a large number of homeschoolers to get good SAT scores. I am using the average home-schooled kid here, who sucks at math and science, but is years ahead at English, etc.

I can't speak for the ACT. I never took it. I think it has a science portion, which could definitely be a problem for the YEC home-schoolers out there.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
"I would also be concerned that by keeping a child away from testing, they would be at a disadvantage if they wanted to go to college. Many colleges make the SAT or ACT an important factor in admission, and knowing how to take tests can be nearly as important as knowing the material. "

I know homeschooling parents who are against mandatory testing for homeschoolers, but volunteer their children for the testing for just the reason you mentioned above.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

I am using the average home-schooled kid here, who sucks at math and science, but is years ahead at English, etc.

---

How did you determine that this is the "average homeschooled kid?"

In my experience most kids, homeschooled or otherwise, are stronger in either math or English, but some will be weak in both and some will be strong in both. Homeschooling magnifies this in some cases, but not others.

I went to public school and "suck at math" (never was able to pass Geometry) but am strong in English. I didn't take any test prep at all for the SAT, not even the PSAT. I scored in the 86th %tile in math and the 99th in verbal, which was good enough if I had wanted to go to college. Which I didn't, I was only taking the dang test to placate my mom.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
scored in the 86th %tile in math and the 99th in verbal,"

Those wer my exact scores. What are we, twins? LOL

Seriously, I have never heard of a home-schooled kid being even average at math. I'm sure there's at least one exception out there, but, unless the teaching parent has a degree in math, math education, or both, or the kid gets extra math tutoring on the side, it's highly unlikely, though not impossible, that they'll be as good at math as they would have been in a school setting, public or private. OTOH, they are usually light-years ahead in English, etc., assuming that the teaching parent has a brain and is making a serious effort. My best friend Trevor could barely read when he came into 3rd grade after 3 years of homeschooling. His mom would only teach him to read using the Bible and the Book of Mormon, nothing else. He's actually a smart guy, and he was in the gifted classes with me after a year of catchup. The funny thing is, his mom actually has her MASTER'S in reading education, and is actually the reading coordinator for a large local school system.

I bet you can guess what I think the effects of religious zealotry are on education. LOL

Have you ever heard of a home-schooled kid doing something really great in math or science? I have not. However, there was that 17-year-old who wrote the Eragon series...I'm just sayin'. You might know some exceptions to the rule, but that's all they are, and all they'll ever be.
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
He was 15

There was that 9year old who went to college, here in IL.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
My point still stands. You'll find great orators/writers in the "screw the world, I'm going to go do my own thing" tradition, Conservative Christian, hippie, or otherwise, but...the math and science skills are usually weaker. I think that the general dominance of math and science by Western Europeans is largely an issue of cross-cultural contact and greater communication. Where are all the great Russian theoretical physicists? Genetically, they're not of a very different stock than Americans and Western Europeans, yet, and I mean this nicely, they suck at physics, relatively. It's not an absolute correlation betwen personal/familial/cultural isolation and weaker math/science skills, but there's a little something to that, IMO. Not that I'm anti-home-schooling, I just think it's important to know where it's weak. Just like you wouldn't send a kid to most public high schools without a serious sit-down talk about drugs and alcohol, you shouldn't send a home-schooled kid out into the wider world without some math and science tutoring, broadly speaking.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I think not knowing how to take tests CAN be a disadvantage at the higher education level for homeschoolers. In my return to college, I've run into some homeschoolers who really struggled, and the topic has come up when I've talked to professors.

Some homeschoolers excel in college. Many do not. It's not just the testing, but the whole classroom dynamic and the time issues - one of my professors said the biggest problem he sees with homeschoolers is time management - they can't write in-class essays and even on take-home paper assignments they struggle and he usually is faced with them asking him for extended deadlines.

Granted, some homeschoolers do very well in college, I'm not disputing that - but the ones that I've known that did really well worked with cover schools that did regular, yearly standardized testing and had institutes available at the secondary level for students to come and learn in classroom environments. The church I now attend is a homeschool cover school, and they offer an entire core curriculum at the school where the high school students come in and take biology, chemistry, and other science classes in a lab environment with other students. They also offer English lit classes and math classes up to calculus. The people who teach the classes all have at least an undergraduate degree in the field they teach, some of them have master's. I guess in some ways it's more a private school, but most of the education is taking place at home, they just attend their "core" classes once or twice a week at the school.

Honestly, if I ever were to consider homeschool that would be what I would look for - a program that gives my kids a chance to experience a classroom environment before they go to college because many, many homeschoolers do not make good adjustments to college life.

Of course, with so many online degrees available I suppose homeschoolers could get college degrees without ever going to a conventional classroom so maybe that isn't important after all.

I'm not a standardized testing apologist - I admit they have many failings and shortcomings, but I also think they are something most if not all people who intend post-secondary education have to learn to deal with. Not ever taking one until the all-important SAT or ACT would put most people at a profound disadvantage. We can argue that it shouldn't be that way - and I agree in many ways that it shouldn't, but the fact remains it IS that way right now.

It also doesn't end at college entrance exams, either. I've had to take two standardized tests to prove I have the set of skills to do the job I want to do when I graduate. Whether or not I get a job depends on my making a high enough score.

Standardized testing is part of our academic and professional culture, for good or ill, and not ever taking any I think can do a disservice to young people. The thing is, many homeschooling parents DO incorporate standardized testing into their curriculum so it's not as if homeschooling means never having to take a standardized tests. While I sympathize with people who disagree with the standardized testing system on principle, I also think it's important to give kids every opportunity for success in their education and life. So, in my opinion, homeschooled kids should have to take every standardized test that public schooled kids are required to take. In some states that is the case, but I gather not all.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
steven, I've known lots of homeschoolers who are average to great in math. I know a home-schooled 12 year old who is doing trig. (She also reads at a college level and writes at at least a 10th grade level.) Her mother's degree is in broadcast communications. Her father is a producer/actor/writer.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I'm saying that the potential for horror stories (like my friend Trevor, a gifted 8-year-old who could barely read, even though his mom had her degree in reading education) is higher with home-schooled kids, and that most of the real deficiencies are in math and science. I liken it to the difference between, say, Bob Jones University and MIT. Bob Jones has probably produced some fiery and capable orators in the Christian preaching tradition, but I guarantee that their math and science majors are NOT world-renowned. Math and science, particularly the disciplines that are half-math, half-science, simply don't flourish well in isolation. Think about it, what would improve the most if we had contact with an advanced alien culture, our writing and public-speaking skills, or the quality of our spacecraft construction and theoretical physics skills? Similarly, members of isolated groups like the !Kung or various Native American groups can be very moving writers and orators. They haven't come up with the Grand Unified Theory yet, though.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Yes, but you said you don't know one who is even average in math. I was saying I do.

How many homeschoolers do you know, just out of curiosity? In what contexts do you meet them? What are their usual reasons for homeschooling (religious, philosophical, or just don't like the schools?) I'm just always curious as to what other people's experiences have been with homeschoolers, since I've had interesting experiences myself.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
All the homeschoolers I know did/do it for religious reasons. I know quite a few as close personal friends, maybe 10-12. The others I don't feel I know well enough to make broad statements about. I know the family that I get myu raw goat milk from pretty well, Skyler and I have helped them milk dozens of times, and she loves to play over there with the kids. They homeschool all five, except for the oldest who just started high school a year ago. The kids vary from barely-able-to-read to pretty-much-a-genius, but they all are very weak in math, as far as I can tell. The oldest girl nearly failed math her first year of high school last year, and she's imtelligent. There was a serious deficit in her math skills. I'm not really busting on her folks' parenting skills, but it's sad to watch the middle and younger kids kind of get thrown out on their own as far as actually learning. The second to youngest can beat the pants off me at chess, and he's really generally bright, but it's all him, and not the schooling. His next oldest brother is dumb as a stump, and can barely read at age 14. Eesh, I hope Skyler doesn't read this and repeat it to them. hey Skyler! Keep this under your hat. Don't tell anybody who knows them, OK?
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
I belong to a secular homeschooling group. There are all kinds of different families in it that do it for all different reasons. Those kids are far from growing up in isolation - in fact I think they get more socialization than school kids, because when they get together it's more than 15 minutes on the playground, they really have time with each other. And they make friends with people of all different ages instead of just their own grade.

OTOH, I would agree that math and science can be a huge problem if you don't really stress it. My son loves math, and enjoyed learning all kinds of math concepts that were beyond his "grade" level, but still has trouble with basic math facts because he hates to do them and I hate to argue about it. What parent loves to make their kids do something they hate? Some parents can do it consistently, but for me, whenever it was a bad day personally, the multiplication tables would be the first thing out the window.
 

---

Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
Hmm, Steven, I have to say that your experience has been very different from mine. I have to admit I don't have an extensive list of home schoolers to call upon - but I have met quite a few. I haven't noticed any more deficiency in math (percentage wise) among them than I have with the population at large. I've also known at least three who were excellent at math. Science seems to almost unilaterally be a strong point with them. After all, except for chemistry and physics, science is almost as fun and easy as history since science can be explored in every day life from so many different angles.

Now on testing... I currently work for a test publishing company, so maybe I've sold my soul to the devil, but...

What I've come to realize is this. Tests are NOT bad. Tests are only questions and results. The problem isn't in the test, the problem is how tests are USED. Just the other day I was testing my son on speech sounds. He's had alot of trouble with speech from the very beginning, but not enough that he actually qualifies for therapy from the state as a toddler. Anyway, when thinking about Kindergarten I decided to try to get a concrete idea of exactly where he is with his sounds... and for that I needed a test.

The test gave me TONS of information. I now can pinpoint which sounds he is making correctly and which he is not, so I know what "fun rhymes" will help the most. I'm sure if I was a speech pathologist, I could have figured out even more.

No one ever looks at a speech test and tells a kid they've passed or failed. They look at a speech test and say "Here is what has been accomplished/ here is what has not been accomplished". While, of course, this doesn't define everything there is in the universe, it can give some good direction in knowing "where to go from here". Unfortunately, most state-wide tests aren't interpreted the same way. It's either "the child has me the mark" or "the child has not met the mark". If the child has NOT met the mark, then they send them through the same ringer again and hope the results next year are different. Sometimes they are, since children are constantly changing and maturing, it's not QUITE running the same experiment twice and hoping for different results. Still, to me it seems pretty close.

Public schools never seem to grasp this. Oh, there's tons of talk about punishing teachers for not getting kids to pass the test, but that is also a problematic argument. After all, in most schools these days, the teacher is handed a fixed set of resources, a fixed curriculum, and a box of a classroom and said "force this into those heads". In some schools teachers are even given their lesson plans and a time line. If they aren't presenting the correct lesson on the correct day they are in trouble. (So, you say, what if their students are still struggling with a concept? The school doesn't care, it's time to move on.) Some teachers manage better than others - there are some truly great educators out there that somehow make things work despite the limitations. In many ways though, it's the same problem. Things aren't working.

The states seem to think that if the legislature just decides that every 4th grader will know how to read a chapter book or work a multiplication word problem then all of a sudden all of our 4th graders will be ok. They put out a set of lessons each 4th grader should learn (have you SEEN how long some of those lists are) and put a test at the end of it. What's really crazy is that when the tests don't comply, the first order of business is to bully the results. Oh, our kids can't get 70% of the questions right to pass... let's make a passing score be 58%. It's just really dumb.

Sure, there are things that every kid needs to know. Tests are a good way of telling us if they know them, but NOT a good way of deciding if a kid is good or bad, right or wrong. There are so many things wrong with the public school system that it's no wonder to me that many parents choose to home school. I live in a small town and commute an hour to work everyday so that I can make sure my son goes to a school I trust. It's a pretty good school with fewer problems than most, and it is almost completely successful at turning out 5th graders who can read, write, and do basic 4 function math. Unfortunately, some of the reason they're more successful than many public schools is that some of the more ridiculous educational laws/codes have been somewhat.... um... overlooked. To me, it's sad that parents have to protect our children from our own legislature. After all, they're supposed to be the "voice of the people". Even though I dutifully vote, and have written my congressman on a few occasions, I don't feel like I'm being heard.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

I think they get more socialization than school kids, because when they get together it's more than 15 minutes on the playground, they really have time with each other.

---

quote:

---

Have you ever heard of a home-schooled kid doing something really great in math or science? I have not. However, there was that 17-year-old who wrote the Eragon series...I'm just sayin'.

---

quote:

---

All contact with people is socializing and most classrooms contain at least twenty people at all times.

---

quote:

---

Public school children will socialize with children of different backgrounds, who have different interests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:

Seriously, I have never heard of a home-schooled kid being even average at math. I'm sure there's at least one exception out there, ....

Have you ever heard of a home-schooled kid doing something really great in math or science? I have not.

---

I'm picking this link
because it is CNN

It is mentioned even further in more "scientific" publications, if you care to look. Bart was homeschooled, and now has a PhD in Planetary Science.

While anecdote is not data, and yes there are many homeschoolers out there who don't have solid groundings in the sciences, I know of at least 3 that are engineers, and several others that were in advanced sciences the last time I talked to them although I've lost track of them now.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Not only do you learn how to work with peers in public school, but also authority. One of my daughter's most important life lessons thus far has come because she had to deal with a difficult (I might even use the word incompetent) teacher.

I mediated where I thought it was appropriate for me as a parent, but I took a mostly hands-off approach because my daughter is in high school and I know it's time for her to learn that you don't get to choose the people you work for in this life for the most part so she better learn how to get along with someone in authority that she doesn't like or doesn't think is doing a good job.

One of the things I've noticed in the homeschoolers I've had university classes with is a tendency to run away from a difficult situation. One dropped the Shakespeare class I took because the professor was "too hard" and "not open enough," whatever that means. (The professor DID have a pretty abrasive personality, but is my absolute favorite, I loved her. She was brilliant and a great teacher - I learned tons but I worked my behind off in that class to get through it). The girl dropped the class because she didn't like the teacher - well, she's the only Shakespeare scholar that we have and while we do have another teacher who occasionally teaches Shakespeare, this girl, who was a senior, had to put off graduation for two semesters because she couldn't handle the personality of a teacher.

Now, I know that kind of thing is not unique to homeschoolers, but I can't help but think that my forcing my daughter to learn to function under the authority of a woman she didn't respect or like is going to help prepare her for those types of situation in the future. When does a homeschooler get to practice such skills?

quote:

---

How much of that is "sit down and be quiet", though? They don't get to interact with each other as much as we tend to assume they would, considering they spend 6-7 hours a day together.

---

How many public elementary classrooms have you been in lately? Because I've been in a bunch of middle school classrooms and elementary school classrooms over the last few years and I've seen very litlle "sit down and be quiet" time. There may be a good bit of on-task working taking place, but do you mean to tell me on-task working doesn't take place in homeschool either?

Believe it or not, "have them sit down and do busy work and be quiet" is NOT the teaching method being taught today and in fact, it's frowned upon. In the classrooms I've visited and observed, there are lots of opportunities for interaction, group work, teamwork in physical education, and "free-time" socialization at lunch and recess. Kids spend a LOT of time together both talking and working together in public schools. Yes, there are some teachers who don't let kids work together enough, but every day when my kids come home from school I ask them about their day and I've yet to hear "we sat in our desk all day and never talked to anybody."

Rather, I get a run-down from my high schooler on who broke up with whom, and what argument took place at the lockers, and what he color guard captain said to the danceline captain, etc. From the elementary school ages I get play-by-play of who is or is not my best friend today and who wouldn't sit beside me at lunch and who was mean to someone and got in trouble for it and who would or would not let me play four-square with them.

(I do also get reports on what is happening academically, but we're talking socialization here!)

Now, obviously, there is lots of social interaction between peer groups happening at school. And, all of it - good and bad, fun or disappointing, upsetting or uplifting - helps my kids develop into mature social beings who can navigate social situations. Homeschoolers can do that, too certainly - but I submit there is little doubt that kids in traditional school settings get a lot more practice on a day-to-day basis.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
BannaOj, I'm curious, of the homeschooled engineers you know, how many of them learned their higher math at home vs. in a community college or other formal instructional environment?

I personally think that the best way to teach math is with individual one on one tutoring so I see no reason why a homeschool environment could not work for learning math. I have observed, however, that many if not most parents who homeschool are not themselves skilled in higher math and often undervalue its importance.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I am *not* endorsing the curriculum, but all of the ones I know well enough to know how they learned math, worked through the three books in the Saxon currculum, Algebra 1& 2 and the Geometry/Trig book, and then went and took college-level calculus, without taking pre-calc or anything else.

Pretty much all of us agree that we taught ourselves the math (Algebra and Trig). We all had access to someone who knew how to do the problems, but generally agreed that it was easier to figure it out yourself than listen to the long-windeded explanations of whomever was attempting to explain it to you. Of all the homeschooled engineers I know (some of whom I met at college) this was one of those odd "universal" experiences that we seemed to share.

Personally, my father is an engineer but I think I might have asked for help twice. Both times it wasn't worth it. By the time he got through explaining it, it had taken so long, I'd already figured it out. My mother began working through the first algebra book with me because she was rusty, but she didn't ever complete it, and half the time I was working problems out to explain them to her instead of the other way around.

All of us also generally agreed that learning Calculus in a class is rediculously easy by comparison since everything is so spoon fed to you.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
What Belle said about socializing in school. Although I would suggest that learning to sit down and shut up occasionally is a valuable skill.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think to some extent, success and failure of homeschooling depends on why the parents decide to homeschool. Some parents homeschool for the purpose of isolating their kids from "bad influences". I tend to think that would lead to issues when the kids are no longer sheltered.

My sister homeschools her girls up to highschool. I am slightly biased ( ) but all three are bright, charming, insanely popular, and involved in tons of outside activities. And remarkably well-behaved. When the oldest started highschool, she was consistently at the top of her class as well as participating in extra curriculars, having a part time job and earning good citizenship type awards.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Now, I know that kind of thing is not unique to homeschoolers, but I can't help but think that my forcing my daughter to learn to function under the authority of a woman she didn't respect or like is going to help prepare her for those types of situation in the future. When does a homeschooler get to practice such skills?

---

You mean I was supposed to like and respect my mother?

(tounge only partially in cheek)


I think there are a subset of homeschoolers that are extreme Helicopter parents. It is possible that these children would have been better off in a regular school. On the other hand they might have been just as miserable too, and in a perverse sense, not having the helicopter parent bugging the educators in the public school may be better for the educational institution as a whole. So it may be a reasonable sacrifice of the few for the many.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
But a parent relationship is entirely different from the relationship one has with an authority figure that is not related to you.

I'm fully aware that you know that, AJ. Just pointing out for benefit of everyone involved in the discussion.

At the end of the day, your mother is still your mother. Regardless of the relationship you have with her, you know she will be your mother and nothing can change that. A teacher is an entirely different type of relationship. You may never see them again at the end of the year. They may be so influential that you come back to visit them year after year. Or, your relationship may start out antagonistic an develop into mutual respect.

It's a flexible, changing relationship and one you must have with many different teachers in the course of your academic life. That is a far different experience from going through periods of time when you may have conflict with your mother and disagree with her, yet know that she is still your mother at the end of it all and always will be.

You may have disagreed with your mother but I bet you knew that even when you disagreed she cared for you and had your best interests at heart.

Kids can have teachers that not only don't really care for them, they might actively dislike them. This teacher my oldest had to deal with was like that. At the end of it all, my daughter worked hard to foster a relationship of respect, even though she didn't think the teacher deserved her respect (and I agreed with my daughter, frankly). But, life is like that. So, I made my daughter go to that teacher and find a way to work things out. At the end, my daughter got a good grade and made it through even though she was miserable and hated the class.

But I submit what she learned about working through that relationship with her teacher was far more valuable than the grade she earned. She wouldn't have learned it just by dealing with me, because she knows I love her and am on her side, always even when I have to discipline her or am angry with her. This teacher was not on her side. She had to make it work. She could never have done that if she were homeschooled.

I will never dispute there are some advantages to homeschooling and there are some problems with the public school system. But, I think the advantages of public schooling outweigh the disadvantages. If I didn't believe that, I certainly would be going into the wrong profession.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Belle, I can't speak for other families, but my family definitely specialized in the "suck it up and deal" response to situations. In my entire life, I only remember one exception, and that exception (which was in a church context) was notable for exactly that reason.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I was pretty anti-homeschooling for most of my life. However, after my husband started working in a public school (a very bad one), we have started discussing home schooling. Ideally, we just will never live in a district that bad, but we know that we will never send our daughter to a school like the one my husband taught at.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I bumped the old thread for reference, since I found it.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
AJ I think we may be talking past each other - and I know that you and I agree on many things more than we disagree so I hope I'm not being too confrontational here - 'tis not my intent.

But, the "suck it up and deal" situations are so completely different between family and authority figures outside the family. When my daughter has to accept what I say and my authority because I'm her mother - that's a completely different situation than being forced to accept the authority of someone who is not related to her, does not have a parent-child relationship with her, and quite frankly, isn't even a nice person.

We all have to learn to deal with family - no matter whether we're public schooled, private schooled, or homeschooled. Every child gets that experience. I submit that the ability to work with authority figures who are not your family is something that has to be learned, no one is born with it. And, kids who go to school outside of their home get more practice at it.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
It is not the only way to get practice at it, though. My neices were involved in many activities where they had non-parental authorities. Scouts, sports, theatre, choir, Sunday School - lots of opportunities to practice.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I guess I view dealing with difficult or irrational authority figures somewhat independently of one's relationship to that person. This could be a direct result of being homeschooled.

I find it much, much easier to deal with a non-related difficult or irrational authority figure, than it is to deal with my mother. In fact give me the not nice non-related person any day of the week, compared to my mother, they are a piece of cake!

And, if I didn't get enough practice with my mother, there's always my grandmother to consider... as far as Unpleasant Authority Figures That You Can't Escape From, she takes the cake.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:


Seriously, I have never heard of a home-schooled kid being even average at math. I'm sure there's at least one exception out there, but, unless the teaching parent has a degree in math, math education,

---

quote:

---

My neices were involved in many activities where they had non-parental authorities. Scouts, sports, theatre, choir, Sunday School - lots of opportunities to practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

I think that as a society, we have an obligation to ensure that all of our children receive an adequate education. Children aren't the property of their parents. They are members of the community. What they learn or don't learn will impact on the whole community. We are failing in our obligation to our children if as a community we allow parents to raise functionally illiterate children. If parents are able to provide their children with an education that exceeds the communities minimum standards, then I think parent should have the right to homeschool if they choose. But I think we are failing in our duty if we do not intervene when homeschool parents aren't meeting the minimum standards.

(...)

There comes a point when homeschooling is denying the child the opportunity to learn. That is abuse and we shouldn't tolerate it in our society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
[QUOTE]Rabbit, as stated previously, to me, the larger issue is parents rights vs states rights. The perspective you come from puts community and society before individual parental rights. The line where it crosses into "abuse" is a very very sticky line for me, partially because there are religious freedom implications involved, and divorcing the two can be extremely difficult.

As far as I can tell, it appears that parents have the constitutional right to religiously brainwash their children.

---

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, it appears that parents have the constitutional right to religiously brainwash their children. edit: at the expense of that child's education.

For example: I know you think creation science is bogus, but private schools are allowed to teach it. There is no actual law aganst teaching children false "facts" particularly if they are religiously motivated. Private schools are almost never held to public school standards, because they are private. Homeschooling can be viewed as an extreme form of Private schooling... and I think a lot of the rights of a parent to teach their child whatever the heck they feel like as long as it is religoiusly motivated, is mostly protected by our Constitution (I know there have been compulsory education rulings, but I think it requires a broad interpretation of the Constitution to get them.)

An example of this is the whole FLDS mess. They aren't going after those people for brainwashed religious beliefs learned at their "private schools." They are going after them for sexual abuse of minors. The latter is on much, much stronger legal ground than the former.

---

quote:

---

Why do we have to keep insisting that one way is better for "the average" child?

---

quote:

---

First, I am concerned about the fanatic devotion to homeschooling I've observed in many parents. Because of that fanaticism, they are prone to exaggerate the value of what they do, denigrate public schools, their students, teachers and parents unfairly, and ignore the many real weaknesses of homeschooling. That fanatic devotion to the cause keeps them from objectively assessing whether or not homeschooling is really the best option for them and their child and making changes when they are needed. Certainly not all parents who homeschool are fanatics, but it is very common.

---

quote:

---

For instance, here in Ontario kids must pass a literacy test (usually completed in grade 10) in order to gain a secondary school diploma. I see no reason why a homeschooled kid should be exempted from that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
BannaOj, I'm not sure whether you are arguing about whether a minimum standard should exist or what that standard should be.

I suppose I should clarify that what I'm asking for is a very minimal set of standards regarding the most basic skills that are essential in American society -- those should include English literacy and basic math. Everything else can be negotiable but those 2 are essential.

I recognize the difficulty of religious issues, but if people belonged to a religion that demanded they never feed their child protein -- we wouldn't even argue that parents should enforce this diet on their children.

---

Rabbit, it is something I haven't fully decided in my own mind. This is the USA. We might believe someone like Fred Phelps is vile and evil and off his rocker, but he still has the right to be completely wrong while he demonstrates. For me, it really comes down to how much the government is allowed to control the lives of its citizens, and individual rights, vs state's rights vs federal rights. While the Supreme Court has upheld State compulsory education statutes, there isn't a Federal compulsory education statute. Many of the original compulsory education lawsuits were with regards to the Amish.

I am extremely wary of infringing on parental rights. Many homeschoolers profoundly believe that their parental rights trump the states interest. And their belief in those parental rights is religiously based. So it gets sticky really fast.(Christian Scientists are another group that has to deal with similar sticky issues, as far as immunization and the like.)

I'm not saying that I agree with their educational techniques, by and large I don't. But do they have the right to use them on their own kids? I suspect so. To deny them that right makes me very squeamish. I don't think the fanatics are right, but I think they have a right to be wrong.

(Many homeschoolers invoke Godwin's Law on this point too, saying that the Nazi educational institutions usurped the moral authority that the parents should have had with their own children... and Godwin's Law or not, they have a legitimate point.)

[ August 12, 2008, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I don't really see how a standardized test once every two years can really count as undue interference. If a home schooled child is more than 2 years behind in a subject, the parent should be held accountable.

There ought to be these kinds of milestones, so you don't end up with 18 year olds who still read at a 3rd grade level, because their homeschooling just didn't think that would be an important skill.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
But that's forcing the state's definition of "behind" on the parents/children. Some kids don't even start official schooling until they are 8 or even 10 years old (the "better late than early" delayed schooling philosophy.) Many of them read just fine by the time they're 10 or 12 but wouldn't be able to pass a test at 8, for instance.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Some kids don't even start official schooling until they are 8 or even 10 years old (the "better late than early" delayed schooling philosophy.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

For instance, here in Ontario kids must pass a literacy test (usually completed in grade 10) in order to gain a secondary school diploma. I see no reason why a homeschooled kid should be exempted from that.

---

I have no problem with this. I have no problem with any exit exam required to get a diploma. (Currently in CA there isn't one. Well, there is if you want a diploma from an ACCREDITED school-- but unaccredited schools, including homeschools, are exempted.)

My problem is with requiring standardized testing at certain grade levels-- in some states, every other year past a certain point-- that are geared toward a curriculum that homeschoolers are (or should be) exempted from. Homeschooling often moves at a different pace than public school, and standardized testing leads to the possibility of interference from the state because of that.

---

I can see where you're coming from. In the case of the literacy test I mentioned, that's why I said that it's usually completed in grade 10. That's when students write it for the fist time anyway. If they fail they will have an opportunity to try again the next year. The important thing is that they pass before they are ready to graduate. The idea is of course that no one should receive a diploma without demonstrating basic literacy skills. There's also a 9th grade numeracy test, but at the moment passing it is not a requirement for graduation (I don't know why not).

[ August 12, 2008, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: neo-dragon ]
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Unschooling, I guess.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but there are people who strongly believe in this educational philosophy. I don't think, if they're willing to take charge of their kids' education and strongly believe in this educational philosophy, that I have the right to say they shouldn't do it.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
It should be quite easy to show that a child with a sub-standard education will be severely disadvantaged later in life, regardless of his or her goals.

Why should we allow parents to do real and lasting damage to their children's chance at a bright future, simply because they think a 14 year old doesn't need to know how to multiply or read?

It's no wonder the US is falling behind other countries in education, if this is the stand we take on teaching children.

I'm not a fan of governmental control of people's lives, but some people make very poor choices, and it's a real shame that we should support those choices, which will be harming their children.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
MightyCow, there are very, very, very few homeschooled 14 year olds who don't know how to multiply or read. (Perhaps more that don't know how to multiply than read, but I could show you a broad selection of public school students who don't know how to do that, either.)

I think that assuming that every single homeschooling parent is going to fail his or her children is doing them, and their children, a great disservice.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
kq, that's a pretty nice strawman you have of MightyCow's argument.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Jhai, I was responding to his attitude, not his words. I've heard over and over again people say that homeschooled kids are poorly educated. In the majority of cases it is just not true. The curve is a bit different, for sure-- more fall on the ends than in the middle in comparison to public school, perhaps-- but judging by the failures and ignoring the successes just doesn't work for me, especially when you account for the fact that there are ALSO failures in public and private schools.

I should probably leave this thread for the next day or so because I'm starting to get really irritated by the discussion and have knee-jerk irrational anger.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Fair enough; I've been there.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

But that's forcing the state's definition of "behind" on the parents/children. Some kids don't even start official schooling until they are 8 or even 10 years old (the "better late than early" delayed schooling philosophy.) Many of them read just fine by the time they're 10 or 12 but wouldn't be able to pass a test at 8, for instance.

---

quote:

---

Not requiring literacy tests until 10th grade would virtually eliminate the possibility of successful intervention. By 10th grade, the damage is done and the child will almost always suffer from it for his entire life.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that those decades of research on reading and cognitive development have some critical omission and that most children if placed in a homeschool environment where reading wasn't taught until age 10 could learn read just as well as if they had been taught to read at age 6. But I'd have to see more than anecdotes from home schoolers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until there is good solid data that this kind of educational plan is likely to work, I think the community has a moral obligation to intervene for the sake of the children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
I have no problem with this. I have no problem with any exit exam required to get a diploma. (Currently in CA there isn't one. Well, there is if you want a diploma from an ACCREDITED school-- but unaccredited schools, including homeschools, are exempted.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
I think that assuming that every single homeschooling parent is going to fail his or her children is doing them, and their children, a great disservice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boon:
[QB] Why should the cutoff be 8 for every child?

---

quote:

---

Why do you* get to decide what standard to use in evaluating my children?

---

quote:

---

If there are different approaches to learning, why must you* assume my approaches are deficient simply because I don't have a teaching degree?

---

quote:

---

What if 8 is simply too early for my child? What happens then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
You are accepting a premise of "too late". There are very valid reasons for rejecting that premise. (There are valid reasons for accepting that premise also, but I'm ok with a considered rejection of this premise.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scifibum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
You are accepting a premise of "too late". There are very valid reasons for rejecting that premise. (There are valid reasons for accepting that premise also, but I'm ok with a considered rejection of this premise.)

---

Let me rephrase.

How is it harmful to ensure that home schooled kids have an opportunity to be assessed to ensure that they don't pass the generally accepted threshold for learning to read before it likely will be too late?

I'd rather see 5 kids put in unnecessary intervention (I'm not talking about a military school, here, just some help from tutors or something) for every 1 kid that really needed it, than see that 1 kid grow up illiterate because of a mistaken belief that the kid was the exception to the rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lobo:
I have found that most home schoolers are harmess, but socially backwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:


Waiting until 10th grade to test is virtually useless - what do you do at that point if the child cannot read well enough to earn a high school diploma? Send them back for remedial reading instruction in the 10th grade? Send them to adult literacy classes? Your options are very limited at that point.

No, there needs to be evaluation much earlier so proper intervention can take place.

---

Here's what I can tell you about the literacy test in Ontario secondary schools. First of all, it wasn't implemented with home schoolers in mind. In fact, having just done some quick google research it seems that home schoolers do not have to write it at all. Actually, it doesn't seem like home schoolers here really have to do anything in the way of proving the standard of their education.

So why aren't public school kids tested before the 10th grade and what can be done if they fail? Well, I'm a science teacher, and a new one at that, so I don't have all the answers. Some more googling tells me that of those who fail the test, about 50% are successful on their second attempt. Those who fail (more than once, I think) can take a remedial literacy course, successful completion of which eliminates the requirement of having to pass the test. So it is in fact possible to graduate without ever being successful on it. I don't know why the test isn't done earlier. But just because there's not a standardized test prior to grade 10 doesn't mean that there's no evaluation.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Whether or not you can think of a single exception, for the vast, vast majority of people, being illiterate is a horrible hindrance in life.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
BannaOj, the problem with your parental rights argument is that (I believe) we're all in agreement that parental rights are not absolute. They are limited by the community we live in.

You can't, for example take a whip to your child's body just because you want to. Heck, in this country you couldn't even do that to an animal if you wanted to. In both cases (child & animal), the community would decide that you're unfit to be responsible for that child/animal, and remove it from your care. The community does this for children & animals because, as a whole, we believe that the child & animals have certain rights - rights that they are unable to protect themselves. (Note that I think consenting mentally-competent adults should have the right to do so, if that's their thing.)

Moreover, since children are often unable to complain to the community at large about their rights being trampled, we, as a community, have decided that in certain cases some interference is acceptable in each others' lives to make sure that children's rights are being upheld. Sometimes this interference goes too far, IMO, but I do believe that some interference is required and just.

Obviously striking the right balance between protecting children's general rights and parent's rights to privacy is difficult - but still necessary. Thus, as a society we've decided that random health checks on children via home raids hurts the parent's right to privacy too much to be allowed - but checks on houses when a community member has raised a legitimate concern about a child's well-being is an acceptable imposition on the parent's privacy in order to protect the child's rights.

Now, let's consider education. Children, in this country, have a right to education. This is for their own good, and for the good of the community - a literate, well-educated populace is required in a developed economy such as the one we have. It also helps keep our political system running smoothly, as the voters are able to read and understand complex political positions.

Parents do not have the right to deny education to children. At the very minimum, this education needs to include the three R's. If parents do not choose to have their children attend the free schools the state provides to facilitate this education, they are required to provide alternative means.

But how are we to make sure that the parent is not ignoring a child's right to this basic level of education? Unlike a child's physical well-being, it is extremely difficult for a community member to casually observe whether the child's rights to a minimum level of education are being respected or not. But I don't think it's fair to any child to simply hope that parents will respect that right - especially when there's plenty of evidence that parents don't always do so.

So, then we're faced with the question of how to make sure the child is getting the education he has a right to, without interfering too much with the parents' rights. Some people have suggested one-time or occasional mandatory testing to make sure that the child is gaining the basic skills he has a right to. Some people prefer having a qualified community member (i.e. teacher) evaluate a child's work. In either case, it has been suggested that the checks must happen at a relatively young age (say 8) to make sure that the child will not be unduly disadvantaged by a parent who doesn't feel the need to fulfill that child's right to an education.

Do you think there's a better solution?

[ August 13, 2008, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
I wonder how much of the homeschoolers' resentment to having to pass a test is based on the fact that public school kids really don't. Sure, they have to take tests, but what really happens if they fail and their parents still don't get involved? Not a whole lot.

Either the parent is involved and the kid is getting a comparable education, or the parent isn't and they're still probably getting one.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
What's so unfathomable to me, is that some people seem to be arguing for the right of parents to only hold their own children to the absolute minimum standard.

When I was growing up, my parents fought tooth and nail to make sure that I had the most opportunities, the best education, and the greatest chances to do whatever I wanted to later in life.

It's a complete mystery to me why any parent would want to hold back their child by making an effort to insure that they have the right to an inferior education.

If you aren't giving your child a superior education to the public school system, why for all that's good and holy would you want to homeschool them?
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
I was formulating something similar to what Jhai just said -- this isn't a conflict between the rights of society or government versus the rights of the parents. It is a question of what rights children have and what the state may do to protect those rights.

So the question is, do children have a right to learn certain skills by a certain age? If we are relatively certain that failing to learn to read by a certain age will cause a person to be at a disadvantage for life, should we step in? Should we prevent deaf parents from homeschooling if we know their hearing children won't be exposed to spoken language at all?
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 

quote:

---

If you aren't giving your child a superior education to the public school system, why for all that's good and holy would you want to homeschool them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:


Education is a privilege, not a right. We live in a privileged society for the most part. Is society benefited by the majority being functionally literate? Yes. But the opportunity for education, is *not* some self-evident truth, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Obviously virtually all parents homeschooling or not, want their children to read. Parents realize that their children will probably be better able to pursue happiness if they are literate. But, there is nothing that says that literacy is truly intrinsic to that pursuit. I am completely happy to leave this ultimate responsibility with parents, even if it means that at the extreme there might be a few (and I believe Very Few) illiterate homeschoolers wandering around. I do not believe the state should intercede in this parental decision. I don't believe there will be negative societal change by leaving this decision with parents.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, since children are often unable to complain to the community at large about their rights being trampled, we, as a community, have decided that in certain cases some interference is acceptable in each others' lives to make sure that children's rights are being upheld. Sometimes this interference goes too far, IMO, but I do believe that some interference is required and just.

---

quote:

---

The true issue again, is that of parental rights. Homeschoolers believe they have the right to educate their children as they see fit. Many of them believe that they are mandated by God to educate their children that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
I'm not anti-literacy by any means. I think literacy is a good thing in general. I'm not convinced that it is anywhere near a "one-shot-in-life" educational/developmental deal as being expressed here.

---

quote:

---

The few documented young children who lived without interaction with other humans before the age of 5 failed to gain a high level of fluency in human speech for the rest of their lives, because they missed that crucial time period where the brain develops for language. Now, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be a few children who miss the 5-year mark, but still develop fluency, but, thankfully, there haven't been a lot of cases of young children with no human interaction.

---

quote:

---

There is a large body of studies that support the idea that reading is a skill which must be learned in childhood to be mastered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:


Jhai, I don't believe a child has many rights at all. The guardian of the child is the one that grants the child any or all rights they may have. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

The exact argument you are making about parents rights to educate their children as they see fit can be made about all child abuse issues.

---

quote:

---

Do you think that society is wrong to intervene when parents physically abuse their children? If not, what do you see distinguishes this from the homeschooling issue. In both cases their is a wide range in what members of society consider acceptable. In both cases, there are gray areas.

---

quote:

---

Give me some sound logical reason why parental rights to decide for their children are more important than the child's right to be taught.

---

quote:

---

As an engineer, you should have been trained to evaluate situations based on sound evidence and to be skeptical of both your intuition and anecdotal evidence when they conflict with well established principals.

---

quote:

---

I think the government's still working on a bill that makes it impossible to be issued a driver's license if you do not hold or are working towards a high school diploma or some equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Everywhere we read stories of how social work is understaffed and underfunded and generally undervalued by the government agencies responsible for its upkeep. Here's a question for you: why should I trust society in general to make that call?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
I'm not anti-literacy by any means. I think literacy is a good thing in general. I'm not convinced that it is anywhere near a "one-shot-in-life" educational/developmental deal as being expressed here.

---

BannaOj, What evidence would you need to be convinced. There is a large body of studies that support the idea that reading is a skill which must be learned in childhood to be mastered. Are you familiar with these studies? Have you looked at the research but determined that it is too early to draw a conclusions from it. Have you identified some critical flaw in this research that leads you to believe the conclusions can be rejected? Or is it just that these conclusions don't mesh with your world view.

As an engineer, you should have been trained to evaluate situations based on sound evidence and to be skeptical of both your intuition and anecdotal evidence when they conflict with well established principals.

---

quote:

---

For example, we all know that reading *to* children before they are school-age is a Very Good Thing. Are we going to criminialize "not reading to children"?

---

quote:

---

I can produce them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
There isn't only one real issue, there are two: Parents rights and children's rights. The exact argument you are making about parents rights to educate their children as they see fit can be made about all child abuse issues. Some parents believe they have a right to choose how to discipline their children, even if that means beating the child until bones are broken or locking them in a closet for years on end. At least some of them believe that they are mandated by God to discipline their children this way. In fact, I know of at least one case where a parent killed his infant son believing that he had been commanded by god to sacrifice the child.

Do you think that society is wrong to intervene when parents physically abuse their children? If not, what do you see distinguishes this from the homeschooling issue. In both cases their is a wide range in what members of society consider acceptable. In both cases, there are gray areas.
...

Since you are arguing about what one group "believes" is their right, let me tell you what I believe. I believe that children have rights and that it is the moral obligation of society to protect the rights of children. That is hardly a socialist idea. Even most libertarians agree that protecting individual's rights is the legitimate prevue of government.

---

I believe that the limitations on the "free exercise of religion" with regards to a child' rights and child abuse, are *exactly* the same limitations that should be placed on homeschooling, precisely because many parents view homeschooling as a necessary part of their free exercise of religion. When society intervenes in such a matter it needs to be done with the same legal precision and care that happens when interfering in any other "free exercise of religion" action.

Now, not all homeschoolers, particularly the non-religious feel that they are exercising their religious freedom by homeschooling. I have read some interesting cases where a non-religious homeschoolers life would have been made much easier, if they justified their homeschooling under the "free-exercise" clause and they couldn't compell themselves ethically to do it.

There's a lot of irony there. This is why I do fall back to the "parental rights" concept because the standard should be the same whether religious or non-religious.

*curmudgeon* Homeschoolers today really do have it easier from a legal standpoint than they did in the old days. 25 years ago, parents *were* thrown in jail and lost custody of their kids, just for homeschooing, academic benchmarks be hanged.

edit: Or I agree with Rakeesh, like I should have done in the first place
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Some parents think having their children play with snakes is a free exercise of their religion too. I think all of us agree that when the exercise of religion harms a child, it should no longer fall under any kind of protection. As soon as religion becomes an evil, it needs to be stopped.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
BannaOj & Rakeesh, you seem to be missing much of the subtleties of (philosophical, not legal) discussions of rights, particularly in how they relate to children. Might I suggest you check out this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entitled Children's Rights? In particular, I recommend the sections called "Children's Rights and Adult Rights" and "The Child's Right to Grow Up."

In those sections you'll see referenced the ideas of "developmental rights" and an "open future". While there a distinctions made in these ideas(mostly only of interest to nitpicking philosophers), the main thrust of these arguments is that children have a moral right to be set up for an eventual adult future that will not be unduly constrained by closing off significant life choices. So, for instance, while you are not required as a parent to take your child to weekly psychiatric appointments to make sure he grows up in perfect mental health, you do have a responsibility to not mentally or emotionally abuse your child, which would close off the (significant life choice/path) of being an emotionally mature adult. Likewise, I believe that failing to provide a basic education of the three R's for a child (at the very minimum) does significantly narrow a child's future life choices.

Now, we can quibble about the legal rights a child has, and there's certainly a lot to discuss how a child's rights can be best protected. But I think that saying that any education for a child is a privilege, not a right is simply wrong, morally & legally. I've studied this topic (from the philosophy angle) pretty deeply, and, frankly, your points about rights & privileges are rather, um, uneducated. There's a massive literature out there discussing this topic that you should be aware of if you'd like to discuss it intelligently.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
Who said social services would be making the call? We're not talking about investigating child abuse, for goodness sake. We're talking about evaluating education which would be done by people trained in education.

...

There are laws in place that govern a parent's rights to refuse such an evaluation already. There's no reason why, at that point, the situation can't be handled just the same as a public school student whose parents have been told their child needs evaluation. My experience is that parents can refuse, and often do, and the school then has steps it can take, but it's all spelled out quite clearly. I can find the exact procedures that take place at that point if you wish - my textbook for my exceptional education class is upstairs.

Nowhere in this process is social services involved, that I'm aware of.

---

quote:

---

But a lack of education, *isn't* inherently a criminal fault.

---

As far as I can tell, that's not actually true.

edit: Also, just throwing this out there, compulsory education at the primary level was affirmed as a human right in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[ August 14, 2008, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Jhai, from a personal philsophical standpoint I probably agree with you more than I disagree. I am, however, extremely uncomfortable about imposing that philisophical standpoint, on people who sincerely disagree with it.

I guess I'm pro-choice on the issue
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Squicky, I also view this as a state vs. federal issue. There are compulsory education rulings with legal precedent. I don't necessarily agree with all of those rulings. I do believe a parent should attempt to follow the law of whatever state they are living in. As mentioned in your link, "compulsory education" laws vary widely by state. That article is skewed to making you think they are all more authoritarian than they are. It also comes back to "how do you define education" which is the bigger ball of wax.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

Belle, I would be very interested, particularly in the "end-game" procedures if a parent refuses to allow their child to be tested.

---

Not a problem, I should review these things anyway, since my comps are coming up.

IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is the major piece of legislation that outlines these procedures.

Parental consent is NOT required under IDEA for a referral for a special needs evaluation, though in practice, most schools do in fact inform the parents that a referral is being made.

Once the referral is made, parental consent MUST be obtained before any formal testing of the child takes place. The school must notify the parent, in writing in his/her native language of the school's intent to evaluate the child. If a parent refuses such testing, the school may request a due process hearing.

Though, again in practice, this is rare. Most of the time it stops there, and the child is never tested or evaluated.

Now, if you want more details on how IDEA mandates the testing is done and some of the other procedural issues, I'll type them up I didn't want to spend a lot of time typing out what you may not be interested in.

I think the heart of the matter is that parental consent is required by law, and the only way to override that is through a due process hearing.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Banna,
I'm not sure I understand about what you mean by it being a state versus federal issue. It has to be a state issue. Constitutionally, the federal government doesn't have the right to pass laws effecting education this way.

Could you give an example of a state law that allows parents (either themselves or through a proxy) to not educate their children?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Banna,
I'm not sure I understand about what you mean by it being a state versus federal issue. It has to be a state issue. Constitutionally, the federal government doesn't have the right to pass laws effecting education this way.

Could you give an example of a state law that allows parents (either themselves or through a proxy) to not educate their children?

---

quote:

---

But a lack of education, *isn't* inherently a criminal fault.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I'm responding to your statement above:

quote:

---

But a lack of education, *isn't* inherently a criminal fault.

---

I think I'm unclear on what you meant by "a lack of education". Could you explain?

---

I wanted to leave that broad because it goes back into "definitions of education" Who determines what is truly adequate and what is lacking? Someone who can't read English or do long division, can still be a virtuoso musician that plays entirely by ear. (I pick music, in this case because a) there are documented instances of this sort of thing and b) it's also documented that music helps stimulate the same parts of the brain as math.) Would they be better off, if they could read and do long division? Probably. Do they lack education in some specific areas? Yes. Am I going to condemn the parents for allowing the kid to pursue their musical talent as part of their education instead of doing long division. No.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'm not sure if I understand the context you are using this in then. It seemed to me that you were saying that it is not illegal for parents to not educate their kids, for some definition of educate.

This doesn't seem to be the case to me, at least for the definitions of educate that you presented (reading and basic math).

Now it seems like you're trying to make a moral/philosophical point and not actually talking about what is legal. Is that correct?
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
BannaOj, one of my friends has a daughter like you describe. She was adopted from Romania at age 4, and is dealing with the long-term emotional and physical effects of those first 4 years.

She is 12 now, and not reading or doing math at grade level (her work suffers but her IQ's been tested at above average), but she is incredibly good at the violin, viola, anything stringed.

If she were in a public school, what would she do? Would she be in the resource class all day? Would she have the opportunity for the hours she spends playing music? *shrug*

For some people, no matter how much school they are exposed to, they will not conform to government school standards.

And I think a good life is possible outside the standards the government has set.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

And I think a good life is possible outside the standards the government has set.

---

Which standards are those?

edit: I'm pretty supportive of the idea of home schooling. I'm having a real problem getting over the idea that kids don't need to be exposed to literacy and basic math if their parents don't want to. Besides being, as far as I can tell, illegal, it just sounds like a real failure in looking out for the welfare of the child.

[ August 14, 2008, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Squicky, I guess the "legal" requirement is "should be educated". Some people would view a "music only" form of education, that does not include reading or math, as "no education at all".

While I might personally prefer an english and math curriculum for that child, I think that if the parent feels a "music only" education is an adequate one for preparing the child for adulthood. I don't feel that I have the right to legally impose my views of "education= minimum of reading and math" on that parent.

I believe once those views are legally imposed, a slippery slope ensues. This does not mean, if I knew that person that I wouldn't strongly encourage them for the good of their child, to make sure their child gets a broader education. It is the line between "strongly encourage" and "impose" that I am not willing to cross. (again in the absence of physical abuse etc. etc.)


(I love what Belle said on the previous page about libraries etc. I think literacy is extremely important, and that as a society we should provide opportunities like that at every turn... but again it's the difference between "strongly encourage" and "impose")
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Standards like...oh....an 8-year-old must be able to read so much, or be able to multiply. Or a 12-year-old must be performing at the same grade as her peers, to be considered as having a "good life", or for her parents to be considered good parents.

This girl I spoke of, this Romanian adoptee, would likely be struggling academically, whether at a PS or at home. But I think her life is better at home, than it would be at PS.

Notice I'm referring mostly to children who wouldn't fit in to the educational box anyway. Those who have major emotional or LD issues. Even if they cannot perform as their peers do, does not mean their lives are, by definition, bad or wasted.

Public schools originally began as prep schools for factory workers. They were intentionally industrial, because the children were intended to go on to industrial work. Historically, the children of the rich and powerful have been individually tutored, or sent to private/finishing schools. Public school is not the only road to a good education.

So I guess what I'm calling "government standard" is really "societal standard".

(I'm feeling really granola as I write this. )

The premise is, "You need money to be happy; you need a job to make money; the $$$ jobs you need a college degree for; you need to go to high school to get into college; you need to to X,Y,Z, to do well in high school." And so on.

There are some alternatives to the Money = Happiness model. For instance, there's the Knowing Everything = Happiness model.

Some have complained about students who are weak in math. Okay, I want the person who builds the bridge I drive across to be great at math, but do you need calculus to be a wonderful landscaper, or to work at WalMart? Or to be a happy, fulfilled person?

The government says, "Yes,you do" and furthermore seems to be saying "and we're going to make sure your kid has all that whether you like it or not".

It's a nice thought--I hate the idea of any mind not achieving to its potential--but strong-arming parents isn't the way to do it.

And assuming most homeschoolers are at least a little negligant in exposing their children to math and literature is inaccurate.

I would guess (this is totally a guess, based on my interactions with HSing and PSing parents) that the proportion of HSing parents who woefully neglect their child's education is equal to or lesser than the proportion of PSing parents who fail to get involved in their child's PS education, especially if that PS education is so inadequate that only the parent's involvement will help educate that child. (which describes what my father had to do with me when I came home from school in CA).

I think equating government non-involvement with homeschooling parents with endorsing gross educational neglect reflects some unfair and unsupported assumptions about homeschooling parents.

As a defensive HSing mom, , I hear it as "you're negligent until proven competent". I have nothing to hide, but it's insulting and intrusive to assume that without the government looking over my shoulder I would not do what was in my child's best interests.

If you compare schooling to carseats: Yes, some parents risk their children by not strapping them in (which I abhor; I am passionate about car seats). But for the most part, parents care deeply about carseats, far more deeply than the government car-seat person, because it is their personal baby in that seat, and they will go above and beyond government standards, for the sake of their child.

Does the government really think they could care more about my children than I do?

The government's standards seem arbitrary (I don't think there is a life-quality issue for someone reading later than their peers, IF they are learning according to their own internal schedule), often change, are (IMAO) unduly influenced by political interests and some are even contradictory to my moral beliefs.

It's bad enough to make us scared of "what happens if Johnny doesn't read by 7?". To criminalize it....how does that help people? Do children really not learn to read by adulthood because someone just neglected to teach them the ABCs? Usually it's not because children are doing nothing that they don't learn to read; it's because they're doing something else instead of reading. Running from drug dealers, maybe, or working in a sweatshop.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Jhai,

quote:

---

Now, we can quibble about the legal rights a child has, and there's certainly a lot to discuss how a child's rights can be best protected. But I think that saying that any education for a child is a privilege, not a right is simply wrong, morally & legally. I've studied this topic (from the philosophy angle) pretty deeply, and, frankly, your points about rights & privileges are rather, um, uneducated. There's a massive literature out there discussing this topic that you should be aware of if you'd like to discuss it intelligently.

---

quote:

---

So, for instance, while you are not required as a parent to take your child to weekly psychiatric appointments to make sure he grows up in perfect mental health, you do have a responsibility to not mentally or emotionally abuse your child, which would close off the (significant life choice/path) of being an emotionally mature adult. Likewise, I believe that failing to provide a basic education of the three R's for a child (at the very minimum) does significantly narrow a child's future life choices.

---

quote:

---

In those sections you'll see referenced the ideas of "developmental rights" and an "open future".

---

quote:

---

But I think that saying that any education for a child is a privilege, not a right is simply wrong, morally & legally.

---

Education is a privilege (to me, and I'm not speaking in legal terms) and not a right because it's something that requires the participation and consent of the one being educated.

For example, I have the right to peaceably assemble and peaceably worship whichever religion (or none at all) that I may choose. I don't have to do anything to have those rights, they're mine just because I'm an American. (That's one legal interpretation on that; morally I think those rights are everyone's, period).

Education, however, is different. I believe every child has a right to be offered an education, but that's not the same thing. Since the extent to which a child is educated depends substantially on that individual child, it cannot morally be said to be a right, at least not in the sense that I'm discussing rights and privileges.

To be educated, someone must take the opportunity (or make one) to be educated. Rights are things we always have, we never have to take them.

----------

Where I disagree with BannaOJ is on the issue of the 'three Rs', actually. I do believe that the state should have the right to compel education in those areas, simply because in order to have much of a strong hope to be a good, productive citizen, one must be able to do those things.

Yes, you can be a good citizen without those things-it's just a lot harder.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Interestingly my mother STRONGLY believes in the three Rs. And believes the US has a compelling interest in having literate citizens. Yet she understands that to actually "compel" this violates the same rights of homeschooling parents that she excercised while homeschooling me. I was hoping she would have a way out of the connundrum that I couldn't see, but unfortunately she doesn't, and was a little upset that I'd pointed out the logical connundrum, since she doesn't actually *like* the logical extreme I'm taking it to.

But even while disliking my logical extreme, in some instances she is even more brutally utilitarian than I am willing to be, (and I know some of you were appalled at my utilitarian arguments) on the basis of her actual experiences.

I was also asking her about documentation of "sucessful homeschoolers" and when I got oodles of historical examples like Sandra Day O'Connor, I had to qualify "in the modern era". She could compile quite a list, but agreed one of the major problems with "sucessful homeschoolers" is that you aren't going to know they were homeschooled unless they tell you.

It also depends on how broadly you are willing to define "homeschooling". There is definitely homeschooling "snobbism" out there. Is it just having been homeschooled through the elementary grades, or are they not a "pure" homeschooler if they went to high school, and these days, even going to a community college like I did in lieu of some high school classes, is sometimes condemned as "not homeschooling".
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Clearly, Rakeesh, you did not read the article I suggested you read, as you completely misunderstood the concept of an "open future." If you'd like to read the article (even just the short segements I suggested as key to the current discussion), I'd be fine discussing it with you for several pages. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to type out explanations of concepts which are clearly explained in the article just so the conversation can continue - especially when I've pointed out exactly where you can find out what, exactly an "open future" means. It isn't a magical term I've dreamed up - it is a key concept in the philosophical/moral discussion of children's rights.

It also might help if you review the concepts of rights in either a legal or philosophical sense, as your examples and definitions also seem problamatic.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Jhai, that article presented a variety of philsophical issues, some of which I agreed with and some I didn't agree with. I clearly lean closer to the "will theory" than I do to the "interest" theory.

The irony is that many homeschoolers homeschool precisely so that their children can have "participatory rights" in their own education. But the only way to legally defend it is to assert the supremacy of the parent's rights.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
BannaOj, I'm not saying that Rakeesh has to agree with all POVs presented in the article; obviously that would be difficult, given that many of them contradict each other. But I have no interest in getting into a philosophical discussion about rights with someone who doesn't understand any of the basic terms and concepts required to have a clear and mutually beneficial discussion.

He's free to remain ignorant of these terms, but I'm also free to refuse to engage in a discussion with such a person. In my mind, it's similar to trying to present a professional economics paper at a seminar or conference filled with people who have only had Micro Economics AP - it won't give valuable feedback to the presenter, so her position won't change at all, and the AP students won't have the background necessary to learn anything or challenge the presenter.

Will theory, by the way, doesn't evade the points raised by the "open future" proponents, since their whole idea is that it is the rights of the future adult that will develop from the child that require certain steps to be taken now, before the child has fully grown. Similar in nature, for instance, to the government's duties to inform voters about voting registration requirements before November, so that when the voters want to exercise their rights on Election Day, they have the option to do so.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Jhai. A tangent for my own curiousity. Would you agree that the child's "right to survival" would trump the "right to education?"

In other words, in an area where subsistence is the norm, doesn't the parent have a greater moral right to keep the child alive than they have to educate them? If the child has to work, in order for the parents to have enough income to be able to afford to feed that child, isn't education secondary to survival itself?
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Oh, of course. Anyone who would argue with the idea that there's a hierarchy of rights is an absolute loon.

For instance, it shocks a lot of people who haven't thought deeply about the economics of the issue, but I'm in favor of (child) sweatshops in developing countries. Obviously it's not okay if children are forced to work there (slavery or indentured servant or what have you), and it'd be better if they could be in a classroom or out playing - so I'm strongly in favor of government programs that encourage child education through food programs & the like. But, lacking that, it's better that the family has the income to survive than that the kid starves to death while getting an education. Western pushes to just close down any child labor doesn't do the child or his family any favors.

Interestingly, a recent study in India suggests that as soon as it is economically feasible for (Indian) parents to pull their children out of the workforce and send them to school, they do so. Whether that's because parents have their child's best interests at heart, or because they recognize the long-term value added to the family unit through a child's education is unclear, but either way, it's very heartening news.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
wow. Are you my mother?

She used a similar argument (without the data to back it up that you have in your India example) to explain why a homeschooler is always going to strive to have literate children, because of the long term value to both the child, the family, and society.

Even though she is a Christian Fundamentalist, she's almost a Social Darwinist when it comes to homeschoolers that, barring special needs circumstances, have illiterate children at the age of 18. (She's ok with the child learning to read after 12 though, I think she feels 18 is enough time to catch up either way.)

It is interesting for me to talk to her, because while she generally has pretty rational reasons for any particular opinon she holds, her logic isn't always consistent. It was downright awful when I was a teenager and she was menopausing. She'd taught me to be rational, yet suddenly I couldn't deal with her on a rational basis. It was a bad time for all concerned.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
I had the same problems with my mom as a young teen - except that she was never particularly rational. Apparently I argue exactly like my hyper-logical father (they divorced when I was young), and she has more of an emotional-reasoning mindset. Add in the changing hormones with both parties, and our arguments got pretty nasty pretty quickly.

Now we're both on a much more even keel, relationship-wise, but I still have difficulties arguing with her 'cause most logic just bounces off...
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Jhai,

Nope, I didn't. Not yet, anyway. I'll read it, probably today or this weekend; I resent and reject the implication that I can't have an intelligent discussion-and however much you try to deny it, that was what you were saying-with you on this subject unless I study your coursework.

Case in point:

quote:

---

But I have no interest in getting into a philosophical discussion about rights with someone who doesn't understand any of the basic terms and concepts required to have a clear and mutually beneficial discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sachiko:
Standards like...oh....an 8-year-old must be able to read so much, or be able to multiply. Or a 12-year-old must be performing at the same grade as her peers, to be considered as having a "good life", or for her parents to be considered good parents.

This girl I spoke of, this Romanian adoptee, would likely be struggling academically, whether at a PS or at home. But I think her life is better at home, than it would be at PS.

Notice I'm referring mostly to children who wouldn't fit in to the educational box anyway. Those who have major emotional or LD issues. Even if they cannot perform as their peers do, does not mean their lives are, by definition, bad or wasted.

Public schools originally began as prep schools for factory workers. They were intentionally industrial, because the children were intended to go on to industrial work. Historically, the children of the rich and powerful have been individually tutored, or sent to private/finishing schools. Public school is not the only road to a good education.

So I guess what I'm calling "government standard" is really "societal standard".

(I'm feeling really granola as I write this. )

The premise is, "You need money to be happy; you need a job to make money; the $$$ jobs you need a college degree for; you need to go to high school to get into college; you need to to X,Y,Z, to do well in high school." And so on.

There are some alternatives to the Money = Happiness model. For instance, there's the Knowing Everything = Happiness model.

Some have complained about students who are weak in math. Okay, I want the person who builds the bridge I drive across to be great at math, but do you need calculus to be a wonderful landscaper, or to work at WalMart? Or to be a happy, fulfilled person?

The government says, "Yes,you do" and furthermore seems to be saying "and we're going to make sure your kid has all that whether you like it or not".

It's a nice thought--I hate the idea of any mind not achieving to its potential--but strong-arming parents isn't the way to do it.

And assuming most homeschoolers are at least a little negligant in exposing their children to math and literature is inaccurate.

I would guess (this is totally a guess, based on my interactions with HSing and PSing parents) that the proportion of HSing parents who woefully neglect their child's education is equal to or lesser than the proportion of PSing parents who fail to get involved in their child's PS education, especially if that PS education is so inadequate that only the parent's involvement will help educate that child. (which describes what my father had to do with me when I came home from school in CA).

I think equating government non-involvement with homeschooling parents with endorsing gross educational neglect reflects some unfair and unsupported assumptions about homeschooling parents.

As a defensive HSing mom, , I hear it as "you're negligent until proven competent". I have nothing to hide, but it's insulting and intrusive to assume that without the government looking over my shoulder I would not do what was in my child's best interests.

If you compare schooling to carseats: Yes, some parents risk their children by not strapping them in (which I abhor; I am passionate about car seats). But for the most part, parents care deeply about carseats, far more deeply than the government car-seat person, because it is their personal baby in that seat, and they will go above and beyond government standards, for the sake of their child.

Does the government really think they could care more about my children than I do?

The government's standards seem arbitrary (I don't think there is a life-quality issue for someone reading later than their peers, IF they are learning according to their own internal schedule), often change, are (IMAO) unduly influenced by political interests and some are even contradictory to my moral beliefs.

It's bad enough to make us scared of "what happens if Johnny doesn't read by 7?". To criminalize it....how does that help people? Do children really not learn to read by adulthood because someone just neglected to teach them the ABCs? Usually it's not because children are doing nothing that they don't learn to read; it's because they're doing something else instead of reading. Running from drug dealers, maybe, or working in a sweatshop.

---

quote:

---

Yes I have. I do not find the "expert opinions" and "expert science" to be as expert as you think they are. I have no desire to get into a competing "battle of experts". I can produce them, but you aren't going to believe them so what is the point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
Jhai, from a personal philsophical standpoint I probably agree with you more than I disagree. I am, however, extremely uncomfortable about imposing that philisophical standpoint, on people who sincerely disagree with it.

I guess I'm pro-choice on the issue

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
[QUOTE]edit: I'm pretty supportive of the idea of home schooling. I'm having a real problem getting over the idea that kids don't need to be exposed to literacy and basic math if their parents don't want to. Besides being, as far as I can tell, illegal, it just sounds like a real failure in looking out for the welfare of the child.

---

I don't think that there are many homeschool parents who are opposed to teaching their children reading and math. I do know that there are many who are doing a bad job of it. Many parents who homeschool have a fanatic commitment to doing it and are devoted to a particular style of schooling. Combine that with the fact that most parents find it difficult to objectively assess their children and you have set up a serious potential for disaster. For example, a parent may be committed to an "unschooling" philosophy that says children will naturally start to read when they are ready without formal instruction. So if their child isn't reading by age 7 or 8, they figure the child just isn't ready. If they still aren't reading by age 12, they are exceptions, but the parent just "knows" the child will start reading when they are ready. The parent is so committed to the "unschooling" philosophy that they won't even consider formal reading instruction no matter how much evidence builds up that this isn't working, so the kid just gets older and older and eventually he is an illiterate adult. The same could be true of any other educational philosophy the parent is devoted too. No education style works for every child.

In my 5th grade year, I had a teacher who ran an open classroom. I was part of a team with 3 other girls, we planned a daily schedule, set goals and did several long term projects. We had one hour everyday for math. The entire grade was divided by skill level and the lowest level students received formal instruction while those of us at the high end were allowed to work at our own pace. This was perhaps the best year of my schooling. I still remember details from the books we worked from and the projects we did. The following year, I was bored out of my mind because I was way ahead in almost every subject. Interestingly, one of my good friends was also in this class. He is the one person I know that is truly genius level in math and music, easily the smartest person I've ever known. I recently talked with him about our 5th grade class and found his experience was exactly the opposite of mine. He learned absolutely nothing that year and found himself trying to catch up the following year. No one educational style works for every person.

Despite everything I've said here and in previous thread, I'm not utterly opposed to homeschooling or unstructured learning in general. It can work very well for some teachers and some kids. But it has not worked well for the majority of homeschoolers I've known in my career as a professor. Getting a good education in a homeschool environment seems to the exception rather than the rule which makes me very concerned about the growth of homeschooling.

As a teacher, I'm a big advocate of standardized tests despite the mess no child left behind has made of them. Standardized test are a terrific guide for me to assess my teaching. I want my students to learn not just what I think is important, but what will be considered important by others in their community and their profession. Its hard for me to understand why any parent wouldn't voluntarily have their child assessed by an objective outsider at reasonable intervals.

I'm very worried by homeschoolers who refuse to reevaluate what they are doing regularly and revise their methods when they don't seem to be producing results. I recognize that there is a danger in changing course too frequently and that some kids need time but there are also very serious consequences for letting things go too long.

I'm very disappointed that both KQ and Boon were so easily offended in this thread and left in a huff. Its not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded parents who are sincerely trying to do their best. It tends to reinforce my believe that homeschoolers are fanatics who aren't able to objectively assess their efforts or willing to change as needed.

[ August 15, 2008, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Bokonon, I agree that literacy and basic math abilities are good skills. One reason for that: they encourage self-sufficiency, which leads to better, more independent, more active citizens.

I agree with your assessment of early American schools, which were motivated by altruism and usually locally owned and operated. We see the same model of school today in the Amish community, in developing Africa, and among homeschoolers/charter schools.

The Industrial Revolution required factory workers, lots of them, and the one who could read and figure were more skilled, and encouraged progress. Factories were so important that they needed lots of workers with not only academic skills--3 Rs--but also social skills--being adapted to the physical and social environment of a factory.

Enter public school, designed to give children a no-frills academic education and to ensure a solid, adequately trained working class ready to power America's factories.

Of course a no-frills education is 100% better than no education at all, so it seems stupid NOT to give every child the opportunity for at least a basic education. And, of course, college was just one acceptable choice among many.

Now, however, it is the One True Goal of school. Or so it seemed to me during my school years in Nebraska, California and Utah. Every child was meant to go to college. The reasoning was vague; the most specific benefit pointed to was "because you can't make money if you don't go to college".

Learning how to make money is not a bad thing, but it's not always the same as education and knowledge, which is what the schools say is their goal.

Great test scores are not a bad thing; they're only bad when academic binging/regurgitation replaces a love for learning and lasting skills.

Early childhood education in the 3 R's is not a bad thing! But when it comes at the cost of a moral education, then it's not as good at a moral and academic education combined.

Those early years are important--for both academic and moral training. American schools say they cannot/should not give a moral education.

I think schools DO give a moral education, but in the opposite direction from what I want to teach my kids.

Often curricula are not subject to parental review (as it was in the early village schools), and contain decided political leanings.

So, best-case scenario, the school maintains total moral neutrality, and my child learns academics in a moral vacuum. Worst case, my child spends hours a day being taught things directly contrary to what I want to teach them.

Children need to be surrounded by what they need to learn. If this weren't true, then why are some educators and politicians fighting to increase the time children spend in public schools, and lower the age of compulsory attendance?

If important, life-changing lessons can be taught in just an hour a day, then why not change compulsory school attendance to only an hour a day? If so much important work can be done in so short a time.

It's silly to oppose children learning the 3 R's. What I oppose is mandating that children must learn it at a government-mandated age, in the government-mandated way, and must be separated from their families in order to effectively do so.

If families are the basic building block of society--and I believe they are--then how does it strengthen our society for our children to grow up in an afamilial environment? Is that the key to happiness?

I would want the option--the parental right--to teach my children at home even if the schools were doing a slam-bang job of teaching basic academics.

But....they're not. Not reliably. Some districts are better than others; there are absolutely amazing heroes of teachers working in the trenches and doing a great job; the intentions behind universal compulsive government-run schooling are good, but the end product isn't always the greatest.

The argument I hear more often is that, aside from character training and academics, public schools have a monopoly on "socialization", which is supposed to be key to a quality adult life.

There are a lot of arguments for both sides. Of course I favor one side ; I think it's fair to say that schooling in an industrial environment is useful, but not crucial, preparation for an adult life in an industrial environment--factory work, the military, law enforcement. Which are honorable professions.

However, since the stated goal of most schools I've been to is to send students to college so they can have what are usually considered in our culture more "qualitative" work--higher in $$ and prestige--socialization in the industrial environment is useful only in providing one with skills for jockeying for position in arbitrary pecking-orders (which I hear the Ivory Tower is full of) or maybe if your child plans to spend their adulthood allowing coworkers to assault them in the name of "toughening up".

Of course I don't oppose teaching the 3 R's to children. I think it makes them happy in the short- and long-term. BUT, I do oppose making early academic development more important than early moral development.

If you were to institute a program of all-day compulsory education for 3 and 4 year olds then, yes, they may learn basic academics, and, yes, they would be accustomed to the public school environment. But would they be adequately "socialized" for family life and self-motivated educational pursuit?

Education is A key to happiness, but it isn't THE key.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm very disappointed that both KQ and Boon were so easily offended in this thread and left in a huff. Its not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded parents who are sincerely trying to do their best. It tends to reinforce my believe that homeschoolers fanatics who aren't able of objectively assessing their efforts and change as needed.

---

No no, tell us what you really think.

Don't just beat around the bush hinting that KQ and Boon aren't open-minded parents sincerely trying to do their best, just freaking say it, Rabbit.

But since you're not going to actually say that, why not spend some time considering that yours words and not their reactions are problematic.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Rabbit, what about public schools that refuse to reevaluate their methods on a regular basis? Or who just ignore parental input?

I'm of the opinion that getting a "good education" in a public school is the exception rather than the rule. Gifted and talented programs notwithstanding, I bored stiff in my schools and did most of my learning once I'd stolen a library pass and started playing hooky.

I've heard the complaint before that homeschooling produces students weak in math. This is usually supported by anecdotal evidence, and seems to ignore the many, many public school students who leave school practically math illiterate.

I was one of them, which confounded my father, who not only major in math but left high school early and helped TEACH university calculus as a high school senior. I was an AP/honors student, took all the math classes, had my father tutoring me at home, and yet by the time I got to college I was taking remedial algebra 1. Seriously.

And I was going to "good" schools.

Children are individuals, with unique aptitudes and weaknesses. I don't know if homeschooling would have helped with my math problems--hee hee, forgive the pun--but I DO know that what little math I do, I learned when working at home with my father.

Perhaps those students vexing you with their math inabilities are just that--bad at math. Regardless of where they got their schooling.

Not everybody needs to know calculus. It's important in some professions, and those who can't do calculus, can't do those professions, right? And if they want to join those professions, then what you have is a motivated math student, yes?

So what's the problem?

Knowing how to do calculus isn't the great key to personal happiness. It may be the key to not annoying Rabbit but it's not needed for successful human life.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Rakeesh,

Prior to that last statement, exactly what words did I say which you think should have offended KQ and Boon?

As a professional educator I am aware that when people are presented with ideas that don't mesh with their world view, one of the most common responses is to get angry and leave. This behaior prevents learning. Since I not not seen any insults directed at either KQ or Boon (before they got angry and left) or even any sweeping insults of homeschools, I interpreted their anger as a classic response to cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps this is just an issue to which they are hypersensitive or maybe they both just happened to be PMSing (not intended as derogotory, I overreact when I'm PMSing and consider it a forgivable and understandable in others). If this is the case, then my last remark was an unfair judgement and I apologize.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Rabbit, what about public schools that refuse to reevaluate their methods on a regular basis?

---

quote:

---

Or who just ignore parental input?

---

quote:

---

'm of the opinion that getting a "good education" in a public school is the exception rather than the rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sachiko:
Knowing how to do calculus isn't the great key to personal happiness. It may be the key to not annoying Rabbit but it's not needed for successful human life.

---

quote:

---

So, in order to be a safer driver, one must have studied those principles on an academic level?

---

quote:

---

Rabbit, you say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the homeschooled students you have met are poorly suited to university life.

Is it your opinion that one must have a university life in order to be a happy, complete human being?

---

quote:

---

I'm very disappointed that both KQ and Boon were so easily offended in this thread and left in a huff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:


but when a homeschooling parent talks about how their child being better off in public school would be a sign of a failure on their part, then I think they aren't doing it for the kid are instead doing it for their own ambition, like stage mothers.

---

quote:

---

One side is saying that benchmarks are a good idea so that if a kid isn't learning, help can be given before it is too late.

The other side seems to be hearing something about fascist orphanages for those who don't turn over their children.

---

quote:

---

"We want to hold homeschoolers to a standard that doesn't exist in public schools as a whole because it exists in my personal classroom."

---

Where did you hear that? I for one advocate holding homeschoolers to the SAME standards as public school students and not anything different. The same.

I don't think I've ever suggested homeschoolers should be held to a different standard. Public school students have their reading aptitude measured regularly, all I've suggested is that homeschooled students should be evaluated as well.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
What actually happens to a student that fails a standardized test? They get a remedial class once a week? Maybe a teacher's aide helps them with their notes? No where are they actually required to improve their test scores.

So if homeschoolers are held to the same standard, will nothing really happen to them if they fail as well? That's the part the anti-test crowd doesn't buy. There's no way the parents are going to be given the same pass that the bureaucracy gives itself.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So you're mad at people suggesting testing and then offerings of help for what they AREN'T saying??

THAT'S paranoia. That's fine - you're welcome to be paranoid. However, if you think that those who are suggesting treating homeschoolers like public schoolers are in fact LYING and secretly want to treat homeschoolers like E.T., then I wouldn't wait around for any sort of resolution.

There can be no resolution when one side suspects the other of being secretly evil and lying when they state their cases.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
I don't think individuals want to persecute homeschoolers, no. But I apparently disagree with you on the fundamental nature of the government. I don't believe the system as a whole wants children to find the system that meets their needs. I believe the bureaucracy wants every child accounted for, properly stamped and trained in their idea of proper education.

Yes, it is a little paranoid, but I don't believe it's unreasonable paranoia. And I was the one on the last page saying that there probably is compromise. But both sides have to acknowledge each other's perspectives to get to that point.

Having schools offer voluntary testing services or lists of counselors who can help diagnose learning disabilities would probably work much better than anything mandatory. The parents that want the help will take it, and the ones who don't won't bother no matter where their kids go. If you don't have to pass a test in public schools, you shouldn't have to pass one to opt out.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
There is a lot of irony, that in order for a child to have educational freedom, one has to defend the parents' rights above the state's rights.

What would you (general you) think of an actual private school that doesn't teach reading, or do any reading or math evaluations or tests? and in fact has structured classes as optional? (if there are structured classes...)

[ August 15, 2008, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I find it mystifying that people, religious, hippie, or otherwise, think that they can completely isolate their kid from public education and/or outside influences, and somehow do an unequivocably better job than otherwise. I'm not accusing any homeschooling parents here, because it doesn't look like any of you reach that extreme, but it does sort of scare me. Seriously, how do people not understand the basic principle of costs and benefits? There's no perfect solution, and, at some point, you have to let go of your kid. The world has its bad points, but there are ways to insulate your kid against those. A reasonable compromise that I have seen is to homeschool until high school, and then send your kid to a good public or private school. I still refuse to believe that the greatest achievements in math and science are going to be from homeschooling. I wouldn't say that about the arts and letters. I'm a little surprised that each side can't see some benefit in the other position. If I had the time and money and decided to have another child, I'd probably take a serious look at homeschooling the kid until as late as 8th or 9th grade. I'd definitely get some tutoring on the side in math. After a certain age, though, the kid needs some kind of group experience, and will suffer socially if they don't get it. Yes, there are drawbacks to the high school experience, and yes, it depends on the kid as to what and when is best, but...homeschoolers are raising some weirdos. There really are some good schools and good teachers out there, public and privately-funded. It's foolish to assume otherwise. I had some great teachers who changed my life in public school. I had probably the best 3rd grade teacher in the state. I don't think she ever had a student who didn't feel that way, in 20+ years. I don't think many homeschooling parents could achieve what she did. Knee-jerk homeschooling is not necessarily an automatic good, based on my experiences. I'm not pointing out anyone here and saying "you need to learn that fact!", necessarily...
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

After a certain age, though, the kid needs some kind of group experience, and will suffer socially if they don't get it.

---

quote:

---

What would you (general you) think of an actual private school that doesn't teach reading, or do any reading or math evaluations or tests? and in fact has structured classes as optional? (if there are structured classes...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

I'm very disappointed that both KQ and Boon were so easily offended in this thread and left in a huff. Its not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded parents who are sincerely trying to do their best. It tends to reinforce my believe that homeschoolers are fanatics who aren't able to objectively assess their efforts or willing to change as needed.

---

-sigh-

You are making assumptions that aren't true. I did not leave in a huff; I am not angry. I chose to leave the thread for a while because I was becoming too emotional to carefully consider "the opposition's" points and respond without things becoming personal.

Assuming that I choose a substandard education for my children because I oppose mandatory testing is not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded educators who are sincerely concerned for my children. It tends to reinforce my belief that some public educators are fanatics who aren't able to objectively consider the fact that not all children are best served by being in a classroom setting.

I am opposed to mandatory testing, not because I'm afraid my children will fail it, but because it will not provide any useful data I don't already get. It has the added "bonus" of allowing a toehold into our home of a government entity that is not impartial.

I believe some schools, some teachers, and the government funded educational system as a whole, stand to benefit both financially and personally by "proving" homeschooling parents "unfit to teach" their children.

I also don't think "standardized testing" does a good job of measuring how much a child has actually learned about any given subject. Instead, I think it does a great job of measuring how well a person takes standardized tests and how much of the curriculum being used to compose the test the child can regurgitate. Never mind all the things that aren't covered by the test...

There's also individual circumstances to consider. I don't think *MY CHILDREN* would be best served by having to take a standardized test based on a curriculum we don't use. They don't need to take time away from what they're learning to learn how to take a test that isn't necessary, that we don't want, and that wouldn't change anything.

Also, the pressure of outside measurement...is something I don't think they need in this area of their lives. I do take note of what they're doing, and I do compare it to what the "should" be doing at their ages, but they're not taking "tests" they don't choose to take and they don't know I'm keeping track.

Now, again. I'm bowing out, for at least a week, not because I'm angry, but because I, as KQ said, don't have much time online anymore. My children have officially become computer hogs. There's a lot more I'd like to say swirling around in my head struggling to get out, but it'll have to wait.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boon:
[QUOTE]


I am opposed to mandatory testing, not because I'm afraid my children will fail it, but because it will not provide any useful data I don't already get.

---

quote:

---

Assuming that I choose a substandard education for my children because I oppose mandatory testing is not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded educators who are sincerely concerned for my children. It tends to reinforce my belief that some public educators are fanatics who aren't able to objectively consider the fact that not all children are best served by being in a classroom setting.

---

quote:

---

I believe some schools, some teachers, and the government funded educational system as a whole, stand to benefit both financially and personally by "proving" homeschooling parents "unfit to teach" their children.

---

quote:

---

I also don't think "standardized testing" does a good job of measuring how much a child has actually learned about any given subject. Instead, I think it does a great job of measuring how well a person takes standardized tests and how much of the curriculum being used to compose the test the child can regurgitate. Never mind all the things that aren't covered by the test...

---

quote:

---

The problem is that, generally, the people who want to homeschool have had, either by choice, chance, or both, a pretty non-socially-diverse life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boon:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

I'm very disappointed that both KQ and Boon were so easily offended in this thread and left in a huff. Its not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded parents who are sincerely trying to do their best. It tends to reinforce my believe that homeschoolers are fanatics who aren't able to objectively assess their efforts or willing to change as needed.

---

-sigh-

You are making assumptions that aren't true. I did not leave in a huff; I am not angry. I chose to leave the thread for a while because I was becoming too emotional to carefully consider "the opposition's" points and respond without things becoming personal.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps this is just an issue to which they are hypersensitive or maybe they both just happened to be PMSing (not intended as derogotory, I overreact when I'm PMSing and consider it a forgivable and understandable in others). If this is the case, then my last remark was an unfair judgement and I apologize.

---

quote:

---

Also, I realize you are a college educator. However, if you had a student in your class that participated in a normal manner, would you have any occasion to find out if they WERE home schooled? You seem to be applying some inductive reasoning on the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
What would you (general you) think of an actual private school that doesn't teach reading, or do any reading or math evaluations or tests? and in fact has structured classes as optional? (if there are structured classes...)

---

quote:

---

I believe some schools, some teachers, and the government funded educational system as a whole, stand to benefit both financially and personally by "proving" homeschooling parents "unfit to teach" their children.

---

quote:

---

Assuming that I choose a substandard education for my children because I oppose mandatory testing is not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded educators who are sincerely concerned for my children. It tends to reinforce my belief that some public educators are fanatics who aren't able to objectively consider the fact that not all children are best served by being in a classroom setting.

---

quote:

---

In fact, I wouldn't be oppossed to audits of students' work instead of tests. Parents could keep five examples of their child's best work per subject and present it to the auditors upon request. It could be completed worksheets, recordings of the child singing a song they composed to memorize their multiplication tables, drawings from their history of medieval clothing project, absolutely anything educational that the child did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
There are some states that already have the portfolio requirement in place.

---

quote:

---

My assumption 8a would be that public schools work great for students with an average learning speed and retention, no or mild disabilities, and a personality that lends itself to the environment.

Students on the edges of any of those curves may not be well served.

---

quote:

---

GATE here is crap

---

KQ, Did you decide to home school before or after you moved to LA? Did you decide to home school after you had investigated all the public school options or before? If you lived in an area with an outstanding public school system, would you still want to homeschool?

I ask this questions because I have found that home schoolers often have an unfair bias against public schools and are quick to believe anything bad they hear about them.

For example, earlier in this discussion you said that the teachers in LAUSD sometimes didn't get paid because the funds had been misappropriated. I found that hard to believe since its in violation of dozens of laws for any employer not to pay their employees, but I know you well enough that I wouldn't accuse of lying so I looked in to it. It turns out that in 2007, LAUSD did have problems with some teachers not getting their pay checks, some also were overpaid and some underpaid. It turns out that this was the result of problems with new software they were using. While that is still a big problem and still an inexcusable burden on teachers and still likely to cause the district to loose good teachers unless its fixed quickly, it is quite different than misappropriation of funds.

As I said earlier, if home schoolers wish professional educators had more respect for what they were doing, home schoolers need to stop spreading misinformation about the public schools.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I decided to homeschool after getting a diagnosis for my daughter of SPD, recognizing she is gifted (double complications) and investigating public and private school options.

If I could afford it, there's a Montessori school I would consider sending her to if after meeting with them I was confident in their ability to serve her SPD needs.

If I lived in a school district that had a school/program appropriate for a gifted child with SPD, I might send her if the school environment was safe (I do not consider our local school environment safe-- I'm sorry, but I'm not sending my kid to a school where assaults and weapons violations are on the up each year. In ELEMENTARY school. This based on the police report for the local elementary school and surrounding schools for the past 5 years.)

The misappropriation comment was based on discussion with a LAUSD teacher. I should have fact-checked her statement, sorry.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
(I should add that Emma has been attending a Montessori preschool two days a week for the past two years, and is only stopping this fall because she's aging out.

We enrolled her because of a social and verbal delay, which are now corrected, at least enough that we feel she doesn't need the intervention any more.

We intend to prayerfully and earnestly consider each child's educational needs each year before deciding whether to continue homeschooling or to make a sacrifice to find a private school that will serve the child's individual needs even if it is a financial stretch. If we move to a better district with safer schools we'd consider public schools, too, though we don't intend to move from the area right now as we other than the schools love where we live.

As I said, every year we will re-evaluate and the choice will be made on a year by year and child by child basis.)
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I should also add that we have discussed this decision with educator friends along the path to making it, in particular my uncle, who has a Masters in Education, and who has taught in public and Catholic schools for many years, mainly teaching sixth through eighth grade English, and has seen kids who came to his classes from public, private secular, Catholic, Armenian, and home schools through the years. He agrees that we are making the best choice for our family, and that has helped me to find strength to do what I'm sometimes a little afraid to do, and conviction that this is indeed right for us.

Not that that's really relevant for the discussion, but to just tell you that we really did consider all the options. And because I am really going to miss my uncle when he is gone. (He has ALS and sadly I don't think he's going to be around long enough to teach my kids to write a proper paper.)
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
(So basically, if there must be oversight-- which I don't think there should be-- I find requiring remote review of the childrens' progress to be the least restrictive option. The caveat is that I would stipulate that it should only be evaluated to "checklist" that the required subjects were being taught, not how or when or how much they were being taught, that the children were gaining basic literacy, and that progress was made from year to year, not how much progress was made, but that any progress was made.)

---

quote:

---

Additionally most public schools have strong gifted and talented programs.

---

quote:

---

And if you're moving along faster than the rest of your honors class, even that doesn't really help. A classroom setting ties everyone to the average pace which may not be appropriate for all students.

---

quote:

---

If a child's doctor finds out that she can't read at 14 years of age, and reports this (and I would hope that a doctor would have someone to report this to, if after speaking with the parents she was not satisfied that they were giving due diligence to their child learning to read), I think the state has every right to mandate that child be taught to read whether that child is in public, private, or a home school, and require followup of the interventions given.

---

quote:

---

4. The community has an obligation to protect children's rights. This includes the right to be taught basic skills. To fullfill this obligation, the community needs to do some oversight of homeschools to ensure that the child's rights are not being violated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I've never known of a student who approached a teacher saying that the class was moving too slow for them who wasn't encouraged and assisted with moving ahead on their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quidscribis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I've never known of a student who approached a teacher saying that the class was moving too slow for them who wasn't encouraged and assisted with moving ahead on their own.

---

You have now. Me.

---

quote:

---

Me, too. And don't forget that even with sympathetic teachers, other kids can make it torture to be "different". And I went to very good public schools.

---

Other kids can make life brutal in private schools. Kids who are homeschooled can be teased by peers they meet in other settings.

Public schools aren't the only places kids get teased and picked on.

I should say, since we're throwing out anecdotes, that I was identified as gifted and in every grade except one - third grade - I had teachers who went above and beyond to make my learning experience fun and challenging. I have a daughter who has been identified as gifted and her experience has been very good, through elementary and middle school. She's now in high school where there is no formal gifted education, but she has the capability to take honors classes and dual enrollment for college credit. She's been very challenged.

I have a middle daughter who tested but fell short of being identified as gifted, but her fourth grade teacher chose not to believe the test and still went out of her way to challenge and push my child. Personally, I DO believe the tests, because I don't think my 10 year old learns the same way her gifted older sister does, but she is certainly brilliant in her own way.

We should do more with gifted education in the public schools, I agree. I wish we were able to find the money to put gifted teachers in every level, but usually they are not in the high schools.

And I agree with Rabbit, at some point (and high school is probably a good place to start, definitely college) you do have to take responsibility for your own education and learn to push yourself.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:

quote:

---

Me, too. And don't forget that even with sympathetic teachers, other kids can make it torture to be "different". And I went to very good public schools.

---

Other kids can make life brutal in private schools. Kids who are homeschooled can be teased by peers they meet in other settings.

Public schools aren't the only places kids get teased and picked on.

---

quote:

---

Compulsory attendance - From 6 to 18 years of age on or before September 30.

Parent Qualifications: File annual Notice of Intent (using a form or letter) and meet one of the following:

* Have a college degree and submit a description of a program of study;
* Use a curriculum from the list of programs pre-approved by the state;
* Describe a curriculum or program of study that includes the state's Standards of Learning for mathematics and language arts and show evidence that the parent is able to provide an adequate education for the child;
* File a religious exemption (once obtained, no further notice required);
* Be a state certified teacher and homeschool under the Tutor statute.

Testing: Choose one of the following:

* Submit results of standardized achievement test by August 1. Parent may choose test, administrator, location and date, subject to approval of local superintendant. (Stanford 9 is the only test they *must* accept.) Child must score above the 4th stanine (23rd percentile).
* Portfolio review by local superintendent's office or reviewer (superintendent has some say in who may qualify to review). Usually, reviewers look for evidence of having met the Standards of Learning set by the state.
* Independent assessment by certified teacher, who sends a letter stating that s/he believes the child has achieved an adequate level of educational growth and progress.

---

quote:

---

What would be ideal would be a case manager, who is a professional educator, that oversees homeschooled students. That case manager could receive the attendance reports and audit them, review lesson plans and curriculum used by the homeschooler, and review work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

---

quote:

---

I am finding it interesting that, given the level of support for parental autonomy that was shown on this forum during the crisis with the FLDS children, that there is so much support for govenrment intereference in this area. I don't know if it is just different people having the conversation or what. I am not sure what to make of it, but I do find it interesting, including my own reactions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Jhai,

Nope, I didn't. Not yet, anyway. I'll read it, probably today or this weekend; I resent and reject the implication that I can't have an intelligent discussion-and however much you try to deny it, that was what you were saying-with you on this subject unless I study your coursework.

Case in point:

quote:

---

But I have no interest in getting into a philosophical discussion about rights with someone who doesn't understand any of the basic terms and concepts required to have a clear and mutually beneficial discussion.

---

So, I'll read your article, but you don't have to be such an ass about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quidscribis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I've never known of a student who approached a teacher saying that the class was moving too slow for them who wasn't encouraged and assisted with moving ahead on their own.

---

You have now. Me.

---

quote:

---

I think if you went back and looked through it, you'd find people were largely falling on the same side of the issue both there and here although many of the most adamant supporters of civil rights have not participated in this thread.

---

quote:

---

We could have a similar law for education, if at anytime anyone called and reported anonymously that your child's education was being neglected, the state would come into your home and test your child. But to me, that seems likely to be far more invasive and far more likely to be abused than an organized oversight program. I can easily imagine a manipulative aunt or neighbor calling the state regularly to report everyone she knows who is homeschooling. I don't think anyone would find such a system acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
GATE here is crap.

---

That's a bit excessive.

Getting GATE testing is a major PITA; meeting the yearly application deadline for specific GATE programs is even more of one (and there appear to be absolutely no late applications accepted, period). But there are definitely programs for "doubly-special" (GATE-qualifying kids with LDs), some of which opened relatively recently. And many GATE schools are excellent.

LAUSD is huge, and while services are supposed to be equally available throughout, they aren't always. I'm not sure what "here" meant in this specific case.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
rivka, I was referring specifically to our local elementary schools, that my children would have access to.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Ok. In that case, I haven't the least notion.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
My aunt is friends with a principal of a local elementary school, and the GATE coordinator at another. They both bemoan the scanty resources they're given with a local population with a high proportion of gifted kids (remember, we have lots of folks up here who work at JPL, etc.) And the process for getting any accomodations for Emma's SPD is frankly daunting, adding in GATE would be way too much. Even if I was willing to let her attend the local schools, which I'm not for safety reasons.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 

quote:

---

AvidReader, At some point you have to take responsibility for your own education. By the time you reach college, if you are still blaming your choice on the system, you've got a lot of growing up to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
And don't forget that even with sympathetic teachers, other kids can make it torture to be "different". And I went to very good public schools.

---

quote:

---

Taking responsibility means that if you don't know the rules and no one points them out, you go research them and find out.

---

Really. At 16 you'd have done this? You don't even know that there's a rule to cover this sort of thing, but you'd go out and research it anyway? Google didn't even exist until the year after this happened. Where would I even have gone to find the rules that applied to the teachers and wouldn't be in the student handbook or a book in the library?

Let's be honest, you can't be mature until you're given permission to do so. If questioning authority is talking back and gets you in trouble, you learn not to ask questions. If you're told it's no big deal for the guidance counselor to say what he likes, why would you assume it's actually illegal? If you're told there's nothing harder for the teacher to give you, you don't ask for harder work. When no one tells you the rules have changed since you were five, why would it occur to you that they've done so?

Children are trained by the system to obey the system. Until you're outside, you can't really see anything but the system. And the system doesn't allow waves. That's why I feel it's so dangerous. Children need an advocate to stand up for them against this kind of self-contained juggernaut because until they have one, they don't know there are other options than the handful they're given.

Did you see Pleasantville? It's like asking what's outside and getting a blank stare. Until you know there's an outside, you don't know to ask how to get there.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Uh huh. What AvidReader said.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

If questioning authority is talking back and gets you in trouble, you learn not to ask questions.

---

quote:

---

If you're told it's no big deal for the guidance counselor to say what he likes, why would you assume it's actually illegal?

---

quote:

---

If you're told there's nothing harder for the teacher to give you, you don't ask for harder work.

---

quote:

---

When no one tells you the rules have changed since you were five, why would it occur to you that they've done so?

---

quote:

---

Children need an advocate to stand up for them against this kind of self-contained juggernaut because until they have one, they don't know there are other options than the handful they're given.

---

quote:

---

Mature enough to see that the rules have changed?

---

quote:

---

There is a reason that those wild success stories are passed around - they are incredibly unusual. It isn't fair to blame him for not being an outlier.

---

I wasn't using success stories to say that AvidReader should have been one - I was using the example to show that when people are successful, it's because they take responsbility for themselves. I've had some training in educating children of generational poverty and one of the biggest things we're taught is to never believe that we have the power to make people succeed. We can offer the tools for success, we can bend over backward to provide people from poverty the opportunities to succeed (and we should) but people have to step up and be responsible for their own education. You cannot force people to learn things. By the way, I'm not trying to say Avid Reader is from generational poverty, just that kids raised in that environment are the ones most likely to "not know the rules" and even in those cases, the child's sense of personal responbility is the biggest factor in his/her success in school. That's even with educators trained to go out of their way to help them overcome obstacles.

Is it AvidReader's fault he had bad teachers? Of course not.

But blaming school and its "mindless bureaucracy" for his dropping out of college in his junior year is not at all helpful and I don't think fair to the schools. A college junior should be mature enough to take responsibility for his own education. Playing the victim will rarely help you get anywhere.

Now, I won't be around to answer posts for a while - because I've got to go to school. Today is the first day of classes. If I don't respond today, it's not because I'm ignoring anyone or don't want to talk about it.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh, I didn't see that he'd blamed dropping out of college on public school.

I think expecting fifteen year olds to defy the system, challenge the adults, and go against the grain when they are treated poorly is too much to ask. It looked to me like that was what you were saying, and I was objecting to labeling that as immature. It isn't - acting like that as a 15-year-old is absolutely what is normal for a 15-year-old. It would be immature if they were an adult, but 15 year olds are not adults, and it isn't fair to label them as immature for not being so. It's like being mad at baby because they can't walk. Not only is it cruel, it does not accurately describe the situation.

For college, though, AvidReader, you're on your own. Dropping out then is your own decision. There are other people on this board and in this thread that also dropped out of college, and there were lots of reasons for it, I'm sure. Maybe those stories would be helpful.

The glorious and terrifying part of being an adult is that people don't really care anymore. You can succeed or fail and no one gives a crap for more than five minutes at a time. What happens next is all up to you.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I just had to smile at my eldest niece's Facebook page. It is hard to imagine anyone less "socially backward".
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Let's be honest, you can't be mature until you're given permission to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sachiko:
The impression I got from the public school advocates here is that homeschooling must be assumed to be inadequate for education children, unless regularly proven otherwise to a public school overseer.

---

That's odd.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
The GATE program at my CA schools--I went to three there--was terrible too. We stayed after school one day a week and were subjected to folk singers. With guitars.

I was often assigned to help the slowest kid in the class with their assignment--which is interesting; if only "experts" in education--those with degrees--can properly teach children, then why do we so often teach public school children via untrained volunteers or classroom peers?

I "took responsibility" for my education by stealing a library pass and playing hooky from my classes. I failed grades 4 - 6. I scooted by on test scores and my GATE program membership.

My father had a similar public school experience--from third grade on, the teachers gave him gradually harder and harder assignment, until by junior high he was following an independent study program and wasn't working on the same class material at all.

Of course, unlike my dad, I wasn't lucky enough to grow up in one town, with non-burned-out teachers. Most of my teachers resented the extra work I represented,(I don't blame them entirely, the resentment was mutual) and even the less hostile ones saw in me a way to make their jobs easier.

I object to changing the way I homeschool in order to be more economical for public school oversight. Part of the reason I homeschool is because this is a way I can offer a personalized, responsive education to my children, without the tuition expenses of a private/parochial school.

I often write lesson plans only 2 weeks to a month ahead of time, and we do fine and meet our goals. This would likely be considered unacceptable to an outside administrator.

I don't want to teach the public school way, and I should not have to, even if it would make it cheaper and easier for my local school to invite themselves into my family's life. Especially if it makes it easier for the government to intrude.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Okay, I read the points. And I do agree with them, but I disagree with how those goals should be reached.

Basically, if I am to be a good citizen and parent, I need to submit myself and my family to oversight--like people submitting themselves to airport security so that we can nab the terrorists, yes?

I have not met any of the abusive/reclusive homeschooling families that I think people are fearing when they talking about the need for oversight; however, I'm guessing they would be less compliant with oversight than on-the-radar homeschoolers like me.

Which means more comprehensive/intrusive (pick your adjective ) programs would be ineffective to helping that minority of homeschooled students who really aren't being homeschooled at all, but neglected.

The public schools would probably not even be reaching the very people they're trying hardest to help.

Here's an idea--

since part of what we're quibbling about here is children achieving proficiency in the 3 R's, what would you think of really limited government oversight?

Like, quick check-ins while the kids are smaller, and then at any point the children can take a reading/writing/math proficiency test. And once they pass, they are considered as no longer in need of government oversight.

My children so far do just fine, and I'd be willing to have them take a one-time test if that exempted us from further interference.

And--nod to Katharina--this would save the schools time and money. Much as oversight galls me.

*edited for clarity. Which I distressingly lack.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Actually, the standardized proficiency testing has already been suggested many times in this thread by those of us interested in limited oversight.

There's been a number of things proposed on this thread overall, but the main one is a simple standardized proficiency test around 8 to make sure a kid is on track for reading - due to the brain development that is taking place at that time. It's also been suggested that two more checks take place at 12 & 16 for progress in the 3 R's - better reading comprehension, increased understanding of the mechanics of composing prose, and higher math on the level of percentages, extremely basic statistics (mean, median, mode, etc), simple algebra, and so forth. And perhaps science/social science requirements that individual states might have. (These specifics are what I'd like to see - don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.)

I truly do not see how a standardized test that might take a morning or a day every four years is excessive interference. Unless a parent is unwilling to make sure their child learns such basic material - in which case I think we're back into the neglect of a child's right to education in order to ensure an open future as an adult.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Which I guess brings us back to how we would get people to take the tests, and what would happen if the child didn't pass.

I would be willing to submit my children to a one-time test at age 8, if this exempted me from any other oversight. One test would be far, far less intrusive than the homeschooling regulations I deal with now.

And, like other people have expressed, there is the concern that once the government has its foot in the door, what else will they add to that test? Would the test really be limited only to basic Reading/Writing/Math, or would the state add questions from its science curriculum, or from its sex ed program?

While I'd be willing to make this compromise--one test at age 8--I still disagree with the idea that the public schools are the ultimate arbiter of what is education.

I am not anti-public school, but I don't think I should have to accept total authority by the public schools just to prove I'm a good citizen. So I don't.

Would parents have any input on this one-time test? Say, if there were some takes on social science I didn't agree with (I was taught politically loaded stuff in my elementary school social studies classes). How would I as a homeschooling parent address that?
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
When has anyone said that it is the public schools that decide what the testing would be? I believe everyone has been very careful to use the term "community" in the discussion. Because, ultimately, it's our/the community's asses on the line if you fail to educate your child well enough to allow him or her to be a self-sufficient member of the community.

Edited for clairity and to note that this is a general "you", not anyone in the discussion specifically.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Oh, ok. Point taken.

Who would administer the tests, then?
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
The way I would structure it would have the federal government tell the states they need to have minimum proficiency checks on the basic skills of the 3R's at ages 8, 12, and 16 - thus ensuring that there is some oversight for all children in the nation.

Then it's up to the state government to decide how they want to administer testing. Some states may dump the task to the state department of education, and some might create a committee of education experts, public school teachers, and homeschooling parents, while others might do something else entirely. Some might choose Test A for proficiency, others choose Test B. Some states may pass the testing decisions to the individual public school districts (along with appropriate funding), others may want to keep it centralized for the entire state.

If parents don't like the way their state chooses to structure things, they have the options we all have when we disagree with state laws: change states, or work within the community as a citizen for change. I know of several parents in my home state (California) who have ran successfully for elected office on a platform of educational change.

Take this all with a grain of salt, though: I'm not particularly well-versed in current educational policies within states, so there may be far more efficient or effective plans.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Okay.

My questions are, how does this system differ from what we already have?

(I think it sounds less intrusive if it's administered as you suggest)

And, how would The Community enforce the standards?

I'm wondering what would be a passing score--and what would happen to those who don't pass the tests? Would they retake the test, or would CPS get involved, or...?
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
As Rabbit clearly said (and I later noted that I agreed with):

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
7. Testing should not be used to define what constitutes a good homeschool or bad homeschool but as an indicator that further investigation is necessary.

8. When ever possible, parents who homeschool should be given the support they need to be successful. Parents should not be forced to enroll their children in a public school or accredited private school until all other avenues for protecting the child's rights have been exaughsted.

---

quote:

---

The way I would structure it would have the federal government tell the states they need to have minimum proficiency checks on the basic skills of the 3R's at ages 8, 12, and 16 - thus ensuring that there is some oversight for all children in the nation.

---

quote:

---

But blaming school and its "mindless bureaucracy" for his dropping out of college in his junior year is not at all helpful and I don't think fair to the schools.

---

quote:

---

A constitution that doesn't allow for the protection of the rights for those unable to protect it themselves should be changed.

---

quote:

---

Home schools are not regulated, since the framers of the Oklahoma Constitution specifically intended “other means of education” to include home schooling and gave the state no authority to regulate that exemption from compulsory attendance. In Snyder v. Asbery (No. 78,045, Oklahoma Court of Appeals, Div. 2, May 18, 1993), the Oklahoma Court of Appeals returned two children to the custody of their home schooling father, reversing a lower court decision. On page 4 of the decision, the Court agreed with the home schooling father, stating “...the State Department of Education has no jurisdiction in home schooling. See 70 O.S.1991 § 3-104 … Okla. Const. art. 13, § 5….”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

A constitution that doesn't allow for the protection of the rights for those unable to protect it themselves should be changed.

---

Okay, no offense intended here... But if you don't live in the state you don't really have much influence over their constitution, do you?

---

I never suggested I have much influence over the OK state constitution, just that I would be in favor of it being changed, and I think it ought to be changed. To take an extreme example, I'm also in favor of ending genocide in Darfur, and think genocide in Darfur ought to be ended, but I currently have about as much influence in that matter as I do with OK's constitution - which is to say that I can raise my voice in protest and volunteer with local causes that push for change but, short of radically changing my life, that's about it.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
"I don't know a single homeschool family where the kids were taught the pledge at home."

Now you do.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jhai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

A constitution that doesn't allow for the protection of the rights for those unable to protect it themselves should be changed.

---

Okay, no offense intended here... But if you don't live in the state you don't really have much influence over their constitution, do you?

---

I never suggested I have much influence over the OK state constitution, just that I would be in favor of it being changed, and I think it ought to be changed. To take an extreme example, I'm also in favor of ending genocide in Darfur, and think genocide in Darfur ought to be ended, but I currently have about as much influence in that matter as I do with OK's constitution - which is to say that I can raise my voice in protest and volunteer with local causes that push for change but, short of radically changing my life, that's about it.

---

Okay, gotcha.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Thanks, Jhai. I'm still thinking about how I'd feel about mandatory tutoring for my children, should they not pass a state-administered test.

---

quote:

---

Why do all the home school advocates here persist in using the term "state" when those who are proponents of community oversight have repeatedly emphasized "community" not "state". The Standford Achievement Tests, for example, are published by a private corporation (Harcourt Inc.) and need not be administered by the state.

---

quote:

---

As a society, we have already agreed that educating children is something we are legally obligated to do- hence the existence of truancy laws. Parents who home school are asking for exemptions from this law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

As a society, we have already agreed that educating children is something we are legally obligated to do- hence the existence of truancy laws. Parents who home school are asking for exemptions from this law.

---

No they aren't.

---

If they are demanding freedom from any kind of oversight, they are.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
scholarette, you also have to teach good citizenship. That's a required subject in Texas.

I think Texas and U.S. History are too.

But I'm not sure you have to have a written curriculum.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Nope, I was wrong. Good citizenship, reading, writing, spelling, math, and grammar.

And you have to keep a written curriculum but that doesn't specify what it has to consist of. (i.e., it could say, "plan for the day: go to the museum. Discuss blah blah blah. Spelling practice in the car.")
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Why do all the home school advocates here persist in using the term "state" when those who are proponents of community oversight have repeatedly emphasized "community" not "state". The Standford Achievement Tests, for example, are published by a private corporation (Harcourt Inc.) and need not be administered by the state.

---

Because if it's mandatory, it's state action. The agent carrying out the state action is not usually the biggest concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
scholarette, you also have to teach good citizenship. That's a required subject in Texas.

---

quote:

---

Every person has the right to petition the government, to propose new laws and amendments to existing laws and if they can persuade a enough of the community that they have valid points, they can control what the government does.

---

quote:

---

This is generally true. However, there are times when the parent blocks this access to redressing problems and there are times when in the mean time while this process is going on, irrepairable harm is done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sachiko:
Huh. I'm in WA state, too, and I thought my kids' test scores needed to be higher than that. I need to review the HS laws here.



Romanylass, I know most here are advocating for "just" math/reading testing. I'm with the other paranoid parents who think this would be a cover for more intrusion.



It sounds so nice, and "it's for the children" is a nice ideal, but in general, once the state enters a home, it doesn't want to leave.

Whether you think I'm paranoid about the possibility of a mandatory state-assigned tutor or not, many homeschooling parents would immediately reject the idea, based on previous bad experiences with CPS.

Again, the only plus I can see from this kind of testing is the opportunity to control the level of potential intrusion by taking a test. But if the test led to more state intrusion, then I don't imagine a lot of HS parents happy with the idea of taking it.

---

quote:

---

It sounds so nice, and "it's for the children" is a nice ideal, but in general, once the state enters a home, it doesn't want to leave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
I think that voluntarily submitting to that level of oversight and mandating that level of oversight are very different.

---

If you don't think mandating some level of oversight is acceptable, how would you propose that the community fill its obligation to protect the child's rights to a basic education?
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
This may go without asking, but under this plan--testing followed up by intervention if needed--parents of public school students would be subject to the same evaluations and interventions, yes?

Correct me if I'm wrong--and I'm sure I don't need to ask twice --but I am picking up on an assumption that you think homeschooling is by its very nature more prone to the neglect of children than public schooling.

Which is why, because there is the possibility of a minority of parents educationally neglecting their kids, I need to be okay with the state/community/enforcers/whoever coming into my home when THEY determine it is needed, and despite how I may feel about it. Yes?

I've asked before--would you support the same kind of programs in place to "protect the right" to a moral education for all children, and support interventionary churching (for lack of a better term) for some families?
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Everyone here who has been proposing oversight has said, at one point or another, that public school children should be held to the same testing standards. The thing is, though, for the very minimal levels of oversight we've been suggesting, they almost always are. Unless your child is actually not attending his public school classes - in which case truancy laws come into effect - he will almost certainly learn basic literacy & math while attending school. Maybe he won't get much more than that, which is a problem, but he is very likely to get that much.

Now, it is true that some schools are allowing students to graduate without these fundamental skills. I think that's a damn shame, and those schools should be held accountable. Those negligent schools are failing to uphold the rights of students just as much as negligent homeschooling parents are.

The only case I can think of where it could possibly the parents' fault is in the case of learning disabilities where the parent refuses to let the child get the help he needs. In that case I'd suggest the same measures as I discussed earlier.

I believe that the Constitution would disallow any sort of mandatory "churching" or other moral education, given the separation of church & state. Furthermore, it is demonstrably true (via the many atheists in this country) that you do not need "churching" to be a self-sufficient member of the community.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
In theory, public education students are already following this model. My friend's 7 year old daughter was in summer school (at no charge) because she had performed poorly on her reading tests. So, it isn't something we are inflicting only upon homeschooled kids. Public school kids are inflicted to far more intensive scrutiny.

I would classify reading as a basic survival skill. I do not see how one could argue moral education is a survival skill, in our current society. I could see a society were moral education was necessary for the most basic level of functioning in society, in which case I would argue that it should be provided.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Sachiko: On the surface, that's just a silly idea. We shouldn't enforce "moral education" based on religion, because 1) we have freedom of religion, and 2) it cannot be shown that a particular religious upbringing is in any way superior for the moral development of a child when compared to any other religious upbringing or an atheistic one.

Further it CAN and HAS been shown that improper education will be detrimental to a child's development, and will put her at a clear disadvantage later in life. So not only is the idea of a mandatory religious upbringing silly on the surface, but it isn't even a good comparison.


Ah, but wait. When we dig deeper, you'll see that such moral intervention does exist - it's called the legal system.

When a child exhibits the results of an insufficient moral upbringing by behaving against the laws of the country, the government does step in and determine what is best for the child, regardless of how the parents feel about it.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

This may go without asking, but under this plan--testing followed up by intervention if needed--parents of public school students would be subject to the same evaluations and interventions, yes?

---

quote:

---

I've asked before--would you support the same kind of programs in place to "protect the right" to a moral education for all children, and support interventionary churching (for lack of a better term) for some families?

---

Sachiko, It really seems like you haven't been reading most of the thread.

We have an obligation to intervene when a child isn't being taught important language skills like reading, writing and basic math (yes I believe math counts as a language) not only because they are essential skills but also because there is compelling evidence that if a person does not learn these as a child, they will never be able to master the subjects.

I think that both those points are essential to justify limiting the parents right to choose for their child. Let me reiterate, two points are required to justify intervention.

1. The skill must be essential for the child to thrive in the adult world.

and

2. Their must be compelling evidence that the skill must be learned in childhood to be mastered.

Let me give some examples of things I don't think meet both those tests.

Example 1: Music. There is significant evidence that unless a person begins their music education before puberty, they will never be able to develop pitch memory so that meets criteria 2. On the other hand, many people have rich full filling lives and even become professional musicians without pitch memory so it doesn't meet criteria 1. As a result, I couldn't justify a requirement that every child receive music instruction.

Example 2: Learning chinese: There is compelling evidence that people who do not learn a language before they reach puberty will never be able to speak it accent free so this meets criteria 2 as well. But for a person in America, speaking chinese isn't an essential life skill. Furthermore a person can become fluent in chinese as an adult with effort even if they will always have an accent. It doesn't meet criteria 1 so I couldn't justify a requirement that every child be taught chinese (or russian or any other language not spoken by the majority in our community).

Example 3: The US constitution. I think understanding the basics of the constitution is pretty essential for a person who lives in the US so it meets criteria 1. But I've known many people who moved to the US as adults and have been able to master an understanding of the workings of our government better than those who learned them as a child so it doesn't meet criteria. 2. So if a parent doesn't want to teach their child about the US constitution, I would not feel it necessary to intervene. The child will still have that option as an adult should they choose it.

Example 4. Knowledge of Jesus Christ. I personally believe this an essential for peoples eternal salvation so I could argue that it meets criteria 1 but it certainly doesn't meet criteria 2. I can point to thousands of people who first learned of Jesus as adults, even senior citizens who have developed faith in him. I could also point to thousands who were taught to believe in him as children who have abandoned that belief as an adult. Therefore, I can't see any reason to accept that society should intervene in a parents choices regarding moral or religious education.


Now we may disagree about whether a given subject meets either of those tests and that is worthy of debate but arguing that because we don't require intervention for subjects that don't meet those tests we shouldn't require intervention for subjects that do indicates that you haven't grasped the topic at hand.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Now, I'm asking this in a very nice tone of voice-Belle, if you are so confident that the test won't be any problem for most homeschooled kids, then why do they need to take it in the first place Just in case a small minority don't pass--a small minority that might opt out of taking the tests anyway?

And I'd also like to point out that my concern was that educators would keep piggy-backing more things onto the tests, like science and social studies. Belle, you are just such a caring, eager educator; I think it's safe to assume that many other educators would, like you, want to add extra subjects to the the test, because they feel so strongly about the value of a good education.

And while I feel as passionately about teaching my children science and history, I may differ from the public schools on how/which parts of those subjects to teach.

This is where my "moral education" analogy comes in, and I don't think it's just silly. History is highly subjective, and I was taught a politicized version of it when I was in school, especially at my CA schools.

My teacher and that curriculum made value judgments I don't agree with. I assume they were teaching us that way because they thought knowing/agreeing with those things was an important and quantifiable part of being a good citizen.

So I worry that my children would be tested on that as well--not just "read this" and "find X" but also "this belief is wrong: True or False?" In my opinion, many public schools already do teach a religion/"moral education", one that is not mine, and mandatory testing could be used as a bully pulpit for enforcing those beliefs.

And if atheists are moral people without the aid of a church--and I don't argue that--then why regard one certain kind of education as "the one true way", which therefore gives it the right to define and enforce its idea of education?

I appreciate that Belle and Rabbit want to enforce these same standards on all educational institutions, public, private, and home. But it seems like your reform efforts are being focused on homeschooling out of proportion to the number of children homeschooled in the USA, versus how many go to public/private schools.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Rabbit, my beef is with who decides they need to intervene, when, how and why.

In my anecdotal experience with similar government bodies--that is, my friends who have had run-ins with CPS--what generally tends to happen is that once CPS has been called, no matter how easy it is to prove that initial complaint false, if the CPS person decides they want to keep checking in on that family, they will come up with a reason, sometimes falsifying one, if need be.

One person I know had a fellow church member call CPS because they thought her preemie was too small. CPS showed up, took a look at the baby, talked to the doctor, and everything was fine--but CPS insisted they needed to keep sending someone to their house once a week for the indefinite future, "just to be sure".

Rabbit, I agree with your ideal of every child receiving an adequate education. I don't agree with your methods. I think they are impractical and prone to abuse.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Since there is no testing for homeschooled kids, we know very little regarding how those students will actually do. And just because homeschooled kids are in the minority, they should not be ignored. No one is suggesting anything that would cost more (in time or money) then what is given to public school kids. So the out of proportion doesn't seem to be much of an argument for me. If we had a thread devoted to changes in public school requirements, I am sure you would see numerous suggestions for change and improvement for public schools from everyone here, but this is not a thread on public schools.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Sachiko: Never in my pre-college history was I given a test which said, "This belief is wrong: True or False."

If anything, the public school system is so washed of bias due to the fears of political correctness, that morality is largely absent from historical education.

Besides, if a test like that came along, you could certainly protest it. It's rather silly to assume the worst possible situation, and then object to math and reading comprehension based on the slippery slope that something else might later be added on.

Now that I think about it, I wouldn't object to adding a formal logic and critical thinking section.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Sachiko, by your definition of "prone to abuse", EVERYTHING government-related is prone to abuse.

I mean, right now there's a law saying you need to pay X amount of taxes each year. What if the tax people were to piggyback more taxes on that? Eventually they'll be making you pay ALL your money to the government? It could happen!!! Therefore, let's not pay any taxes at all, because it will be the first step in letting the government take ALL of your money.

At some point, you need to recognize that, as a member of a democratic country you have the ability to have your opinion heard, but you'll also have to abide by the will of the majority (as long as they aren't taking away fundamental rights).

There is no fundamental right for a parent to not having her child tested a few times during his childhood to make sure that the child's rights are being upheld. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

Now, I'm asking this in a very nice tone of voice-Belle, if you are so confident that the test won't be any problem for most homeschooled kids, then why do they need to take it in the first place Just in case a small minority don't pass--a small minority that might opt out of taking the tests anyway?

---

quote:

---

But it seems like your reform efforts are being focused on homeschooling out of proportion to the number of children homeschooled in the USA, versus how many go to public/private schools.

---

Well, number 1 it's because this thread is about homeschooling that you see us focused on what needs to be done about homeschoolers. Start a thread on what reading reforms need to be in the public schools and I think you'll see that even us public school educators find faults with the programs out there.

However, there is also the fact that we already have safeguards in place to help catch kids who struggling in the public schools. I can only speak to Alabama, since it's my state and where I'm being trained to become a teacher but I'm sure Alabama is not alone in having programs that emphasize the importance of reading.

Here, every school system employs a reading coach as part of the Alabama Reading Initiative who reviews test scores and intervenes where a reading difficulty is spotted. My son received a low score on one reading test and I heard from our reading coach. Turns out he wasn't paying attention and just didn't apply himself and he can read just fine - but I was thrilled to see such intervention take place. That meant our reading coach at our elementary school is doing her job - she spotted a potential problem, notified the parents that "Hey, we need to check into this and make sure your son is getting the reading skills he needs" and then she examined him one-on-one and re-tested him and found that he was fine. That was the the last I heard from her except for the annual reports she sends home telling me how my child has performed on reading assessment. Since my kids all read above grade level, she's never needed to do anything else with them.

Now, in many cases, it's not that simple and the reading coach has to work with that student to help get him/her up to grade level in reading. But the point is, they are there - and they do work hard. We have middle school reading coaches too, which is my dream job - after teaching a few years and getting my master's in reading and certification as a reading specialist I want very badly to work as a middle school reading coach.

In many, many cases, all a struggling reader needs to become fluent is some intervention and one-on-one coaching from a trained reading specialist. Sometimes the reading specialist can help identify learning disabilities or dyslexia too.

Now, the vast majority of public school students pass reading benchmark tests. Even in what you would term a "struggling" school. I know, I've seen the reports. But because, say 78% of the school passes the report, does that mean we shouldn't even bother hiring reading coaches and not worry about putting those measures in place? Of course not. Those students in the 22% need help, and they deserve the chance to get it.

I've seen studies that show that most homeschooled kids read at or above grade level. Wonderful. But some do not. Even if the percentage is low, the kids in that group deserve the same type of intervention that the kids in the public schools get.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
It depends, Scholarette--the standardized tests homeschoolers would be taking; would these be tests already in existence, and to be administered by public schools,

or would the tests be written by separate committees, and administered by the same?

Since we're going to hold public and private schools to the same standard, does that mean they will also be subject to these committees and tests?

If so, that sounds like a centralized, authoritative body. Sounds like the government, and not like a political locally owned and operated affair.

If not, then who will people and lead these committees? Local professional educators overseeing homeschoolers, or homeschoolers themselves, or a mix of the two? This is important, because some people may feel that homeschooling oversight only by a professional educator is acceptable.

What if homeschoolers voluntarily created committees and tests for homeschoolers--would this be considered acceptable?

But, wait, some homeschool curriculum companies already do this. They are accredited and offer tests and certificates. I'm guessing, then, that the homeschoolers-testing-homeschoolers option wouldn't be acceptable, since a voluntary system is already in place.

And how are we going to enforce these tests? That requires resources as well, besides writing and administering them.

Don't forget about the time and resources required to form official third parties for people to appeal to when they feel the governing educational body, who/whatever that is, abuses their authority.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
I want children to be educated too, Belle. Especially my own, but also all the children I've never met, and will never meet.

But, I wonder when else the central authority, whoever it is, will decide intervention is needed. And it seems like some people--not all, not even necc. you--will focus more on homeschooled kids as subjects for mandatory intervention, either because they feel homeschooled children don't have the safety nets public schools offer, or because homeschooling by its nature disadvantages children.

If you feel public schools need reading reforms, then what do you think is the first priority--fixing public schools, or fixing homeschools? Which do you think is cheaper, or more effective, at least to begin with?

BTW, Belle, I loved hearing your enthusiasm in talking about becoming a reading coach.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Why do I have to pick just one thing to fix? And I cannot believe that administrating one test will ever cost as much as teaching a child for a full year.
The homeschooling tests don't fulfill this requirement because they are voluntary. We want to protect every child, not just the ones whose parents are willing. In fact, the volunteers are probably the ones we are least worried about.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
So, then, in order for this testing to work, it must be compulsory.

What means of compulsion do you think would be best/cheapest?

I agree that volunteers are probably the ones who require the least worry.

(sorry about my constant use of the passive; I'm trying to be very careful in what I say, and it makes my writing really dry)
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
The decision about what standardized tests to use and when to administer them is a state one, IIRC. That is, NCLB requires testing, but each state decides which tests to use and when.

In my state, there are state-administered tests like the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test and the Alabama High School Graduation Exam.

As for enforcement - it's easier than you might think. We already have administrative bodies in place for home schools - cover schools. (At least, in the states that require them - like mine)

I think that cover school should have to report testing scores to the state department of education just like every other school district has to. If they don't, they lose their license to operate as a cover school. If the cover school loses it's accreditation, the students enrolled in that school would have to enroll in a new cover school or be subject to truancy laws.

Then, the same people who audit the score reports from public and private schools would also audit the reports from the cover schools. At the school level, they would be required to report on which students failed to meet reading benchmarks and how that student is being remediated. If the remediation fails to improve scores in a follow-up test, then the student should be referred to the local reading specialist that works for the school the child would attend if he/she were in public school. That reading specialist takes it from there. Ditto if a learning disability is suspected - the child would be referred to the exceptional education specialist at the local school.

Using the cover school as the main administrative body for the students and parents allows the cover school to be treated at the state dept of education level exactly like a private or public school is. And certainly parents have input into who serves on the board of that cover school - so they have local control there.

As for your concerns over affecting policy - state depts of education are under the jurisdiction of a state board, and you either elect them or they are appointed by officials you elect, so you have the same amount of control every voting citizen has.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
So, basically, we need to encourage the use of cover schools, which amounts to homeschooling being a somewhat modified version of public schooling.

(Oh, and, if I don't answer for a few days, it's because we just closed on a house, and I need to pack/move/school the kids. Just so you know. )
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Instead of cover schools, it could simply be in the packet you turn in to the state so that you don't get nabbed for avoiding compulsory education laws. In Texas, I would currently turn in a letter saying I plan to homeschool. Under this plan, I would turn in a letter and the scores. The test could be administered by the school or it could be by one of the testing companies (or perhaps a tutoring company like Sylvan or Kumon) if you want to avoid dealing with the schools entirely.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Sachiko, are you even reading the thread? The vast majority of your questions have already been answered previously. I remember you pulling this exact same stunt in a previous thread - asking the same questions over and over again that have already been answered, failing to acknowledge that others have answered your question, and then using the answers to jump onto some point that no one suggested (such as transforming homeschooling into "a somewhat modified version of public schooling"). Which forces everyone to answer that random point, afterwhich you jump onto the next conclusion, and again fail to acknowledge that you were wrong. Etc, etc.

If this pattern continues in this thread, I have absolutely no qualms in just ignoring anything you write, and encouraging others to do the same (in this thread). It's equivalent to feeding a troll. (Albeit one who asks in "a very nice tone" *rolls eyes*)
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sachiko:
Rabbit, I agree with your ideal of every child receiving an adequate education. I don't agree with your methods. I think they are impractical and prone to abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sachiko:
So, then, in order for this testing to work, it must be compulsory.

What means of compulsion do you think would be best/cheapest?

I agree that volunteers are probably the ones who require the least worry.

(sorry about my constant use of the passive; I'm trying to be very careful in what I say, and it makes my writing really dry)

---

This is not a nitpick. Honestly. It just happens to be a useful illustration of my feelings on the issue.

There is not a single passive sentence in that post. There's a mix of subjunctive mood and impersonal pronouns, but no passive verbs at all.

Sometimes, despite a parent's best intentions (and I genuinely believe that the majority of homeschoolers have the best intentions), they do not have the knowledge to pass on.* A parent who means well but doesn't have the technical knowledge could easily end up passing incorrect information to their child. For something like passive sentences, it's not all that important. I don't believe it meets The Rabbit's criteria, and I wouldn't advocate intervention for it.

But for the very important things - math and literacy - I agree 100% with Belle and The Rabbit. These things are absolutely fundamental and every child should have the right to learn them. There are a host of reasons why a homeschooling parent might fail get help for a struggling child on their own (ignorance, pride, etc.). When you suddenly realise you've got a kid with a learning disability, the situation can seem overwhelming, and you might not know what resources you have. The special ed support system can be incredibly arcane, and worse so for someone trying to figure it out independently. Skilled intervention at the earliest possible opportunity is key for kids with special needs. They don't have time to wait till university. A basic, periodic testing system like Belle outlined, based on the criteria The Rabbit outlined, really would not be that intrusive.

I had to do an English Proficiency exam when I entered university. I was given a statement and told to write an essay arguing Pro or Con. No one cared what I wrote as long as it was formed in a coherent sentence and demonstrated a basic understanding of how to form an argument. That's the kind of test people here are advocating. I can't see it being that hard to give parents a chance to review it and object if they didn't like the content, either.

All kids have the right to learn to read and do basic math. Some kids need extra intervention and early help. Some parents aren't qualified to judge when extra help is needed or to give that help on their own. They're a minority, to be certain. But that 1% of kids still have the right to learn, and we can't ignore them.


* I've seen this in public schools too, and it bothered me even more in that setting because these people have degrees specifically for teaching.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Sachiko, If you read through this thread, you'd see that I had already said that I think oversight by an NGO would be acceptable. I think its acceptable for private schools who are accredited by an approved NGO to be exempt from additional oversight and I can agree to the same for home schools as well.

I would want to ensure, however, that the NGO wasn't just a cover organization that wasn't actually providing acceptable oversight, which most likely implies government involvement in certifying the NGOs and enforcement. The key thing is that our community (as represented by our democratically elected government), needs to have a way to fill our responsibility to protect the educational rights of children.

As someone whose been involved in accreditation of programs, however, I do think you should be aware that any legitimate accreditation procedure is bound to be far more work and far more invasive than the minimum competence testing people are suggesting here.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Sidetrack issue: How were you guys taught to recognize passive voice?

I remember in middle school I was told that it occurred when the object of the action became the subject and it was confusing to me. Then when I took linguistics in college, my professor gave me the simple explanation that it occurs when you have a form of BE + the past participle and then suddenly I could see it.

I wonder how others were taught. I think that maybe middle school grammar books don't do a very good job of defining it.

I have seen a lot of people that I tutored in linguistics think you have passive voice anytime there is a form of "BE" in a sentence, which is of course not true.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
I was never formally taught to recognize the passive voice. However, when getting graded papers in middle & high school sentences were circled as "passive voice" by my teachers. That, combined with studying German grammar, was enough to allow me to recognize when I'm using passive voice.

Also, I don't think using passive voice is that bad a grammar "sin", unless one is using it to avoid taking or assigning responsibility for some action.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
*nods

I found the hardest part of education to be knowing what I did not know. University really brought this to the fore, but it was amazing to be challenged in such a way on topics and in areas about which I was unduly confident about my background and abilities.

There is something intoxicating about that moment when one's self-assessment has to shift. I had great teachers who pushed me to that point.

---

Edited to add: I had a really quite marvelous 5th grade teacher that taught us grammar by sentence diagramming. (Mrs. Wittenbraker, I love you! ) She, too, advised us to recognize the passive voice by noting when the verb of a sentence was constructed by a form of "to be" plus a past participle.

[ August 22, 2008, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
I think the passive voice is completely legit, Jhai. Sometimes it's not the most effective choice, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's a stupid myth taught by people who don't understand the language.

Belle, I was taught it in my university Latin classes. I learned most of my formal grammar through my Latin classes, and a bit from private study and from a linguistics class. Latin was a very effective teacher because I really had to understand what was going on, not just recognise it.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Eaquae Legit, I was delighted by Latin for that very reason. Gerunds were like bon-bons. *smile

[note the passive voice there ]
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Wait, where's the past participle?

Wouldn't it have to be "Gerunds were thought by me to be like bon-bons?"

The risk of Davidson's law is being assumed by me.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
What drives me crazy is the whole science/ passive voice thing. I was taught initially that you can never say I/we in a scientific paper- which pretty much makes everything passive voice (well, in materials and methods). But at some point there was a shift in writing styles and now we are supposed to avoid passive and I/we is fine (we is preferable because rarely is science an individual effort). So, now whenever I write anything technical, no matter how I write I feel like I am doing it wrong.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
"delighted"

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/071.html - some mention
http://www.angelfire.com/wi3/englishcorner/grammar/Interactive/pv1.html - see the question written as "He _____ (delight) by the decision."

[ August 22, 2008, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Doh.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
No problem. There is (IIRC) some controversy over whether to count "delighted" as a verb (past participle form with auxiliary form of "be") or adjective (with copula). I think there is an argument to be made either way.

I wouldn't have chosen it as an illustrative use of the passive voice for that very reason, but reading my post after it was submitted made me laugh.

I'll look for a reference about the controversy for you.

---

Edit: Oh, I see. You were looking at the second sentence. No fear! You could have raised issue with the first as well. See An Introduction to the Grammar of English at the next to the last paragraph for more details.

---

Second edit: The title of the thread is a similar usage, I think.

[ August 22, 2008, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
I don't know. I never took grammar. What I learned, I learned from reading, since my English teachers covered it only lightly. I'm hoping to learn more grammar this next time around with my kids--we're starting Latin this year, and that should help.

Rabbit, I'm not meaning to troll--Hi, Jhai--but, to take my point to a ridiculous extreme: what do you think of putting all children into boarding schools at a young age, in order to ensure absolutely every child has an adequate academic education?

I'm not asking this rhetorically: do we have the right to be with our families? I guess CPS answers that with a No sometimes; in that the right of families to stay together is superceded by the right for safety for a child.

I was thinking about possible parallels--because I do care a lot about kids out there who may need help, and I do want all of them to do well.

So far as I know, the government (federal or state) doesn't mandate regular trips to the doctor for kids. Yes, parents can be prosecuted for not getting their children medical attention when needed, but if the children appear otherwise healthy, parents are not compelled to take them to the doctor.

They are encouraged to take them, especially for vaccinations, but are not compelled.

And that has to do with the well-being of children, doesn't it? I'd say the right to be alive and healthy is even more important than the right to literacy, and who would disagree with that? But we still don't force parents to either take their children to a doctor, or to allow a doctor to check on them periodically.

I'm not trolling. I'm using different analogies to try to get across not just that I disagree, but why and how. Forgive me, Jhai, if I am poor at it.

I still think my "moral education" idea has some merit. For instance, we don't prosecute parents for teaching their children dishonesty, even though lying and thievery hurts the whole community, limiting not only the options of the lying, stealing children, but also the options of the people around them.

So, yes, I also think it would be wonderful if everyone could read. But disagreeing with measures that would compel parents to comply with the government is not the same as not caring about other children.

The best approach I've heard so far involves, like vaccinations, an incentives program, offering literacy programs at libraries, book giveaways, etc.

I think the mandatory testing could work, IF it were limited just as Rabbit says.

However, I lack confidence that it would stay limited and benign, once enacted. To use a cliche, people with hammers tend to see nails. That could be ameliorated with "blind" test reading and audits, like Belle suggested.

The hypothetical situation I fear is one where a homeschooled child fails to meet reading benchmarks, the parent refuses state assistance or accepts it and the child doesn't progress, and CPS takes the kid away.

Do you see how this would affect homeschooling families differently than public-schooled kids?

Because I imagine that the same child, in a public school, with the same failure to progress, would not be taken away from their parents.

Or the parents wouldn't be fined, or whatever other measure the state would resort to, to ensure compliance.

Oh, here's another question, out of curiousity--would Amish children be subject to the same tests?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Sachiko, I'm sorry, but you're just being silly at this point. It's as if you have a whole roster of straw men and want to make sure they all get a chance to play. I'm rather tired of playing with them, myself.

Back to grammar, because it's awesome.

quote:

---

No problem. There is (IIRC) some controversy over whether to count "delighted" as a verb (past participle form with auxiliary form of "be") or adjective (with copula). I think there is an argument to be made either way.

---

quote:

---

Rabbit, I'm not meaning to troll--Hi, Jhai--but, to take my point to a ridiculous extreme: what do you think of putting all children into boarding schools at a young age, in order to ensure absolutely every child has an adequate academic education?

I'm not asking this rhetorically: do we have the right to be with our families? I guess CPS answers that with a No sometimes; in that the right of families to stay together is superceded by the right for safety for a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
I suspect that, like most learning techniques, diagramming works great for some people, okay for others, and not at all for some. It should, IMO, be something that teachers are all taught, so that they can use it with the kids that it works for. It's not something that every student needs to know, but it is a tool that teachers should have available as one option to help students understand grammar.

---

quote:

---

What I really would have liked to get more instruction on was semicolons; I never have completely figured those out!

---

Fixed that for you.
 

---

Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
I learned diagramming at my private middle school twelve years ago; when my public high school Spanish teacher tried to use it to explain the differences between Spanish and English grammar, I was the only person in my class to have heard of it.

That was also when it was most useful--it let me see when I using English structures in my Spanish sentences, and how to shift them into more appropriate arrangements. I thought it was fun in middle school, but it never added much to my ability to write a coherent English sentence.
 

---

Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 
I diagrammed in every grade level after 2nd. But, I am a little grayer than the KQ. I tried to teach number 2 daughter as she never did learn English. I was sure she would learn grammer when she learned Spanish. But, she learned it in Paraguay, where bad Spanish is one of two national languages. Now she is a teacher, she uses her bad spanish with parents, and couldn't teach grammer on a bet.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
My 15 year old diagrammed in seventh grade - just three years ago. However, they spent maybe a week on it - so it wasn't as pushed as it normally is.

I think ambyr brings up a really good point - many of the people that are in ESL education or who are foreign language teachers have told me that diagramming does help in understanding the differences between languages.

We discussed this yesterday in one of my classes - before the prof got there I asked everyone (all of them English majors) Rabbit's question about ever using diagramming to help your own writing. Only one person said yes and she said it was only because she was in a generative grammar course at the time and she hasn't done it since.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
After thinking about the diagramming question a bit, I'm fairly confident that I learned how to distinguish things like subordinate clauses and prepositional phrases through the process of diagramming complex sentences. While I don't think I can remember how to properly diagram a subordinate clause, I do think about the distinctions between different types of phrases and clauses fairly frequently. When trying to precisely describe technical ideas it's common for people to end up writing excessively complex sentences that can be hard to follow. When I'm trying to fix these problems either in my own writing or that of my students and collaborators, thinking about how the different phrases and clauses work together can help to me find a clearer way of expressing the ideas.

I'm certain there are other ways to learn that material, maybe even better ways. For me personally, I had fun diagramming sentences. It was like solving a puzzle, so perhaps I have retained the material better and longer simply because it was taught using a gimic I enjoyed. But then many of my class mates hated diagramming so I suspect it had exactly the opposite effect on their ability to learn and retain the material.
 

---

Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
My 7th grade English teacher (in the mid 70's) diagrammed one sentence for us. It was almost a history lesson/see how hard we used to have it kind of thing. Right on the same level as "walking to school through the snow, uphill both ways barefoot with my little brother on my back". I never really learned it.
 

---

Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
That is very interesting Rabbit. I've always had much more difficulty with technical writing than, say, English class writing. I wonder if my lack of sentence structure knowledge might be one of the things hampering me.
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
For me, I didn't get to diagramming until after I'd already beaten the grammar into my head via Latin. I don't know how I did that, mind. I do remember weeks and weeks of studying the different declensions and what the cases meant. Diagramming was fun for me because it was easy. All I had to do was learn the lingo, basically.

I never learned any grammar in school at all. I didn't know it was still being taught in places, but I'm glad.
 

---

Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
 
Teaching and learning grammar in English class is only useful when it gives us a common language to talk about language, so that teachers can better help students improve their writing. Improved editing is just one facet of that improvement.

Not that language study isn't interesting, because it is. It's simply my belief that the main goal of the English class should be to teach students to be better readers and writers. This means that students should be taught to (for example) ensure that the pronouns in their writing have clear antecedents--and that no one wastes time trying to find antecedents to pronouns on a worksheet.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Hey, I'm sorry I bowed out of this discussion. It wasn't deliberate. I have been ill for the last two weeks, spending all of last week in the hospital for tests. They suspected appendicitis, because it was lower right quadrant abdominal pain, but after 2 CT scans and a colonoscopy that wasn't it. I've been poked and prodded and had numerous other scans and they've finally concluded it may be torn abdominal muscles as a result of extreme nausea.

Anyway I haven't been in any condition to post much.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Oh dear! Hope you feel better!

The discussion has morphed into grammar and sentence diagramming anyway.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
"Not that language study isn't interesting, because it is. It's simply my belief that the main goal of the English class should be to teach students to be better readers and writers. This means that students should be taught to (for example) ensure that the pronouns in their writing have clear antecedents--and that no one wastes time trying to find antecedents to pronouns on a worksheet. "

I agree with you. Unfortunately, I have an English professor who thinks that the main point of English class is to make sure my personal narratives have thesis statements.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Point to note: I was taught diagramming in Norwegian class around age 11. We were explicitly told that this was not to teach us Norwegian, which presumably we already knew how to speak, but rather so that we would be able to learn other languages. And indeed, I defy anyone to learn German without knowing diagramming, and I suspect the same is true of French. English is unusual in that

a) Many English-speaking students do not learn another language and
b) It doesn't have a lot of grammar-dependent structure, like suffixes depending on the case.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
I'm fluent in German, KoM, and I never learned diagramming. However, the book English Grammar for Students of German was a big help while I was studying the language.
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
English is highly dependent on grammar, but it's syntactical rather than inflected. I would have thought diagramming helpful for learning English since you absolutely need to know what order the elements of a sentence go it. Diagramming an inflection-based language (like Latin, since it's the one I know) strikes me as a nightmare.

Also, I have never diagrammed French but I can comprehend it just fine most of the time. I doubt I'll diagram German when I get to it either.
 

---

Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
When I was trying to learn German, the prof was constantly using grammatical terms I'd never even heard, much less understood. It was a nightmare!

Of course, I have little aptitude for foreign languages in any case. I've tried at least 4 and haven't managed to do more than count and say hello in any of them. I simply cannot randomly acquire so much new vocabulary in such a short period of time. Still, I had a much easier time with Spanish grammar than I did German. I do not know if it is simply because Spanish grammar is simpler, or if it was because it was more "user friendly" when taught.

On a side note, does anyone know of any good "do at home" foreign language programs for Pre-K aged kids? Since I'm hopeless with them, I'm looking for one that does not depend on the parent! I'm not saying I wouldn't participate with him, I just don't want to have to be the instructor. I don't want my son to end up as absolutely monolingual as I am, and our school here doesn't start teaching Spanish (the only language offered) until 8th grade. I've looked into "Saturday classes" in the city, but I simply do not think it is practical. We live at least an hour away from any of those places, and we do soccer and many family activities on Saturdays that I don't really want him to miss. Any recommendations for "do at home" programs will be appreciated. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I think that the best thing you could do for a child this age, who probably wouldn't do very well with computer-based programs, would be to just check out a set of Pimsleur CDs in whatever language you want from the library and allow them to play in the house as often as you can stand them.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I had a copy of Rosetta Stone on my computer for a while and my (at the time) 4 year old niece loved it. Since she didn't live with me, she probably didn't play with it enough to learn much language but I managed to learn enough Italian at the time to understand a bit of the commentary when I was in Italy watching the Giro d'Italia.
 

---