posted
It used to be to educate the populace. But the fact is the public education system isn't doing a very good job. Otherwise politicians wouldn't campaign about it.
posted
True that public school kinda sucks these days. And there needs to be a lot of good ideas put forth on how to get education into kids.
Lets say it's still about educating the populace. And there are no exceptions to the Must School Rule. How do we know that the home school child is being educated?
This is not the time for, "but person X was educated! I was educated! I educate!" but to think, isn't it reasonable to require proof on this thing which is mandatory?
It's like getting your driver's license. Is it enough to say "I know how to drive. My mom will vouch for me. Give me the license."? Yes yes, it's not identical to giving a driver's license, or else education would be called Driver's License. But you can see what I'm trying to say... I think.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I really think saying, "But the public schools are worse than I am" isn't very productive. It's true, but it's not the important part.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact a very, very credible argument can be made, from the facts cited by the French Dude that toured the U.S. in the 1800s and came up with a bunch of statistics, that the institution of mandatory education, caused the literacy rate of the country to decline.
(I've seen the argument made and it still works even taking into account the large amount of illiterate immigrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s.)
posted
I dunno, sounds like there are hundreds or thousands of other factors that occurred simultaneous to mandatory schooling that would have possible effects on literacy. But I haven't seen the study.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you to some degree, Suneun. I just don't see how any kind of test can be accurate for my child. What happens if he doesn't meet the requirements because he's not made that way, and not because I'm not doing my job? They have three options:
1. Try to change how I teach him without really understanding what he needs. 2. Do nothing and let me to continue to teach him remedial math. 3. Force me to send him to a different school.
Which of these options works for you? Only two works for me, and in my opinion, they don't need the test if that's what they're going to choose.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
dabbler, I would submit that the GED does exactly what you are saying for the proof of minimum education. I wouldn't have any problems with people requiring homeschooled students to take the GED. Many do now anyway, though I never did.
Yes, I have a college diploma, but not a high school diploma.
And NdRa and TomD would submit that a college diploma isn't necessary to get ahead in life anyway (I find delightful irony in the fact that Tom Davidson is employed by a college.) And even for non-technical employment a certificate that you passed the GED is all you need to get a job.
Unless you think the test should be for something extremely basic, in which case it's probably not that important. Like a test that only makes sure they can read in sixth grade.
I also wonder why you don't think people need a college education as well?
I think we'd get a lot further in this discussion if we actually had a govt-sanctioned set of requirements to look through. I think it would be totally reasonable to have certain portions of the requirements opt-out-with-a-form. Submit a short essay on why your child doesn't need to be taught A, B, or C. Not for Reading or Chemistry, but certainly why you refuse to teach Evolution or Creationism or Christianity.
There will likely also be exceptions based on handicap, but I don't think that's where you were going about your son. It almost seems like it's a nebulous strawman enemy for you. The evil requirements you may or may not have to face. A bad bill is a bad bill, but I still think the sentiment of mandating minimums is correct.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, probably something like the GED would be a good thing to agree on. The only problem with the GED is it's an after-the-fact test. Perhaps a test at ages 8, 12, and 16 or something like that. Shrug.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "he's not made that way" I mean that he might be a slow reader, for example. I was assuming that you aren't talking about giving kids one test when they're out of school, but smaller tests along the way. Am I not correct?
posted
I should write an essay sometime detailing the modern homeschooling movement history as I've observed it.
One of the most fascinating things that happened, which I was present at the right time to witness, was the shift from the extremely liberal unschooling peace and love hippiesque crowd to the current devout religious types. Both had libertarian leanings(in the philisophical, not party sense). You still see a few of the hippiesque types, but most of their children have grown up to do interesting things and they've moved on and aren't as vocal in the movement anymore.
posted
Dabbler, the thing is only NCLB which educators are whining about (and I agree has many pitfalls and flaws), has ever really instituted a national standard that public schools have to test children for.
To say that this standard needs to be put in place by the government for homeschooled children when public schools can't meet them seems hypocritical.
There is also the philisophical argument at what level the public education system should be regulated, locally or by state etc.
posted
Can I ask where your homeschooling fell on the spectrum, B OJ?
I am tron ont he idea of testing. I am pretty sure that's considered heretical for a homeschooling parent to say. We are supposed to all be adamantly anti-testing. I really don't worry about, say, the parents who don't want to teach evolution or books with (witchcraft, sex, fill in the blank). However, I do have some friends who have whole heartedly embraced radical unschooling and I worry about their kids. Eight year olds unable to read because their parents beleive that when they WANT to read they will decide to do it and have no problem. I guess I would say I am opposed to extensive testing but that children have a right to be taught to read, to math, write legibly etc.
I describe myself as an eclectic classical home schooler.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess I would say I am opposed to extensive testing but that children have a right to be taught to read, to math, write legibly etc.
If that's true, I would hold that they also have the right to NOT be taught those things. Do we then wait until they're old enough to decide? Or do we force them to learn it anyway?
In my opinion, the parent is a better judge of that than the state.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the public education system is probably doing approximately the same quality of job as it always has. The perception has changed due to a change in expectation for levels of education, and all demographics (up until probably 40-50 years ago, there were fairly large swaths of people who didn't finish _middle_ schooling, much less high school; in those times, this wasn't seen as a serious issue that needed to be addressed).
I went to public school (K-8). I went to private school (pre-school, 9-12+undergrad). I took part in G&T programs, such as they were. I am a reasonably intelligent guy (straight As, all that jazz). I was fine in public schools, but maybe that was due to a general culture of learning I grew up in, outside of the school itself. I DO think that the Hatrack demographic, generally speaking, is a subset of the US that has qualities that make it seem like public schools don't work.
I don't know that this is true, at least in a systemic sense. I think a lot of the issues that are good reasons to homeschool are due the pupil, in the sense that no system can be flexible enough to accommodate everyone, and so there will be exceptions that need a different learning environment.
posted
Yeah I meant de Tocqueville, though his name eluded me at the moment, and I think I've read both sides of the argument, probably the same ones you've seen CT.
I'd say as far as the unschooling vs the totally structured schooling, my own education was fairly in the middle, due to the time of history during which I was homeschooled as well as my mother's predilections.
My mother did voluntarily test me yearly, because of the flip side of PSI's argument. If they public authorities tried to take us away from her on truancy grounds, she had indisputable documented proof that we WERE learning. I took the Stanford Achievement tests every year for years, until I scored so high off the charts they decided it wasn't worth it anymore because the tests weren't actually testing me on my actual knowledge.
I am very, pro voluntary testing, and I think it can provide valuable information to homeschooling parents. It can tell them their own teaching strengths and weaknesses and alert them to areas where they might have a gap even though they thought they were strong. That's what public school teachers use them for and they are valuable tools.
But the instant it becomes mandatory I have problems with it, because of the freedoms it infringes on. You can argue that short of abuse raising your children the way you believe is permitted both by the freedom of religion and the right to privacy in the Constitution.
quote: It almost seems like it's a nebulous strawman enemy for you. The evil requirements you may or may not have to face.
I think that this applies to both of us. Those that are supportive of a testing system or approved curriculum are worried about some straw-child not learning how to read, a child that may or may not exist. I'm still waiting to see if there are any studies that show that homeschooled kids get inadequate education as compared to peers in other learning environments.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From personal experience I can vouch for that.
They tested my brother's eyes because my mother noticed some abnormalities while teaching him to read (he had a lazy eye). I think I was in 3rd or 4th grade before I got glasses, though I'd probably needed them since kindergarten. Mom was mortified, but the reason why she didn't notice, is because I read so well regardless. I never had to look at far away blackboards so there wasn't a learning issue that she would have observed.
posted
That's an important article, CT. I swear I'm not trying to avoid being wrong, but I have a serious concern about the testing, and it's this:
What tests did they use to determine these things? I ask because I remember being coached on all the standardized tests I took in public school for a month or two before the tests were actually administered. I'm wondering if it's possible that the tests were more geared to the public schooled children?
I mean, if they all took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, I might think the public school kids would have an unfair advantage.
I've been thinking about this, and I decided that I will research it more. If I can find some more evidence that homeschooled kids are lacking, I would probably okay some minimum testing.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that's surprising, our ped is very good about doing the vision/hearing screen for us.
PSI, I do hold that in our society, a person with inadequate skills in rwadin, writing and math will have a VERY hard time getting a job, if they can get one, and to not teach those things to our children is neglect. Case in point, one lady I was on a message board with had a 15 year old, who had just learned the proper way to write his letters, and as far as I could tell ( from the mom's words) it was not b/c of an LD but b/c she felt it would be stifling him to correct him. Yes, that's very unusual but it REALLY bothered be that no one had done anything about it.
I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of mandatory testing, especially being the hippie freak that I am, but these cases make me wonder.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See PSI, there's the difference in philosophy between you and my mother. My mother was dead certain we WEREN'T lacking, and wasn't afraid to have us take the tests to prove it.
I know several times she did find we'd scored lower in areas than she expected, and realized that they were asking questions over a topic she hadn't yet taught etc.
posted
See, AJ, I feel like the things that the test for are in a very specific group, one that might not be taught in certain years to certain homeschoolers. AND, the only reason I can see that the homeschooled kids should be taught those things in those specific areas is because the want to pass the test. That seems counter-productive.
I'm not talking about reading, writing, etc. I'm talking about, maybe, Louisiana's legislature versus Georgia's, for example.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But see, if you know you are teaching something different and are going to hit it next year it is OK. Different school systems do it differently based on curriculum as well. The tests take this into account.
With the Stanford Achievement tests (which I took and remember which is why I'm addressing that one specifically), it realizes that different school systems teach things in different orders and it doesn't really hit anything in that depth. It is more of a broad shotgun of questions to see whether overall a child knows most of what everyone else knows. I think your fears are probably too specific.
My mother supervised the testing program in our area for many years (for all I know she may still volunteer occasionally with it even though her own children are grown) While the parents were not allowed to see the tests beforehand, every day after the testing for that day was completed, she allowed them to see the test books with the questions and their own children's answers. A regular teacher would see that. Admittedly there were always people there making sure no one changed the answers but that wasn't the point.
The point was that the test, doesn't always test over exactly what you have taught. And that way if a particular area comes back low, you are able to make the judgement call, of oh, that was something I haven't taught yet and doesn't matter as much, or oh, that is an area where my child is really struggling.
So you can get meaningful results from these tests, whether or not they are actually taught to. Remarkably enough whether or not the tests are taught to, the homeschooled children that take them seem to do pretty darn good overall.
I'd love to show this thread to my mother. I'll probably discuss a bunch of it with her on the phone. I may cut and paste a lot of this into an e-mail to her. The problem of actually linking her to hatrack is twofold. One she isn't terribly computer literate, and two this is MY space, where I come to whine about the occasional familial difficulty. I don't have to worry about her finding it on her own, but I don't want to hand it to her on a silver platter either.
posted
Popping in real quick, then I swear I'm leaving.
I see, CT. I thought the point that it was different from what was in the literature was referring to homeschooling literature, and was meant to show that the literature was misrepresenting homeschool. Did that make any sense?
And as far as mandatory well-child check-ups, give me some time to think about it. I have never given it a thought, but immediately it strikes me that not everyone can afford that. That kinda dips into socialized healthcare which I'm not so sure I support. More later.
quote: Re: mandatory vision/hearing screening -- I was thinking about those kids whose parents chose not to take them to well-child visits. Would it be an infringement on parents' rights to legislate that all children must be screened for vision and hearing problems by someone licensed to do so (in school, or at doctor's office, or wherever)?
What difference does it make? I mean -- there are kids in public schools all the time whole flunk vision and hearing tests, but nothing is done because their parents can't afford the eyeglasses or hearing aids.
Heck I myself flunked my vision exam two years in a row in junior high and nothing was done. Just had to wait until I got to the age to get my driver's license, and flunked it there.
I was at the DMV the other day when a high school kid came into get his driver's license and flunked his eye test. You could tell by the way he dressed that he was very poor. But the gal even asked him what school he attended and he told her. So I'm assuming he got vision tests at school...
posted
This is clearly biased pro, but it still might be an interesting read. I'd appreciate anyone reading it with a critical eye towards the statistics.
The Rudner study was performed by an outside contractor, you could argue that they were still biased, but it makes it clear the parents chose to participate before knowing the children's test scores.
quote: (If you have a non-pediatric general practitioner, then he or she may not have been aware of all the resources. That's an unfortunate side effect of not having been trained specifically for meeting children's healthcare needs. If you have no primary care provider at all, then I will worry about you even more, and I may start stalking you with medical-type questions. [Frown] )
Well, it's been several years back now, CT, and I think we were on medicaid at the time, and bounced by the state from physician to physician.
Of course, things are better now -- good job, insurance, great primary care physician, good optometrist, etc. I was just relating to others who are at the point where we once were....
posted
CT while I found a couple of turns of biased phrasing in the report from the Cato institute, I think on the whole you would enjoy reading that report.
posted
What's a crime is that in many cases, the services are there, the parent just doesn't know where to go to find them! When my twins needed physical and occupational therapy, I was amazed at how much stuff I got for free.
The head opthalmologist at Children's Hospital in Alabama had a clinic twice a month for free eye care. You wouldn't know about it though, unless you'd been referred to it by one of the social workers.
The system breaks down when people don't know where to go for help.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
