posted
Search function is being teh stink on my computer, so sorry for not finding the original thread.
I mentioned in that thread that I did not expect the original decision to stand long. I bumped it when the ruling was vacated (which was not widely publicized.)
New decision: homeschooling is legal in CA, whether using home study programs from a public or private school, or filing as a private school. It is not a constitutional right to homeschool, but there is a clearly established right to direct one's children's education. Despite not being a constitutional right, it is legal to homeschool in CA, and the constitutional right to direct the education of one's children (or in this case, homeschool) may be superceded only for the safety of the children when they come to court in the course of child welfare proceedings on another matter.
Now, after reading that whole decision, it is clear to me that this judge really does not approve of homeschool, especially without oversight from the state and/or school districts. But clearly the court recognizes that it is accepted as legal by the CA legislature, and for now that's enough for me. (He had loooots of help from all the parties that filed amicus briefs on behalf of the right to homeschool, including the head of the California Dept. of Education.)
I just hope that the legislature does not take this judge up on the call to enact homeschooling legislation, or if they do, make it very, very simple: add an amendment to the code requiring private schools to file an affadavit stating something like, "A parent or parents teaching his or her own child(ren) primarily in the home may file this affadavit pursuant to [code] to establish a private school in the home." Or whatever.
If the judge in this case got his way I have a feeling we'd have homeschool laws like New York State. (If that happens, I'm moving.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Texas has no restrictions on home schooling. On the other hand, this can also be problematic. One school district I worked in kept it's dropout and truancy rates low by waiving truancy fines if parents would withdraw their children under the pretense of "homeschooling" them.
A few years ago, a different school district here tried to make a family present a curriculum to prove it was "appropriately" schooling the children - but the courts quickly said THAT was illegal. I'm pretty sure Texas will never turn around on that point, so if California gets goofy on you, just move to Austin. ;-)
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did TX; not doing it again. Though I hear Austin is about as not-TX as you can get within TX. But I still feel it would give my in-laws too much access to me, lol.
I think my first choice would be AZ; I have family there already, the climate is similar, and the laws are satisfactory to me (i.e., no testing mandated.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, I don't believe in it. It's part of the problem I have with the public schools. CA doesn't require it of homeschoolers (unless enrolled in a public school ISP.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that's the part I don't understand. Why don't you believe in testing?
Isn't it designed as a way to insure that the children are learning important material and concepts? I don't see how it can be bad to make sure that at a certain grade, all the children know long division or grammar.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that it instills an instant gratification feedback loop. Children learn material just to get a grade on it and then discard information they no longer need. I think most homeschoolers want to instill a love of learning in their kids. They want them to learn for its own sake.
Standardized tests are also meaningless if your child isn't exactly average. If your child made impressive gains for their abilities but still score in a low percentile, it just demeans their hard work. If your child scores in a high percentile without even trying, what's really being measured?
I agree that tests serve a purpose, but I also believe that we only need proof that something's working because we need reassurance - because we believe there's a chance that it won't.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A love of learning is a wonderful thing, but if a 17 year old can't multiply because he's been loving learning about pretty flowers (also wonderful), he's going to have a tough time getting into college, or getting most jobs.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd argue that knowing when to multiply is more important than knowing how to multiply, but I quibble.
I'm also not sure how much multiplying he needs to be a botonist or horticulturist or whatever. Then again, my family excells at getting odd jobs they don't seem to be qualified for by normal standards.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He needs enough bulbs to plant 11 beds of tulips. Each bed holds 24 tulips, and bulbs come in cases of 6.
Basic education is important to everybody. I think it's a good thing that there are minimum standards in public school education, so that at different levels, students are expected to know specific, important things.
Public school is far from perfect, but the idea that everyone in America needs to know a whole lot of basic things to be a productive adult is, I think, on the right track.
I think it would be a terrible disservice to a child to allow them not to learn important, basic things like history, math, science, and so forth, just because their inclination is in a different direction. Even horticulturists need to know math. No offense to horticulturists, who I'm sure do know math.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Socialization is more than playing together at afternoon break, it's working together in class, waiting while others speak, knowing when to back down and when not to, co-ordinating school activities, etc. It's misleading to say that kids in school aren't socializing all day unless they're in a one-person classroom with no teacher. All contact with people is socializing and most classrooms contain at least twenty people at all times.
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'.
Many people can write at the level of Eragon at age fifteen, if not at a higher level. The only difference between Paolini and the rest of them is the dedication of Paolini's parents. Most people's parents at that age are like, "That's a very nice story, dear."
(And perhaps rightfully so. Most fifteen year olds are still practicing whatever they're going to grow up to do.)
Nine-year-old college attendees are there because they're working on a different level than most kids, not necessarily because of the type of education they receive. By necessity certain students do not fit into the school system because they are so far ahead.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the parents I have met who homeschool are VERY conscientious about what their kids are learning, whether they're learning enough, and how to teach them more and better. If they're going to take them out of school and take on the entire task of educating their kids, they care enough to do it, for the most part. I don't think any more homeschooled kids fall through the cracks than publicly schooled kids.
I'm sure there are parents who keep their kids home and then let them run wild; I haven't met any, but I've read about them. But them seem to be few in the homeschooling community. And it seems to me that these would be the same kids who would not be learning up to the right level in school. The schools are always complaining about how no matter how much they try to teach, if there aren't involved parents, the kids are not going to do well. If a parent isn't going to insist their child do some of the work of learning, they won't learn in school or at home.
In Florida there is no testing requirement, but there is a requirement that children be evaluated each year. They can choose to take the state test (FCAT), a nationally-normed test, or be evaluated by a certified teacher or psychologist. There is no requirement telling you what sorts of subjects that evaluation has to cover. You decide what to teach when. This way if your child is not learning the same things at the same times as the schools, you can still show adequate progress, without feeling like you have to teach the test.
But I do (reluctantly) agree with the need for SOME sort of evaluation, since it's in the best interests of the society at large to make sure children are learning.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All contact with people is socializing and most classrooms contain at least twenty people at all times.
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.
I'm not saying kids in school DON'T socialize. I will say my daughter improved greatly in her abilities to make friends and find common ground with other people in her homeschooling experience than in school. She had one friend in three years of school. Now after a year of going into new situations and meeting new people and having TIME to interact with them and discover common interests, she knows better how to make friends. That's a life skill.
Still needs to work on her math, though, admittedly....
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have known, quite literally, hundreds of homeschoolers. It's somewhere between 600 and 800. I got to know them during a 2-year period when they were enrolled in the online school where I worked (realtime instruction in an online classroom with a certified teacher). We had a pretty diverse population - some were religious, some secular, and it was racially diverse, as well. It was, by far, the worst, most frustrating and heartbreaking part of my entire career.
Let me say that I have known, through this forum, wonderfully educated and well-adjusted homeschooled folks. BannaOj, for example, is one of the smartest and coolest people ever. She's a successful engineer! Human, who I haven't seen in a while, is another example of homeschooling done right. I don't worry about the Hatrack kids being homeschooled - I know they'll be just fine. However, that's a handful of kids compared to the hundreds I've dealt with.
The worst case was the Smith family (not their real name) - a family of 5 children, ages 8-19, all of whom were functionally illiterate. The oldest boy had "graduated" from his mother's teaching (and I use the term loosely) and was unable to find any kind of job. It took us days to even get him to meet with the teachers, he was so ashamed. Obviously this is an extreme case, but it's not as extreme as you might think.
One of the biggest problems we had was that the states allowed the parents to choose which grade to put their children into. Disaster. Every single parent chose whichever grade matched the child's age. I remember one boy, Brad (not his real name), who was 12. His mother put him into 6th grade. He was maybe on a 3rd grade level in every subject. Unsurprisingly, he failed every subject the first semester. And this was with his mother cheating! She didn't realize that we could hear her over the mic and she would regularly give him the wrong answers. I actually had to make a recording to give to the school district, along with his records, to get them to intervene. Obviously, this woman should not be homeschooling.
These 2 cases are examples of why I feel that there needs to be oversight by professionals, whether it be testing or personal evaluations. I feel that there are many homeschooling parents who are not meeting their children's needs. Even our best kids had HUGE gaps in basic math and grammar skills, which really hindered them. The parents were happy to remedy the problem, but it was much harder for the kids than it would have been if they'd learned it earlier.
Another concern I have is that many (if not most) parents are not trained to recognize or diagnose learning disabilities. In public schools, the teachers should (and I understand and acknowledge that this doesn't always happen) spot a potential LD and refer the child to the guidance counselor, who is trained to administer testing or can refer the child to someone who has such training.
I don't have too many concerns about socialization. The one thing I worry about is diversity. A homeschooled child will usually only meet other children in very specific settings (dance class, church, etc.). They'll only have significant interaction with other children who like dance or share the same religion. Public school children will socialize with children of different backgrounds, who have different interests.
I'm sure there's more, but I'm tired and I have pregnancy heartburn.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One reason I wouldn't want to homeschool my children (when I have some), is that I know I won't be able to be completely objective. They're my kids, of course I'm going to want to think the best of them.
I know a teacher doesn't have the same emotional investment I do, and can afford to be the bad guy, making the kid do extra homework, telling me what they're struggling in, and so on.
Maybe some parents can be completely objective, and not give in when their child just doesn't want to do any more math, or just can't seem to care enough to memorize every dang step of the Krebs Cycle, but I have a feeling that I might let a few things slide. While it might be easier on both me and my future child, it wouldn't be doing either of us any favors in the long run.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Public school children will socialize with children of different backgrounds, who have different interests.
I would phrase it that public school kids will be exposed to other people. I really don't think they'll socialize with them. Though in fairness, my school had about twenty-five of us in all the same classes, so it wasn't a typical public school experience, and we were very prone to cliques.
What public school can do that's important is teach you how to do group projects with random strangers. I don't get this at work personally, but for a lot of people, that's an important skill. How do you deal with the slacker who doesn't get it done? The overextender who swears they're on task and then doesn't deliver the night before? The mastermind who tells you what you're going to do but does their fair share and talks the teacher into making the assignment a little easier?
I think it's a great way to help a kid learn about their own values. Will you put up with bullying if it gets you what you want? Will you cover for someone else or take the hit to your own grade on principle? Those are the kinds of tough situations that really matter, and there just aren't enough of them to practice on before you're thrown into real life, in my opinion.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: I hadn't yet read Mrs. M's post above when I posted this.
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.
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Belle said about socializing in school. Although I would suggest that learning to sit down and shut up occasionally is a valuable skill.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(tounge only partially in cheek)
