Home Schooling

[Alexia]

No way would I send my kids to DC public schools, and I am also committed to quality public school education.

My daughter went to a DC charter school and when we moved to Arlington, they wanted to hold her back a grade level - sight unseen. She had to go through testing by the county AND the school before they would allow her to enroll at grade level and when it was over the principal told me that the only DC child they had previously put on grade level (b/c he just made his testing level) they ended up holding back at the end of the year.

DC schools are really in general really awful and even with going to a good charter school, there was still a huge contrast between the resources Arlington had to offer and what the charter school could. Like a school library (instead of the public one across the street), and a school park (instead of the public one across the street where a mentally ill man walked in and started hitting one of the children in the face during recess), and after-school activities.

[ljkeane]

But clearly the minimum standard already fails nearly 1 out of 3 children (per Coco's links). How much worse could homeschooling possibly do? It would seem you'll need to show worse statistics for homeschooling (which, just so you know you won't be able to do).

So we're just supposed to have faith that people who haven't even achieved that minumum standard will do better? If the current standards aren't sufficient that seems like an argument for increasing that minimum requirement not removing it all together.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So we're just supposed to have faith that people who haven't even achieved that minumum standard will do better? If the current standards aren't sufficient that seems like an argument for increasing that minimum requirement not removing it all together.

Since evidence has not been presented to the contrary, then yes. Call me when the national spelling, geography, and math bees start being won by public school kids.

[Cantabile]

So we're just supposed to have faith that people who haven't even achieved that minumum standard will do better? If the current standards aren't sufficient that seems like an argument for increasing that minimum requirement not removing it all together.

Do you only oppose home school programs where there are no checks on the system, or do you also oppose home school programs where standardized tests, and meetings with advisors, who are certified teachers, are required?

[Minaku]

You'll need to show that there are "more risks" to homeschooling. What risks?

Standardized testing wasn't a big deal to the homeschoolers growing up. Most of us were so far past the test it was silly. I remember volunteering at the local grade school when I was 17 and kids being brought in from recess to study for the state tests.

The bolded part of your quote is why I am such a big fan of homeschooling. I learned geology in the Colombia Gorge, the Grand Canyon, and Crater Lake. I learned biology in the fields and forests of Western Oregon. I learned physics on the baseball diamond and pool table. I went on ride alongs with the local police and fire departments. I volunteered at the county historical museum and the library. My sister took piano equestrian lessons. Actual book work only took 2-4 hours per day.

Yeah, the homeschooled kids I know are all beyond the test in many ways. A nine year old student of mine is working on precalculus already. But for many of the students in public school, standardized testing and test preparation eats up a lot of valuable time that can be spent doing other things like going on field trips, having quiet study days, or doing group projects. Kids should be evaluated on effort and cumulative knowledge and we all know that the SAT doesn't reward for work done or effort. Me, if I see that the child knows how to get through the process but somehow arrives at the wrong answer, that isn't as bad as a flat out wrong answer. And all these tests can seriously undermine a student's confidence when it comes to learning. I want my child to understand how to think critically in his own fashion instead of narrowing down the answers to one or two and guessing.

I thnk about the schooling I had growing up. I went to a very good public school. In part, my class is responsible for all the testing nowadays because we were the guinea pigs for the program. We tested extremely well over a few years and the program of testing was implemented. But we only had an exam at the end of primary and middle school, not every single semester.

It is frustrating as a teacher to see the spirit of curiosiity and education go out of these kids. They're at home drilling answers for practice exams instead of going outside and discovering things for themselves, going to museums, helping bake a cake, whatever. They aren't afforded the luxury of being kids.

[litechick]

I'm trying to picture how the secret service would operate in a public school. On the face of it, it seems like a private school would be better able to provide security.

Don't let that spoil the pleasure of calling the President a hypocrite, though. I mean, really. A responsible parent should check into the school system before relocating for a job.

[Lord of Oop North]

My sister took piano equestrian lessons.

This sounds absolutely glorious. Like a Looney Tunes cartoon come to life. If this is one of the glories of homeschooling, then sign me up.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It is frustrating as a teacher to see the spirit of curiosiity and education go out of these kids. They're at home drilling answers for practice exams instead of going outside and discovering things for themselves, going to museums, helping bake a cake, whatever. They aren't afforded the luxury of being kids.

I've said for a long time; only the public school system could spend 12 years teaching a kid to hate learning.

This sounds absolutely glorious. Like a Looney Tunes cartoon come to life.

You should have seen our underwater harmonicaphone lessons.

[Guest Raidne]

I don't see how one can claim to be committed and put your kids into schools that are completely separate from that system. Does. Not. Compute.

What if my house was completely trashed by Katrina. Would I have to be living in my toxic mold and sludge infested house during it's reconstruction process in order to be committed to repairing my house and moving back to New Orleans?

Also, I have a great pair of black pumps. The heel tip fell off the left shoe. Do I need to wear the shoe without the heel tip to show that I am committed to fixing the shoes?

I could go on. I see your point, really. Obama, by not sending his kids to DC schools, acknowledges that DC schools are failed schools. If he insisted DC schools were fine, he'd be a total hypocrite. But he doesn't. He acknowledges that they are failed schools. And is committed to fixing them. But he doesn't have to undertake the equivalent of wearing broken shoes or live in a toxic residence to prove it. That's crazy.

OTOH, I mostly feel this way because we are talking about his kids. They did not run for President. Were it something that impacted the President directly, it would be good form for him to use the public system.

Also, I don't think you really know what you're talking about when you're going on about DC schools. Read this article in Newsweek about Michelle Rhee, who tried, really tried, to take on the teacher's union. She was canned when Vincent Gray beat Adrian Fenty in the mayoral election.

People threw things at her. She was reviled. Her and Fenty now say that they should have made more an effort to get stakeholder buy in, but come on. Unions are never, ever going to let you terminate teachers with seniority just because they have low performance (generally, there has to be actual malfeasance). Or even give pay raises to young teachers based on merit.

This is the problem with public schools. And you know I'm pro-union. But there it is.

[Shryke]

But clearly the minimum standard already fails nearly 1 out of 3 children (per Coco's links). How much worse could homeschooling possibly do? It would seem you'll need to show worse statistics for homeschooling (which, just so you know you won't be able to do).

Your right we can't. We've got no idea how homeschooled kids are actually doing. No accountability. No one ensuring the parents meet the rights of these children.

Do you only oppose home school programs where there are no checks on the system, or do you also oppose home school programs where standardized tests, and meetings with advisors, who are certified teachers, are required?

How expensive is this is the question? Essentially, how much money would you be wasting making sure the homeschoolers are actually learning shit that could be better spent making the public system better?

I've said for a long time; only the public school system could spend 12 years teaching a kid to hate learning.

Private schools and homeschools can do it just as well.

[davos]

I was active in an Evangelical Church growing up. As such I had a number of friends, several of whom I was very close to, who were home-schooled. I've talked with several of them extensively about their schooling experience, both at the time and in a few cases some years latter. What I am going to say is primary based of anecdotal evidence gained from extensive contact with peers who were home schooled and their families. Those experiences are also primarily with a subset of the home-schooling movement, albeit probably the most significant one, those who home-school for religious reasons.

My experience is that for every set of parents that work hard to provide a rich, complete learning environment to their children and provide a educational experience that is superior to that in the public schools there are several who are only minimally involved in teaching their children. In several cases I am aware of once the children could read their textbooks and workbooks they were left to their own devices. The only parental involvement was to make sure the children were completing the material in the time frame required by the state. Only a highly motivated, very inteligent child would have much chance of successfully gaining the kind of education foundation that would allow them to move forward into whatever path they chose in life without significant handicaps due to having been home-schooled. I've seen the results, had close friends who were otherwise bright, who struggled greatly because they had only the barest of educations. Many of those kids eventually would find a path to some kind of reasonable life and most to my knowledge are now well adjusted adults. They had significantly more struggles moving from their home schooling years to higher education or working life than their peers who were brought up through the public school system.

I am not opposed to home-schooling. As I mentioned their are parents who do an excellent job with it. My problem is with the limitations though. One, many parents simply aren't qualified or have the appropriate temperament to provide a systematic education to their children. This not necessarily a judgment against the parents. They maybe good parents but poor teachers. Two, just because a parent has religious or philosophical reasons for homeschooling doesn't mean they are willing to put in the kind of effort over the long-term needed to provide a quality education to their children. Three, I have serious concerns about the socialization of home-schooled children. Some parents make an effort to ensure their children have plenty of opportunities for socialization, athletic activities, cultural activities and the like. Many do not though, resulting in children who grow up isolated and with great difficulty in knowing how to handle many kinds of basic social situations.

That being said, home-schooling should always remain an option that is fully supported by the state. for some children, especially with certain special needs its the best solution. For some families it just works better. In some locations where the public school system has catastrophically failed home-schooling or private schools are the only sane options for those who have the means. I am discouraged to hear that the home-schooling movement is growing because I've seen it go bad to one degree or another to often. When it works well its successes can be so spectacular as to make one rethink public education, when it doesn't the harm it can cause to a child is significant and lasting.

[The Progressive]

Your right we can't. We've got no idea how homeschooled kids are actually doing. No accountability. No one ensuring the parents meet the rights of these children.

Indeed; I'm surprised that Tormund and Scot are still harping on this issue when on the previous threads the same point was raised about comparing public schools performance data to private schools is an epic fail due to lack of data from the home-schooled side.

I've said for a long time; only the public school system could spend 12 years teaching a kid to hate learning.

It's most probably due to shitty parents; and no amount of great teaching could undue the harms of having shitty parents.

[Spring Bass]

Obama has been asked about this multiple times and says that while he is committed to improving public schools, right now public schools in many areas - like DC and Chicago - are still struggling. And they are - DC schools are awful. Why he should have faith in them? He can have faith that they can be fixed over time without sending his daughters there right now.

Moreover, Obama's daughters have some rather unique security needs, due to them being the daughters of a President. That would be unusual and rather difficult to manage in a public school, but not so much in a private school that's used to having the children of dignitaries and high-status people.

People threw things at her. She was reviled. Her and Fenty now say that they should have made more an effort to get stakeholder buy in, but come on. Unions are never, ever going to let you terminate teachers with seniority just because they have low performance (generally, there has to be actual malfeasance). Or even give pay raises to young teachers based on merit.

The only problem with this argument is that Rhee got permission for exactly that - the ability to more easily fire teachers, as well as a pay-for-performance pilot program - in negotiations with the Washington Teachers Union before she left. It wasn't a narrow thing, either, since 80% of the teachers voted in favor of the contract. On top of that, her second-in-command is still in charge.

What defeated Rhee and Fenty was that both of them were abrasive and often condescending, with Fenty in particular running an incompetent political campaign for re-election.

I've seen the results, had close friends who were otherwise bright, who struggled greatly because they had only the barest of educations. Many of those kids eventually would eventually find a path to some kind of reasonable life and most to my knowledge are now well adjusted adults. They had significantly more struggles moving from their home schooling years to higher education or working life than their peers who were brought up through the public school system.

Same here. I had a close friend back when I was in high school who had been "home-schooled" in the incompetent, spotty way that you described (he said he often ended up just playing in his sandbox all day). He's a pretty bright kid, but it was a major struggle for him to catch up once he got into the public school system in the sixth grade.

[Guest Raidne]

The only problem with this argument is that Rhee got permission for exactly that - the ability to more easily fire teachers, as well as a pay-for-performance pilot program - in negotiations with the Washington Teachers Union before she left. It wasn't a narrow thing, either, since 80% of the teachers voted in favor of the contract. On top of that, her second-in-command is still in charge.

What defeated Rhee and Fenty was that both of them were abrasive and often condescending, with Fenty in particular running an incompetent political campaign for re-election.

Oh sure, sure, that's the story. But as someone who received repeated phone calls from my union urging me to go out and vote for Gray, I doubt that the union was neutral, and that their support for Gray had nothing to do with his win, in this town.

[Cantabile]

How expensive is this is the question? Essentially, how much money would you be wasting making sure the homeschoolers are actually learning shit that could be better spent making the public system better?

This depends upon each individual program. As Tormund said, the program he used he and the homeschoolers simply went to a public school for the standardized test with the other kids, and there was practically 0 cost.

The program my daughter was enrolled was an actual department of the public education system, simply designed for independent learning. Advisers were teachers who instead of teaching classes, would meet with three students each hour, in which time they would administer tests, give assignments, and help the children with whatever was necessary. Volunteer tutors from the local colleges were available for tutoring in math, science, and any other subjects the students needed help with.

A lot of money naturally went into the program to pay for the teachers, but the education board was more than willing to supply that money. Officials on the education board would meet with randomly selected students in the program once per year, and assess how well the program was doing, and if it was worth that money rather than simply spending it on the general schools. Every single year they decided it was well worth it, as every single student in the program had a 3.0 gpa or higher, performed much higher on the annual standardized tests, and were able to use the extra time independent studies allowed them to foster their own intellects, rather than wasting away the days in a classroom.

I believe having a variety of education methods available is the best route. For some students public schools are simply a waste of time, due to their design alone. You could pour as much money into the system as you want, and it will fail these kids because it doesn't fulfill their personal needs.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Davos -

Excellent post. I very much agree that home schooling is not for everyone, and I do not advocate that all, or even most children be home schooled. I merely get up in arms when people talk about how it should not be allowed, or drag out myths about it failing most children or home schoolers being socially stunted. These things happen in ALL attempts at education, because some kids are stupid, lazy, or antisocial. Many of these problems are compounded by the various options of education. Stupid kids will fail more drastically at a public school where they can fade into the background and the administration has perverse incentives to pass them. Lazy kids will probably do poorly at private school where the school relies on funds from uninterested parents who will simply move their kids to a new school if they don't get passed. Antisocial kids will probably grow more antisocial at home where they are not forced to interact with others (but also may be more sheltered from bullying and other hazards of forced social interaction).

It is politically incorrect to point out that some people are going to fail, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. It is also politically incorrect to say that those with the best chance to succeed deserve to have the tools to do so placed at their disposal. Home schooling is one of those tools and a very good one at that.

[Shryke]

This depends upon each individual program. As Tormund said, the program he used he and the homeschoolers simply went to a public school for the standardized test with the other kids, and there was practically 0 cost.

It's not "practically 0 cost" though. You are completely ignoring the cost of enforcement and tracking and such.

It's not just about administering the test, it's about making sure the kid is taking the test. And that's not even touching that standerdised testing isn't the only or the best method for tracking performance and environment and such.

The program my daughter was enrolled was an actual department of the public education system, simply designed for independent learning. Advisers were teachers who instead of teaching classes, would meet with three students each hour, in which time they would administer tests, give assignments, and help the children with whatever was necessary. Volunteer tutors from the local colleges were available for tutoring in math, science, and any other subjects the students needed help with.

1 teacher per 3 students? Wow, sounds pricey.

I believe having a variety of education methods available is the best route. For some students public schools are simply a waste of time, due to their design alone. You could pour as much money into the system as you want, and it will fail these kids because it doesn't fulfill their personal needs.

You mean providing certain people with the luxury of other educational methods, at the expense of the kids who can't use them.

And it's not all a money problem, I agree. But at the same time, it's not NOT a money problem either.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It's not "practically 0 cost" though. You are completely ignoring the cost of enforcement and tracking and such.

It's not just about administering the test, it's about making sure the kid is taking the test. And that's not even touching that standerdised testing isn't the only or the best method for tracking performance and environment and such.

Check computer: # of kids in district registered for home schooling

Check computer: # of tests turned in by homeschoolers

Compare both: see if anyone is missing.

Standard truancy applies.

Yeah, sounds disastrously expensive. Especially because all those kids families are paying into the school system but not using any school resources (except a classroom, once per year) the school is running a surplus off them.

[Galactus]

This depends upon each individual program. As Tormund said, the program he used he and the homeschoolers simply went to a public school for the standardized test with the other kids, and there was practically 0 cost.

That isn't neccessarily true, there'd still be the costs for trying to fix a failing education for instance.

[Cantabile]

It's not "practically 0 cost" though. You are completely ignoring the cost of enforcement and tracking and such.

It's not just about administering the test, it's about making sure the kid is taking the test. And that's not even touching that standerdised testing isn't the only or the best method for tracking performance and environment and such.

Of course standardized testing is an atrocious method of gauging one's knowledge, but it's what the public school system used, so if your only concern is making sure home-schooled kids are at that same level, then is that not suitable?

1 teacher per 3 students? Wow, sounds pricey.

This is per hour, with the teachers working the same schedules as any other primary teachers, allowing for one teacher to have a few dozen students.

You mean providing certain people with the luxury of other educational methods, at the expense of the kids who can't use them.

And it's not all a money problem, I agree. But at the same time, it's not NOT a money problem either.

I'm not sure how it's really at the expense of other children. This system is available to anyone who chooses to enroll their children in it. Does funding this program take money away from the other public schools? Sure, but whether or not it's more valuable to channel all the money solely into the public schools, or use a little bit to fund these other education programs as well, is up to the school board, who I believe are far more qualified for making these decisions than any of us simply arguing concepts. Honestly, if the money used in my daughter's program was just directed into a public school instead, what improvements would be possibly made? There were only four teachers in the program, which is a drop in the bucket. Would having those teachers be employed in a public school decrease the class sizes? Marginally. But in my opinion, the advantages it offered the kids in the program far, far outweighs what minor benefits four extra teachers would grant to the local public school.