Home Schooling

[QuietColours]

I obsess about assessment, and see this claim again and again.

Teaching to the test is not a problem. Quite the opposite. It’s just a question of aligning the test with the intended learning outcome.

There are different ways to teach to the test. One is to present and teach material that is in the curriculum, preferably using a range of approaches, and to do so effectively enough that the students are capable of understanding, explaining, and expounding on the material. If that is the case, they can probably answer standardized test questions on the subject and are probably getting a pretty good education.

Another way to teach to the test is to hand out different practice exams every day, discuss guessing strategies in class, spend at least an hour every afternoon taking computerized practice tests, and to have kids fill in multiple choice tests for their homework. During this process, nothing is discussed that will not be covered on the standardized test, even if it is directly related and the students have questions about it, because there isn't time for that. Students being able to do anything but repeat test questions and the most obvious answers for them is the primary goal. This is a less effective type of education, but one that's becoming increasingly used.

For the record, on the practice tests for the 8th Grade Proficiency Tests in Ohio in the 1999-2000 school year, you could answer "B" on all the questions for a 50%, and if you alternated B-C on the answer choices, you got a normal level passing grade.

[Guest Raidne]

It could be different in some districts, but all the teachers I know get to choose whether they want it spread out, or to just receive checks when they are actually working. Some voluntarily work summer school for extra pay, but many are not at all interested in doing that.

[Happy Ent]

Dangerously close to thread drift, but as I said I obsess about this.

Another way to teach to the test is to hand out different practice exams every day, discuss guessing strategies in class, spend at least an hour every afternoon taking computerized practice tests, and to have kids fill in multiple choice tests for their homework.

All of these I would actively encourage. It the test is good, all of these activities should work in the right direction. (Except for guessing strategies, which are easily eliminated.) It’s all a question of embracing these strategies and turning them around. Make the test good, and students are suddenly well-motivated to sit down and learn.

Reading, for those interested, about multiple choice: scoring and grading mcqs, designing mcqs .

[Meg]

I've never understood the argument that if only all rich kids went to public schools then all public schools would be great. First off, I went to several public schools growing up and one of those schools had a decent amount of wealthy kids and poor kids. Guess what? The wealthy kids still got the top grades and the poor kids were average to bad, academic wise. Being with wealthy kids did not make the poor kids better students.

Second, the parents of the rich kids were not involved in the public school. All the parents did was drop off the rich kids in their expensive sports cars and pick them up in the afternoon. They did not invest that money that was saved by having their kids attend the public school on the public school. Instead their money was spent on ballet, tennis, gymnastics, etc. lessons, trips to Europe, memberships in exclusive country clubs, etc. The only thing that I ever saw the rich parents get involved with was volunteering as chaperones for our 2 yearly field trips. That is all. So yeah, I call BS on the argument that rich kids and their parents in a public school will greatly improve the grades of poor kids.

I personally lived it and can tell you that the reason that I am where I am today is because my working class parents valued education and expected nothing less than good grades and good behavior from me. They didn't use our poverty (food stamps at times and no insurance) as an excuse for me not to succeed. I am so fortunate that I was blessed with parents who cared about me. Unfortunately, many kids aren't as lucky as me and that is why they do poorly in school.

[Shryke]

Having re-read the thread, I can say you are full of it. Only you have brought up "tracking and enforcement" as costs. You have provided no evidence of what these costs are, or how they compare to the costs of keeping a child in school full time.

So - you have shown nothing, you are the only one who is saying it (not substantiated by any evidence) and then you say that your non-evidenced assertions "shit all over my points".

The world inside your head must be a fascinating place.

Oh please. Tracking and Enforcement can easily be assumed to be non-zero. And once it's non-zero, homeschooling becomes a trade-off vs public schooling. A trade-off with unmeasured (and unmeasurable without extra expense) benefits. Essentially, homeschooling diverts costs from the public education system towards a seperate education system that costs extra, provides unmeasured benefits and only effects a marginal amount of students of certain socio-economic backgrounds.

You still have not dealt with this issue.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Oh please. Tracking and Enforcement can easily be assumed to be non-zero. And once it's non-zero, homeschooling becomes a trade-off vs public schooling. A trade-off with unmeasured (and unmeasurable without extra expense) benefits. Essentially, homeschooling diverts costs from the public education system towards a seperate education system that costs extra, provides unmeasured benefits and only effects a marginal amount of students of certain socio-economic backgrounds.

You still have not dealt with this issue.

Neither have you. You have invented costs and then demanded that I justify your invented costs.

You need to show

1. The costs exist and are being spent

2. The costs are greater than having the kids in school.

If you can't show (1) your point falls apart altogether, and if you can't show (2) then your point is still moot because having kids in home school is a net benefit (financially) to the state school system.

[Galactus]

I've never understood the argument that if only all rich kids went to public schools then all public schools would be great. First off, I went to several public schools growing up and one of those schools had a decent amount of wealthy kids and poor kids. Guess what? The wealthy kids still got the top grades and the poor kids were average to bad, academic wise. Being with wealthy kids did not make the poor kids better students.

Second, the parents of the rich kids were not involved in the public school. All the parents did was drop off the rich kids in their expensive sports cars and pick them up in the afternoon. They did not invest that money that was saved by having their kids attend the public school on the public school. Instead their money was spent on ballet, tennis, gymnastics, etc. lessons, trips to Europe, memberships in exclusive country clubs, etc. The only thing that I ever saw the rich parents get involved with was volunteering as chaperones for our 2 yearly field trips. That is all. So yeah, I call BS on the argument that rich kids and their parents in a public school will greatly improve the grades of poor kids.

I personally lived it and can tell you that the reason that I am where I am today is because my working class parents valued education and expected nothing less than good grades and good behavior from me. They didn't use our poverty (food stamps at times and no insurance) as an excuse for me not to succeed. I am so fortunate that I was blessed with parents who cared about me. Unfortunately, many kids aren't as lucky as me and that is why they do poorly in school.

I'm not even talking about direct investments of that type. I'm talking about broader concerns with educational policy, etc.

Basically, when you have your kids in a public school, the state of public schools will likely be something you concern youself with.

[Shryke]

Neither have you. You have invented costs and then demanded that I justify your invented costs.

You need to show

1. The costs exist and are being spent

2. The costs are greater than having the kids in school.

If you can't show (1) your point falls apart altogether, and if you can't show (2) then your point is still moot because having kids in home school is a net benefit (financially) to the state school system.

I've already shown them multiple times. Again, you just refuse to read the thread.

I've already shown (1). There's no way you can assume (1) isn't true. How can keeping track of who's being homeschooled, how they are being homeschooled, making sure they are meeting requirements and dealing with the situation if they are not being taken care of adequately not cost money? It's completely idiotic to believe it has absolutely zero cost.

(2) is also trivial. Economies of scale cover most of it (it's easier to test and evaluate a group of children when they are all in the same building all the time under constant supervision) and that's not even touching on the costs associated with losing teaching staff (who's training is paid for by the state) to the homescholling system.

And hell, if (2) wasn't true, why do we have public education in the first place? Why aren't you railing against the existence of the entire system? If homeschooling is cheaper and (at least) just as effective, why aren't we doing it for every kid?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I've already shown (1). There's no way you can assume (1) isn't true. How can keeping track of who's being homeschooled, how they are being homeschooled, making sure they are meeting requirements and dealing with the situation if they are not being taken care of adequately not cost money? It's completely idiotic to believe it has absolutely zero cost.

You haven't shown it, you've merely said it. Check out what Watcher said earlier:

I think homeschooling works better on paper then in real life. It’s biggest problem is the lack of oversight. In 10 States has no requirements for homeschoolers. The parents don’t even have to notify their school distract that they are pulling their child from school. In another 14 States that is the only requirement. There is no way an outside agency can check if the parents are educating their children or if the kid is learning. Seventeen states require some type of check. Ranging from self tests to an outside check of performance. No state requires holds homeschool children to the same standards as kids that are taught in public school. No State requires a homeschooled kid to take the same standardized test the kids in public school do.

This would seem to indicate that (1) is, in fact, not true for at least 24 states.

(

2) is also trivial. Economies of scale cover most of it (it's easier to test and evaluate a group of children when they are all in the same building all the time under constant supervision) and that's not even touching on the costs associated with losing teaching staff (who's training is paid for by the state) to the homescholling system.

As I said earlier. My state assessment involved a few hours with a teacher at a public school facility. Assuming someone had failed the state assessment, they would simply have had to start attending school. I don't see where the costs over and above paying for a child to attend public school (Oregon, for example, spends 7600.00/student/year) would come from, and you continuing to stamp your feet and insist they exist isn't making it any more true.

And hell, if (2) wasn't true, why do we have public education in the first place? Why aren't you railing against the existence of the entire system? If homeschooling is cheaper and (at least) just as effective, why aren't we doing it for every kid?

I am against public schooling in principal. However, the home school model is not ideal for every student.

[Meg]

I don't think that many good parents care how other kids are doing as long as their own kid is doing well. I know my parents never cared how my classmates were doing in school. My parents attended parent-teacher conferences and made sure that I was doing well in school. That was the level of their involvment. They made sure that I did my homework and studied for exams. Many of my other well behaved smart friends also had parents like that. I think many parents realize that they don't have to talk to their kid's teachers everyday and attend every PTA meeting in order for their kids to get a good education. There is only so much an average teacher can do for a kid who has bad parents. And bad parents have many years to mess up a kid's life. I think many public schools are good. The problem lies with the schools that have high concentrations of kids with bad parents. Those are guaranteed dropout factories.

[Cantabile]

Again, you ignore the costs of enforcing compliance and "cleaning up the mess" afterwards. There is not "no cost" to allowing the privileged of homeschooling.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by enforcing compliance, and "cleaning up the mess," specifically how money will be required?"

You completely ignored my actual point which was, again, that there is indeed a cost. A non-trivial one in fact.

Let's just be clear we're on the same page, because I'm losing track here. You're stating that there will be a cost for the administration of standardized tests to homeschool students, corrrect? This depends entirely upon how the tests are administered, but in a situation like Tormund described, where the district's homeschooled kids are rounded up, and take the test at a public school when the kids at that school are doing it, can you explain exactly what costs are involved? The school isn't going to go out and buy more chairs and desks for the homeschool kids, nor is it going to be paying extra teachers simply to observe kids taking a standardized test. Currently very few kids homeschool in most districts, so that in that type of situation only a few dozen extra kids will be taking the standardized test.

Hardly a strain on the education system's funding, especially since if it's a scenario where the parents are funding their kid's education, in addition to paying taxes, they're saving the state money. The state doesn't have to provide the educational services, textbooks, all the printed material, etc. that it would if those kids were enrolled in a public school.

Primary teachers, perhaps. Anything above that, not a chance. There's not enough hours in a day for a method like this to serve as many students as the typical middle-school or high-school teacher does.

Of course not, but I for one value quality of education rather than aiming for mindless numbers. I'd rather a program exist with three teachers that benefit a lower number of kids who will benefit greatly from the program, rather than just adding three more teachers to a high school.

You say you don't know how it's at the expense of other children and then, in the very next sentence, admit that it takes money away from public education.

We should be clearer. It isn't taking money away from public education, because this program is public education, since it's entirely funded by the district's education system, with the same coursework, subjects, and requirements. I mean that it isn't at the expense of other children, because I can't really imagine how the salary of three teachers is going to contribute much to a public high school, that would justify it's elimination. Can you give specific examples of how you think that money should be used instead?

And your comparison doesn't work because you are pretending that the existence of the program is not itself a marginal benefit. The advantages it offered to the kids in the program does not outweigh the costs because the benefit is minor. It only effects a couple of kids after all.

I'm not sure we should really bother arguing this point, since there's not exactly a measurement for "benefit" but I'll try to explain my point of view. If three teachers in this program were to teach at the public high school instead, what benefit is there except for smaller class sizes? Honestly, I think that allowing the two hundred children in the program to graduate early; have more time to pursue their life goals and exercise their intellects; is more important than having smaller class sizes in high school, especially since in this district there is no lack of teachers or funding, and the average class size is already around 20 students. I am incredibly sceptical that allowing that number to drop even smaller thanks to three more teachers is going to do anything at all.

If this was in an incredibly impoverished district it'd be an entirely different story altogether, but that's only applicable to programs like this. Parents homeschooling their kids without the use of programs is going to give the education system more money, not less.

[Minaku]

Well, some answers should just be parroted back. There are the lower levels of various cognitive hierarchies (Bloom, SOLO), whose intention is to teach knowledge recollection. The names of the three ships of Lord Sunglass should indeed be parroted back, nothing else can be learned about them. Lots of music instruction is parroting back. These are useful skills, easy and satisfying to train, and easy to test well. Let’s do that, by all means.

Other learning outcomes are at other skill levels, where parroting is meaningless, and a good test can’t be defeated by rote memorisation. Mind you, making a good test is really difficult.

“Teaching to the test” should not be viewed as a problem. It’s a rational strategy that should be actively supported.

I know you're trying to simplify, but... no, just no.

[Spring Bass]

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.

That simply proves my point, which was that Fenty and Rhee lost in spite of the reforms, not because of them. They alienated much of the voting base as well as the union that had actually acquiesed to some of their key demands.

I know you're trying to simplify, but... no, just no.

It really depends on the subject. Math, for example, is often an "either-or" thing - you're either able to solve the problems, or you can't. Repetition and drilling are a big part of that until you start getting into some of the higher-level mathematics (like calculus), and designing tests for that is a straightforward process, at least in principle (and you can teach to those kinds of tests). English is slightly trickier when you factor in reading comprehension problems, but grammar itself isn't too difficult for test design. Science is trickier still, since there's both a good degree of memorization, but also a lot of theory and scientific process to teach. Finally, there's reading and history, for both of which "teaching to the test" is rather pointless (unless you want people to memorize a bunch of dates and names, missing the forest for the trees).

Of course, if you want to focus on job-applicable skills, teaching students to memorize a bunch of pointless procedures and rules might actually be a useful skill. ;)

[Happy Ent]

I know you're trying to simplify, but... no, just no.

Sure it is. All my children take violin lessons.

Is all music instruction “parrotting back”? Of course not. Music, just as any other subject, has skills at all levels of the Bloom taxonomy. At its lower levels lie purely reproductive skills. These are hard to learn and deserve attention, commitment, practice, and our respect. The level of contempt for low-level skills sometimes expressed in pedagogical discourse always baffles me. Playing a Bach minuet on the violin, reciting a Shakespeare sonnet, having a large vocabulary in your third of fourth language (and declining 200 common verbs correctly), knowing if the Rennaissance was before the Baroque: these things are good to know, and anybody who has invested the time to teach or learn these things deserves our respect.

Playing the minuet well (and with the correct performance practice), analysing the sonnet, translating into your fourth language, placing a painting in the right era: these things are also good to know and deserve our respect as well. And so on, further and further up, such as explaining why the counterpoint in the minuet is uniquely Baroque and how that corresponds to the socio-politial mindset of that era is great as well. I can do that. (But I can do that without playing the minuet. I have useless, lazy skills than mainly signal my high IQ. I don’t know if that deserves any respect, or is a learnable skill.)

[Galactus]

I don't think that many good parents care how other kids are doing as long as their own kid is doing well.

Yes, that's kind of the point. By linking these two (how your kid is doing and how other kids are doing) it increases the likelyhood of them getting involved.

[Guest Raidne]

I would just add that studying for the English language portion of the ACT did more for my grammar skills than anything else in my entire educational history, including reading Elements of Style and On Writing Well. Probably on par with the influence of both of those together.

Also, studying for the analogy section of the GRE did more for my vocabulary than any other exercise before it.

Of course, studying for the logical arguments section of the LSAT was like trying to forget anything I'd actually learned about logical arguments while studying logic - the test was riddled with blatant errors and I maintain that a person would be dumber for having studied for it. The creators relied far too heavily on the "this question is good because test-takers who did well picked the right answer" method without spending enough time making sure the answer was actually right. As a result, you learned what the actual answer would be, not what the right answer should be following principles of logical reasoning.

So I think a lot of it just depends on the test.

[Guest Raidne]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Throwing money at the problems in American schools hasn't helped, and I am positive that the schools would be better if everyone on capitol hill sent their kids there. But I won't try to convince you of this.

Ahem. The families of people on Capitol Hill live in their districts, not in Washington, D.C. This is actually true for many members of the executive branch also.

My solution for poor inner city schools is voluntary boarding schools with an elite class of teachers. This would be expensive, but it would get the kids out of the socioeconomic situation that they are in and would really give them a chance. I won't make it mandatory because that violates parental rights.

[Meg]

Ahem. The families of people on Capitol Hill live in their districts, not in Washington, D.C. This is actually true for many members of the executive branch also.

My solution for poor inner city schools is voluntary boarding schools with an elite class of teachers. This would be expensive, but it would get the kids out of the socioeconomic situation that they are in and would really give them a chance. I won't make it mandatory because that violates parental rights.

I agree with what you are saying. There are just some people who are too messed up to be parents. I think that voluntary public boarding schools would allow many kids with messed up parents to escape their bad homes and have a chance at a decent future. The kid being raised by a pothead mom and a dad who is in jail has little chance of success in life unless he is allowed to escape that horrible home situation. The problem isn't the schools but rather the parents.

[Spastic Plastic]

My solution for poor inner city schools is voluntary boarding schools with an elite class of teachers. This would be expensive, but it would get the kids out of the socioeconomic situation that they are in and would really give them a chance. I won't make it mandatory because that violates parental rights.

No offense, Raidne, but fuck that. Improving the public schools is the way to go. I've done a year in a boarding school, and it was a hell on earth. The majority of people (including myself) aren't cut out for boarding school. They even said so themselves.

[Guest Raidne]

No offense, Raidne, but fuck that. Improving the public schools is the way to go. I've done a year in a boarding school, and it was a hell on earth. The majority of people (including myself) aren't cut out for boarding school. They even said so themselves.

No offense, TFJ, but what are you comparing your boarding school experience to? Am I out of line in guessing that it's not living in squalor with your crack-addicted mother, hoping to not get caught in the crossfire of a gang rivalry on your way to school? Or press-ganged into the Kings on your way home?