State/Gov't Regulation of HS: Good or Bad?

[Barry Goldwater]

Hey, Barry, are you really from here? What's it like in OH? I used to drive through on my way back and forth from college (MO). I sometimes couldn't make the whole trip in one trek so I'd stop in Huber Heights.

 

 

 

We're E. OH, but wow, it's beautiful there in HH. We love OH, but we sought the rural / ag. lifestyle...not for everyone but we love it 'past the sidewalks.'

 

I grew up 5 miles from the Stone Pony...

[Ester Maria]

As always, I'll be the strict, rigid and inflexible freak on these type of threads. I also haven't read all of the responses, just generally skimmed through the thread, so maybe I'm not the only one with such approach.

 

First of all, I've seen WAY too much intellectual dishonesty in the homeschool world to buy into the idea that freedom comes first and God forbid anyone ever wishes to control anything you do. From people teaching content they don't know to people giving grades on the content they don't know to people labeling a class a certain way without covering what the label assumes, and so forth, there are so much potentially problematic things in homeschooling.

 

All of it made me realize that Italy is not a crazy dictatorship which requires my children to take yearly exams in ALL prescribed subjects and be accountable to a certain specific school because it "wants to control me and my kids" or "interfere in our lives and know what exactly we are doing in America during the year", but instead, a perfectly normal country (I cannot believe I'm saying that something in the practice of Italian laws is normal, let alone perfect :D) that has learned a thing or two from the experiences of other countries (unusual for Italy, but this is a positive example).

The fact is, schooled children get educated by people that somebody, officially, guarantees for - they graduated from certain universities, were taught by certain professors, received certain specializations and so forth, while homeschooled children get taught most (and often ALL) of their academics by a person that cannot possibly have specialized in all of it and cannot possibly meet all of it on the highest level. Even the most educated amongst homeschool parents will have two to three specializations and degrees, not more.

 

Education is an awfully complex field and assumes an incredible amount of responsibility - the only more responsible and more complex field probably being the biomedical one (THE responsibility there). Here, you might not often be responsible for a literal physical life of another person, but you're responsible for an entire human psyche, and psycho-intellectual development of another person. How will I educate a child to the best of his/her abilities, in the spirit of humanism and a worldview, but without crossing that important line in which child remains an independent other person, not an extension of my own self? How can one's mind develop, if not through disputation and the experience of meeting many different things, many different profiles of people, on an academic level? How can I possibly be objective enough when it comes to my own child? How can I possibly be the supreme authority for this very important area of one's life? Am I even qualified to be so?

 

There boards are not very representative. We have a small specimen of very dedicated, usually very competent, and very thoughtful, careful homeschoolers here, many of whom I would trust with my own child's education based on what they write, what are their approaches and how they do it. But there are people out there who are given the same rights and, well, don't really school. Whose children really would be better off in a school, academically. Who are keeping kids at home out of ideological reasons primarily (so that kids, God forbid, wouldn't meet different people and different ideas out there in the world and, God forbid, have to challenge the worldview they were given), and academics and child's development comes second. Who have very little school (formal or not) themselves and even with the best intentions cannot keep up with their children much past early elementary.

 

Eh, for THOSE people, some regulations should exist. For the sake of their children and their children's right to receive at least the minimal "standard package" of education that's established as a minimum in their society, and to ensure they are doing something to get it and are successfully getting it.

 

Freedom always comes accompanied with responsibility. Having a child in itself is a huge responsibility. And while you might not have to answer to everyone about each meal your child takes, you cannot answer to NONE, ever, because "it's your child and you can do with him whatever you want, who cares about having a medical insurance for the child or taking her to the dentist, it's my right not to".

Nope, you can't do "whatever you want" with your child. You don't OWN a child and their life. Likewise, you can't OWN their mind 100% and go against the normal experience of the society you live in, not teaching what you should be teaching.

 

One of the reasons why society exists in the first place is to give up on little freedom to ensure little safety. That's why normal societies have obligatory some kind of health care, some educational experience, and why in normal societies the sole fact that you gave birth to somebody doesn't make you own that somebody to the point of never having to answer to anyone about anything regarding that somebody. Most of the societal regulations that exist exist for our own sake and safety. While America is definitely one of the most paranoid, crazy-for-bureaucracy societies that I've been in, with often insane laws, and while I VERY often get irritated by it (see that I'm counting days to give birth to belated #3 and have documents solved so I can LEAVE for a while :D), so I understand the fear of too much regulations and frustration that would be caused by it, seriously, you have it darn well compared to Europe and if I were to make your laws, they would be a lot less flexible and a lot less free to minimize the theoretical possibility of abusing that freedom. For now, the theoretical possibility of abusing it is VERY high - and the freedom we're talking about is potentially dangerous.

 

(I'm not very coherent today, but I hope you got my point.)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I see your point...but the PS's aren't meeting their own minimums, and they want to regulate HS's too? That's my objection...if there was more integrity in government (ha!) I would be more amenable to accepting their regulation. JMHO.

 

 

IMHO integrity can often be found in government as well as in private industry. OTOH IMHO I think that dishonesty can equally be found in government as private industry. It saddens me to see so many characterize government as completely without merit:(

 

I myself and multiple family members have worked at various levels of government all the way up to the federal government with the highest levels of integrity and work ethic. They go above and beyond and often work in their free time.

 

OTOH I have worked in private industry as well and have seen laziness, ruthlessness, dishonesty, etc. as well as very hard workers. IMHO I do not think one can say that the government is any worse than private industry and I think we need both:) I think some schools are failing but there are many who are not. I also think that the onus should also be on the parents as well as the schools. I think lack of parenting causes many problems in schools today too.

 

I think there should be some oversight of homeschooling similar to Pennsylvania or Virginia perhaps with testing requirements. I understand that many schools are failing and do have mixed feelings about oversight but OTOH I think children deserve some sort of education.

 

My 2 cents:)

[bookfiend]

At our local high school, there was a sign posted on the front door a couple of weeks ago. It stated that by 2016, the majority of the sophomores would be able to read at grade level. Note that a majority is only 51%.

 

I have no idea why that sign is posted -- I'd be ashamed to put that on the front door if I were in charge of the school system.

 

Doesn't that imply that the majority currently are not able to read at grade level, but the school hopes to up to standard in FIVE years?!

[RoughCollie]

I think society has a vested interest in the education of its citizens, as a matter of public policy, and that children have a right to be educated to the best of their abilities, notwithstanding their parents' opinions on the matter.

 

Therefore, I don't mind if the government requires periodic testing of homeschooled children every 2-3 years, or yearly in high school.

 

I do mind any other form of governmental interference with homeschooling. I don't appreciate having to jump through hoops to satisfy a bureaucracy.

[RoughCollie]

Doesn't that imply that the majority currently are not able to read at grade level, but the school hopes to up to standard in FIVE years?!

 

Oh yes, it does! Our family was absolutely floored when we first read the sign last year!

 

My son is in 11th grade, and this year his school requires that students read a book or magazine in homeroom for 15 minutes a day. The teacher was astonished that he bought a book by Stephen Hawking. She didn't think he could read it, much less comprehend it. The truth is that she couldn't comprehend the material.

 

My son is an oddity at school because he reads books that are not assigned by the school -- he enjoys a reputation for being a genius simply because of that.

[Ester Maria]

My son is in 11th grade, and this year his school requires that students read a book or magazine in homeroom for 15 minutes a day. The teacher was astonished that he bought a book by Stephen Hawking. She didn't think he could read it, much less comprehend it. The truth is that she couldn't comprehend the material.

15 minutes a day?! We had such regulations in first grade. Of elementary school, that is, and it was more than 15 minutes.

 

While I do think it's laudable they do something about the reading level of the students, this is quite tragicomic.

[kewb]

Personally, I love the lack of regulation in NJ. I am free to educate my children as I see fit. I do not have to teach the test. Which is what I see when I talk with their friends about what they are doing in school.

 

Are there a few bad apples who spoil the bunch? Absolutely. Are there kids who may benefit from being in school because someone would have noticed they were starving/being abused/something? Probably. But, there are many kids who are being abused in school and no one notices or does anything about it until it is too late.

 

The noschoolers-There is no guarantee that those kids would be superstars if they went to school. I went to school with my share of uninterested/undiagnosed learning diabilities/low performers/given up because they were labeled in elementary school as no good/lazy/shiftless people.

 

I do not believe in government sticking their nose into homeschooling.

[mommaduck]

15 minutes a day?! We had such regulations in first grade. Of elementary school, that is, and it was more than 15 minutes.

 

While I do think it's laudable they do something about the reading level of the students, this is quite tragicomic.

Yes, and THIS is why we want the FREEDOM to school our children in ways that is BEST for each individual one of them!

 

Sorry, but there was so much wrong with your previous post. I'm guessing Italy does not have the amount of subcultures that America has. In fact, I doubt most European countries do anymore. Till a person can understand and respect that, I really don't think they can compare.

 

Those in subcultures here in America may not be very educated in most things common to the rest of the cultures, but at least they can read. Unlike some people I know that went through 12yrs of government schooling and came out of that system barely able to read their own name. What we have learned in America is that the more something is regulated, the more it breaks down and fails those that it's supposed to help.

[RoughCollie]

15 minutes a day?! We had such regulations in first grade. Of elementary school, that is, and it was more than 15 minutes.

 

While I do think it's laudable they do something about the reading level of the students, this is quite tragicomic.

 

It's an area that is ripe with possibilities for community service.

[Ester Maria]

Sorry, but there was so much wrong with your previous post. I'm guessing Italy does not have the amount of subcultures that America has. In fact, I doubt most European countries do anymore. Till a person can understand and respect that, I really don't think they can compare.

 

Those in subcultures here in America may not be very educated in most things common to the rest of the cultures, but at least they can read. Unlike some people I know that went through 12yrs of government schooling and came out of that system barely able to read their own name. What we have learned in America is that the more something is regulated, the more it breaks down and fails those that it's supposed to help.

In what way is it problematic if I say that I'm pro that each student gets tested yearly in the subjects that are a part of the "standard package"? Basically I'm talking about a yearly testing in English, Maths, societal and scientific literacy that's age-appropriate and in high school, about taking official tests for the subjects you're learning. Such testing takes a few days yearly, you can an official confirmation by an expert in the field that you know the material, nobody doubts "mom's transcript" because somebody other than mom guarantees for the level of studies, and that's it. A few DAYS in every YEAR. And you still study at home, and do whatever you like, and teach your children non-standard areas that you find important.

 

At home, you can do a plethora of things ASIDE from that. But I don't think anyone should be exempted from doing the required minimum, I think there should be some sort of control that a required minimum is being done and I don't think that "they aren't doing it properly at public school either!" is a good argument against it. It's the public school system's own shame that they aren't doing things properly, and in the US it's definitely the lesser of two evils to homeschool in most cases, but I'm talking about official testing for mandatory areas, not about you being told what to do, which textbook to use, etc. The amount of intellectual dishonesty that's going around is often striking - I'm RELIEVED by the fact that Italy requires yearly testing and thus somebody else signs the grade on the transcript, who actually has the qualifications needed to do it. I can do it only for few areas with a complete, perfect peace of mind, knowing that I have the education needed and know the standards well to be able to apply it and "measure" somebody's knowledge.

 

Being a part of subculture isn't an excuse for lack of literacy in the basic required fields. I'm a minority in my own country as well, but I can't say "oh, kids study Judaics" as an excuse not to teach Italian literature if Italian literature is a part of the standard package and a repertory of every child in Italy. In America, such things actually happen and I don't think they should be happening. The problem of defining what enters the "package" is a big one, but I think we can all more or less agree on what are the basic areas that would have to be tested in a system which tests homeschoolers. It's a sacrifice of a few days a year, and a huge burden off your chest.

[Carol in Cal.]

Government regulation of homeschooling is not 'good' simply because it is 'minimal'. Accepting any government regulation implies consent to ANY government regulation, if you get my drift. It is a slippery slope.

 

I used an independent home study program for about 4 years, and a charter ISP for a few more years as well. This was my choice, and I had to accept some regulations to make that choice. I debated the ethics of accepting the charter a lot, as I wanted to make sure I was not undermining freedom to home educate locally--that's why I advocate for it and defend independent homeschoolers in conversation and to state and local officials every chance I get.

 

I never was in the control of those organizations, and they were very clear on that point. I was willing to partner with them to better educate my child, as long as it was beneficial to her to do so, and not for one more minute after that.

 

If participating in an organization like that became a regulatory 'must', then I would not have been able to stay out of their control. Just watching them try to put more and more requirements on their students over time was enough to make it crystal clear to me that that would be a significant concern--these are students of families who can walk away at any point. If they couldn't walk away, things would get very onerous very fast.

 

It's horrible when someone claims to be homeschooling when they are really not doing so, but it's also horrible to assume that children are basically the property of the state. We don't have a normed, uniform society in the States, and so we really have no good basis to 'standardize' our children. It's different in Europe, where societal norms carry so much more weight.

 

Here's one of my stock arguments in favor of homeschooling, to people who are unfamiliar with it or even hostile to it (always delivered with enthusiasm and good cheer, not angrily):

'One of our most basic principles of education is 'local control'. Our fallback for children having trouble in school is 'private tutoring'. Homeschooling is the ultimate in 'local control' and the 'private tutoring' that is available to homeschoolers is superb. We are the epitome that 'regular schooling' reverts to as the best possible scenario. What's not to like?'

 

Here's another one:

'Parents' rights to nurture and raise their own children their own way are basic to American freedom. Obviously we have to prevent child abuse and so forth, but requiring state testing against norms that change almost completely every 10 years or so and that have distorted our public school system almost to the breaking point does no good and potentially can do a fair amount of harm to children. And once we say that the government has the right to require anything like that, we have opened the door to them having the right to require public school attendance of EVERYONE, even private school children, and to a lot of other alarming possibilities that basically take children out of their families by force. This is not acceptable to me as an American.'

(It's harder to smile and be cheerful while delivering that one, but I do try to at least sound really, really calm.)

 

If someone asks me about my choice for my family:

'We're kind of half homeschooling. It's working out great for us!'

 

I sat by an English professor at a family dinner--he's an intermittantly present out of state relative by marriage. DD was in the middle of 7th grade. He is from the South and kind of politely critical of homeschooling, as in, homeschoolers really don't even realize that they don't know what they are doing. Since he was so nice about it, I talked with him about our literature work. When I told him casually that I try to coordinate history/social studies with literature, he thought that was so brilliant that he nearly died of happiness--it was really, really funny. I thought it was just so normal, and it was basically a novelty to him. I told him about jumping on opportunities that popped up, like watching "Antigone" and "Romeo and Juliet" in the same semester, and how I decided to study them and the life and times that surrounded those stories, and then have DD do some literary papers on them, and the thesis that she came up with. I was not showing off, just talking shop with another professional. Anyway, he went away very impressed, and also more respectful, I think. And we had some nice talks about modern literature, which I enjoyed very much (it's his area of focus). It was all good. Advocating for homeschooling is really that simple. If I had been preparing hard for a standardized test, or slogging relentlessly through curricula, I would not have been able to take advantage of these opportunities, and valuable enrichment would have been lost. The nimbleness of good homeschooling is significant and valuable and needs to be made clear to people who want to 'standardize' everything. If nothing else, hopefully it will give them pause.

[mommaduck]

In what way is it problematic if I say that I'm pro that each student gets tested yearly in the subjects that are a part of the "standard package"? Basically I'm talking about a yearly testing in English, Maths, societal and scientific literacy that's age-appropriate and in high school, about taking official tests for the subjects you're learning. Such testing takes a few days yearly, you can an official confirmation by an expert in the field that you know the material, nobody doubts "mom's transcript" because somebody other than mom guarantees for the level of studies, and that's it. A few DAYS in every YEAR. And you still study at home, and do whatever you like, and teach your children non-standard areas that you find important.

 

At home, you can do a plethora of things ASIDE from that. But I don't think anyone should be exempted from doing the required minimum, I think there should be some sort of control that a required minimum is being done and I don't think that "they aren't doing it properly at public school either!" is a good argument against it. It's the public school system's own shame that they aren't doing things properly, and in the US it's definitely the lesser of two evils to homeschool in most cases, but I'm talking about official testing for mandatory areas, not about you being told what to do, which textbook to use, etc. The amount of intellectual dishonesty that's going around is often striking - I'm RELIEVED by the fact that Italy requires yearly testing and thus somebody else signs the grade on the transcript, who actually has the qualifications needed to do it. I can do it only for few areas with a complete, perfect peace of mind, knowing that I have the education needed and know the standards well to be able to apply it and "measure" somebody's knowledge.

 

Being a part of subculture isn't an excuse for lack of literacy in the basic required fields. I'm a minority in my own country as well, but I can't say "oh, kids study Judaics" as an excuse not to teach Italian literature if Italian literature is a part of the standard package and a repertory of every child in Italy. In America, such things actually happen and I don't think they should be happening. The problem of defining what enters the "package" is a big one, but I think we can all more or less agree on what are the basic areas that would have to be tested in a system which tests homeschoolers. It's a sacrifice of a few days a year, and a huge burden off your chest.

 

 

What you don't get is that one can have basic literacy in the "standard subjects" (these subcultures do), but still be practically dumb as rocks (also seen this in some subcultures). Testing does not mean the child has actually learned anything. I've known really ignorant people that can pass a test, but they are still ignorant.

 

Also, what you don't seem to be aware of is that in states with "no regulation" they are still required to teach the basics. You are assuming that "no regulation" means they aren't required to do the "minimal" (Good Lord, if you only knew how low that is). "Standard packaging" is not even minimal, it's below minimal. When a school tells me that they are "keeping up with state standards" that tells me that they aren't teaching squat.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

... If I had been preparing hard for a standardized test, or slogging relentlessly through curricula, I would not have been able to take advantage of these opportunities, and valuable enrichment would have been lost. The nimbleness of good homeschooling is significant and valuable and needs to be made clear to people who want to 'standardize' everything. If nothing else, hopefully it will give them pause.

 

IMHO if one is schooling in the fashion that you describe then I should think that one would need little to no preparation for standardized testing in order to do well. I think methods similar to TWTM would sufficiently prepare any child for these tests. This is why I do not get it when schools complain they have to teach to the test. IMHO if they taught proper reading, writing, and arithmetic then they would not need to teach to the test. I do think that there should be a choice of tests to take though as there is in PA so as to avoid being stuck taking an inappropriate test:)

 

My 2 cents:)

[Carol in Cal.]

IMHO if one is schooling in the fashion that you describe then I should think that one would need little to no preparation for standardized testing in order to do well. I think methods similar to TWTM would sufficiently prepare any child for these tests. This is why I do not get it when schools complain they have to teach to the test. IMHO if they taught proper reading, writing, and arithmetic then they would not need to teach to the test. I do think that there should be a choice of tests to take though as there is in PA so as to avoid being stuck taking an inappropriate test:)

 

My 2 cents:)

 

There is some merit in this. For bright children, barring learning disabilities, TWTM probably does prepare them pretty well. Having said that, have you seen the tests yourself? Around here they test, for instance, knowledge of writing STRATEGIES almost as much as actual writing, in the lower logic stage. So if a child does not use those graphic organizers, they actually can test poorly in writing no matter how good a writer they may be. This is kind of ridiculous.

 

As a homeschooler right here and right now, I can choose not to have my child take that test. I can choose to teach the barebones of those graphic organizers so that she can do better on the test. I can choose to use the graphic organizer approach to teaching writing. I can choose to ignore the whole thing and accept undeservedly poor scores.

 

If the government could tell me that I HAD TO administer that test, or worse, that I HAD TO deliver my child for testing administered by a stranger during which I was not allowed to be in the room, starting at second grade, and if the government could tell me that I MUST teach the material on the test, my child would have a poorer educational experience, possibly be exposed to a 'hostile to homeschooling' environment against which I would have no recourse, and be judged against a changing, failing standard for no good reason. I do not trust the government enough to support them in asserting those rights over homeschooling families.

[FO4UR]

I rekon that's a bit extreme. I think there ought to be a minimum, but never mind that. What I'm interested in, is what people think the results of this would be. A lot of parents panicking, for starters, and a lot of kids playing computer games while they wait for their parents to figure something out, most likely. But what then? Mass exodus from the workplace? Housing prices dropping?

 

Rosie

 

This plays into my arguments against *compulsory* education...are we here to educate the children or babysit while the parents are out in the workforce keeping our housing prices up??? (This is laughable in the US btw.:lol:)

 

I think we could have free public schools without the *compulsory* part. Would it not be a better use of our tax dollars to focus like a laser beam at the 3R's in K-3rd grade??? Half-day intensive grammar schools without the fluff would seriously revolutionize education in the US...we would NEVER do it b/c parents want a free babysitting service. I, mean, we can't PAY for childcare when we can rationalize an all day FREE service and fool ourselves into thinking it's turning our dc into educated individuals who can conquer the world someday!!!:tongue_smilie:

 

Education needs to keep it's focus on academics.

 

As for the OP, I think less regulation is best. I live in OH where we choose between a portfolio review and a standardized test. This is OK, given one can find a person to review your portfolio who understands what HSing is and what it isn't...or you would test anyway. My problem with regulations is that there has to be someone with the power to write those regulations. That's too much power over my home.

 

If there were a ps option for just the 3R's, an intense half-day. Many HSer's would jump on that boat (esp those who realize life is getting in the way of the basics at home), jmho.

[Ester Maria]

What you don't get is that one can have basic literacy in the "standard subjects" (these subcultures do), but still be practically dumb as rocks (also seen this in some subcultures). Testing does not mean the child has actually learned anything. I've known really ignorant people that can pass a test, but they are still ignorant.

Agreed, but testing has a different purpose. The purpose of the testing is that somebody who is an expert in the field (backed up by certain people who guarantee for that) says "This child knows the material covered in Algebra I". It's a bit different than mom saying so, if mom is not a mathematician.

 

How it looks with my daughters: they have written exams which deal with a year or a semester's worth of a study in a certain subject. They don't do "standardized testing", they come to a very CONCRETE school to take a test. So they're given tests in Italian, mathematics, science, etc., all obligatory academic subjects. Those aren't your typical multiple choice tests, but actual tests which cannot be passed if you don't know the material, and they're controlled by a subject professor each.

 

After that, after the tests are controlled, they're called in for an oral examination (so NO, they cannot get away with it). The commission includes a subject professor and two others (one has to teach the same subject or the related one). They examine them on the contents of the test (the stuff they didn't know), ask concrete theoretical questions and ask them to apply it in practice (sciences), request of them to analyze a random piece of writing, explain certain phenomenon, etc. They have one such examination in each subject.

 

Then they give them grades which CARRY WEIGHT - because they were given by people specialized for the field they were examined in. It's VERY different than me giving that same grade.

THAT's what I lobby for here. :) The need to put our children through such exams for all obligatory subjects and in high school, for all subjects they take for credits, i.e. for formal diploma to be issued by somebody else for the sake of credibility. I can give a grade ONLY in Italian (and fine, maybe Latin too, I pretty much have the degree equivalent of knowledge verified by "the system"), everything else, I want my kids to be given those grades and signed those grades by people with high education in the field.

"Standard packaging" is not even minimal, it's below minimal. When a school tells me that they are "keeping up with state standards" that tells me that they aren't teaching squat.

I'm aware of that (hey, I didn't plan to homeschool - ended up doing it because I didn't want my children on the rocky terrain of the American schooling, where even private schools are often below the level of Italian public schools). What I'm saying is that "they aren't doing it either" is not an excuse to keep ourselves to the same level. I hear it SO often around me - "PS isn't schooling kids either". No, but it's on THEIR shame that they have unqualified professors and 5th grade standards put in 10th grade. It still shouldn't exempt us the need to formally test our children yearly and get a feedback on how they're doing by people who see many children every year and specialize in the subject.

 

I don't know, maybe I just have too good experiences. I found my kids' "school" to be very helpful, offer concrete and helpful insight as well as issue papers from which you can hardly tell they were actually homeschooled. They don't face any sort of discrimination because of the lack of formal papers or expert oversight in education.

[Carol in Cal.]

Priscilla, I would like to add one more thing.

TWTM should not be a requirement on homeschoolers, either (not that you said that it should).

 

There are very effective homeschooling approaches that have significantly different scopes and sequences than TWTM. 'Better Late Than Early' is an approach that has a lot of merit for some children, as do Waldorf education and some kinds of unschooling. None of those approaches necessarily have poor outcomes, but none of them lend themselves to standardized testing before middle school. Here in our state the required public school testing starts in second grade. Forcing that and forcing progress against those criteria here in my state would rule out a significant portion of homeschoolers in the state. Furthermore, if homeschooling is deemed a branch of public schools, teaching integrated faith materials could be banned as well. The combo would probably eliminate about 80% of the homeschoolers that I know. The slope is indeed slippery.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Priscilla, I would like to add one more thing.

TWTM should not be a requirement on homeschoolers, either (not that you said that it should).

 

There are very effective homeschooling approaches that have significantly different scopes and sequences than TWTM. 'Better Late Than Early' is an approach that has a lot of merit for some children, as do Waldorf education and some kinds of unschooling. None of those approaches necessarily have poor outcomes, but none of them lend themselves to standardized testing before middle school. Here in our state the required public school testing starts in second grade. Forcing that and forcing progress against those criteria here in my state would rule out a significant portion of homeschoolers in the state. Furthermore, if homeschooling is deemed a branch of public schools, teaching integrated faith materials could be banned as well. The combo would probably eliminate about 80% of the homeschoolers that I know. The slope is indeed slippery.

 

I see your point:) This is why I am in favor of a large range of tests or evaluations or portfolios that a parent could choose to use for their child instead of just the state tests:) Plus PA allows you to choose your evaluator as well:) Now if only you did not have to submit a portfolio to the schools and only to your evaluator:) I think the schools should only get the evaluators evaluation as sufficient evidence.

[FaithManor]

I guess my philosophy is "When the state gets its act together and shows a reasonable portfolio for every child or reasonable testing results for every kid, or even a majority being literate and by that to the level of literacy that this nation enjoyed 100 years ago - which means being able to read and understand at a higher than 5th grade level - yep that's right functional literacy is considered 5th grade reading level - then maybe we will talk about my accountability." Though I have met some homeschoolers that seemed to be doing very little, their very little was still way more effective than the "lot" that our local school district appears to do.

 

Plus, the added assumption is that the homeschooled child whose parents aren't accountable would perform better in the PS. But, that's usually not the case. For many kids, the bullying, emotional duress, chaos, etc. would only make their situation worse, not better.

 

So, until the government can actually do an even mediocre job for the majority of its students (which given the fact that the average math ACT score for the state of Michigan is only a whomping 17.5 and Reading Comp is only 18.5), I'm thinking they need to keep their nose out of homeschoolers' business. (Oh, and they have a much lower college bound, vocational school bound rate than homeschoolers in every state, regulated or unregulated.)

 

But, I do get what you are saying. Though Michigan is an unregulated state, I "regulate" myself by keeping a portfolio of work, a grade book, and a schedule of what to accomplish and by when would it be ideal to get it done, etc. Some homeschoolers would probably benefit from some sort of reporting but I am not convinced that the state has a right to require it.

 

Faith

[Sahamamama]

As always, I'll be the strict, rigid and inflexible freak on these type of threads.

 

:lol::lol::lol: I have to go back and read the rest of your thread, EM, but only after I clean up the coffee I just spat out all over the screen. :tongue_smilie:

 

Has anyone ever told you that you are hilariously funny?

[Carol in Cal.]

 

Some homeschoolers would probably benefit from some sort of reporting but I am not convinced that the state has a right to require it.

 

 

 

Exactly.

[MSNative]

Eh, for THOSE people, some regulations should exist. For the sake of their children and their children's right to receive at least the minimal "standard package" of education that's established as a minimum in their society, and to ensure they are doing something to get it and are successfully getting it.

 

Nope, you can't do "whatever you want" with your child. You don't OWN a child and their life. Likewise, you can't OWN their mind 100% and go against the normal experience of the society you live in, not teaching what you should be teaching.

 

Most of the societal regulations that exist exist for our own sake and safety. While America is definitely one of the most paranoid, crazy-for-bureaucracy societies that I've been in, with often insane laws, and while I VERY often get irritated by it (see that I'm counting days to give birth to belated #3 and have documents solved so I can LEAVE for a while :D), so I understand the fear of too much regulations and frustration that would be caused by it, seriously, you have it darn well compared to Europe and if I were to make your laws, they would be a lot less flexible and a lot less free to minimize the theoretical possibility of abusing that freedom. For now, the theoretical possibility of abusing it is VERY high - and the freedom we're talking about is potentially dangerous.

 

 

 

There is always a possibility - in fact a certainty - that people will make bad choices. People always make some bad choices. Fact is - they are THEIR bad choices. I'd rather have to live with my bad choices than be forced to live with a federally or state mandated bad choice. People will never choose the way you (general you) think they should. I mean, people are still using Saxon Math and I hated it!! :)

 

On the question of who "owns" kids for life - well, no one. However, parents are responsible for them til they are 18. Parents have a much larger claim on that responsibility than society does. Will some parents fail in their job of teaching their kid. Yep. Do many school systems and teachers fail in their jobs of teaching their kids - Yep. You are right that society does end up paying for those failures. However, regulation hasn't made the schools failure-proof. I don't think regulations will make HS failure-proof.

 

I disagree that most regulations exist for our own sake and make us safer. Many regulations exist because of lawsuits, poorly written laws, bureaucratic ease, etc. As far as putting more regulations in place - I'm not comfortable giving gov't more power over my life. I'd rather err on the side of allowing people to be free to live their lives and make and own their own choices. Making people less free to minimize theoretical potential problems sounds like a bad idea to me.

 

I'm glad that you are having a successful time working with your school. It is wonderful that you are having such a positive experience. Remember that some of us are not so lucky. Isn't it better for all of us to choose what is best for us individually?

[Ester Maria]

Has anyone ever told you that you are hilariously funny?

Usually they tell me the opposite. :(

 

(I am too "bitter-sounding" in the recent weeks, though, I noticed it, that's why preceding my posts by saying that. I should put some sort of disclaimer in my signature, something like, "I actually mean this with half the fervor you might read" or something.)

[Renee in NC]

:lol::lol::lol: I have to go back and read the rest of your thread, EM, but only after I clean up the coffee I just spat out all over the screen. :tongue_smilie:

 

Has anyone ever told you that you are hilariously funny?

 

It's especially talented that she can be funny in other than her native language!

[mommaduck]

Ester Maria, you keep talking about these "experts". Let me tell you, they don't exist. These so called experts are the ones that are ruining education in America. And you really have to quit comparing Italy and the US. They are two very different places. If you prefer Italy and the Italian way of doing things, then fine, have at it. I know other people that are being persecuted for homeschooling in other European countries because of these types of views.

 

And goodness, did I EVER say that just because the government schools aren't doing something that we shouldn't be doing it? I'm saying that that government standards are NOT a good measuring tool. Their "experts" are NOT something we need deciding things for our children. We OBVIOUSLY are doing better than that as home educators.

Edited September 9, 2010 by mommaduck

[Laura Corin]

If you live outside of the US, what is your experience with state regulation?

 

As my children had never been in school in Scotland, I didn't even have to register them. I think that there should be periodic basic testing in English and maths for home educators.

 

Laura

Edited September 9, 2010 by Laura Corin

[Lizzie in Ma]

There are no benefits to free citizens being regulated...you're not missing anything.

 

We've sunk so far from being a free nation that most of us 'reflexively' are asking, 'is this legal?' even about ordinary human activities, like raising our kids, opening a business, planting a crop, or lighting a fireplace.

 

well said :iagree:

[Sahamamama]

15 minutes a day?! We had such regulations in first grade. Of elementary school, that is, and it was more than 15 minutes.

 

While I do think it's laudable they do something about the reading level of the students, this is quite tragicomic.

 

 

I think this "regulation" -- made by the PS for its own students -- is part of the reason why so many homeschoolers do not want that same system to control what we do at home.

[mommaduck]

There is always a possibility - in fact a certainty - that people will make bad choices. People always make some bad choices. Fact is - they are THEIR bad choices. I'd rather have to live with my bad choices than be forced to live with a federally or state mandated bad choice. People will never choose the way you (general you) think they should. I mean, people are still using Saxon Math and I hated it!! :)

 

On the question of who "owns" kids for life - well, no one. However, parents are responsible for them til they are 18. Parents have a much larger claim on that responsibility than society does. Will some parents fail in their job of teaching their kid. Yep. Do many school systems and teachers fail in their jobs of teaching their kids - Yep. You are right that society does end up paying for those failures. However, regulation hasn't made the schools failure-proof. I don't think regulations will make HS failure-proof.

 

I disagree that most regulations exist for our own sake and make us safer. Many regulations exist because of lawsuits, poorly written laws, bureaucratic ease, etc. As far as putting more regulations in place - I'm not comfortable giving gov't more power over my life. I'd rather err on the side of allowing people to be free to live their lives and make and own their own choices. Making people less free to minimize theoretical potential problems sounds like a bad idea to me.

 

I'm glad that you are having a successful time working with your school. It is wonderful that you are having such a positive experience. Remember that some of us are not so lucky. Isn't it better for all of us to choose what is best for us individually?

Thank you! You stated this much better than I could have (those darn pregnancy hormones!)

[Laura Corin]

IMHO if one is schooling in the fashion that you describe then I should think that one would need little to no preparation for standardized testing in order to do well. I think methods similar to TWTM would sufficiently prepare any child for these tests.

 

I showed them an example of the tests, so that they understood the format, then they took the tests. It was one day out of our year - not a big deal.

 

Laura

[Laura Corin]

Agreed, but testing has a different purpose. The purpose of the testing is that somebody who is an expert in the field (backed up by certain people who guarantee for that) says "This child knows the material covered in Algebra I". It's a bit different than mom saying so, if mom is not a mathematician.

 

 

I continue to be bemused by the idea of a transcript, whether given by a school or a parent. Different transcripts are not comparable, so what can they mean?

 

Laura

[mo2]

 

We've sunk so far from being a free nation that most of us 'reflexively' are asking, 'is this legal?' even about ordinary human activities, like raising our kids, opening a business, planting a crop, or lighting a fireplace.

 

 

I think you and my husband would get along quite well. :D

[Ester Maria]

Ester Maria, you keep talking about these "experts". Let me tell you, they don't exist. These so called experts are the ones that are ruining education in America. And you really have to quit comparing Italy and the US. They are two very different places. If you prefer Italy and the Italian way of doing things, then fine, have at it. I know other people that are being persecuted for homeschooling in other European countries because of these types of views.

I'm talking about experts per subject. I'm an expert on Italian language and literature - I have the knowledge, degrees, experience and abilities needed to test and grade somebody's knowledge of the Italian language and literature, and to estimate whether or not such a knowledge includes, and to what extent, the "prescribed" knowledge and skills that children in X grade of school should have, since I know what the standard Italian curriculum for each type of Italian school is and includes.

 

What I do every year is that I sacrifice a few days by sending my daughters to take tests and get examined by many different people who teach many different classes and who are experts for those different classes the same way I am for Italian. Then those people say fine, you're doing a good job, your daughters do know the prescribed material and have the prescribed age-appropriate skills, ecco our signature and our guarantee of that.

Nobody tests them on what we actually do at home. I can do Dante with them in sixth grade, and they won't get tested on it before tenth. They get tested on the "standard package" that includes regulations that schools must teach per grade. Nobody complains if they do better, if they write better, speak better, make connections with all sorts of things they weren't supposed to study yet and so forth. The only thing that musn't happen is that they don't know the prescribed material. As in, that they come on an examination for 6th grade math and CANNOT perform 6th grade math. And that's exactly why they have such regulations - for these scenes not to happen.

 

At home with them I do a BUNCH of things which they will NEVER get tested on. I do Latin from first grade, they get tested on it only in eight. I do Judaics, which they don't even do. I do English as native language, with literature, they get tested as ESL, since that's what's prescribed and what the school does. Nobody is preventing me from teaching them what I want to teach. The only thing they require is that once a year, for a few days, they show age-appropriate and grade-appropriate level of knowledge of the prescribed things. And that's it.

 

Those requirements don't ruin my life. I don't even specifically teach my kids for those tests (roughly a third of what we do at home - if not a fourth - is what the state prescribes them to know). The only thing that those regulations are there for is that subject teachers (if you prefer that expression to an expert - though in Italy you cannot teach without a degree in what you teach and pedagogic competences, so yeah, they're all by default experts of some level) are the ones who test and grade the girls rather than me, in order for the school transcript to be credible. It's not credible when it's issued by somebody who is not an expert for what they teach, since such people cannot grade things and remain intellectually honest, lacking specialization in the field, knowledge of standards and requirements, comparison with other kids, etc.

 

My kids don't get tested by some vague "authorities", but by concrete professors in a concrete school that during the academic year actually teach that content a bunch of other kids and grade them.

That's IMO a good system and when I say I agree there should be more regulations, that's what I'm talking about. It's all about credibility and having the diploma issued by somebody other than an anonymous mom that has been working on what she felt like with her kids and decided to call it X subject and decided on her own it's enough or good enough or grade level enough.

 

Of course, people who homeschool properly - and we have such crew on these boards - will get irritated by more regulations and consider it an attack on their personal freedoms. IMO it's not an attack and you should understand that, if there were more regulations, they wouldn't exist because of people like you, but because of the fact that homeschooling is an excellent area for all sorts of manipulation and abuse of the freedom you're being given. I've seen what I'd consider such abuse and lack of intellectual honesty, which brings about the lack of credibility for ALL of us.

[Ester Maria]

I continue to be bemused by the idea of a transcript, whether given by a school or a parent. Different transcripts are not comparable, so what can they mean?

It's about the person who issues the grade and signs it.

If it's the same person that teaches in the system, has formal education for what they teach, knows the grade requirements and works with children and therefore examines your children on the "common ground" of what's expectable, then you have a credible transcript and a school backing you up officially.

If it's an anonymous mom with dubitable qualifications for ALL subjects (even if mom is an expert for Italian, she's not necessarily for Physics), and if that person gets to establish the level, standards and the grade, of course that it's not nearly as credible of a transcript than the one issued via a third party (school) which tested your child on all grade level expectations.

 

In Italy it's still common to ask a young engineer who is clueless at work "Who gave you a grade X in a class Y?", and it sort of shows what I'm talking about. Issuing a grade is a HUGE responsibility and cannot be done just about anyone. There are standards per grades, there are people who specialize in doing certain things, and who can estimate one's knowledge a lot better. It's also a shame of each school if they have people working there who are issuing grades that they cannot stand behind (i.e. have too low criteria so their kids have 9s and 10s on the knowledge that would be barely a 7 in some other school, etc.).

 

Nearly all homeschool parents (barring the theoretical option that somebody specialized in everything they teach) CANNOT issue grades they can fully stand behind in the vast majority of classes. Thus the need for the testing done via a third party, to check if things were done lege artis and if the child knows the material according to the standards.

 

And even if you work ABOVE standards, it doesn't hurt you the least to have the formal verification that you satisfy the standards as well. It's a bit of bother, but really, a few days a year.

[Renee in NC]

I continue to be bemused by the idea of a transcript, whether given by a school or a parent. Different transcripts are not comparable, so what can they mean?

 

Laura

 

Colleges know. For example, colleges in NC know that an A at Highschool X is comparable to a C at Highschool Z.

[mommaduck]

What I do every year is that I sacrifice a few days by sending my daughters to take tests and get examined by many different people who teach many different classes and who are experts for those different classes the same way I am for Italian. Then those people say fine, you're doing a good job, your daughters do know the prescribed material and have the prescribed age-appropriate skills, ecco our signature and our guarantee of that.

These things/people don't exist here! The schools rarely have them! They hire people to teach math because they are a good coach at basketball, not because they are experts in math (and in fact, are terrible math teachers). They have teachers they hire to teach various subjects that have been educated in classroom management, not focused on particular subjects, and they open up a teacher's manual just like many homeschoolers and teach with that as the outline. What "experts" are supposed to test my children??? I happy that you are happy with Italy and the Italian way of doing things. Don't tell Americans how we should do things. We're fighting our own battles on our own terms, tyvm.

 

(btw, I live in a highly regulated state with evaluations and everything. Let me tell you that even the evaluator considers it all bunk and she is a teacher. The school district does not even look at the tests nor the portfolios)

[Tammyla]

My state has plenty of regulations and include annual ITBS testing. A student who fails is then required to enroll and attend public school. However, if they fail the ITBS in public school there are no requirements.:tongue_smilie:

 

Imo...A family will value education or they wont regardless of the setting.

[MBM]

Personally, I don't believe the government should regulate homeschooling at all. It is a private, family matter based on the time-tested principles of the God-given authority of parents and the fact that most responsible parents do want and work towards what is best for their own children, often at great cost. ...

 

What do you say about the pros and cons of government regulation/oversight of homeschooling? If you live outside of the US, what is your experience with state regulation?

 

I would answer along the lines of Charles Fried's opinion. (Fried is a Constitutional lawyer at Harvard who is very well-versed in philosophy.)

 

I would recommend reading the entire article I linked below and maybe even his book Modern Liberty: And the Limits of Government (Issues of Our Time). When you've finished reading it, you could pass it along to your sister. ;)

 

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-fried.html

 

In a nutshell, from the above:

 

Fried's notion of the "rock-bottom, indigestible fact of each person's lonely individuality" sometimes conflicts with the socially attractive mechanisms of state-sponsored goodness.

 

"The greatest enemy of liberty has always been some vision of the good," he writes. Pol Pot offered a rural idyll, he said, at the expense of slaughter. Hitler offered the dream of a racially pure state, at the same cost.

[HSmomNY]

the state money. If I am to teach to the states tests, use the state's scope and sequence, which I would need to do to for my children to do well on the tests, then They should give me the same money they give my local public school. Albany is not going to give me the money SO... I am not having my children take their tests.

I live in NY are very highly regulated state. The requlations do not protect my children in any way. They cost my time, money and energy I could use to educate my children.

 

:glare:

[mommaduck]

And even if you work ABOVE standards, it doesn't hurt you the least to have the formal verification that you satisfy the standards as well. It's a bit of bother, but really, a few days a year.

You apparently have not seen just how slippery a slope government control can be here. It's not just a few days a year...if only it were that simple. And apparently have ignored that depending on how tests are presented, those that know less can "test better" based on "the standard".

[Ester Maria]

Don't tell Americans how we should do things. We're fighting our own battles on our own terms, tyvm.

You don't think that even America could learn a thing or two from how things are done in other countries? :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm not telling anyone what to teach, how to teach, how to test and so forth - especially not an entire country. Just adding my two cents on a thread dealing with these issues, saying why I prefer X over Y.

 

Regarding the format of the tests, seriously... 6th grade math is a 6th grade math. You cannot fail a 6th grade math knowing the material, no matter how stupid the test. You cannot fail a 6th grade History no matter how stupid the test if you know your dates, facts and can make a coherent narrative of the events on the essay questions. Also note that tests are accompanied by oral examinations, so even those that are test-smart are required to produce coherent, concrete knowledge when asked in front of the commission. They can certainly lower your test grade if they consider it unrealistic, but tests are rarely the type of tests where you can guess (multiple choice and alike). They want step-by-step math to see you understand it, elaborated answers in humanities, concrete sentence analysis, etc.

[mommaduck]

You don't think that even America could learn a thing or two from how things are done in other countries? :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm not telling anyone what to teach, how to teach, how to test and so forth - especially not an entire country. Just adding my two cents on a thread dealing with these issues, saying why I prefer X over Y.

 

Regarding the format of the tests, seriously... 6th grade math is a 6th grade math. You cannot fail a 6th grade math knowing the material, no matter how stupid the test. You cannot fail a 6th grade History no matter how stupid the test if you know your dates, facts and can make a coherent narrative of the events on the essay questions. Also note that tests are accompanied by oral examinations, so even those that are test-smart are required to produce coherent, concrete knowledge when asked in front of the commission. They can certainly lower your test grade if they consider it unrealistic.

None of the tests we have ever taken are accompanied by oral exams.

 

Also, if a sixth grade test is a sixth grade test, then what's the deal about your "experts"? Again, tests have their limitations and are an inaccurate way to determine whether a child has actually learned the material.

 

Americans have a thing about people from other countries telling how they think we should do things and I'll be the first to admit it. I could list all the things that I think Italy should and shouldn't do. I think you'd be just as offended. If I thought Italy's laws were "superior" and oh so wonderful, then I'd move there. I happen to like my country, even with it's flaws. America started becoming subject to "Europe's way of doing things" hundreds of years ago. May I suggest that we've learned from those mistakes.

Edited September 9, 2010 by mommaduck

[dirty ethel rackham]

There are no benefits to free citizens being regulated...you're not missing anything.

 

BTW your sister made me LOL...I've got a brother like that...

 

We've sunk so far from being a free nation that most of us 'reflexively' are asking, 'is this legal?' even about ordinary human activities, like raising our kids, opening a business, planting a crop, or lighting a fireplace.

 

I am thrilled to live in an unregulated state. Either the parents value education or they don't. I have always beat myself up that I don't homeschool as perfectly as I should. But, I don't think regulations would have made me a better homeschooler. Do I hold myself accountable to what the school thinks is valuable or should I look bigger? My accountability is to my kids, first and foremost. Have I prepared them to be productive citizens? Have I prepared them for life on their own? Secondly, my other benchmark is what colleges want. Have I done an adequate job on that front?

 

My oldest is starting his first college class next week at the age of 16. He didn't get this far because I filled out paperwork, checked off boxes, or did the appropriate testing. He got that way because we delighted in learning. We played with vinegar and baking soda. We read lots of books on the couch. We built lego cities, fortresses, space stations. We watched a lot of shark week. What we did, did not look like school to many people. If I had to do what someone else said we had to do, I don't think I would have created a lifestyle that was conducive to learning. I would have created school at home. My other children have benefited from this grand experiment - they have a fairly stress-free life where books are king. Could they write better? probably. But, again, checking boxes would not have made that happen any better.

 

Even though our lifestyle looks a little more like school than it used to, I can still look at the big picture - academics, personal growth, strengths and weaknesses. love of life ... rather than checking off boxes. It is the freedom we have that allows me to do this, not being beholden to some bureaucrat.

[Laura Corin]

I happy that you are happy with Italy and the Italian way of doing things. Don't tell Americans how we should do things. We're fighting our own battles on our own terms, tyvm.

 

 

Laura

[Renee in NC]

None of the tests we have ever taken are accompanied by oral exams.

 

Also, if a sixth grade test is a sixth grade test, then what's the deal about your "experts"? Again, tests have their limitations and are an inaccurate way to determine whether a child has actually learned the material.

 

Americans have a thing about people from other countries telling how they think we should do things and I'll be the first to admit it. I could list all the things that I think Italy should and shouldn't do. I think you'd be just as offended. If I thought Italy's laws were "superior" and oh so wonderful, then I'd move there. I happen to like my country, even with it's flaws. America started becoming subject to "Europe's way of doing things" hundreds of years ago. May I suggest that we've learned from those mistakes.

 

Why? We talk all the time here about how wrong other countries are. We diss Canada and the UK for healthcare, other European countries for their socialism, and other topics.

 

I don't understand your scorn. I can get not agreeing, but why are you attacking her? Isn't one of the great things about this board the breadth of experiences?

[Ester Maria]

Also, if a sixth grade test is a sixth grade test, then what's the deal about your "experts"? Again, tests have their limitations and are an inaccurate way to determine whether a child has actually learned the material.

They make the test, grade the test, examine the child orally afterwards, assign the final grade and sign that final grade, thus guaranteeing - as experts in the field and teachers of the material - by their signature that the child in question has mastered the material in question to the grade in question according to the standards that were in question on a date in question.

Which is different than if mom does it. A lot less subjective. A lot more credible.

Americans have a thing about people from other countries telling how they think we should do things and I'll be the first to admit it. I could list all the things that I think Italy should and shouldn't do. I think you'd be just as offended.

I wouldn't, under the conditions that:

(i) At the time of criticising, you are living mostly in Italy, and are criticising your current reality - not something you got to know via mass media;

(ii) At the time of criticising, you have been living mostly in Italy for about a decade or so, i.e. you're not somebody that came there yesterday and is now all smart about how things should be done, but somebody that has been there for a while, observed things, thought about things, compared with previous experiences, took into account specific cultural atmosphere of Italy;

(iii) Despite being originally, or even de iure, a foreigner, you are de facto a member of the society and quite much an "insider" in the culture - you speak the language, mingle with actual Italians now and then, you are quite well acquainted with the society at large, access the media all Italians access, have made considerable effort to 'make up' for the lack of Italian education in childhood (by reading important literary pieces, checking out the important things in culture that lead to cultural associations that all Italians will be familiar with and so forth) and can pretty much say that you're, if not a full insider, than at least a very competent outsider that has been there for a while and understands the Italian reality.

 

You don't need to be an Italian citizen, but if you fulfill the three conditions above, you're as competent and as WELCOME to criticise Italian reality as I am.

If you don't have the three conditions above, you can still criticise - but it would be nice if you preceded your critique by a disclaimer regarding the language, the length of the stays in the country, the lack of cultural knowledge, bla bla. But you could still have an educated outsider's say about what you think.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Ester Maria

[Barry Goldwater]

IMHO integrity can often be found in government as well as in private industry. OTOH IMHO I think that dishonesty can equally be found in government as private industry. It saddens me to see so many characterize government as completely without merit:(

 

I myself and multiple family members have worked at various levels of government all the way up to the federal government with the highest levels of integrity and work ethic. They go above and beyond and often work in their free time.

 

OTOH I have worked in private industry as well and have seen laziness, ruthlessness, dishonesty, etc. as well as very hard workers. IMHO I do not think one can say that the government is any worse than private industry and I think we need both:) I think some schools are failing but there are many who are not. I also think that the onus should also be on the parents as well as the schools. I think lack of parenting causes many problems in schools today too.

 

I think there should be some oversight of homeschooling similar to Pennsylvania or Virginia perhaps with testing requirements. I understand that many schools are failing and do have mixed feelings about oversight but OTOH I think children deserve some sort of education.

 

My 2 cents:)

 

Don't want to hi-jack; I'm enjoying this thread...let me just say, regarding the bold:

Agreed and understood...HOWEVER, in the private sector it is much easier to dismiss the lazy, dishonest etc...in fact executives have a fiduciary duty to do this...not so much in Public sector...

[Barry Goldwater]

Government regulation of homeschooling is not 'good' simply because it is 'minimal'. Accepting any government regulation implies consent to ANY government regulation, if you get my drift. It is a slippery slope.

 

I used an independent home study program for about 4 years, and a charter ISP for a few more years as well. This was my choice, and I had to accept some regulations to make that choice. I debated the ethics of accepting the charter a lot, as I wanted to make sure I was not undermining freedom to home educate locally--that's why I advocate for it and defend independent homeschoolers in conversation and to state and local officials every chance I get.

 

I never was in the control of those organizations, and they were very clear on that point. I was willing to partner with them to better educate my child, as long as it was beneficial to her to do so, and not for one more minute after that.

 

If participating in an organization like that became a regulatory 'must', then I would not have been able to stay out of their control. Just watching them try to put more and more requirements on their students over time was enough to make it crystal clear to me that that would be a significant concern--these are students of families who can walk away at any point. If they couldn't walk away, things would get very onerous very fast.

 

It's horrible when someone claims to be homeschooling when they are really not doing so, but it's also horrible to assume that children are basically the property of the state. We don't have a normed, uniform society in the States, and so we really have no good basis to 'standardize' our children. It's different in Europe, where societal norms carry so much more weight.

 

Here's one of my stock arguments in favor of homeschooling, to people who are unfamiliar with it or even hostile to it (always delivered with enthusiasm and good cheer, not angrily):

'One of our most basic principles of education is 'local control'. Our fallback for children having trouble in school is 'private tutoring'. Homeschooling is the ultimate in 'local control' and the 'private tutoring' that is available to homeschoolers is superb. We are the epitome that 'regular schooling' reverts to as the best possible scenario. What's not to like?'

 

Here's another one:

'Parents' rights to nurture and raise their own children their own way are basic to American freedom. Obviously we have to prevent child abuse and so forth, but requiring state testing against norms that change almost completely every 10 years or so and that have distorted our public school system almost to the breaking point does no good and potentially can do a fair amount of harm to children. And once we say that the government has the right to require anything like that, we have opened the door to them having the right to require public school attendance of EVERYONE, even private school children, and to a lot of other alarming possibilities that basically take children out of their families by force. This is not acceptable to me as an American.'

(It's harder to smile and be cheerful while delivering that one, but I do try to at least sound really, really calm.)

 

If someone asks me about my choice for my family:

'We're kind of half homeschooling. It's working out great for us!'

 

I sat by an English professor at a family dinner--he's an intermittantly present out of state relative by marriage. DD was in the middle of 7th grade. He is from the South and kind of politely critical of homeschooling, as in, homeschoolers really don't even realize that they don't know what they are doing. Since he was so nice about it, I talked with him about our literature work. When I told him casually that I try to coordinate history/social studies with literature, he thought that was so brilliant that he nearly died of happiness--it was really, really funny. I thought it was just so normal, and it was basically a novelty to him. I told him about jumping on opportunities that popped up, like watching "Antigone" and "Romeo and Juliet" in the same semester, and how I decided to study them and the life and times that surrounded those stories, and then have DD do some literary papers on them, and the thesis that she came up with. I was not showing off, just talking shop with another professional. Anyway, he went away very impressed, and also more respectful, I think. And we had some nice talks about modern literature, which I enjoyed very much (it's his area of focus). It was all good. Advocating for homeschooling is really that simple. If I had been preparing hard for a standardized test, or slogging relentlessly through curricula, I would not have been able to take advantage of these opportunities, and valuable enrichment would have been lost. The nimbleness of good homeschooling is significant and valuable and needs to be made clear to people who want to 'standardize' everything. If nothing else, hopefully it will give them pause.

 

 

:001_wub:

[cdrumm4448]

Nope, you can't do "whatever you want" with your child. You don't OWN a child and their life.

 

I agree to a point, but the government doesn't own a child and their life either. Responsibility lies with the parents. Period.