Jump to content

Menu

Homeschooling is a threat to public education- article


treestarfae
 Share

Recommended Posts

I laughed out loud at the quote about how we're all raising "right-wing soldiers." My last car had a rainbow LGBTQ Obama bumper sticker.  :lol:

 

And I certainly hope homeschooling is a threat to public education. It means that either the homeschooling community will continue to grow and develop more and better resources, or public education will have to improve a great deal to keep from losing more students. Win-win.

  • Like 45
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laughed out loud at the quote about how we're all raising "right-wing soldiers." My last car had a rainbow LGBTQ Obama bumper sticker. :lol:

 

And I certainly hope homeschooling is a threat to public education. It means that either the homeschooling community will continue to grow and develop more and better resources, or public education will have to improve a great deal to keep from losing more students. Win-win.

Well said.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homeschooling is a threat to public education, but IMO, that is an effective way to change the system and have administrators/bureaucrats wake up and realize they need to do things differently and reach all students, not just troubled or low-performing ones.  I am homeschooling because it is a better option for my children (and, I have come to see, a better option than most private schools, as well).  The fact that homeschooling or attending private school may harm the current public education system and force needed change is a public service I perform for no extra charge, LOL! 

  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a barefoot, patchouli scented hippy, but I missed the memo that I'm supposed to unschool OR raise right-wing soldiers.

 

Dang! I can never get it right! I guess we'll just learn how to say "barefoot, patchouli scented hippy" in Latin while we continue to learn about the importance of equality.

  • Like 30
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I wonder if a greater percentage of students are homeschooled or are educated in selective private schools.

 

Here, homeschooling has just surpassed private schools, which have struggled to keep tuition affordable.

 

I'm puzzled that anyone would still be suggesting it's selfish to homeschool. Now, there are three choices for DS's education at this point:

 

1. I can educate him at home, at no cost to anyone except my husband and myself, and continue to pay taxes on DH's income and vote for the benefit of public schools,

or

2. I can send him to public school, where it costs the state 10k a year (and continual work on discipline issues, because I have That Kid) to keep him in line long enough to get his nice test scores in the spring. The scores might not be as nice as he's getting with personal tutoring at home, though. And I would get back a couple hundred hours a year, even after the time it takes to make him do his homework, unless I worked while he was in school (which I might not, at least for a few years). And I'd vote the same.

or

3. I could send him to private school and go back to working there, costing myself a couple thousand hours a year, giving the kid an education probably as good as homeschooling, but adding to traffic and pollution, and increasing both my taxes and retirement savings nominally, while continuing to vote the same.

 

So as far as the state is concerned, it seems the greatest benefit would be for me to send DS to private school and go back to work. Homeschooling is second best, and sending him to public school is of greatest cost to the public school. (In my district, which has been scrambling to keep up with building enough schools for the enrollment growth, more kids represent a capital cost as well as an operating cost.)

 

If, on the other hand, we're considering the benefit of this individual kid, homeschooling is best, the private school would be second best, and the public school would be last.

 

My strongest reason for choosing the public school, then, would be maximizing my free time. That might be selfish.  ;) 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real threat to public education is public education itself, with its culture of mediocrity and low academic expectations.

 

The real threat to public education is a culture which promotes the belief that anything done as a group is inherently inferior to the services that can be provided by the individual.

 

This is based on a classist belief handed down from the landowning, royalist classes in England, who viewed any form of distributing the fruits of labor with those who earned it as a threat to their authority.

 

It's an anti-government, anti-community culture that starves public services, particularly in poor areas, of the funds necessary to create excellence.

 

It also contributes to social conditions that teach children who "look poor" ("white trash", you know it by how they talk, African Americans, anyone recognizably belonging to a poor class) that â€‹no matter how they work, institutional racism will keep them down, at least most of them--a few tokens are always allowed through. This leads to conditions in which no matter how well children perform until adolescence, when they start interacting enough with the world to see how it really works, they start dropping off a cliff. Even when you have great pre-K, as soon as black males are old enough to have friends picked up by the police or see that in the media, their scores start a free fall. Why work if everyone is against you? And please, let's not have all the white people chime in explaining how they overcame racism. It's impossible to know what they are facing if you haven't faced it.

 

THAT is the threat to public education in the United States. It is why HS teachers in segregated schools (Chicago and Boston being among the most segregated in the country) have to work 10x as hard as those serving upper-middle class students. They must teach material and also promote a great lie: that hard work gets all people equally far. That college costs are not a disgustingly heavy burden that the poor classes can no longer shoulder after two generations. That people have equal access to interest rates. And so on. Good luck.

 

THAT is why people stop trying and education stops working.

 

Not low expectations out of nowhere. It's the lack of funding and the job market that students will enter, the social conditions children face, that are our biggest problem.

 

When you look at who is succeeding in education, uniformly, without exception, it is nations in which (a) education is well-funded and respected and (b) the bottom is not dropped out from underneath children as soon as they hit 16, 18, 21 and they become the "other". Usually this means homogeneous (Finland, Singapore, Korea, get fewer points in my book because they are so small) but other countries do well at it, including Germany (high immigration, as well as social issues due to the gastarbeiters, sorry my spelling is via Russian) and Canada (more immigrants per capita than the US, deal with it, America).

 

So what are we doing wrong? It's not merely low expectations and standards. It is also segregation, institutionalized racism, and lack of funding that severely affect outcomes.

 

That said, I don't think anyone is more selfish for their educational choices. The idea that there are all these kids in public education for the public good is just plain stupid. We're all doing the best we can for our families.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I hear most often is $$$ . The per pupil amount for a nonremedial, nonspecial needs student is not used 100% for his education. My district thinks it is just for a 12th grader to have 4 study halls, for ex. If that child is not enrolled, the district loses his per pupil allocation, which is considered to be selfish.

 

But if any given kid is not using any state money, the pool of money gets larger and more can be used for the other kids. So if that 12th-grader has to be supervised in study hall (and they do), that still costs money, though less than another child's low-enrollment Life Skills class; if he were at home, the whole amount of money he would've cost is untouched.

 

The but-we-miss-the-per-pupil-$ argument only works if he is enrolled in a different PS, perhaps in a better-funded district, which then gets his share.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money is pretty much at the core of it. Our schools put so much pressure on kids to just be there every day. Much more pressure on showing up than doing well. Because the school gets paid for a butt in the seat, that's what matters most. There's all these incentives for perfect attendance. The rules really give the impression that they see your kids as a paycheck from the government. Even in my nice school district where it's obvious the teachers really do care about the students.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if any given kid is not using any state money, the pool of money gets larger and more can be used for the other kids. So if that 12th-grader has to be supervised in study hall (and they do), that still costs money, though less than another child's low-enrollment Life Skills class; if he were at home, the whole amount of money he would've cost is untouched.

 

The but-we-miss-the-per-pupil-$ argument only works if he is enrolled in a different PS, perhaps in a better-funded district, which then gets his share.

 

Yes but people aren't thinking of the tiny gains each student add to the pool split among all the students. They are only thinking in terms of, this student not being in school means less money for my school. Who's the selfish one again? ;)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if any given kid is not using any state money, the pool of money gets larger and more can be used for the other kids.

My district is funded on a per child basis. For example, take a class of 30 kindergarteners

 

Funds allocated: $5,600 (from published budget) x 30 = $168,000

 

Curriculum cost: <$300 (what the principal said during back to school night) x 30 = $9,000

Teachers pay: $48k~$96k (from published records)

Utilities cost: don't know

 

Sometimes there is only 23 or less per class for K in a "underperforming" school. That class has less $5,600 x 7 = $39,200 of disposable funds.

 

If my kids are in school, the assigned schools would have benefited from more disposable funds because both their assigned "underperforming" schools aren't full.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has come up in our district just this past month. The 50-65 homeschoolers in our town represent almost exactly our district's budget shortfall (at $7,something per kid).

 

I believe in a free market economy (too bad america doesn't have it). If the kids aren't going to the local school (and fyi there is not a private school within at least an hours drive) then either: change what you are doing, reduce your budget, or fold. I think if schools were run and funded by the community/town, ( maybe state) then the schools could adapt to what the community wants.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My district is funded on a per child basis. For example, take a class of 30 kindergarteners

 

Funds allocated: $5,600 (from published budget) x 30 = $168,000

 

Curriculum cost: <$300 (what the principal said during back to school night) x 30 = $9,000

Teachers pay: $48k~$96k (from published records)

Utilities cost: don't know

 

Sometimes there is only 23 or less per class for K in a "underperforming" school. That class has less $5,600 x 7 = $39,200 of disposable funds.

 

If my kids are in school, the assigned schools would have benefited from more disposable funds because both their assigned "underperforming" schools aren't full.

 

All districts are funded per child, AFAIK.

 

But first, in my situation, the problem is not too few students, but too many. Like I said, my district can't build schools fast enough.

 

Second, where is that $39,200? It's not in the pockets of the parents of those seven "missing" students! The funding body (typically the state legislature, right?) collected it in taxes and still has it, and can choose where to put it. If that body decided to spend it on education instead of, say, a pet development project (*loud cough in the direction of my own legislature*), then it could be awarded as a grant to an underenrolled low-income school, for example, or the per-pupil allotment could be increased.

 

Third, other things being equal, a class of 23 students will have better average performance than a class of thirty. It would be wiser to decrease administration costs and plan on a small class size to begin with. It's unsustainable to depend on large, stable class sizes in shrinking districts--people aren't going to supply children in order to help the district get money from the state.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, where is that $39,200? It's not in the pockets of the parents of those seven "missing" students!

The money is with the property tax comptroller office. My school district is funded by prop tax.

 

The problem is that popular schools are overcrowded to the point of portable classrooms. When the "surplus" kids are assigned to the less popular schools, parents tend to transfer their kids to private before school start.

 

The less popular schools stay underperforming despite low class sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a barefoot, patchouli scented hippy, but I missed the memo that I'm supposed to unschool OR raise right-wing soldiers.

 

Dang! I can never get it right! I guess we'll just learn how to say "barefoot, patchouli scented hippy" in Latin while we continue to learn about the importance of equality.

I love being barefoot and love patchouli and sandalwood (and lavender and jasmine...). This former prairie muffin has somehow turned out very independent feminists (even my eldest son calls himself a feminist). Trust me, I was the farthest thing from a feminist when I started this journey. I grew as a person as they grew. I was raising my children to know how to think door themselves. Oh, and I have LGBT family and friends.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is funny. NJ spends a ton on public schools. I nearly fell over backwards when I saw the figures last. Even more if you are in an "underperforming" district. I think I may be in one or the next town over is definitely. 

 

Anyway, and I know this is apples and oranges a bit, my son attends a german school in Pennsylvania. This school meets for 2.5 hours once a week for 30 weeks. They start testing children in about the 4th grade and the children are tested at various times till they get to 12th grade when they get tested twice (one test is for admittance into German colleges, one is for testing above the AP level needed for US colleges). This school competes with public schools as well as a VERY limited number of german schools in PA. The principle of my son's german school had a new parent meeting where he showed that this school outperforms all other schools in the area and had more "gold" level students then all others. This was across all testing areas. Before I hear that I am elitist and sending my child to a pricey school, this school's tuition for the WHOLE year was under $500. I think it was $450. And when my younger son, or I (as they have adult classes) want to start classes we would get a discount on BOTH tuitions! 

 

My point is that it really isn't the money that is spent, it is the quality of what is being taught and parent involvement (my guess). If I were queen for the day, I would take the money we spend on public education, give a large percentage of it back to the parents, have them spend it to educate their child how they see fit, then test the children every couple of years. Any money they don't spend, they can keep as long as they show the receipts of what they spent for schooling at testing time. That way we (meaning school officials) can learn what works and what doesn't. If you child fails the tests, then they have to go to a public school and you don't get any money back (meaning the percentage). But this would mean that districts would have to give up control and that isn't going to happen. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't believe we can blame it all on racism. I grew up in an all white area. Out of 240 kids in my high school class, we had one from China (came over at age 7 and graduated third in our class), two black or biracial siblings (at least average students), and one kid of Latino descent (also at least an average student). As far as I know, the Chinese kid was the only non-native speaker and he was an excellent student within five years of movie to the country.

 

Anyway, my school had low expectations in some areas. It was better than some schools, worse than others. Since nearly everyone in the county was white, racism can't be blamed.

 

ETA: I'm not saying that racism isn't ever a problem. But many areas of the country are nearly all white and still have mediocre schools, despite good funding.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real threat to public education is a culture which promotes the belief that anything done as a group is inherently inferior to the services that can be provided by the individual.

 

 

I don't know if this is it.  I know so many homeschoolers who have an almost pathological need for co-ops and support groups and park days and community.  I often feel like I can't be a homeschooler without being able justify it with a membership in one of these groups, and that's even among other homeschoolers.

 

I do think that things done as locally as possible are best, but I have not seen this eschewing of groups or community that you speak of in any town in which I've known homeschoolers (3 so far).  Quite the opposite actually.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has come up in our district just this past month. The 50-65 homeschoolers in our town represent almost exactly our district's budget shortfall (at $7,something per kid).

 

I believe in a free market economy (too bad america doesn't have it). If the kids aren't going to the local school (and fyi there is not a private school within at least an hours drive) then either: change what you are doing, reduce your budget, or fold. I think if schools were run and funded by the community/town, ( maybe state) then the schools could adapt to what the community wants.

And even then...

 

There are going to be people who simply have no desire to send their kid to a school to be taught by others, be it private or the state.

 

I'm one of them. Even if the best catholic school in the nation became free and was right across the street, I doubt I'd run out and register my kids.

 

Because many of the reasons I home school now (none of which are why I started btw) are not academic or religious factors. I fight hard for that right to be kept for myself or any other parents that felt it was the best choice for their family.

 

I don't complain about the public schools taking my taxes. I'd like it back bc they suck at properly using it imnsho, but I don't complain. Much. Publicly. Usually. ;p. But I really don't care if the public school close up shop. I think other options would develop. Possibly better options.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is it. I know so many homeschoolers who have an almost pathological need for co-ops and support groups and park days and community. I often feel like I can't be a homeschooler without being able justify it with a membership in one of these groups, and that's even among other homeschoolers.

 

I do think that things done as locally as possible are best, but I have not seen this eschewing of groups or community that you speak of in any town in which I've known homeschoolers (3 so far). Quite the opposite actually.

lol. No kidding. Oh no, I can't handle the public schools! Oh no! I need a coop to help me recreate the schools I left!

 

I think the notion that it's just not official or okay to do something unless it's state approved is the real problem.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If homeschoolers are a threat to the public schools, then the public schools need to learn to be better.

 

Selfish. Yeah, that's it. I'm selfish because I won't sacrifice my children for theirs. I'm selfish because I pay a huge chunk every month in property taxes so my local school district can offer only two AP courses and get mediocre test scores and score, at best, in the middle of the state rankings. I'm selfish for putting off retirement savings and such so that I can stay home to give my children a decent education. Ugh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even understand the logic of the district where the homeschoolers total is the district's shortfall. It's not like those 50-65 kids were just going to mean a big chunk of unallocated change in the district's pocket to do whatever they want with. I mean, they'd actually have to USE that money to, you know, *educate* those children. Okay, sure maybe not all $7K per child would be used directly for each child, but some of it is going to pay for each child's books, desks, and share of the soccer balls in gym class, plus each child's share of teachers and staff. It isn't all going to buy new football stadiums or cars for the superintendent. Instead of seeing it as a shortfall, why can't they see it as a expenditures they won't have to put out? Boom, now you can get away with one less cafeteria worker, or only buying 29 desks for a room instead of 30, or 50-65 fewer iPads? Or whatever. I'm sure I'm way off there, but really, schools are looking at things the wrong way. It is a privilege and honor to educate someone's children, not your right to have them, especially if you are doing a poor job.

 

I think homeschoolers are a threat because we might expose how mediocre and lacking some of our public schools really are.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. No kidding. Oh no, I can't handle the public schools! Oh no! I need a coop to help me recreate the schools I left!

 

I think the notion that it's just not official or okay to do something unless it's state approved is the real problem.

 

Can we not stoop to bashing homeschoolers who like co-ops? I had no idea my strong preference for homeschooling with a co-op was "pathological" or "recreating school". :huh:

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we not stoop to bashing homeschoolers who like co-ops? I had no idea my strong preference for homeschooling with a co-op was "pathological" or "recreating school". :huh:

 

It isn't a bash to people who like them, it's people (homeschoolers, a lot of them) who feel that my kids will be weird, or I am weird, because I don't feel like a co-op or a group is a need for me/us.  The pathological part was the fact that other homeschoolers ask me if we're in a co-op, and when we weren't I had to have a reason to not be participating in one.  And even when I had a reason, it was like, "oh, well one of us could bring your kids" or relief and/or exuberance that we've joined one this year.

 

Seriously, this wasn't about creating a slight to other homeschoolers.  If you like co-ops or prefer them, more power to ya.  It was about the assertion that homeschoolers want to do away with something because it's done by a group.  My experience has been the total opposite.  Almost all the homeschoolers I've met have really, really wanted co-ops and groups.  If anything, I'm the odd duck because I don't prefer them.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The explanation I have heard for homeschooling being selfish is that it is done by primarily middle and upper middle families, where the parents would volunteer and the kids would get decent scores in testing. By homeschooling we are "depriving" the schools of families who are passionate about education and their kid's success.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we not stoop to bashing homeschoolers who like co-ops? I had no idea my strong preference for homeschooling with a co-op was "pathological" or "recreating school". :huh:

It is not bashing to note there is a common occurrence in some communities.

 

I don't care if they form coops or not and I don't care what those coops are doing. Btdt and who knows, maybe someday I'll join such a dynamic again.

 

Someone was commenting on home schoolers not being group involved and that that was the threat to the ps. Some others, and myself, noted that the homeschoolers we come across are not only VERY group oriented, but oddly enough they tend to mimic schools they left in many ways. I am indeed bemused by that.

 

Also, I never said anything was pathological.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Australia, the real threat to public schools is the syphoning off of public money to private schools.

D

 

And the testing culture whereby teachers have to beg/bully their students into sitting their exams, and pass them anyway if they think the kid could have passed, had they shown up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The explanation I have heard for homeschooling being selfish is that it is done by primarily middle and upper middle families, where the parents would volunteer and the kids would get decent scores in testing. By homeschooling we are "depriving" the schools of families who are passionate about education and their kid's success.

I'm passionate about MY child's education and success. It does not mean I'm going to be passionate about doing that same work for 30 other kids in their class. (*shudders*) Not to mention, imo, the truth is schools do NOT want parents like me in their school. Because parents like me will not play school politic games or cheer on their bandwagon or overlook their crazy. And if we can't make them see reason and do better by our kids? We have zero qualms telling them to stuff it and do what we think best for our kids anyways. We would be a loud painful thorn in their side for 12 very long years.

 

I don't think they want actual parents physically helping and making meaningful changes. I think they just want them to donate more money. And to be fair, in private schools that's where most of the parents volunteer too. Tho in that case, most parents don't feel a burning need to be active in classrooms bc they choose the school they know they mostly like to begin with.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm passionate about MY child's education and success. It does not mean I'm going to be passionate about doing that same work for 30 other kids in their class. (*shudders*) Not to mention, imo, the truth is schools do NOT want parents like me in their school. Because parents like me will not play school politic games or cheer on their bandwagon or overlook their crazy. And if we can't make them see reason and do better by our kids? We have zero qualms telling them to stuff it and do what we think best for our kids anyways. We would be a loud painful thorn in their side for 12 very long years.

 

I don't think they want actual parents physically helping and making meaningful changes. I think they just want them to donate more money. And to be fair, in private schools that's where most of the parents volunteer too. Tho in that case, most parents don't feel a burning need to be active in classrooms bc they choose the school they know they mostly like to begin with.

I still feel such a sense of disillusionment from the day I realized that the pto was not parents and teachers working together to make the school experience great. It was about me being a blank check for whatever the school thought would be a benefit.

 

It was such culture shock for me. The daycare my kids attended through kindergarten loved parent involvement and the exchange of ideas.

 

I don't see homeschooling as a threat to public education. I see it as an opportunity for the public schools to open their eyes.

 

Our decision to homeschool was 100% selfish. It was what was best for out kids. If continuing in public school was what was best then they would have remained there. I gave no thought to what the school was losing because they gave no significant thought to what my kids were losing by remaining in the school.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The explanation I have heard for homeschooling being selfish is that it is done by primarily middle and upper middle families, where the parents would volunteer and the kids would get decent scores in testing. By homeschooling we are "depriving" the schools of families who are passionate about education and their kid's success.

 

A few of my neighbors said that angrily in my neighborhood moms' mailing list.  They were ranting against those of us who pulled our kids out of the neighborhood schools because those of us that left have kids with very high (almost max) state testing scores. Some of my neighbors kids left the assigned school and went to B&M public charters and their kids won state competitions there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard for me to comprehend the nerve of people who expect me (or you, or anyone else) to sacrifice what is best for their own child because their choice isn't working out for them.

A few of my neighbors said that angrily in my neighborhood moms' mailing list.  They were ranting against those of us who pulled our kids out of the neighborhood schools because those of us that left have kids with very high (almost max) state testing scores. Some of my neighbors kids left the assigned school and went to B&M public charters and their kids won state competitions there.

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even understand the logic of the district where the homeschoolers total is the district's shortfall. It's not like those 50-65 kids were just going to mean a big chunk of unallocated change in the district's pocket to do whatever they want with. I mean, they'd actually have to USE that money to, you know, *educate* those children. Okay, sure maybe not all $7K per child would be used directly for each child, but some of it is going to pay for each child's books, desks, and share of the soccer balls in gym class, plus each child's share of teachers and staff. It isn't all going to buy new football stadiums or cars for the superintendent. Instead of seeing it as a shortfall, why can't they see it as a expenditures they won't have to put out? Boom, now you can get away with one less cafeteria worker, or only buying 29 desks for a room instead of 30, or 50-65 fewer iPads? Or whatever. I'm sure I'm way off there, but really, schools are looking at things the wrong way. It is a privilege and honor to educate someone's children, not your right to have them, especially if you are doing a poor job.

 

I think homeschoolers are a threat because we might expose how mediocre and lacking some of our public schools really are.

I agree. I'm not sure who made this comment. It was either the writer of the article, or someone on (or running for) the school board.

 

But what did happen is that our superintenant said he would speak with homeschoolers to see "how the district can better serve the students". I'm not sure his intentions. And i'm not sure what the other homeschoolers are thinking. I'm mostly concerned about my rights as a homeschooler. I have already heard of some over reaching from the supers office.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I live, people love to talk about how charter schools and magnet schools are a threat to neighborhood schools.

 

But these schools didn't exist in the 1980s, when our school system was deemed "the worst in the country." The neighborhood schools should have improved, but didn't, and magnet schools were started as a way to give kids a way out. Then charter schools were started as another choice.

 

There was a time when these avenues of competition didn't exist and the schools were even worse than they are today.

 

My husband recently watched a neat documentary about how Catholic schools are pretty high quality in countries where they were competing with Protestant schools but not so great in countries where they were the only game in town.

 

Emily

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotten this line many times, once from a state senator. My response was that my first responsibility was to my OWN kids. 

 

Exactly. I mean, no one would ever say, "Your kid got a full scholarship to Harvard, but you should encourage him to attend a really crappy state school to help boost the school's test scores and be a good influence for the other students." So why do they think it's okay to expect us to sacrifice our kids' K-12 educations for the same reasons?

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I mean, no one would ever say, "Your kid got a full scholarship to Harvard, but you should encourage him to attend a really crappy state school to help boost the school's test scores and be a good influence for the other students." So why do they think it's okay to expect us to sacrifice our kids' K-12 educations for the same reasons?

 

Yeah, that would be lousy logic, wouldn't it?

 

I think schools are mad because it is harder to hide how many students they are failing to educate if the involved parents are pulling their kids out. If these kids stayed in, the average tests scores would rise, even if it was mainly because the parents were reteaching them everything at home. I think all this focus on the average makes it easy to lose track of whether individual kids are learning or not.

 

For example, I have a relative that lives in a large school district (about 150,000 kids) that still does busing. It is called economic busing, but it essentially is race-based. The district may claim that it raises test scores to bus so many poor minority kids to wealthier suburbs (and vice-versa via magnet schools), but I don't know if they have any evidence that it improves anything. Sure, the average scores at schools may be higher if the poor kids are distributed among the richer schools, but does it improve anything for the individual poor students being bused to school at 5:30am? If there is evidence that individual students learn more, then maybe it should continue. If, however, the students don't actually learn more, then perhaps going back to neighborhood schools that parents can more easily be involved in would be better.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all this focus on the average makes it easy to lose track of whether individual kids are learning or not.

California's state testing results for schools is further split into race/ethnicity and economically advantage/disadvantaged.

 

Certain demographics group continue to do badly regardless of how my district rezone the kids.

 

If my kids had been in their assigned schools, they would have raise the school average a little, not much effect on the already high asian average and has zero effect on the failing subgroups average.

 

My district's Title I schools are in PI status because certain demographics fail badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, however, the students don't actually learn more, then perhaps going back to neighborhood schools that parents can more easily be involved in would be better.

Again though, it's my belief they do not want "those" parents getting too involved anyways.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if that aspect is viewed as an added bonus of bussing.

 

But I'm cynical like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I mean, no one would ever say, "Your kid got a full scholarship to Harvard, but you should encourage him to attend a really crappy state school to help boost the school's test scores and be a good influence for the other students." So why do they think it's okay to expect us to sacrifice our kids' K-12 educations for the same reasons?

Exactly this!! Frankly, it is so illogical that it is ridiculous.

 

If out of sea of nearly 318 million people, a couple million homeschoolers can bring down your system, you have bigger fish to fry than the handful of homeschoolers.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...