View Full Version : Intellectual Exorcize
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 03:13 PM
Feel free to ignore! Self help BS ITT!
This thread is my way of dealing with my feelings of anger, confusion, and disappointment in a piece "The Harms of Homeschooling" by Dr. Robin West published in Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly
(http://www.puaf.umd.edu/philosophy/quarterly)
I opened a dialog with Dr. Munny, whom I respect, and who I knew would be a good sounding board as he is an academic type like the author I was pissed at, and during that I came up with the idea of writing a rebuttal. I figured expressing my feelings might be a way of getting a handle on them.
I started out writing it kinda formally, with the idea of maybe emailing the author or something, but what I really needed was to respond as if it was if it was a forum discussion or blog post. That's what I know and that's how I best get my thoughts out, and it allows me to not worry about cussing or whatever. I would rather be myself since this is an exercise for myself. Since I don't really maintain a blog, I went with forum post.
Several people have done a great job at formal responses, and even opened a dialog of a limited sorts with the author, so I need not do so.
If you are still reading this and have any interest whatsoever I direct you to them
One smart and articulate homeschool mom in email communication with the author (http://diosadotada.homeschooljournal.net/2009/12/20/my-response-to-the-harms-of-homeschooling/) and her follow-up piece (http://diosadotada.homeschooljournal.net/2009/12/22/an-update-on-the-continuing-dialog/)
Dr. Milton Gaither's blog, and the author posted in the comments (http://gaither.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/west-on-the-harms-of-homeschooling/)
Another good one (http://tingthinks.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/robin-west-law-professor-and-author-of-controversial-anti-homeschooling-article/)
My own stupid shit to follow shortly!
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 03:22 PM
Dr. West opens the piece by enclosing in quotes then defining the word homeschooling, thus treating it as a slang or esoteric term, when it is well known and widely used, and quite sufficiently self explanatory. I am sure anyone who regularly reads this journal would have no trouble with the word. I feel this sets a condescending tone for the piece.
She then goes on to emphasize that there are an estimated two million homeschoolers, by putting the figure in italics. 2 million is less than 4% of school aged children. There is nothing ominous or surprisingly large about that figure…why the scare italics?
West asserts:
The majority of homeschoolers today, and by quite a margin, are devout fundamentalist Protestants
This may be true, however there is no evidence for it, nor can I find how she arrived at this conclusion from her source list. Hard numbers regarding exactly how many families are homeschooling are lacking, yet she thinks she knows not only that most of them are Protestant but a specific kind of Protestant?
She continues by stating these fundamentalist Protestants’ motivations for homeschooling;
but rather because they do not approve of the public schools secularity, their liberalism, their humanism, their feminist modes of socialization, and in some cases of the schools very existence
Again, this may be true, but as it stands it is an unsupported assertion.
Ms. West goes on to assert that homeschooling was illegal prior to the 1970’s. According to education historian Dr. Milton Gaither, this is a false statement
In fact, prior to the movement activism of the mid 1980s, fourteen state compulsory education statutes said nothing at all about home based education, fifteen explicitly accepted it in one form or another, and the remaining twenty-one states allowed for “equivalent instruction elsewhere” than public schools or “instruction by a private tutor.” West on the Harms of Homeschooling « Homeschooling Research Notes (http://gaither.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/west-on-the-harms-of-homeschooling/)
I refer you to Dr. Gaither’s full rebuttal for the historic legal issues raised.
Once done with the questionable legal history of homeschooling, Dr. West suddenly states that the available evidence indicates that homeschooled students are quite successful, saying in part
Passionately involved and loving parents, whether religious or not , can often better educate their children in small tutorials at home than can cash strapped, under motivated, inadequately supported, and overwhelmed public school teachers with too many students in their classrooms
The homeschooled children who are tested, or who take college boards, whether or not religious perhaps surprisingly perhaps not do very well on standardized tests and on he average they do better than their public school counterparts.
But, she then states that those who test are the “self selected educational elite of the homeschooling movement”.
Again, these statements are not supported in the paper. We are not given a footnote or citation with which to fact check her assertions.
So, not only does she magic up the “fact” that most homeschoolers are Fundamentalist Protestants, now somehow knows that those homeschooled kids who take the college boards are only the “educational elite”? I call asstatistics.
As a side note, there is evidence from the college boards that homeschoolers consistently do better on the ACT and SAT than publicly schooled students. That part of her statement seems to be based on fact…her conclusion that these only represent some elite group is opinion I guess.
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 03:28 PM
She introduces this section of the paper with the phrase “concrete harms” with regard to unregulated homeschooling, but instead discusses highly speculative, possible harms.
Concrete Harm #1- Children who are homeschooled without state regulation are at greater risk for unreported and unnoticed abuse when they are completely isolated in homes
Her reasoning seems to be that most abuse reports (according to her 95%) to child welfare authorities come from school employees. First of all, she says nothing about how many of those reports turn out to be valid cases of abuse, also she doesn’t provide any basis for the implication that most homeschoolers are completely isolated.
As it stands, parents can easily keep their kids out of the system with or without regulated homeschooling, because compulsory attendance laws are not widely enforced. School districts do not go through census records to see which homes have school aged children, and check to see if they are enrolled and/or following homeschool laws. Truant officers do not go door to door to see if everyone is in compliance. The only way the State would be made aware that there was something to regulate would be if a member of the community reported truancy. If someone were keeping their child completely isolated in the home, greater regulation of homeschoolers would not necessarily identify them.
Also, if Dr. West had done any research into homeschooling as widely practiced, she would know that the vast majority of homeschooled kids are active participants in their communities (whether with other homeschoolers, through their church, through sports, or community services), not being locked up in their homes in total isolation.
This whole line of thought is highly speculative and seems to be meant to cause irrational fear of or suspicion towards homeschoolers. It’s certainly not a “concrete harm”.
Conrete Harm #2 – Homeschooling poses a public health risk due to lack of mandatory vaccinations
Her argument seems to be that because vaccinations are “required” for school attendance; unregulated homeschoolers may simply forego vaccinations.
I sense an implication that homeschoolers are largely anti-vaccinations, but even if I am misreading that, she fails to note that every state has vaccine exemptions available….all states offer medical exemptions, 48 also offer religious exemptions, and several offer philosophical or personal belief exemptions. Those who are seriously anti-vax know these laws well.
She also fails to mention that most vaccinations start at birth, and are done well before compulsory school age. The fact is that most parents do not wait until the school tells them they have to before considering the vaccination topic. It would be a pretty rare individual that failed to discuss the issue with their child’s pediatrician and waited around until school enrollment time to be suddenly enlightened about vaccinations.
In general, parents that are anti-vaccination are not going to get their children vaccinated, regardless of the school requirements, and parents that are pro-vaccination are going to get their children vaccinated regardless of the school requirements.
So, concrete harm? I think not.
Possible issue? Maybe, though again there is no evidence offered to evaluate.
Probable issue? No.
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 03:37 PM
Concrete Harm #3 - Teachers love students as individuals, rather than because of family ties. This love and respect afforded to students is not conditional on being offspring, while parental love is conditional on being offspring, and therefore school is a welcome respite and safe haven from the intense love of family.
I don’t even know where to start. This makes no sense to me on any level, let alone as a “concrete harm”.
And what happened to the “cash strapped, under motivated, inadequately supported, and overwhelmed public school teachers with too many students in their classrooms”? Suddenly they are angels of respite and unconditional love and support in a safe haven? Safe from what? HOME? Respite from what? HOME? Is home really such a horrid place for most kids?
This is just odd to me. Maybe some projection going on?
Also, she says
The child is regarded with respect equally to all the children in the class
As a regular teacher's favorite when I was a kid, and as someone with friends who are currently teachers, I call TOTAL BULLSHIT
Ymir's blood
12-23-2009, 04:46 PM
The child is regarded with respect equally to all the children in the class
As a regular teacher's favorite when I was a kid, and as someone with friends who are currently teachers, I call TOTAL BULLSHIT
YA RLY
(though my experience was of the opposite nature)
godfry n. glad
12-23-2009, 04:55 PM
Has she been asked to provide evidence for her claims?
Swimmer and her husband pulled their children out of the public schools because their smaller, more intimate local school district was subsumed in a larger district for financing and revenue reasons. Net result: More students per class, less instructor attention.
PLUS - The teacher of one of her boys got had six of the eight boys in her classroom on Ritalin and wanted to put her boy on Ritalin. So far as she could see, the problem was that he was a boy.
There is waaaaaay too much of this shit going on in public schools.
Depending upon the local school district, classrooms may be allowed to become recruiting grounds for the local fundamentalist Christians, who, through focused attention on school board election and climbing proportion of the electoral district electorate, takes control of the school district. Just because it is a "public school" does not mean that it is free from fundamentalist Christian indoctrination.
Vaccination is still required, it's just that public school attendance, has, in the past, been the point of control for public health people to require vaccination. Since many Americans, particularly the ones remiss about vaccinations, used the public schools as a babysitting service, the threat of denying attendance was a threat to burden the parent with care of their own child. It worked until somebody, somewhere, actually paid attention to the public schooling which their child was, or would be, exposed to and thought to themselves...."I could do that......Better."
As a former teacher in public school classrooms, her last point is ridiculous to the extreme. Teachers are taught to attempt to be even-handed and non-preferential in their dealings with students. But, when overburdened and underfunded classrooms, where the teacher does not have time to teach because they are primarily fulfilling social and community needs....well, those who get the attention get more than others. And some class members pointedly steal the time and attention of the teacher, no matter what the teacher may have been taught or how they wish to engage.
I think this author should sit down and STFU.
So far, all of her talking points are coming out her ass.
Pan Narrans
12-23-2009, 04:59 PM
I expected more of
http://chadandshannon.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/stupidity_1170973245.jpg
in this thread.
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 05:09 PM
Yeah Pan, this is my way of exorcising my own demons, which want me to hunt down and shake Dr. West for publishing this shit where law makers and such might read it...because of her position and the place of publication, this poorly written and poorly researched piece has some authoritative weight.
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 05:10 PM
Concrete Harm #4 – Fundamentalist Christians are creating an army of politically active automatons using homeschooled soldiers that are under-educated and have no job prospects
I am a secular liberal, but by gawd I support others rights to vote, assemble, and say their piece no matter how much I disagree with them.
In a survey done by Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute
• 4 percent of homeschool graduates consider politics and government to be too complicated to understand, compared to 35 percent of U.S. adults
• homeschool graduates work for candidates, contribute to campaigns, and vote in much higher percentages than the general population (e.g. 76 percent of homeschool graduates aged 18 to 24 voted in the last 5 years, compared to only 29 percent of the U.S population in that bracket)
• in older age brackets the percentage of voters is 95 percent or higher for the homeschoolers, compared to 53 percent for the relevant U.S. populace
I support civic minded people, I support being politically active, and if the above findings are true, then homeschoolers are both. That’s a GOOD thing! It increases political discourse!
I am appalled at this whole section.
Liberty; either everyone has it, or no one does. Period.
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 05:42 PM
Concrete harms 5, 6, and 7: Ethical, Educational, Economic
In opening this section, she assumes that most homeschoolers are devout and therefore authoritarian and discusses "ethical servility". Well, if her introductory statistic about Fundamentalist Christians was factual, this might make some sense, but we don't know that it's true. Also, she uses some rather dated sources, from the 90's, and so may not have a good handle on the current climate. I have no desire to delve into ethical servility or whatever
As for educational harms, she admits that there is no evidence that homeschoolers do worse when compared against publicly schooled students, but also states that there is no evidence that they do better (which contradicts her previous statement about college boards).
She then addresses that in those instances where there is evidence that homeschooled students do better (um what? ), she again reasons that it is due to self selection by the "educational elite", then she says there is anecdotal evidence that some homeschoolers suffer educational harm. Could you be any less clear?
Then she says that because some homeschoolers use unconventional curriculums (she uses extreme examples such as playing video games all day or learning only from the Bible), they might not be getting a good education.
The majority of homeschoolers state that the most important reason for homeschooling is dissatisfaction with public school academics and methods! Of course many of them are going to be using unconventional curriculum! However it doesn't follow that any significant number would go to the extremes listed!
Also, by forcing them to test yearly, you are holding them to the standards of those same public schools these concerned parents and even our Federal government feel are failing. You are forcing them to teach to the test, thereby not allowing those unconventional and/or individualized curriculum a fair evaluation.
In Conclusion:
WTF? These unevidenced, highly speculative yet somehow concrete harms are reason enough to further tax the states resources by implementing unnecessary regulation? The public schools are doing such a great job, and standardized tests have been such a resounding success, that the methods should be forced upon everyone? Are you fucking serious lady?
godfry n. glad
12-23-2009, 06:21 PM
See my anecdotal evidence above regarding public schools.
Has anyone asked her how the dead and injured compare? How about neglect? I saw a fair amount of that in the public school systems.
Again, anecdotal evidence on my part.
Dingfod
12-23-2009, 06:46 PM
Feel free to ignore! Okay.
Nullifidian
12-23-2009, 07:10 PM
but rather because they do not approve of the public schools secularity, their liberalism, their humanism, their feminist modes of socialization, and in some cases of the schools very existence
Say what?!
Study after study has detailed the ways in which classroom-based schooling socializes women into believing that they and their opinions are not as equally valuable as those of men. Even when you get enlightened teachers who can recognize these pitfalls, many of the male students ride roughshod over the female ones anyway. Surely an academic writing about education should be expected to have heard of such things as stereotype threat.
Though I suppose if one goes into this subject with the presupposition that public schools are a beacon of egalitarian principles, then one is bound to write nonsense like this.
Good rebuttal so far, LS. I haven't finished all of it, though I hope I have time to later.
Though I agree that many, many points of the article would need a lot more to back them up before they warrant serious consideration, I'm not sure how I feel about the goal of homeschool regulation. On the surface at least, I don't see any problem with standardized testing or a State curriculum. I probably wouldn't support anything further than that, and there are doubtless issues I haven't thought of, but still.
Is it just the condescending, 'omg religio-fanatic homeschool factories!' tone that you take issue with?
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 08:54 PM
On the surface at least, I don't see any problem with standardized testing or a State curriculum. I probably wouldn't support anything further than that, and there are doubtless issues I haven't thought of, but still.
Is it just the condescending, 'omg religio-fanatic homeschool factories!' tone that you take issue with?
No, I take issue with the idea that state regulation and state curriculum and state set "standards" are somehow needed or desireable. If I wanted that or thought it was a successful model, I would put my kid in school.
Many homeschoolers choose totally different educational philosophies than is commonly found in the public schools, because they feel the PS academics are inferior.
Some choose concept mastery vs. spiral in a math curriculum. Some choose unit studies for history, vs. the jumping around time and space per small topic. Some follow the programs like Waldorf that suggest delaying formal teaching until children are older. Some follow unschooling methods. None of these have been proven inferior to more mainstream teaching methods, yet they diverge on the timeline, or the focus, from state standards.
What's the point of homeschooling if, instead of innovation and individualization, you must "teach to the test" the same as PS? Also, public schools aren't doing all that great a job, IMO, I have no desire to emulate them and certainly do not want to be forced to emulate them.
ETA: I think this sounds more terse than I feel. Sorry Kael if I came across snappy, I appreciate your discussion :)
erimir
12-23-2009, 09:04 PM
Schools also tend to teach boys and girls that they ought to self-segregate into little girl and little boy cliques, and ideas about cooties and so forth. "Boys will be boys" and "girls will be girls" and their attendant meanings are propagated at public schools, not contradicted.
I recall reading one article during a sociology course by a man who was temporarily teaching in an elementary school. He actually engaged in some feminist socialization, by constructing some activities that were meant to break down the segregation between the girls and boys, and finding that they actually could enjoy socializing and playing with each other.
Also, wouldn't that article be better called "The Harms of Raising Children as Fundamentalist Protestants"?
Cuz I would totally agree that that's harmful.
LadyShea
12-23-2009, 09:19 PM
I guess what I have a problem with is encouraging regulation when all available data suggests it is not needed, and might in fact be counterproductive.
If more data is needed, by all means gather it. Do some studies and surveys and interviews. Do not jump in with regulations based on speculation, trying to fix what does not appear to be broken.
Also, wouldn't that article be better called "The Harms of Raising Children as Fundamentalist Protestants"?
Yeah, why don't we regulate them?
For that matter why aren't we doing home visits of those with kids under school age in case they are being abused ,all isolated in the home for 5 years?
The assumptions she made are just mind boggling.
I guess what I have a problem with is encouraging regulation when all available data suggests it is not needed, and might in fact be counterproductive.I suppose that's true. "What about the kids whose parents are screwing their lives up with little or no education?" - might indeed be a valid question, but State action would require that such things can be demonstrated to happen regularly without State intervention. And I suppose it happens often enough with State intervention, only replace 'parents' with 'public schools', that there isn't much of a leg to stand on with that argument.
LadyShea
12-24-2009, 02:34 PM
I suppose that's true. "What about the kids whose parents are screwing their lives up with little or no education?" - might indeed be a valid question, but State action would require that such things can be demonstrated to happen regularly without State intervention.
Exactly. How would the state go about identifying this possible problem anyway? Are there any states that have a lot of time and money on their hands to undertake such a project? And if they identify a problem, how would they regulate it?
Our local school district is in huge trouble with the State because they didn't slash their budget fast enough or deep enough. Our economy (housing and tourism) took a huge hit and so did property taxes, our major source of funding. They are now having to do these cuts under pressure which surely will lead to bad decisions. State wide teachers are being fired, schools are closing and their students being bussed 60 miles instead, arts? music? gifted programming? haha those are the first to go (though this is Alabama, football will be the last thing standing). Schools are failing on those NCLB "report cards" and subject to state takeover. Alabama wants a piece of some Federal funding program so desperately they are scrambling to put some sort of Charter School law in place (Charter Schools, to date, had been completely rejected).
I really doubt Alabama is alone in having all these problems.
Creating regulations and then enforcing them is expensive and time consuming, and without a clear, identified, and proven problem being corrected, rather pointless.
LadyShea
12-24-2009, 04:11 PM
Apparently West has been traveling the country giving a talk titled
“Religious Rights as Protected Wrongs: The Case of Homeschooling”
APA Pacific Division - 2010 Pacific Division Meeting Program (http://apa-pacific.org/current/group-program.php)
Georgetown Law - Faculty Lectures and Symposia (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/events/details.cfm?StartDate=09/01/2009)
Department of English (http://www.villanova.edu/artsci/english/)
That's quite a provocative title, I would be interested in the transcript or video to know the focus.
Also, by forcing them to test yearly, you are holding them to the standards of those same public schools these concerned parents and even our Federal government feel are failing.
How is that a bad thing? If those concerned parents feel that the public schools are failing and their unconventional methods are superior, they should be able to demonstrate that their hypothesis is true.
You are forcing them to teach to the test, thereby not allowing those unconventional and/or individualized curriculum a fair evaluation.
What would a fair evaluation look like? Wouldn't you need some kind of objective test for that?
naturalist.atheist
12-25-2009, 04:09 AM
Feel free to ignore! Self help BS ITT!
This thread is my way of dealing with my feelings of anger, confusion, and disappointment in a piece "The Harms of Homeschooling" by Dr. Robin West published in Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly
(http://www.puaf.umd.edu/philosophy/quarterly)
LadyShea it doesn't take much imagination to find all sorts of things wrong with just about any way you can raise a child. I am sure that there are opposites of Dr. West that find problems with whatever method espoused by the doctor. All I can say is that kids have been raised under the most dreadful conditions you could possibly imagine and turned out great and raised under the best of possible conditions and turned out dreadful. I'm not sure how they are raised is nearly as important as what the kid has to work with to begin with.
Iacchus
12-25-2009, 02:52 PM
Look at all the splendid examples nature has given us to work with. Of course nature pretty much does its thing (runs its course) and doesn't really question itself. Most if not all animals from the animal kingdom, however, either know what to do instinctively or, learn by what is passed down from their parents.
LadyShea
12-27-2009, 02:48 PM
Also, by forcing them to test yearly, you are holding them to the standards of those same public schools these concerned parents and even our Federal government feel are failing.
How is that a bad thing? If those concerned parents feel that the public schools are failing and their unconventional methods are superior, they should be able to demonstrate that their hypothesis is true.
True according to whom? Demonstrated to whom? For what purpose?
You are forcing them to teach to the test, thereby not allowing those unconventional and/or individualized curriculum a fair evaluation.
What would a fair evaluation look like? Wouldn't you need some kind of objective test for that?
A fair evaluation would look like nothing more than determining if homeschooled kids and homeschooling families are or become productive citizens in similar percentages as publicly schooled kids and families who send their kids to public schools. Do they hold jobs? Vote? Pay taxes? Are more of them receiving public aid? Are more of them in prison? Are more of them alcoholics or on drugs or abusive? Why do they need to be evaluated further than that?
As lisarea more or less said somewhere, "there are real live abusers out there, happily fucking their kids up daily". Do we really need to jump into homeschooling regulation without probable cause for concern?
So far the evidence points to homeschoolers doing well in college and doing well on standardized tests and producing productive citizens
LadyShea
12-27-2009, 05:30 PM
LadyShea it doesn't take much imagination to find all sorts of things wrong with just about any way you can raise a child. I am sure that there are opposites of Dr. West that find problems with whatever method espoused by the doctor. All I can say is that kids have been raised under the most dreadful conditions you could possibly imagine and turned out great and raised under the best of possible conditions and turned out dreadful. I'm not sure how they are raised is nearly as important as what the kid has to work with to begin with.
The focus of this isn't how children are raised in general, it's how they're educated.
maddog
12-27-2009, 08:25 PM
A fair evaluation would look like nothing more than determining if homeschooled kids and homeschooling families are or become productive citizens in similar percentages as publicly schooled kids and families who send their kids to public schools. Do they hold jobs? Vote? Pay taxes? Are more of them receiving public aid? Are more of them in prison? Are more of them alcoholics or on drugs or abusive? Why do they need to be evaluated further than that? I think that's kind of late to wait to determine.
#2330
LadyShea
12-27-2009, 08:33 PM
A fair evaluation would look like nothing more than determining if homeschooled kids and homeschooling families are or become productive citizens in similar percentages as publicly schooled kids and families who send their kids to public schools. Do they hold jobs? Vote? Pay taxes? Are more of them receiving public aid? Are more of them in prison? Are more of them alcoholics or on drugs or abusive? Why do they need to be evaluated further than that? I think that's kind of late to wait to determine.
#2330
We have hundreds of thousands of homeschooled people moving about in the adult world right now. An analysis of public aid recipients, prisons, rehabs, metal health facilities etc. etc. should have shown by now whether those who were homeschooled are over-represented. If educational background isn't a routine part of the many sociological surveys and studies of these populations, should be easy enough to start including.
As people have found that adopted people are over-represented in many of these populations, seems like something like homeschooling would have stood out to any researchers.
naturalist.atheist
12-28-2009, 05:14 AM
LadyShea it doesn't take much imagination to find all sorts of things wrong with just about any way you can raise a child. I am sure that there are opposites of Dr. West that find problems with whatever method espoused by the doctor. All I can say is that kids have been raised under the most dreadful conditions you could possibly imagine and turned out great and raised under the best of possible conditions and turned out dreadful. I'm not sure how they are raised is nearly as important as what the kid has to work with to begin with.
The focus of this isn't how children are raised in general, it's how they're educated.
Fine then, substitute the word education for the word raise. I personally consider education to be an integral part of raising a child.
LadyShea
01-12-2010, 05:18 PM
Clutch was confused by my strong reaction to this piece, and I have finally, I think, pinpointed the cause of that reaction. I am a researcher...it's sorta my thing. It's a coping mechanism and relieves stress and anxiety for me, and I simply like to be as informed as possible about issues that I find concerning or interesting. My persistence and resourcefulness often pays off in practical ways- such as winning in a lawsuit pro se and negotiating the layers of bureaucracy at both BofA and FEMA to prove I am not in a special flood zone.
I have been researching homeschooling for over 2 years. I have looked high and low for data or evidence indicating homeschooling is worse than traditional schooling in some way. The data does not seem to exist, or if it does this is the most epic of epic failures in my research abilities. Every article or essay written about the negative aspects or "concrete harms" is, like this one, highly speculative and provides no evidence. The evidence that does exist indicates, in fact, that homeschoolers are at the very least equal to their traditionally schooled counterparts, and some evidence indicates they do better in several areas.
So, I guess what bothers me most is that I want to know "concrete harms", I want to know negative outcomes, and I want to see evidence for it so I can analyze and compare...yet not a single critic, even a Professor at a major University, can provide any. That bugs me, and makes it appear they are simply grinding some personal ax
More info http://www.nheri.org/Latest/The-Harms-of-Homeschooling-Where-Are-the-Premises.html
LadyShea
01-12-2010, 06:47 PM
Am I grinding a personal ax? I don't think so. I am trying to gather data to make a very important decision, namely the method of education for my only child.
Also, I am not a professor writing my opinions for a publication addressing public policy as well as touring universities talking about my opinions. I don't carry any weight with anyone.
LadyShea
01-14-2010, 08:24 PM
Well I certainly don't want these people regulating me if we do choose to homeschool. It also makes me even more wary of sending my kid to public schools
* About 40 percent of Alabama's students do not graduate from high school, which is the fourth-worst in the country.
* The percentage of students scoring "proficient" on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, one of the few tests administered across the country, are as follows: 26 percent for fourth-grade math; 18 percent for eighth-grade math; and 21 percent for eighth-grade reading.
Alabama schools get high marks for standards, but an F for achievement | Breaking News from the Press-Register - al.com (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/01/alabama_schools_get_high_marks.html)
Iacchus
01-14-2010, 10:39 PM
Public schools (IMO) suck ...
Well I certainly don't want these people regulating me if we do choose to homeschool.
Personally, I don't want anyone regulating me if I decide to murder someone, either. However, if I want OTHER PEOPLE (possibly the Humbert Humberts of the world) regulated, I must agree to being regulated myself.
Ensign Steve
01-15-2010, 01:10 AM
Well I certainly don't want these people regulating me if we do choose to homeschool.
Personally, I don't want anyone regulating me if I decide to murder someone, either. However, if I want OTHER PEOPLE (possibly the Humbert Humberts of the world) regulated, I must agree to being regulated myself.
She didn't say she didn't want to be regulated at all, just not by "these people" who I'm going to go out on a limb and assume refers to said people who have an apparent ax to grind against homeschoolers.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 03:45 AM
I don't want the State of Alabama Department of Education regulating how I educate my son- should I choose not to use their services- since they appear to suck at providing educations in the system they completely control.
Ensign Steve
01-15-2010, 12:07 PM
:doh: My mistake.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 01:57 PM
I was so appalled at those figures, I guess I didn't make my point clear in the post.
80% of Alabama 8th graders do not score as "proficient" in math or reading on the standardized tests. 60% of Alabama students don't graduate.
Dr. West, however, thinks Alabama should be telling homeschoolers what to do and how to do it, and she thinks that they can provide a better education than I can because it's a regulated system.
Now, I am not terribly worried about my state wanting to regulate homeschoolers...they don't have the money or the time. Also, by putting homeschooling under the cover of "Church schools" they are safely within the bounds of the religious freedom findings of important homeschool precedent decisions, and can forget about it.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 02:07 PM
Well I certainly don't want these people regulating me if we do choose to homeschool.
Personally, I don't want anyone regulating me if I decide to murder someone, either. However, if I want OTHER PEOPLE (possibly the Humbert Humberts of the world) regulated, I must agree to being regulated myself.
Without some evidence that homeschooling causes harm (like MURDER does) then I don't get your analogy.
Without some evidence that homeschooling causes harm (like MURDER does) then I don't get your analogy.
I doubt homeschooling "causes harm". However, I did read the article you linked, and the author made some decent points, including the notion that sending kids to school offers them some protection from abuse. This is surely true whether or not there is a statistical correlation between homeschooling and abuse. In addition, it seems reasonable to me to have some sort of standards for homeschooled kids, if (as is the case) education is meant to be universal. The "evidence" you seem to want is again unnecessary. I'm sure 90% of homeschooled children are better educated than kids who go to school -- but that doesn't mean that regulations aren't important for the 10% who are not.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 04:59 PM
I doubt homeschooling "causes harm". However, I did read the article you linked, and the author made some decent points, including the notion that sending kids to school offers them some protection from abuse. This is surely true whether or not there is a statistical correlation between homeschooling and abuse.
What about the kids who are under school age? How are we protecting them? Seriously, abuse is a problem, but I see no relation to abuse identification and protection and homeschooling regulation. These are two completely separate issues.
In addition, it seems reasonable to me to have some sort of standards for homeschooled kids, if (as is the case) education is meant to be universal. The "evidence" you seem to want is again unnecessary. I'm sure 90% of homeschooled children are better educated than kids who go to school -- but that doesn't mean that regulations aren't important for the 10% who are not.
What about the 30% of American public school educated students that don't graduate? Why are some people looking for, or even inventing, a problem to solve in homeschooling, when there doesn't seem to be a problem AND the public schools have serious issues despite regulation and oversight?
And call me crazy, but I believe evidence of a problem is necessary before positing solutions. If the problem isn't even identified and analyzed then how do you know what to solve or how best to solve it? That makes no sense, regardless of the topic.
Problem solving 101:
Step 1: clearly identify the problem
right?
The problems of public education are a red herring. Suggesting that it's silly to regulate homeschooling because schools aren't effective is like saying that we shouldn't give anyone a ticket for speeding because there are unsolved murders. It's a non sequitur.
Same with the abuse argument. It's true that preschool kids don't have the protections inherent in being involved in a public community (like school), but why should that mean that such protections are insignificant? It certainly seems likely that abusive, controlling parents MIGHT homeschool their children to maintain their exclusive control over them. I have no idea if this potential tendency is statistically signficant (it probably isn't), but there can be little doubt that membership in a public community offers some protection. Is that protection necessary or vital public welfare? I don't know. But it's not unreasonable to think it might be, even in the absence of evidence that it is.
I'll grant that I don't know much about homeschooling. However, if mandatory education is to be an accepted national policy, why WOULDN'T we regulate homeschooling? We regulate educational standards for kids who go to school (which is why 30% fail) -- why should homeschooled kids be different?
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 06:14 PM
The problems of public education are a red herring. Suggesting that it's silly to regulate homeschooling because schools aren't effective is like saying that we shouldn't give anyone a ticket for speeding because there are unsolved murders. It's a non sequitur.
The people who are running the public schools are the same people who would be regulating homeschooling at public cost. Homeschoolers are not utilizing public funds, for education at least.
Also, a large percentage of people choose to homeschool precisely because they see the failures of the public schools and want better for their kids, and/or lack access to alternatives such as private schools or charter schools, and/or feel they can provide a better education than the public schools and/or the alternatives.
My wanting to homeschool is precisely for these reasons. The public schools suck in my state and I dislike their curriculum and methods. I feel I can better educate my son than they can.
I don't get your criminal/police analogies at all.
Same with the abuse argument. It's true that preschool kids don't have the protections inherent in being involved in a public community (like school), but why should that mean that such protections are insignificant?
Because we shouldn't police people without probable cause. And really, do public schools offer "inherent" protections? There are x number of kids being abused, and something over 90% of them are in public schools.
It certainly seems likely that abusive, controlling parents MIGHT homeschool their children to maintain their exclusive control over them.
Sure they might. They MIGHT also send them to private schools that share their authoritarian worldview. They also PROBABLY would be abusive with or without homeschooling. Again, whats your point?
I have no idea if this potential tendency is statistically signficant (it probably isn't), but there can be little doubt that membership in a public community offers some protection. Is that protection necessary or vital public welfare? I don't know. But it's not unreasonable to think it might be, even in the absence of evidence that it is.
There is evidence that some people abuse their kids. There is evidence that the majority of kids go to public schools, including abused kids. Is there evidence that public schooling prevents abuse? I don't know.
According to some stats I found for PA (http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ServicesPrograms/ChildWelfare/ChildAbuseAnnualRpts/2006ChildAbuseRpt/2006TablesCharts/003676206.htm), non mandated persons made more reports of child abuse than did the schools. The schools did report more than other mandated persons/places however, and in both instances a large percentage of reports were unsubstantiated.
Side note, PA has heavy homeschool regulation including criminal background checks for homeschooling parents, immunization requirements, curriculum submission etc. It's one of the reasons I chose it.
What I do know, and what the stats bear out, is that abuse is a huge problem, and as neighbors, friends, relatives, community members etc. we need to report abuse if we suspect it and not rely on the education system to be the police.
I'll grant that I don't know much about homeschooling. However, if mandatory education is to be an accepted national policy, why WOULDN'T we regulate homeschooling?
There are many definitions of "education". Who says that the various states' and districts' curriculum are the best way to educate children? How is the best way to determine that any kid is "educated"? Who sets the standards and why should we accept that standard?
What's the compelling state interest in regulating homeschoolers?
We regulate educational standards for kids who go to school (which is why 30% fail) -- why should homeschooled kids be different?
Because schools are publicly funded and therefore accountable to the government and homeschools (as well as private schools) are not.
specious_reasons
01-15-2010, 06:35 PM
The majority of homeschoolers state that the most important reason for homeschooling is dissatisfaction with public school academics and methods! Of course many of them are going to be using unconventional curriculum! However it doesn't follow that any significant number would go to the extremes listed!
I admit this is anecdotal, but I have relatives who home school their children. They have many reasons for home schooling, and they claimed their primary reason was a poor school system when they lived in Alabama, but continued with home-schooling even when moving to states with better educational records.
I think the primary reason for home schooling is because their church was an insular form of Protestantism and encouraged home schooling. They found their stated reasons after the fact.
So, I would be inclined to distrust polls about home schoolers reasons.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 06:36 PM
Also, please note that private schools are often exempted from most or much of the regulations of public schools, so when making your arguments you may want to consider how they might apply to private schools as well.
For example in Alabama:
Licensing by the Alabama Department of Education is required annually prior to the operation of a private school. Ala. Code § 16-46-5. However, most private elementary and secondary schools would qualify for exemptions, as schools operated by "a parochial, denominational, or religious organization, and/or as a ministry of a local church or group of churches on a nonprofit basis" or schools operated by "a community, educational organization, or group of parents, organized as a nonprofit educational corporation with the expectation of establishing a more favorable environment for those in attendance." Ala. Code § 16-46-3. Exempted private schools may voluntarily request to be licensed without surety. Ala. Code § 16-46-3(d). Licensing is based on specific criteria, such as, the quality and content of curriculum, adequate space, equipment, instructional materials and personnel, recordkeeping, and financial stability. Ala. Code § 16-46-5(i)(1)-(7). Ala. Admin. Code r. 290-030-050.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 06:38 PM
I admit this is anecdotal, but I have relatives who home school their children. They have many reasons for home schooling, and they claimed their primary reason was a poor school system when they lived in Alabama, but continued with home-schooling even when moving to states with better educational records.
I think the primary reason for home schooling is because their church was an insular form of Protestantism and encouraged home schooling. They found their stated reasons after the fact.
So, I would be inclined to distrust polls about home schoolers reasons.
Yes, some people choose to homeschool for religious reasons, they even say so right in the surveys, however it is usually one of several reasons and most often not listed as the most important. (the particular survey I was discussing had you choose all the reasons and list them by importance).
As that is not my reason, or the reason for the hundreds of secular homeschoolers I am in contact with online, I am inclined to believe what people say.
The compelling state interest is to assure that children are educated in the basics. Literacy, basic math skills, etc. are important to becoming a voting, wage-earning citizen. Of course, you might say, "But homeschoolers are more literate than attendees of public school, on average." However, that's irrelevant. If there is a compelling public interest in assuring that kids learn to read, then that interest applies to ALL kids, whether homeschooled or publicly schooled, and whether public money is spent on the endeavor is irrelevant to that public interest.
One of the benefits of public school is the extent to which it involves children in their community. As America has become more mobile, communities and the sense of community has diminished. Public school is important for establishing the sense of community -- and the community provides a safety net for children who are not able to protect themselves without help. Is establishing this sense of community a "compelling public interest". I don't know -- but it's not utterly ridiculous to think that it might be. (I'll admit that this paragraph has little to do with the extent to which homeschooling should be regulated -- but it's an argument in favor of public schooling.)
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 06:56 PM
The compelling state interest is to assure that children are educated in the basics. Literacy, basic math skills, etc. are important to becoming a voting, wage-earning citizen. Of course, you might say, "But homeschoolers are more literate than attendees of public school, on average." However, that's irrelevant. If there is a compelling public interest in assuring that kids learn to read, then that interest applies to ALL kids, whether homeschooled or publicly schooled, and whether public money is spent on the endeavor is irrelevant to that public interest.
Okay. So, what's the best way to ensure that all children are learning the basics? Standardized testing maybe? At what age?
What if a significant portion of students are not "proficient" in these basic skills at some point...like the 80% of Alabama 8th graders? What then? Do we force failing homeschoolers to send their kids to public school? What about the failing publicly schooled students...should we force them to homeschool since evidence seems to indicate that is a better form of education?
This whole line of argument, again, seems to be trying to create a problem to solve. Without evidence that homeschoolers, and private schoolers, are not learning as well as their publicly schooled counterparts, what's the point of adding a whole slew of new regulations which will necessarily include a whole slew of new problems to solve.
One of the benefits of public school is the extent to which it involves children in their community. As America has become more mobile, communities and the sense of community has diminished. Public school is important for establishing the sense of community -- and the community provides a safety net for children who are not able to protect themselves without help. Is establishing this sense of community a "compelling public interest". I don't know -- but it's not utterly ridiculous to think that it might be. (I'll admit that this paragraph has little to do with the extent to which homeschooling should be regulated -- but it's an argument in favor of public schooling.)
Children can be involved in their communities in many ways such as sports, charity, clubs, etc. I would even counter that public schools remove kids from the actual community, and into an institution, for most of the day, for most of the year, for 12 years. Instead of interacting with the community and it's many types of people in a meaningful way, they are limited to only interacting with their same-age/same-neighborhood peers in a highly structured setting.
specious_reasons
01-15-2010, 06:58 PM
Yes, some people choose to homeschool for religious reasons, they even say so right in the surveys, however it is usually one of several reasons and most often not listed as the most important. (the particular survey I was discussing had you choose all the reasons and list them by importance).
Right, but like I said, the family stated one "most important" reason, but it always seemed the most important reason was really their religion. So, I am somewhat suspicious of results.
When we lived in Louisiana, I considered home schooling my daughter, but we decided not to. First, we chose a house where the school was decent (if not great), and second, we also had a 2 year old in the house that demanded attention, and lastly and most important, I'm not sure I could have done the job better than the school.
Ensign Steve
01-15-2010, 07:04 PM
One of the benefits of public school is the extent to which it involves children in their community. As America has become more mobile, communities and the sense of community has diminished. Public school is important for establishing the sense of community -- and the community provides a safety net for children who are not able to protect themselves without help. Is establishing this sense of community a "compelling public interest". I don't know -- but it's not utterly ridiculous to think that it might be. (I'll admit that this paragraph has little to do with the extent to which homeschooling should be regulated -- but it's an argument in favor of public schooling.)
Children can be involved in their communities in many ways such as sports, charity, clubs, etc. I would even counter that public schools actually remove kids from the actual community, and into an institution, for most of the day, for most of the year, for 12 years. Instead of interacting with the community and it's many types of people in a meaningful way, they are limited to only interacting with their same-age/same-neighborhood peers in a highly structured setting.
Thank you for saying what I was thinking far better than I could have said it.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 07:21 PM
Right, but like I said, the family stated one "most important" reason, but it always seemed the most important reason was really their religion. So, I am somewhat suspicious of results.
However, do you feel your relatives kids received at least a satisfactory enough education to be productive adult citizens, regardless of the religious reason they were homeschooled? Can they read? Do basic arithmetic? Hold a conversation? If so, then why is their most important reason even an issue for you?
When we lived in Louisiana, I considered home schooling my daughter, but we decided not to. First, we chose a house where the school was decent (if not great), and second, we also had a 2 year old in the house that demanded attention, and lastly and most important, I'm not sure I could have done the job better than the school.
I absolutely do not feel homeschooling is for everyone. Maybe not even for most.
I, personally, believe I can do a better job with my kid* than the school. My 4 year old is learning to read and he is doing quite well. By the time he is allowed to start Kindergarten (Fall 2011) I expect he will be beyond the Kindergarten curriculum.
*My kid, meaning this particular kid. If he was not who he is, public school might have seemed the better option
specious_reasons
01-15-2010, 07:54 PM
However, do you feel your relatives kids received at least a satisfactory enough education to be productive adult citizens, regardless of the religious reason they were homeschooled? Can they read? Do basic arithmetic? Hold a conversation? If so, then why is their most important reason even an issue for you?
It's not an important issue for me, I'm being difficult. :D
On a more serious note, my relative's church seemed to be big on being... unworldly? separate from the sinful world? ... and the home schooling was another way to control the exposure of children to the larger world. The father used to review and approve all media the children received!
Being a secular person and a skeptic, it bothers me a bit that the world being exposed to these children is a only bright facade. I'm a bit worried that these children will be less successful or not realize their full potential because they've been raised to withdraw from the greater world. Given what know about the eldest's college education, it looks like her father is pushing her into an MRS degree, if you get what I mean....
However, I would agree with erimir that this is more a symptom of, "The Harms of Raising Children as Fundamentalist Protestants" and not a function of home schooling.
I suspect that Dr. West has a point about the fundies, but I don't see how regulation of home-schooling helps, or if that's even the fault of home schooling.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 08:02 PM
I suspect that Dr. West has a point about the fundies, but I don't see how regulation of home-schooling helps, or if that's even the fault of home schooling.
I suspect Dr. West knows she can't argue for regulating fundamentalist parents just for being fundamentalist (on accounta 1st Amendment and all) and is using homeschooling as a legal back door.
That children CAN be involved in their communities without attending public school is certainly true. So what? It's still POSSIBLE for kids who are homeschooled to have less community involvement than is automatic for publicly schooled kids.
Also, what's wrong with structured, same-age, same-neighborhood community involvement? That seems like a good thing, not a bad one. Kids like hanging out with other kids their own age, and sociable neighborhoods are surely better than unsociable ones.
I'm not sure what kind of "evidence" you want, LadyShea. Statistics? What do they provide? In terms of abuse, the only "evidence" is that which is discovered. If nobody outside the family ever sees a kid, what "evidence" could there be? If one parent claims to be homeschooling their kid but actually sends them to the fruit fields to pick strawberries every day, would that be sufficient "evidence" to suggest that there should be some minimal regulation of homeschooled children, even if on average homeschooled children outperform publicly schooled kids?
specious_reasons
01-15-2010, 09:02 PM
I suspect that Dr. West has a point about the fundies, but I don't see how regulation of home-schooling helps, or if that's even the fault of home schooling.
I suspect Dr. West knows she can't argue for regulating fundamentalist parents just for being fundamentalist (on accounta 1st Amendment and all) and is using homeschooling as a legal back door.
That sounds about right.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 09:46 PM
That children CAN be involved in their communities without attending public school is certainly true. So what? It's still POSSIBLE for kids who are homeschooled to have less community involvement than is automatic for publicly schooled kids.
Sure it is. It's also possible for publicly schooled kids to see no more of their community than the inside of a school building. It's POSSIBLE kids in school never interact with store clerks and gardeners and neighbors and food servers or whatever.
Do you really see a teacher and 20 or so kids your age as the "community"?
Also, what's wrong with structured, same-age, same-neighborhood community involvement? That seems like a good thing, not a bad one. Kids like hanging out with other kids their own age, and sociable neighborhoods are surely better than unsociable ones.
There's nothing wrong with socializing with other kids in your neighborhood, that is very healthy and I encourage it.
I just don't see how sitting with them at desks in a classroom for several hours is meaningful "community involvement". The community is so much larger and more diverse than that. Being "involved" in it takes a lot more than showing up in a building learning multiplication tables to me.
In terms of abuse, the only "evidence" is that which is discovered.
If nobody outside the family ever sees a kid, what "evidence" could there be?
Well how about evidence that nobody outside the family sees most homeschoolers? On the contrary, research indicates homeschoolers are active in their communities...clubs, church, sports, classes etc. They even go to doctors and the supermarket just like normal people.
If one parent claims to be homeschooling their kid but actually sends them to the fruit fields to pick strawberries every day, would that be sufficient "evidence" to suggest that there should be some minimal regulation of homeschooled children, even if on average homeschooled children outperform publicly schooled kids?
If a kid is so isolated that no neighbor, physician, community member, relative, law enforcement official or passerby notices they work all day in violation of child labor laws, then chances are that family didn't even bother to "claim to be homeschooling" to anyone. Do you think the government tracks kids by birth or census records or something to see if they are being educated?
Homeschool regulations wouldn't address this level of isolation on accounta how would they even know there is a kid/family in need of being regulated?
What I would like to see is
1. Evidence that homeschooling is causing a problem in need of being addressed by the government, and the nature and scope of the problem.
2. If a problem is clearly identified, only then should there be a discussion of possible solutions, which might include a comparison or analysis of the problem in other states that have different or more regulations, and the effectiveness of their regulations in addressing the problem, and how best to implement them and enforce them etc.
For some reason, LadyShea, you are not understanding my posts.
Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly -- but I think I am.
Yes -- I do think that most kids see their class in school as a "community". I did when I was a kid, my son did, and every other kid who goes to public school does. It's generally a child's most intimate community other than his family.
As far as any "evidence" that "most homeschoolers" don't see people in their community, you fail to understand my point. I said several times that I'm not concerned with "most" or statistical averages. Instead, I'm wondering whether some small percentage of kids who are homeschooled may not be properly educated or socialized. I'm quite sure that the vast majority of homeschooled kids do fine -- but how does that imply that there should be no regulation? The regulations should be in place to protect the 10% (or whatever it is) of "homeschooled" kids who either aren't getting a good education, aren't being proper socialized, or are being abused. Since education is "mandatory", there is no need for the state to provide "evidence" that homeschooling is somehow dangerous. Instead, there is an implied obligation on the part of the parents to demonstrate that they are properly educating their kids.
If it turns out that EVERY "homeschooled" kid in America is being well-educated, we will have wasted tax-payers' dollars in such regulations. That much I'll grant. However, I bet that wouldn't be the case.
LadyShea
01-15-2010, 11:06 PM
Yes -- I do think that most kids see their class in school as a "community".
I read your previous posts as indicating the schools as the community, not a community. Big, big difference.
Yes, school is a type of community in itself. It is not, however, the community.
It's generally a child's most intimate community other than his family.
Yes, it is.
Instead, I'm wondering whether some small percentage of kids who are homeschooled may not be properly educated or socialized.
Sure, just as some percentage of publicly or privately schooled kids are not properly educated or socialized- according to some definitions of properly educated and properly socialized. These are highly subjective terms doncha think?
I'm quite sure that the vast majority of homeschooled kids do fine -- but how does that imply that there should be no regulation?
Why does it imply that regulation is needed? What's wrong with leaving people alone unless/until there is a demonstrated negative consequence or outcome, and especially that the negative consequence or outcome results in a compelling state interest?
Basically, if there is no evidence that homeschooling causes harm to the community or state, and that by all objective measures it is equal to the public schools, why should the government spend time and money on it?
We have well over 20 years worth of modern homeschooling, shouldn't we have SOME data backing any need for regulation? Shouldn't those states that have heavy regulation provide some data that those regulations are necessary and provide some kind of positive function?
The regulations should be in place to protect the 10% (or whatever it is) of "homeschooled" kids who either aren't getting a good education, aren't being proper socialized, or are being abused.
What should those regulations look like? Who should implement and enforce them? How should the whole new system be funded?
Since education is "mandatory", there is no need for the state to provide "evidence" that homeschooling is somehow dangerous. Instead, there is an implied obligation on the part of the parents to demonstrate that they are properly educating their kids.
And some states have chosen to regulate it. This is not only an individual rights issue, but a state's rights issue. Several court cases have supported the right to homeschool, as part of general rights to privacy and religious freedom, without unreasonable restrictions or limitations.
If it turns out that EVERY "homeschooled" kid in America is being well-educated, we will have wasted tax-payers' dollars in such regulations. That much I'll grant.
What if it merely turns out that homeschooled kids are equal in every way to publicly schooled kids (same percentage passes/fails test, same percentages get into selective colleges, etc)? Would that be a good reason to allocate time and money that could be spent improving the public schools, you know, the ones they already regulate?
erimir
01-15-2010, 11:51 PM
Wouldn't the fact that homeschooled kids are outperforming public school kids, as LadyShea has pointed out, suggest that instead of spending money regulating homeschoolers, that money would be better spent bringing public schools up to the same standard?
We are spending money on kids in public school -- why not spend a little on homeschooled kids? What does statistical equality have to do with it? The schools sometimes identify abusive environments, or environments where kids aren't learning properly, why couldn't relatively benign home school regulations occasionally do the same? Smart parents with smart kids are probably not the problem -- but what about less well educated parents, and kids that may have some learning disability that's not easy to identify? Couldn't professionals, who are trained to identify learning disabilities, be very helpful?
I don't understand what statistical equality has to do with anything. We allocate time and money if we think we can help people -- and I'll bet a small amount of money to test and visit homeschooled children would go a long way. Of course neither you nor I know for certain whether the money would be used effectively or not. It's merely a guess. I'm guessing the small amount of money it would take to regulate home schooling would be MORE effective than spending that same amount in the public schools, you're guessing it would not be. But neither of us has much "evidence" to support our guesses. We must muddle through the best we can, using common sense and guesses. But if a percentage of public school kids have learning disabilities, isn't it likely that a percentage of the homeschooled kids do, too?
(I'll admit that I haven't thought through what exact regulations we should have -- I'm thinking some basic testing, and maybe an occasional interview with the kid. Homeschooled kids could go to school for the interview and testing once a semester or so.)
Wouldn't the fact that homeschooled kids are outperforming public school kids, as LadyShea has pointed out, suggest that instead of spending money regulating homeschoolers, that money would be better spent bringing public schools up to the same standard?
No. I don't think it would.
LadyShea
01-16-2010, 07:01 AM
We are spending money on kids in public school -- why not spend a little on homeschooled kids?
To further what goal? What about the states in budget crises that are cutting programs and firing teachers and closing schools...do you really think there is a need to stretch them further? How do you factor in the fact that schools spend thousands of dollars per student as is, and still so many are failing.
We allocate time and money if we think we can help people --
Do you live in the same US I do, because "helping people" isn't in the budget anywhere I have lived. If so, which state? Also, out of curiosity, do you have any idea of your state's homeschool laws? Are you debating because you give a shit about the topic? If so, what is your exact interest in homeschool regulations? Or is this discussion just something to do...totally fine but will help me formulate more targeted arguments?
I'm guessing the small amount of money it would take to regulate home schooling would be MORE effective than spending that same amount in the public schools, you're guessing it would not be.
More effective at doing what, exactly?
But neither of us has much "evidence" to support our guesses. We must muddle through the best we can, using common sense and guesses. But if a percentage of public school kids have learning disabilities, isn't it likely that a percentage of the homeschooled kids do, too?
Sure, and many states offer early intervention (testing and therapy) to preschool age children so homeschool or public school isn't even an issue yet, and private help is also available (oh another statistic...today's homeschoolers tend to be higher income than the general population) as well as public aid in the form of Universities. The Univ of S. Alabama offers psychoeducational evaluations and therapy on a sliding scale based on income.
Also of note, one of the fastest growing segments of homeschoolers are those with special needs, either learning disabilities or giftedness (yes, it is a special need as much as a learning disability is)...why? Because the public schools are increasingly unable to meet those needs due to budget cuts, lack of effective programs, overcrowding, poorly trained teachers, and simply falling through the cracks.
My nephew has a reading disability and speech problem...3 years in the public schools and they still haven't formally diagnosed him (though they gave him an IEP), and their current answer is having him move back a grade. They don't have the resources for special tutors or classes and this is a nice suburban area. My SIL is having to have him independently evaluated at her own expense to get him the help he needs.
My gifted niece gets only 3 hours a week of more challenging work, but looks like that program is getting some deep cuts soon.
(I'll admit that I haven't thought through what exact regulations we should have -- I'm thinking some basic testing, and maybe an occasional interview with the kid. Homeschooled kids could go to school for the interview and testing once a semester or so.)
What if the homeschooling family is using a completely different educational philosophy like Waldorf or Montessori that doesn't lend itself to standardized tests? What about the point of view that standardized tests aren't really good at measuring much beyond testing abilities, and aren't good at evaluating "education" in a meaningful way?
What about private schools, including religious schools, whose students aren't tested and interviewed by the state...should we force the same regulations on private schools, or can one buy their way out of it?
Why shouldn't homeschools be treated as private schools, in your opinion?
Angakuk
01-17-2010, 01:37 AM
Why does it imply that regulation is needed? What's wrong with leaving people alone unless/until there is a demonstrated negative consequence or outcome, and especially that the negative consequence or outcome results in a compelling state interest?
Basically, if there is no evidence that homeschooling causes harm to the community or state, and that by all objective measures it is equal to the public schools, why should the government spend time and money on it?
Follow the money. In many states schools receive state funding based on enrollment, so much per student. Each child that is homeschooled is one less child that the public school gets paid for.
Was that too cynical?
LadyShea
01-17-2010, 06:30 AM
Not at all, I have actually heard that argument made. What I don't get is...yeah they get funded in order to teach children because presumably there is a cost to that. It's not profit or anything, right?
Surely the schools understand how to make a simple balance sheet, to see that funding for a child is met or exceeded by the expense of schooling that child?
ETA: As a businessperson, I have my ideas of where and how the majority of the money is spent :cough excessive levels of bureaucracy and redundant administrative spending cough.
Angakuk
01-17-2010, 06:43 AM
Well, their jobs depend upon that funding, this is true for profit and non-profit enterprizes alike. Also, there are economies of scale. I live in a community with a declining enrollment. Fewer students means less funding. Less funding means fewer resources available for the remaining students. A school with a hundred students simply can't offer the same opportunities and options that a school with a thousand students can offer. Those who operate the public school system have a vested interest in protecting their turf. Too many students opting out of that system threaten the long term viability of the system. Subject homeschoolers to enough regulation and potentially the demands of meeting those regulations will cancel out the advantages of homeschooling. If enough homeschoolers find those demands too burdensome they will end up sending their kids back to the public school. Voila! The turf is secure.
LadyShea
01-17-2010, 07:02 AM
Because improving the product and producing it more efficiently seems to be out of the question these days.
Some business efficiency expert needs to go in to the various Departments of Education and show them how to maximize funds, maybe.
Fewer students means less funding. Less funding means fewer resources available for the remaining students. A school with a hundred students simply can't offer the same opportunities and options that a school with a thousand students can offer.
But, smaller class sizes and lower student to teacher ratios consistently provide better results...at least according to standardized tests, graduation rates, college admissions etc.
Also, Private schools manage to get better results with significantly lower per student spending, so it can be done.
Anyway, all you really need is a committed teacher, some books, and a student eager to learn, everything else is gravy.
I admit I don't care much about homeschooling, and haven't researched it at all. Instead, I read the article to which you (LadyShea) were responding and thought it made some decent points, and that some of your criticisms of the article were irrelevant. So I decided to respond.
According to the author: “The main purpose of this essay is to criticize this “right to homeschool” that the religious parents and their lawyers
and lobbyists have claimed, or created, over the past couple of decades. My criticism will rest primarily on the basis of the harms such a right might inflict upon the children so educated.”
Your critique of the article emphasized that the article lacked evidentiary support for these “harms”. However, it seems to me that such evidentiary support is irrelevant to Robin West’s argument. In addition, if, indeed, homeschooling is as unregulated as West suggests it is, such evidentiary support might be very difficult to come by.
West’s basic points were:
1) Since 95% of the referred child abuse cases are referred through the schools it is reasonable to assume that schools provide protection from abuse. It is true that West did not offer any evidence that homeschooled children are likely to suffer from abuse, but so what? The assumption remains reasonable.
2) West suggests (I’ll skip the immunization argument) that schools socialize children by providing them with a self-image as a contributor based on their “status” as a student, or a learner. This, she suggests, creates a model for citizenship. Again, West provides no psychological studies that support this argument, but it makes sense to me.
3) West suggests that there are “political harms” to the homeschooling movement. Essentially, she says that homeschooled children are often the political pawns of church leaders, which (she suggests) might have been different if they had been socialized in public schools as well as in churches. Again, the “evidence” is scanty, but I don’t doubt that she’s correct.
4) West also suggests that homeschooling may harm children ethically, educationally and economically. Ethically, authoritarian parents who homeschool their children have MORE control over them than those who send them to public school. Educationally, although, due to the lack of testing, there is little evidence by which to compare the academic achievement of homeschooled children to publicly schooled children, there is “anecdotal evidence” that SOME homeschooled children are educationally deficient. Economically, poor, Fundamentalist homeschooled children do not have opportunities to broaden their horizons. Again, although West provides no statistics in support of her arguments, they make sense to me, and I don’t doubt that there are individual cases of lousy homeschool educations that could be remedied by sending the kids to public school.
West goes on to argue in favor of testing, curriculum review, and periodic visits. It is true that all of these things cost money, and also true that I don’t know whether the benefits they might confer would be worth the cost compared to (for example) spending more money on the traditional public schools.
LadyShea writes: “As for educational harms, she (West) admits that there is no evidence that homeschoolers do worse when compared against publicly schooled students, but also states that there is no evidence that they do better (which contradicts her previous statement about college boards).” But one of West’s points is that without testing, there is no way to gather such evidence. The college board scores are irrelevant until we know what percentage of homeschoolers take the college boards, and what percentage of publicly schooled children take them.
The basic question is: to what extent is “mandatory” education a reasonable requirement? If it is, how should we enforce that requirement? I don’t have any genius ideas about how to enforce the requirement – but I do think it’s a reasonable requirement, and that SOME enforcement should be possible. If all the enforcement does is find a few homeschooled children who are not learning basic reading or math, or are being abused, it would be worth SOME expense, would it not?
Further, if mandatory education is a reasonable State requirement, then the State SHOULD enforce that requirement, regardless of whether they have evidence about how well homeschooled children are being educated. Therefore West's arguments are reasonable with or without evidentiary support.
LadyShea
01-18-2010, 08:25 PM
West’s basic points were:
1) Since 95% of the referred child abuse cases are referred through the schools it is reasonable to assume that schools provide protection from abuse. It is true that West did not offer any evidence that homeschooled children are likely to suffer from abuse, but so what? The assumption remains reasonable.
She also didn't support the 95% claim. For all I know she made it up
2) West suggests (I’ll skip the immunization argument) that schools socialize children by providing them with a self-image as a contributor based on their “status” as a student, or a learner. This, she suggests, creates a model for citizenship. Again, West provides no psychological studies that support this argument, but it makes sense to me.
Yet, she used the term "concrete harms". This whole argument is conjecture, whether it makes sense to some people or not.
3) West suggests that there are “political harms” to the homeschooling movement. Essentially, she says that homeschooled children are often the political pawns of church leaders, which (she suggests) might have been different if they had been socialized in public schools as well as in churches. Again, the “evidence” is scanty, but I don’t doubt that she’s correct.
And you believe that is a "concrete harm"?
4) West also suggests that homeschooling may harm children ethically, educationally and economically. Ethically, authoritarian parents who homeschool their children have MORE control over them than those who send them to public school. Educationally, although, due to the lack of testing, there is little evidence by which to compare the academic achievement of homeschooled children to publicly schooled children, there is “anecdotal evidence” that SOME homeschooled children are educationally deficient. Economically, poor, Fundamentalist homeschooled children do not have opportunities to broaden their horizons. Again, although West provides no statistics in support of her arguments, they make sense to me, and I don’t doubt that there are individual cases of lousy homeschool educations that could be remedied by sending the kids to public school.
Sure, but again, is that a good enough reason to get legislators involved or more involved?
LadyShea writes: “As for educational harms, she (West) admits that there is no evidence that homeschoolers do worse when compared against publicly schooled students, but also states that there is no evidence that they do better (which contradicts her previous statement about college boards).” But one of West’s points is that without testing, there is no way to gather such evidence. The college board scores are irrelevant until we know what percentage of homeschoolers take the college boards, and what percentage of publicly schooled children take them.
Both populations are self selecting as college boards are voluntary, therefore comparisons are very relevant.
Also, there are states that require homeschoolers submit to standardized testing, so that data is available.
The basic question is: to what extent is “mandatory” education a reasonable requirement? If it is, how should we enforce that requirement? I don’t have any genius ideas about how to enforce the requirement – but I do think it’s a reasonable requirement, and that SOME enforcement should be possible. If all the enforcement does is find a few homeschooled children who are not learning basic reading or math, or are being abused, it would be worth SOME expense, would it not?
I don't know that it is worth what I see as violation of people's rights without cause...it makes unwarranted assumptions.
Imagine a state that decided to send child welfare workers on visits to every home where there were preschoolers, as per census records, in case some might be getting abused or might be left alone all day or something.
Would you feel that was a reasonable use of taxpayer funds?
Further, if mandatory education is a reasonable State requirement, then the State SHOULD enforce that requirement
And those states that have chosen to allow exemptions to religious and private educational organizations or citizens who claim they are educating their children privately at home? Should they not be allowed to make those exemptions? Ms. West seems to be calling for Federal requirements of these types of regulations.
BTW: All but 3 or 4 states require homeschoolers register or otherwise notify the state that they are homeschooling and/or require attendance records be kept. They may not regulate curriculum, etc. but most at the very least regulate a formal claim that education is taking place.
Therefore West's arguments are reasonable with or without evidentiary support.
Subjectively reasonable conjectures are not "concrete" harms though, are they?
How "concrete" are the harms? I don't know. However, West specfically says in her intro that "My criticism will rest primarily on the basis of the harms such a right MIGHT inflict upon the children so educated.”
Of course if you oppose mandatory education (which certainly limits freedom -- especially the freedom of children to remain ignorant) West's arguments are irrelevant. However, if we think that mandatory education is reasonable, then there is no need to PROVE that homeschooling is harmful to children. Instead, it is the STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY to investigate and determine that ALL children are being sufficiently educated. Although, of course, it is true that some children in public schools are not being sufficiently educated, at least the state is making SOME effort at due dilligence. Most States appear to be making no effort at all in the case of homeschooled children.
Does a State that supports mandatory education "violate people's rights without cause...it makes unwarranted assumptions." Perhaps. The assumption (in this case) is that someone must work to educate children, and the State is responsible for making sure that someone is doing so. Obviously, if someone IS doing a good job educating the child, the State will have wasted money checking up on him. If someone is not, however, the State may be able to help. The assumption (I suggest) is not "unwarranted", because the state is not assuming that the parents are doing a lousy job. Instead, the state is working to ensure that the Child's "right" to be educated (and the State's obligation to ensure that the child is educated) is being properly fullfilled.
Subjectively reasonable conjectures are not "concrete" harms though, are they?
No, but anecdotal evidence is. West didn't report any, but stated that it existed (and I believe her).
LadyShea
01-18-2010, 08:48 PM
Anecdotes and uninformed opinions are not reasonable bases on which to enact or expand laws, IMO :dunno:
Anecdotes are "concrete"; statistics are abstract. That was my point.
The "concrete" example is the particular, anecdotal case.
LadyShea
01-18-2010, 09:10 PM
Thanks for the discussion BDS, I simply disagree that West's article makes a reasonable case for widespread public policy changes.
Thanks for the discussion BDS, I simply disagree that West's article makes a reasonable case for widespread public policy changes.
Thank you, too. I suppose it comes down to whether someone thinks mandatory education is the State's responsibility. If someone doesn't, then it's reasonable to suggest that the State should butt out until some good reason for them to butt in can be offered (which, I'll agree, the article didn't really offer). If someone does think it's the State's responsibility, then the State has an obiligation to offer some minimal assurances that children ARE being adequately educated.
LadyShea
01-18-2010, 10:50 PM
I think public education is certainly a necessary and desirable option, I just don't agree that education should be entirely or solely a state responsibility.
If you are still interested, this rebuttal (http://www.nheri.org/Latest/The-Harms-of-Homeschooling-Where-Are-the-Premises.html) goes into the state responsibility vs. parental responsibility issue, and is quite heavily sourced.
OH, and the UK is currently debating this very issue, with a national proposal for tougher regulations UK - United Kingdom Homeschooling - A to Z Home's Cool (http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/regional/UK.htm) (this site is biased, but you may be able to search for other views and opinions if it's of interest)
A quick glance through Brian Ray’s article (The Harms of Homeschooling: What are the Premises) suffices to scare me. The article is replete with silly arguments and worthless rationalizations. Ray “guesses” what West’s answers to eight questions are. Here’s question #1:
1. Who will decide the right (i.e., correct, proper) curriculum for children and youth in private home education? The state.
Every other question (except the last) starts with “who”, and the answer is “the state”. Since when is the state a “who” and not a “what”? Does Ray want to imply that the State is a “who” – a sort of Orwellian “Big Brother” – rather than simply the representative of “the public”? Ray’s questions (despite their bizarre wordings) are reasonable. As to question #1, I’d suggest that, yes, it is a good thing if the public gets together and decides what is properly learned by school children. After all, if each parent decides for him or herself, we’d get some kids learning that the world is flat, and 5000 years old, and that the moon is made up of green cheese.
The last question in this section (the only one that doesn’t suggest that The Horrid State is a Who rather than a What) is:
8. Should it be assumed that private educators (in this case, the parents) are not providing a proper education to their children unless they prove, according to state standards, that they are doing so? In other words, are these parents assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes.
This is ridiculous. If the state has a mandate to educate all of its children, it is responsible to investigate whether they ARE being educated. This has nothing to do with assuming parents are guilty until proven innocent – instead it is merely a fulfillment of an obligation.
Ray supports a position based on parental authority:
2. Parental Authority: It is self-evident that the “… Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God …” and the history of the citizens’ culture and practice in the United States give parents the responsibility and authority to raise their children as they deem fit or right. In order to protect this concept and its fulfillment, the people of any state (i.e., civil government jurisdiction) should explicitly affirm the proposition that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children and no state should violate this right without showing that a governmental interest of the highest order is not served in some other way.[18]
Until the 30 or 40 years ago, educating children was assumed to be “a governmental interest of (a reasonably high) order.” Due to the lobbying of the Religious Right, this has changed, and in many states, homeschooling now goes unregulated. I’d suggest that although parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children in some ways, the government OF THE PEOPLE has a profound interest in seeing that those “people” are educated. I remember in 8th grade we had to pass a test on the Constitution (or something like that). It was a state requirement – and a reasonable one. We want kids to learn how our government works – and that means that we want them to learn that the State is not a “Who”, but a “What” (among other things).
One more point: Ray offers an array of statistics that fail miserably to make his argument. Here’s an example, from my home state of Oregon: “Consistently, year after year, the home-educated students scored, on average, well above the national average (e.g., median scores of the 71st to 80th percentiles, 21 to 30 percentile points above the national average).”
I don’t doubt that homeschooling is often more effective at educating children than public schools. But average scores are irrelevant to the State’s interest in regulating homeschooling. The State is not testing kids to discover which ones are scoring in the 80th percentile instead of in the 90th. Instead, they are testing to discover whether SOME homeschooled kids are being neglected and inadequately educated. The fact that, on average, homeschooling is very effective does not mitigate the State’s responsibility to each individual child (if we assume the State has such a responsibility).
LadyShea
01-19-2010, 05:55 AM
Every other question (except the last) starts with “who”, and the answer is “the state”. Since when is the state a “who” and not a “what”? Does Ray want to imply that the State is a “who” – a sort of Orwellian “Big Brother” – rather than simply the representative of “the public”? Ray’s questions (despite their bizarre wordings) are reasonable.
I counter that the government, being a collection of people, is a who not a what. The government isn't a building or a computer or a bowl of fruit.
As to question #1, I’d suggest that, yes, it is a good thing if the public gets together and decides what is properly learned by school children.
The public gets together? When was the last time you, as a member of the public, had anything to do with curriculum decisions? I never have been asked my ideas on the subject by my government, have you? Anyone you know?
After all, if each parent decides for him or herself, we’d get some kids learning that the world is flat, and 5000 years old, and that the moon is made up of green cheese.
Some pertinent court decisions provide for an assumption of parental competence in educating their children (eg: Iowa v. Sessions-1978).
But yes, of course, some people are crazy and stupid and teach their kids insane things, even kids who are in school.
8. Should it be assumed that private educators (in this case, the parents) are not providing a proper education to their children unless they prove, according to state standards, that they are doing so? In other words, are these parents assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes.
This is ridiculous. If the state has a mandate to educate all of its children, it is responsible to investigate whether they ARE being educated.
Not so ridiculous. Again, pertinent case law indicates legal issues surrounding homeschooling include 1st and 14th Amendment rights, balancing compelling state interest against these rights, least restrictive means tests, and an assumption of competence based on the available data.
It's far from simple.
Also, how is education defined? Who (or what) defines it? What benchmark would investigators use? Why is that the best benchmark? And on and on.
[quote]2. Parental Authority: It is self-evident that the “… Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God …” and the history of the citizens’ culture and practice in the United States give parents the responsibility and authority to raise their children as they deem fit or right. In order to protect this concept and its fulfillment, the people of any state (i.e., civil government jurisdiction) should explicitly affirm the proposition that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children and no state should violate this right without showing that a governmental interest of the highest order is not served in some other way.[18]
Until the 30 or 40 years ago, educating children was assumed to be “a governmental interest of (a reasonably high) order.” Due to the lobbying of the Religious Right, this has changed, and in many states, homeschooling now goes unregulated. I’d suggest that although parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children in some ways, the government OF THE PEOPLE has a profound interest in seeing that those “people” are educated.
The US public school system is only about 150 years old, parents being responsible the raising and education of their children is as old as human history, so it's not like the assumption you mentioned is all that long term. It wasn't even written into our founding documents.
I remember in 8th grade we had to pass a test on the Constitution (or something like that). It was a state requirement – and a reasonable one. We want kids to learn how our government works – and that means that we want them to learn that the State is not a “Who”, but a “What” (among other things).
And what happened to those kids who didn't pass the test? How many people are you aware of that know fuck all about our government and how it works? How many of them were homeschooled?
Yes, the government has an interest in an educated population, but it hardly follows that the public schools are the only or even best source of that or that the state is the best to determine what is adequate for any individual. Why not assume that one can be educated in a number of ways and have homeschooling simply be one of them?
One more point: Ray offers an array of statistics that fail miserably to make his argument. Here’s an example, from my home state of Oregon: [quote]“Consistently, year after year, the home-educated students scored, on average, well above the national average (e.g., median scores of the 71st to 80th percentiles, 21 to 30 percentile points above the national average).”
I don’t doubt that homeschooling is often more effective at educating children than public schools. But average scores are irrelevant to the State’s interest in regulating homeschooling. The State is not testing kids to discover which ones are scoring in the 80th percentile instead of in the 90th. Instead, they are testing to discover whether SOME homeschooled kids are being neglected and inadequately educated. The fact that, on average, homeschooling is very effective does not mitigate the State’s responsibility to each individual child (if we assume the State has such a responsibility).
Okay, if some homeschooled kids are being inadequatley educated and some publicly school kids are being inadequately educated, then what? If a homeschooled kid is failing to learn, does it follow that the state can do a better job? If a publicly schooled kid is failing, does it follow that homeschooling could do a better job?
Does the state have a responsibility to each and every citizen? Sure. But again, does that mean the state needs to get all up in people's business without probable cause or an evidenced reason to do so?
Basically, is the state's interest and responsibility so overwhelming as to supersede rights to privacy and parental responsibility to their kids?
*Important case law and selected quotes for further reading:
Supreme Court PAUL v. DAVIS, 424 U.S. 693,713 (1976)
Stated that the Constitutional right to privacy includes, "matters relating to marriage, procreation, conception, family relationships, and child rearing and education."
Supreme Court WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Stated, "...the history of the western civilization reflects a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."
"A state's interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from the balancing
process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of the parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, 'preparing them for additional obligations.'
Supreme Court PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, 531 (1925)
Stated "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those that nurture him and direct his destiny, have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for added obligations."
GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 158-178 (1944)
upheld that, "the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the states by the First and Fourteenth Amendments."
MEYER v. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 400 & 430 (1923)
Stated "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or place."
Yes, the government has an interest in an educated population, but it hardly follows that the public schools are the only or even best source of that or that the state is the best to determine what is adequate for any individual. Why not assume that one can be educated in a number of ways and have homeschooling simply be one of them?
I have nothing against homeschooling. In fact, I DO assume that it is often a very good way to educate a child. However, that doesn't suggest that it should be completely unregulated. If (most of my arguments are predicated on this if, which I think SHOULD be he case, but which is obviously arguable) the state has an obligation to ensure that at least reasonable measures should be taken to educate all children, the state has an obligation to regulate homeschooling.
As far as whether the state SHOULD have an obligation to educate all children (or to phrase it differently, as to whether the state has a "compelling interest" to ensure the education of all children), that's another argument. As you quote above from Meyer vs. Nebraska: "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or place." I'll go along with that. But why not have some minimal regulation to ensure that minimal education is actually taking place? Indeed, if the "object" is that children shall be educated -- isn't the State obliged to ensure that they are?
LadyShea
01-19-2010, 05:03 PM
All of the states with little or no regulation (in the form of evualting the education being received) categorize homeschools as private schools (or otherwise provide for homeschooling), and those states do not regulate private schools for "minimal education". Should private schools be put under the same regulations? Who defines "minimal education" and why should that definition be used?
Why should the Federal government usurp the state's rights to create and enforce educations laws? If you argue that the Feds should do so, by what legal theory could they?
Yes, privates schools should be regulated and who defines "minimal education" is open to discussion. I assume it would be the Seceratary of Education or some such elected or appointed official, with the help of others. I admit that the devil is in the details, and that I haven't given much thought to the details.
LadyShea
01-19-2010, 05:17 PM
So, the Federal government, in your opinion, should remove the rights of States to formulate their own education laws and regulations, and take over that role?
On what Constitutional grounds do you think the Federal government could do so?
No, I think the State Departments of Education should regulate homeschooling. (I don't actually know how many states have "Secerataries of Education", but most probably have some equivalent person.)
eta: It could also be the local school districts rsponsibility, with State supervision.
LadyShea
01-19-2010, 06:06 PM
Each state already has their own laws and regulations in place (http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp). Every state addresses homeschooling on some level, either by categorizing it as private school or church school, or with explicit homeschool statutes. Even the ones in green on the map have very specific statutes and case law (you can view a detailed summary by clicking on the state)
You think those states should change their regulations if you or someone doesn't agree with them?
You think those states should change their regulations if you or someone doesn't agree with them?
Obviously, I think states should change their regulations if I don't agree with them. In that respect, my opinon is identical to that of everyone else in the world.
LadyShea
01-19-2010, 06:29 PM
:lol: touche.
But, back to one of your previous arguments...according to you the public "got together" to formulate those statutes, so they should be a reflection of the people's will or something.
Did you look up your own state by any chance? How do you think they are handling the homeschool regulation issue?
I admit that I don't know how Oregon is handling homeschooling, or how any other state is handling it, beyond what I've read in this thread. The map you linked to shows Oregon as "moderately regulating" homeschooling, which (in principle) is what I'm advocating. I might even advocate what the map describes as "high regulation" (but seems relatively moderate to me). Low and no regulation (low regulation means mere notification, no regulation means notification is unnecessary) seem inadequate to me.
(I don't have the adobe reader required to get the legal details on Oregon, and I don't care enough to download it.)
LadyShea
01-19-2010, 07:27 PM
The summary's of the map color codes are merely guides, even the "low and no regulations" have specific statutes and guidelines.
Here's state stautes in non .pdf form Oregon Homeschooling Laws - A to Z Home's Cool (http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/laws/blOR.htm)
Crumb
01-19-2010, 09:34 PM
Because improving the product and producing it more efficiently seems to be out of the question these days.
Some business efficiency expert needs to go in to the various Departments of Education and show them how to maximize funds, maybe.
Right, but wouldn't the business need to cut costs, like get rid of those expensive enrichment programs that aren't really necessary? You know the good things at school. Also drop those students that cost more than they bring in so bye-bye to all that special needs bullshit.
...
Also, Private schools manage to get better results with significantly lower per student spending, so it can be done.
But private schools are educating a different population, which automatically has parent interest. Because at the very worst the parents are concerned with getting what they paid for and I bet on average actually take an interest in their kids education. If this was only true for even a large minority in public schools it would go a long way.
Anyway, all you really need is a committed teacher, some books, and a student eager to learn, everything else is gravy.
I've highlighted the part that is 90% of a teachers job. It is hard to do in a public school setting. Especially without a lot of parent support and without the funds to actually do a lot of interesting things.
A lot of money does go to teachers and administrators salaries. Don't ask me why we meddle with home schooling though.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.