| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:16 am: Edit |
From some tidbits from the NEA's convention, it is clear that the NEA's animosity is targeted towards two enemies. While George Bush provides the usual suspect, the second one comes as a surprise, even from such a "congenial" outfit: the NEA came out against homeschoolers!
The NEA voiced its animosity against homeschoolers in the annual National Education Association convention held in July in Washington, DC. According to Phyllis Schlafly, "The only thing this powerful and wealthy union fears is homeschooling."
The most controversial vote at the NEA convention turned out to concern one word in the anti-homeschool resolution. B-69 as introduced read: "The Association also believes that unfunded home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools."
The word "unfunded" precipitated a lively debate. Some schools provide funding for homeschoolers to participate in after-school activities such as sports. The amendment to remove the word "unfunded" was designed to put the NEA on record as opposed to letting homeschoolers darken the door of public school grounds regardless of whether or not there is money to finance their participation.
Quote:Political Activism Takes Center Stage with the NEA
To no one's surprise, the annual National Education Association convention voted six-to-one (7,390 to 1,153), to endorse John Kerry for President.
The head of the NEA, Reg Weaver, opened the annual convention in July in Washington, DC, with a call for public school teachers and employees to mobilize to defeat President Bush this fall. He said the union's political activism "takes center stage," and he predicted that "our 2.7 million members can be the X-factor in this election."
For the 2004 political campaign, the NEA will "partner" with the leftwing organizations MoveOn.org, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), and the pro-Democratic Campaign for America's Future in order to achieve "the largest mobilization for education ever." Through a nationwide political strategy called "house parties" to be held on September 22, these activists will plan political rallies, register voters, meet with congressional candidates, and organize a get-out-the-vote program to cover teachers and parents.
John Kerry was to have been the convention's headline speaker, but he stood them up, choosing that very day to announce his choice of John Edwards as his running mate. The delegates were more than pleased with his replacement, Hillary Clinton, who was introduced as "one of our closest allies; she's so close, in fact, that she needs no further introduction."
Hillary brought the delegates to their feet with what the NEA's official newspaper called her "sharp wit," such as, "We are one day closer to the end of the Bush-Cheney Administration." Actually, she was just a warmup for a showing of Michael Moore's anti-Bush movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, right after her speech.
The NEA's lobbying goals for next year's Congress include federal funding for public school child care, early childhood programs that are school-based, before- and after-school programs, big spending for school counselors, and school-based health care for children.
The NEA's non-education-related lobbying goals include funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, national health care, reparations to African Americans, statehood for the District of Columbia, taxpayer funding of federal elections, and a national holiday for Cesar Chavez. The NEA's foreign policy goals include ratification of the United Nations treaties on the Rights of the Child and on Discrimination against Women.
The NEA's feminist lobbying goals include "reproductive freedom without governmental intervention" (but, of course, with tax funding), affirmative action, assigning women to military combat, and the Equal Rights Amendment. The NEA's gay goals include a federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, income tax benefits for domestic partners, and hate crimes legislation.
The NEA opposes all varieties of school choice, tuition tax credits, vouchers, parental option or "choice" in education programs, designating English as our official language, and any possible action that might impinge on the secularists' notion of "separation of church and state."
The most controversial vote at the NEA convention turned out to concern one word in the anti-homeschool resolution. B-69 as introduced read: "The Association also believes that unfunded home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools."
The word "unfunded" precipitated a lively debate. Some schools provide funding for homeschoolers to participate in after-school activities such as sports. The amendment to remove the word "unfunded" was designed to put the NEA on record as opposed to letting homeschoolers darken the door of public school grounds regardless of whether or not there is money to finance their participation.
In the end, the majority of delegates voted to delete "unfunded." Whether or not homeschoolers' participation in public school activities is funded, the NEA does not want them in any way to compete with students who are "with us all day."
The NEA thus made its animosity against homeschoolers loud and clear. The only thing this powerful and wealthy union fears is homeschooling.
The convention opened with an invocation by the president of the National Council of Urban Education Associations. A few delegates complained that his message sounded suspiciously like a reading from the Democratic Party platform.
Washington DC Mayor Anthony Williams was not on hand to welcome the delegates to the nation's capital because he supports school vouchers, a politically incorrect position for NEA speakers. The delegates were welcomed instead by U.S. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who used her time at the podium to pitch for her legislation to give congressional representation to the District of Columbia.
The speakers voiced the usual complaints about a stingy Congress not appropriating enough money for education. In fact, federal spending on education increased 51 percent since Bush took office, and Title I spending (for low-income schools) has increased from $8.8 billion in the Clinton administration to $13.3 billion this year.
| By Kissy (Kissy) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 08:02 am: Edit |
Good post, Xiggi. I find most of the NEA platform issues alarming. And how does the union reconcile the fact that over 80% of the Af-Am community SUPPORTS school vouchers?
| By Jenniferpa (Jenniferpa) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 08:32 am: Edit |
Of course, it's important to recognise that Shafley, who wrote this piece, not exactly in the political center.
| By Achat (Achat) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 08:43 am: Edit |
Homeschooling has been gaining momentum since the 80s. I used to exchange email with someone (whose name I forget) who has written books on homeschooling. His son is my son's age. Lived in Minnesota. He used to talk about his frustration in dealing with the school district even in the early 90s. The issues that frustrated him were 1) Use of school resources for extra-curricular activities. 2) Use of school resources for science education.
Doesn't surprise me that the NEA would think of the homeschoolers as a threat.
Mini might have a lot to say about the issue. His daughters are homeschooled. Older one is very very bright and going to Smith on full scholarship (also got into Williams full ride).
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 09:19 am: Edit |
I take what Phyllis Schaffly writes with a huge grain of salt.
This said, I do believe that the NEA is against charter schools and vouchers. I had not heard anything about its stance on homeschooling. I doubt very much that homeschooling is a threat to any one. There is legitimate concern, however, about how to ensure that homeschooled children receive an adequate education.
Children are homeschooled for a variety of reasons and under very different circumstances. Some are homeschooled because the schools cannot accommodate their (often more advanced) learning needs. For example, I know a ten-year old who is studying for her O-levels (the equivalent of a high school senior's curriculum). There is no school that can address such learning needs. At the other end of the spectrum, there are children whose learning disabilities are not being adequately addressed within a school setting. I also know of such a child. Then there are children whose parents object to specific curricular content (such as the teaching of evolution), or have concerns about safety, bullying, etc... Ironically, given Bush's NCLB, there are as well parents who have yanked their children from public schools because of their opposition to teaching to the test and the avalanche of testing that public school children are faced with.
I doubt very much that one can make homeschooling a Republican or a Democratic issue.
| By Dennis (Dennis) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 09:32 am: Edit |
Hmm, well, I don't think I'll be taking Phyllis Schlafly's interpretation of the NEA too seriously. She is a right-wing extremist who came to fame by opposing equal rights for women.
The real scandal is that Bush's No Child Left Behind is based on a fraud. The so-called "Texas Miracle" in education was nothing more than phony Enron-like accounting. Bush's own school district in Austin, once highly touted as the nation's best urban school district, has now received the lowest performance rating possible in Texas. See on this the Nov. 8, 2003 issue of the Washington Post.
Further, the Bush administration has dramatically underfunded (to the tune of 8 billion dollars) this boondoggle called No Child Left Behind leaving school districts everywhere struggling to comply. Even legislatures in Republican dominated states have found this to be unacceptable.
Most tragically, students in the poorest school districts continue to be left behind anyway. Susan Neuman, who just left the Bush administration as asst. secretary of education says about these students, "in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources . . . we are creating a fantasy."
| By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 09:38 am: Edit |
I agree that homeschooling is not a Dem or Repub issue, and I also take Phyllis Schafly with more than a grain of salt. That being said, though, the fact that the NEA are quoted as being against homeschoolers being able to participate in extra-curriculars or use school facilities is appalling. It's a totally different issue from vouchers or charter schools. We didn't homeschool are kids, but we considered it, and we'd've fought very hard for them to be able to participate in band, sports, etc, or take some classes there (like science, which needs facilities). I don't see a rational reason for opposing it.
| By Achat (Achat) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 09:56 am: Edit |
Well, the wording came from the NEA resolution:
"The Association also believes that unfunded home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools."
I also believe this is not a Republican or Democratic party issue.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:06 am: Edit |
Interesting.
Was this resolution adopted?
I have heard of homeschoolers being allowed to participate in all sorts of school-based activities such as sports and band and others who have been barred from such activities. I do not know how school districts receive funding from their state. If a homeschooled child is not counted, there might be legtimate concern about that child having access to limited resources, though it seems rather mean.
| By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:10 am: Edit |
The teachers unions (associations) in our area are very protective of their own - which I don't think comes as a surprise to anyone. I am not anti-union, but am fed up with some of the directions they have taken in local issues. We are suffering through a critical shortage of math and science teachers in our area. Our regional offices began an alternate certification program, which I don't have a problem with in theory - if people are getting certification in areas that they are qualified in. However, the hours required in a given subject fall short in my opinion since in some subjects, it wouldn't qualify you for a minor. (Like 12 hours for economics.) When the economic slump hit the telecom corridor, many engineers inquired about jobs teaching math and science at the local middle and high schools. The teacher unions fought them out because they didn't have the education classes. They did however, have more math and more science hours from college than many of the teachers with degrees in math education and science education. Meanwhile, my daughter's eighth grade algebra teacher was proceeding to teach the distributive laws of math incorrectly - and she is the dept. chair. (Husband and son who are strong in math were appalled.) This after suffereing through seventh grade science with a woman whose degree was in interior design, thought teaching was having the kids fill out worksheets, and basically told the kids that seventh grade science wasn't important anyway!
This is the reason parents home school and that private schools are on the rise. This and the proliferation of benchmarking and testing that cuts a huge chunk from learning the curriculum they need to move on to the next level. My D's first year of high school will be playing catch-up. Luckily for her, her HS is a great school. I just hope it stays that way for four more years. I was always a big proponent of the public school system in America, but I can honestly say now that I am glad I only have four more years to go, and it breaks my heart. So, when I hear the unions begin to whine about anything, I take it with a grain of salt, because I know they are in the business of self preservation. They are certainly not asking the parents what they want for their kids.
Thank you all for listening to my OT rant for the day.
| By Jenniferpa (Jenniferpa) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:21 am: Edit |
I did homeschool my son for 4th and 5th grade. Different states have different regulations, and even within states, school districts have different policies. Part of the problem with homeschooling is there is no nationally accepted policy regarding this: it's a real mish-mash. However you have to remember that the only people who might have an interest in rectifying this situation are the home-schoolers themselves, and I found when I was doing this, that although there are groups that purport to be national, on the whole homeschoolers want less "interference" in their lives, rather than more. The reasons any parent may choose to homeschool are myriad. In our case, it was to cope with a temporary poor schooling situation added to a chronic illness while others may choose to do it for religious reasons (probably the largest group). It is this latter group, that tends to be conservative in nature, that has led many to feel that this is a political issue. On the other hand, many of the people I met doing this were as likely to be tree hugging liberals. I was, and am, irritated when anyone tries to make political capital out of what is a very personal decision. As for "unfunded home-schooled students", in PA at any rate, schools must provide text books free of charge to any homeschooled student, while extra curricula activities are done on a district basis. Also, it is my understanding that in PA each child who is homeschooled reduces the funds going to a particular school, although that sum varies by school amd by district.
| By Achat (Achat) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:34 am: Edit |
Marite, I don't know if it was adopted. I am out of my element here. The only thing I do know is what I hear from neighbors who are homeschooling about homeschooling. So it is anecdotal. And from what I hear, in NJ too it seems any child who is homeschooled reduces the funds for a particular school. This is from a neighbor who is homeschooling because she thinks the school district is overcrowded and her gifted child will not get the attention she deserves.
| By Songman (Songman) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:37 am: Edit |
Question: When Parents decide to homeschool do they receive an exemption from paying the local school tax? I doubt it....seniors still pay the tax without any children in school in our town. So why would homeschooled kids be excluded from activities/athletics?
Regarding unions ,teachers or otherwise.....they are becoming obsolete and are very self serving IMHO. I started out as a democrat when I was younger than moved to conservative republican side and now am independent. Both parties are too self serving for my liking......as a footnote I almost fell off my chair today reading a Wall Street Journal article by a NPR reporter(Scott Simon) that stated that Michael Moore and His movie is full of unproven innuendoes. Even Paul Krugman who the libs bow down to stated that Moore "uses association and innuendo to create false impressions" The problem with the "anyone but Bush " campaign is that it sends a message to independents like me that the presidency is not an important position that "anyone will do" as long as Bush is gone. Instead how about some solutions instead of being sour grapes over every move Bush has made. That's how you win the swing vote , state solutions!
| By Songman (Songman) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit |
Achat- how does homeschooling reduce the funds if the parents continue to pay the school tax? Funding must be based on number of seats filled.....the town is still receiving the local school tax?
| By Jenniferpa (Jenniferpa) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:48 am: Edit |
I thing Achat is refering to state funds. School tax (at least where I am) is another form of property tax, and is not affected by enrollment. State funds are calculated based on, among other things, enrollment.
| By Songman (Songman) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:51 am: Edit |
Jennifer- If so then homeschoolers should pay for textbooks no? Why should school system have to pay for them?.....because parents feel they are paying school tax? educate me here .....thanks...
| By Achat (Achat) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit |
Songman, as I said I am out of my element. They do pay taxes like everyone else. This is my neighbor's perception because she is frustrated with the school district. I don't know how it reduces the funding. But she has tried to get her daughter additional resources from the school for science and music education and the school district has not been as helpful as she would have wanted them to be.
I get an earful every time the subject comes up with her and I've been just voicing that.
| By Vjjones59 (Vjjones59) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:02 am: Edit |
I understand why teachers are in opposition to this. Seems to me one cannot pick and choose among the offerings of the public schools. Is this group implying that English and history can be taught better by parents, but they might need a little help with that AP chem class? Where would it end? I can hear it now--"I have a background in liberal arts, so I'm happy teaching those subjects, but Tommy needs you to teach him math and science and we'd prefer Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith for our teachers and we'd like to have those classes in the late afternoon, please, so that Tommy can stay for select choir practice after school. Oh, and he'd like to be in AP Studio Art because we don't really want to spend the money for private art classes. One more thing, please, can you pick him up? Say around 11? He really needs his sleep. We have found that he is more productive around that hour. And we'll expect the after hours activity bus will have him home in time for dinner at 6. Only in America..."
I've heard of homeschool parents contacting teachers and asking for materials, lesson plans etc! Why should a teacher share professional literature with somebody who isn't comfortable sending their kids to public schools? It makes my blood boil when I hear these complaints. Either you're in or you're out. Maybe this isn't the right forum for this it is not my intent to offend others.
Liability and discipline are clearly issues of EC participation. Not really fair to the other student participants who have to meet academic and attendance requirements, etc if the kid who's homeschooled strolls in after school for practice with no accountability. Not exactly a level playing field. I can also see that scheduling would be an issue if they are to take academic classes.
Seems to me a very select group want the best of both worlds. My opinion is that one participates completely in the public school process--including getting involved and precipitating change where change is needed--or they leave public schools completely alone.
Thanks for your indulgence.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:07 am: Edit |
I can see the problem from both sides. When my S was in 6th grade, we hired a brand new MIT graduate. She knew her math and science but was not used to communicating that knowledge to 6th graders and handling a class of 20 active students. Although incredibly hard-working, she was overwhelmed by the demands of her job. She quit after two years. My S's 5th grade teacher was experienced and had a M.A. in education. She was great at teaching social studies and ELA. She just did not know enough math and science for my S, which proved frustrating for both of them. She is still teaching.
I've read that the greatest attrition rate occurs among those who've moved from industry into teaching because they are not prepared to handle children on a regular basis. My S's first teacher had been invited to apply for the job because someone had been impressed by her when they saw her in action as a volunteer tutor. But the daily realities of the classroom, even in a high-performing school, were just too much for her.
| By Jenniferpa (Jenniferpa) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit |
I don't really have a position on this - I never used the district's school books! I think you must have misunderstood, though: homeschool families are supporting the district, in part, via their property (AKA school) tax, quite apart from any state funding. I imagine, though, that the reason that this is a state wide mandate is to encourage families to stick with the district curriculum, even if the child isn't in school. Many children (as mine did) will move back into the public schools, and I suppose they think this might make the transition easier. This is a similar situation to thay where the school ditrict will bus kids to private schools within a certain radius, even though they're not attending the public schools. I'm not certain (and I can't be bothered to find out!) what percentage of school funding in my district comes from state and what from local taxes. I do know that my school property taxes would more than pay for a few text books!. Having said that, I personally would have preferred to have had less oversight from the school ditrict. PA is one of those states which is moderately restrictive. You must file a curriculum before hand, and you must file a portfolio of work at the end of the school year with the district so that they can sign of on it (and have it evaluated at your own cost by a professional). I think if they didn't give any support to home schooled students, they would be in less of a position to be so "nannyish", although it probably wouldn't make any difference. I would guess from my own experience that there a substantial minority of students who are being homeschooled who are chronically ill (e.g. asthma etc) simply because, difficult as it may be, it's considerable easier than getting "home-bound" intruction for a sick child. I've done that too, and it is almost impossible. For the district it's a better deal as well, since homebound is MASSIVELY more expensive than regular school.
| By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:16 am: Edit |
vjjones -- I agree with your point about being able to rely on the public school for some things but not others. That's something I had never thought of before.
Overall, I don't have strong views on homeschooling. Those who want to do it should be able to, I suppose.
On vouchers, I actually agree they should be available BUT BUT BUT BUT there should be a fairly low income limit on those eligible to receive them. I thought that most of the Republican plans didn't contain one ... so that no matter how high your income, you'd get private school vouchers (maybe I've got this wrong, but that's what I thought).
| By Jenniferpa (Jenniferpa) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit |
VIjones: I'm not saying that there may not be a few parents who behave as you describe - I know I've come in contact with them in the schools! Also, the ones who make the fuss are the one who get the publicity, and many of these have, shall we say, a "different" view of entilement. Most though, want nothing to do with the district, and ti be honest, most district don't want to deal with them. Unfortunately there are state mandates that have to be followed, for good or ill.
| By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:19 am: Edit |
As much as you may not agree with Phyllis Schlafly, everything she says in the article is fact. The NEA has unfortunately become just another left-wing organization that blindly lobbies for every position espoused by the Democratic party. They're not really an education organization anymore. What should Michael Moore's movie have to do with their mission to educate children? I have been amused the last couple of years listening to one of my neighbors who is a teacher at one of our local elementary schools. In Florida we have a school rating system based in part on standardized testing (the infamous FCAT). Her school is in a poor area of the county and had been ranked a "C" school for a couple of years. Every time I talked to her she ranted and raved the NEA party line about how terrible the FCAT is, how we have to get rid of the Bushes, and how her school's low test scores are not the fault of the teachers. She was convinced that there was no way these kids were going to be able to do any better, that the problem was entirely with their socio-economic background and that it was a losing battle. Well, her school is now an "A" school, and she's complaining that they've been an "A" school for two years in a row and now they're not getting certain extra perks because even though they're an "A" school again, they didn't have a certain gain in some other factors. She's also complaining about another elementary school that's in the poorest part of the county and has been the only "F" school for two years in a row. The local board took their best principal and some of their best teachers and paid them extra to move to that school, completely renovated the facilities and is pouring all kinds of other resources into the school, determined to bring its rating up. And she's still complaining that its impossible, that these kids are too poor and there's no hope.
I hate to say it, but I think this kind of thinking dominates the NEA. They seem to want to pour money into more babysitting at school, but not be held accountable for better teaching. They are so pessimistic about the kids' chances of learning, that they just "teach down" to their level and are content to babysit. I guess that makes their job easier. I think we all require a swift kick in the rear from time to time, and standardized testing is a swift kick for the teachers, as much as they might hate it.
As far as their having to "teach to the test", they're wrong. If they're spending all their time doing that, they're making a big mistake. They just need to teach the basics, and teach them well. The test will take care of itself.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit |
I would love to hear from Mini on the issue!
To my naive eyes, I do not really see why homeschoolers should be denied to participate in activities in schools they subsidize via their income and property taxes, and are entitled to attend freely. Why not preclude the homeschoolers to use the local library! Maybe someone should remind that teachers are employees of the system, not its owners or gatekeepers.
As far as the reaction, I am surprised by the "shoot the messenger" attitude. The article is either factually correct or it distorts the position of NEA. I do not see where the interpretation comes in play.
Lastly, while it is acceptable to criticize Bush's record on education funding and deride the current increases as ineffective, the argument could be validated by comparing the record of the current administration that, right off the gate, faced the legacy of an economic crisis started in mid-2000 and the 9/11 cataclysm with the record of the previous administration that enjoyed a cozy 7 years of economic boom. Did Bush reduce the lofty education funding levels of the Clinton era and derailed an examplary system?
Obviously, that is such a right-wing rethoric!
| By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit |
xiggi -- should anyone who pays property taxes then be able to attend public high school? what if I decided I wanted to take a couple of AP classes, just for fun? why shouldn't I be able to do that (for free) since I pay property taxes as well?
my big issue with the bush education plan is the emphasis on school testing. i think it has had an extremely detrimental effect on public schools, and if i had a kid in public school now i would be up in arms against the teaching to the test that i hear is going on everywhere. it didn't work in texas (according to a pew institute study) and i think it's a terrible idea.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit |
They just need to teach the basics, and teach them well. The test will take care of itself.
Chavi:
I am no fan of the NEA, so will not spend bandwidth defending it. But as the parent of a child who needs more than "the basics" I want to take exception to your statement. A student's basics is another student's hard-to-reach goal. My S has been in classes where the range of abilities runs anywhere from 3rd-grade level to college level reading skills. Guess whose basics got addressed? And whose needs were not addressed? While it can be argued that previously, low performers' needs were often ignored, now the reverse is happening. Talk about low expectations.
When I informed the DOE that the MCAS were scheduled at the same time as APs, I was told that all 10th graders had to take the MCAS. Ironically, the conflict was over an AP-Biology test and the MCAS science exam. Since this portion of the MCAS was only a pilot test, my S's high school excused him from it. Pity the high achieving tenth-graders, however, when it becomes mandatory.
| By Achat (Achat) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:55 am: Edit |
Rhonda, you wouldn't be eligible since you are over 18. :-)
But any child under 18 who wants a homeschooled education but needs some resources from the school district (like music education) should be able to get it, shouldn't they? Why is that being spoiled and having an "entitlement complex"? I don't get it.
| By Achat (Achat) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit |
I did read vjjones's post. But isn't that an extreme example?
| By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:02 pm: Edit |
Rhonda: No, because educated is only mandated through the age of 21, or a HS diploma.
VJjones: I did not homeschool, but if we'd decided to, I have yet to see why extra-curriculars should then be denied to my kids. Most of my school district's funding comes from property taxes, which I'd be paying regardless.
I also don't see why a parent can't pick the classes that they don't have facilities for: few homes have chem labs, for instance. How would that be hurting the school? Why should it cause scheduling problems? the class is either available or not.
I'd assume, for grades-dependent participation in sports, a system of accountability would have to be agreed to. Most ECs are not grade dependent; anyone can join marching band. (OT but interesting, our MB director and his wife homeschool their four kids (different school district)).
It's easy for someone to talk about advocating for better schools, harder when you look back and see 16 years of your kids having gotten a barely adequate education in some areas (though excelling in others) despite all the advocacy in the world.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:15 pm: Edit |
Garland:
When my S was an 8th grader taking AP-Physics in the high school (well, auditing), he was invited to join the Ocean Bowl Team. But competition rules did not allow him to participate because he was not a high schooler. I don't know if such rules would apply to high school- age homeschoolers or not. But where there is no bar to participation, I, too, don't see why homeschoolers should be kept out.
As for classes, indeed, if they are offered and if there is space, again, I don't see any problem. In some cases, however, in our high school, there is such high demand for certain AP courses (exacerbated by the new requirement that teachers engage in MCAS tutoring) that only juniors and seniors are allowed in those courses. I doubt students who were not fully enrolled in the school would get much of a chance to access those classes.
| By Texas137 (Texas137) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:20 pm: Edit |
homeschoolers pay taxes that support the schools, just like childless families, familes who send their children to private school, and seniors whose children are grown. And schools don't "lose" money when a child is removed from school. They are paid per child who is there. That number varies. But it is much more affected by the varying size of the school-aged population in a community than it is by homeschoolers. When the baby boom of the fifties was followed by a drop in birth rates, would you say that schools "lost money" because the number of kids went down, or would you say their expenses were reduced? And you never hear this argument levied against kids who attend private schools, although they far outnumber homeschoolers. Clearly it's a control and power issue for the education bureaucracy.
I've really never understood how anyone could consider homeschooling a threat to schools. Let's face it, most parents can't wait for summer vacation to end. They are NOT going to educate their own children, even if school bureaucrats were supportive of it. Other parents might consider it, but cannot actually do it because both parents have to work. No matter how mainstream homeschooling might become, it is never going to be the norm.
On the issue of homeschooling getting some services from the schools - states, districts, and even individual schools are all across the board on how much, if any, they are willing to provide services to homeschoolers. Some districts have found it to be a profit center. If they can enroll some part-time homeschoolers, they get extra money for that which may more than off-set their cost. Homeschoolers themselves are very divided on this issue. Many homeschooling families feel strongly that their children should be able to participate in sports, band, or whatever through the schools. Other families feel just as strongly that as soon as you accept something from the schools, you open the door to unwelcome government regulation.
On the issue of what kind of education homeschooled kids are receiving - well, it's good, bad, and medium just like the education school kids are receiving. There is plenty of evidence that *on average* homeschooled kids do better than schooled kids. Now this may or may not mean that the average homeschooled kid does better. It may be that the profoundly gifted kids whose needs cannot be met by the schools skew the results. But homeschoolers are certainly doing no worse than some of the schools we have who routinely graduate 12th graders who can't read.
| By Songman (Songman) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:25 pm: Edit |
vjjones- you said: --"I have a background in liberal arts, so I'm happy teaching those subjects, but Tommy needs you to teach him math and science and we'd prefer Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith for our teachers and we'd like to have those classes in the late afternoon, please, so that Tommy can stay for select choir practice after school"...............heck our school system hears this everyday. And not from the homeschooling parents but the attending students parents. They try to turn the public school into a private school and in the process give a bad rep to all parents. Even the ones that support the local public school and the teachers are tarred with the same brush by the teachers due to the squeaky wheels that are insisting on getting special treatment for their "gifted child"...my rant for the day!
| By Vjjones59 (Vjjones59) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:25 pm: Edit |
To the contrary, many ECs are actually co-curricular. At our local h.s., marching band and chorus do earn a grade. At some schools, athletics is substituted for the phys. ed. requirement and those students do earn a grade. Will the part-time student, who may have more time to practice a given skill (ie music, athletics, art) 'beat out' another full-time student for a coveted spot on a team/group? A school only needs so many quartebacks, first chair trumpet players or lead singers. Will National Honor Society have to open itself up to homeschoolers who want to become members? Another point: how does this play a role in class rank? How many courses can a student take without becoming a member of the student body? What other services--ie counseling, college placement, testing, health care services--are these students eligible for?? Just seems to muddy the waters. Glad I don't have to make the call. In my area schools are just choosing to say no to homeschoolers' participation.
| By Shennie (Shennie) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit |
If you are having problems accessing school facilities or programs as a home schooler, don't blame the teachers. The teachers are not the gatekeepers. At the state level, there may be rules and policies regarding access to school services for home schoolers. For example, our state says that home schoolers must take the following classes as part of their home school program - math, science, English, social studies, health and physical education. You cannot take some at home and some at school. It is an all or none proposition. However, all other classes such as art, music, foreign language, etc. may be taken at the public school. However, it is up the each district's school board to formulate policies regarding access to these programs by home schoolers. Access can be denied if there is no space available.
My point is, it isn't teachers who make it difficult for home schoolers to access school programs but state laws and local school board policies. NEA is a essentially a lobbying organization. They can lobby for whatever policies they want, but that doesn't mean that they will get what they want.
| By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 01:03 pm: Edit |
"Will the part-time student, who may have more time to practice a given skill (ie music, athletics, art) 'beat out' another full-time student for a coveted spot on a team/group? A school only needs so many quartebacks, first chair trumpet players or lead singers."
If a student is learning as much, but takes less time in the day to do so, that's kinda a knock on the school, isn't it?
I would assume any student who is participating in school activities should be held to certain standards; those who want to avoid any regs would be those who didn't want to use school facilities, I'd imagine, as Texas pointed out.
Also on the subject of time: is there any way to equalize the billion inequities in different students' lives? If one kid can afford private lessons in music, sports, or whatever, he/she is liable to beat out others for positions. Maybe we should ban private lessons. If one kid wants to do sports and music, but will have less time for each, maybe we should mandate others can only practice each discipline as much as that student has time for.
NHS is dependent on school grades. If you're not receiving them, why would you want to take part?
Overall, vjj, you are bringing up what are easily settled administrative issues. I don't understand the substance of your opposition.
| By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit |
I see the point on age (although there are certainly HS kids over 18, Achat!). Is that the case -- if I am an adult (say 25) and never finished HS, I cannot go back and do so at a public school? Or is it that once I have a HS diploma, regardless of my age, I'm shut out of public school? So if I'm 25 w/o a diploma, I can use the school?
But on the picking and choosing, I guess if I were a public school teacher or administrator I'd be concerned about potentially thousands of kids wanting to tailor their participation in public school courses and programs to meet their individual needs. And that seems like it could be an administrative nightmare, something the school may not be well set up for (not to mention hard to keep track of).
I have to say I haven't really thought about these issues much. But for those interested, the washington post website has an article by Jay Matthews today about homeschooling misconceptions. I didn't read it, but those more interested may want to.
| By Silvermyst (Silvermyst) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:09 pm: Edit |
In Alaska, school receive money from the city/state based on enrollment. It doesn't matter how many people in a certain district pay property taxes, the formula is based on enrollment. I would check the formula for the different cities and states. Perhaps this is where some of the animosity is coming from. The schools aren't getting money for the homeschooled student and therefore want to be forced the share already limited resources. The homeschooling families are paying taxes that should enable them to have access to additional resources.
In my city there is a non-profit group that formed to help homeschooling familiers with these issues. The group claims to have better resources than the local schools. I only know a few families that homeschool, but they seem satisfied with the situation.
| By Garland (Garland) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit |
Rhonda, I believe that in most school systems, you can attend HS till 21 to get a diploma. After that, you'd need to go the GED route.
| By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit |
Thanks, Garland -- you learn something new every day! 
| By Dennis (Dennis) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit |
I hardly think the article can be said to be factual. Certainly the statement by Schlafly that "The only thing this powerful and wealthy union fears is homeschooling" is her hyperbolic interpretation. The article purports to be an account of what happened at the NEA convention. I'm not about to accept that this account is accurate and fair until it is verified.
It may be that the NEA adopted this position regarding homeschooling and extracurricular activities. But this is hardly a priority in the NEA agenda. Go to the NEA website and you will find very, very little mention of homeschooling. If you examine closely the NEA's current legislative priorities you will see nothing there about homeschooling and nothing about abortion, Fahrenheit 9/11, statehood for DC, etc. It does mention briefly national health insurance (which I certainly see as an important goal for our nation) but the vast majority of its priorities have to do with, guess what, education.
Now, I don't have a firm position on homeschooling and extracurricular activities as I haven't really considered it till now, but I can see how teachers might be concerned. Schools tend to try and build a sense of community amongst students based on common values, common goals, and common experiences in an educational setting. Norms and expectations are set out in a given school community and students are expected to comply. Participation in extracurricular activities are governed by certain school rules regarding a student's behavior and performance in school. In other words, there is some connection between what happens in school and in extracurricular activities. I can see how teachers, coaches, administrators, etc. might be uncomfortable with kids who have no other connection to the school all of a sudden showing up to play on the football team or sing in the choir.
On a final note, I am saddened by the NEA bashing that is going on here. It seems this is becoming more and more the norm in some circles. It's strange to find it here because I would have thought people concerned with the educational success of their children would have a greater appreciation for the men and women who provide that education. It's no wonder fewer and fewer people want to pursue teaching as a career.
| By Mini (Mini) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:53 pm: Edit |
I don't have much more I want to add at this point (it would be pages and pages long) except that I yearn for the day when EVERYONE can go about picking and choosing. Instead of resenting the homeschoolers (who don't in actual fact actually get to pick and chose very often), public school parents should be up in arms demanding the same right.
If schools were like libraries, we wouldn't be homeschooling.
| By Jenniferpa (Jenniferpa) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 03:59 pm: Edit |
I really think that anyone who feels that teaching is a sinecure (and I'm excluding present company) should HAVE to homeschool for a while. It really gives you an appreciation for good teachers, although on the flip side, it can make you realise how bad some teachers are. The same goes for anyone who thinks the homeschooling option is the easy choice. From my experience there are downsides to public, private and home schooling, and we've done all of those. They also have advantages. Sometimes it seems like everyone who knocks a particular choice feels like someone (or someone else's child) is getting a better deal than them, and much of the protests relate to this.
Let's face it, there are few choices that we make that do not have potential downsides. Very simplistically, if you homeschool, you tend to get less socialization but more personal attention. If you go the other route that is reversed. We all wonder if we've made the right choice for our children, and unfortunately there's no way to know, unless they grow up to be axe murderers. It seems a pity that there is an all or nothing attitude about this in some communities, when really, all we are all concerned about is obtaining a quality education for our children.
(Climbs off soap-box.)
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit |
Dennis
Is it really that hard to find some corroboration on what happened at the NEA convention? The resolution 67 is not a 2004 resolution and has been on the agenda for many years. A simple google search would reveal hundreds of sites that have voiced concerns about the NEA position. I assume here that anyone who would utter the slightest criticism will be considered as a blatant basher of the teaching profession.
Throughout several threads on CC, we have discussed similar issues. Quite a few among us, have no problem reconciling our profound distaste for left-wing "entities" such as the NEA and recognize that a majority of teachers deserve our full respect. Yet, every bit of report of abusive practices or outright fraud always end up categorized as attacking the entire profession. Is it really that hard to understand that parents and students DO witness horrible behavior and have the right to speak up? From an outsider point of view, I cannot understand why the NEA and other unions are so interested in protecting the apples that are rotten to the core that sully the image of the entire profession.
It is because we CARE about education that we voice our concerns. There is no dichotomy in this position.
As far as the comment on schools trying to foster a community spirit, I assume that your position is that the homeschooled can only part of the community where they live IF they comply with the school board vision. Nice way to establish a community!
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit |
Another right wing report:
In mid-October, CBS Evening News broadcast a condemnatory two-part report called "A Dark Side to Homeschooling" in which CBS "found dozens of cases of parents accused or convicted of child abuse or murder who were teaching their children at home." CBS exposed its own bias against homeschooling in attempting to discredit this growing form of education by broad-brushing the entire movement. In his introduction to the story, Dan Rather blared that CBS had "uncovered a dark side to this largely unregulated system of education." The report continued by exposing a handful of isolated, egregious examples of child abuse committed by homeschool parents. (Sources: WorldNetDaily.com & Focus on the Family.)
Caveat: This is not a diatribe against school teachers. My own mother has taught in public schools for more than three decades, and I have many friends and acquaintences who teach in either public or private schools. My wife and I have entrusted our own son to a terrific kindergarten teacher at a local Christian school, and I attended public school myself for thirteen years. I owe what writing ability I do possess to the encouragement of a very dedicated English teacher with whom I was blessed during my junior and senior years. And my love of American history stems from seeds that were planted while I was a high school senior by a man who taught that subject with great understanding, knowledge, and humor.
Homeschooling provides a very clear distinction between liberal and conservative ideology. To start, homeschooling is anathema to liberalism. This is not to say that all homeschool parents qualify as conservatives, but the autonomy sought by these parents is certainly championed by conservatives. Liberals tend to view homeschooling as a threat, given the CBS characterization of homeschooling as a "largely unregulated system of education." The key word is "unregulated." Owing to their paternalistic view of government, liberals believe most everything should be regulated.
There is no one who views homeschooling with more disdain than the National Education Association (NEA). In its non-binding Resolution B-67, the nation's largest teachers' union, in an arrogant, elitist assertion of educational omniscience, states "The National Education Association believes that homeschooling programs cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience." The resolution continues with four additional commandments.
NEA: "When homeschooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state requirements."
There's the demand for government regulation. In the eyes of the NEA, parents -- even if they are certified teachers -- are without exception disqualified from determining the educational requirements of their own children. The all-knowing government must instead make such determinations.
NEA: "Homeschooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being borne by the parents/guardians."
Again, the NEA desires to cage home-school parents with the shackles of government regulation. In the NEA's brave new world, homeschool families would be isolated, parents could not invite outside experts to provide instruction, and parents would not be allowed to accept outside monies to assist them.
NEA: "Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used."
So, although my wife and I both hold Bachelor degrees, the NEA deems us unqualified to homeschool our own child -- even in our fields of major -- because we do not have teaching certificates. (By this argument, Albert Einstein would have been unqualified to teach physics or calculus to his children without a state teaching license, too.) Even if we were licensed teachers, the NEA believes we would still have to use a state-approved curriculum.
NEA: "The Association also believes that homeschooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools."
Yet nowhere will you hear the NEA argue that homeschool parents should be excused from paying the taxes that support the public schools the NEA believes it owns. (Homeschool advocates place the number of homeschooled children in America at around two million. Given the average annual cost of public education in the U.S. runs roughly $8,000 per child, homeschooling saves taxpayers some $16 billion per year. Yet there's not even a "thank you" from the NEA.)
So why the clash between the liberal establishment and homeschooling? That will be the topic of the next Right Minded.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit |
This is the second in a two-part column about homescooling. In the last column, I discussed the clash between the liberal establishment and homeschooling. This column I'll cover the reasons for that clash.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, the top ten reasons parents choose to homeschool are: 1) they can give better education at home; 2) religious reasons; 3) poor learning environment at school; 4) family reasons; 5) to develop character/morality; 6) they object to what the schools teach; 7) school does not challenge the child; 8) other problems with available schools; 9) student behavior problems at school; 10) child has special needs/disability.
One mother who posted a recent letter on Dr. Laura Schlessinger's website encapsulates the aversion many parents develop toward public schooling, as she tells "When I heard about public school policies informing parents about sex surveys or the age of which my child would be approached about the subject of sex, I checked it out. Unfortunately, I have found all this to be true. Not only does the school not wait for the parents' permission to begin teaching child sex education, but at the tender age of 5 and 6, the school has had an abortion doctor come to speak to the children about 'private parts.'"
And so the mother, identified only as "Jennifer," took action. "My children spent their last day in a public school last Friday and my husband and I signed up for homeschooling on Monday. I will continue my college studies and with the help of my husband we now have control over what is taught our children and at what age. I sleep better at night knowing that their future is COMPLETELY in our hands...."
Parents who choose to homeschool are often asked the stereotypical question "Aren't you concerned about your child's socialization?" Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute has conducted a survey of 7,300 homeschooled adults. He reached two interesting conclusions: homeschooling produces more active citizens, and it produces Americans who tend overwhelmingly to hold conservative values. (Source: Art Moore, "Survey: Homeschoolers new political force refutes 'socialization' concerns posed by thinkers in academia," WorldNetDaily.com, October 23, 2003.)
And this is where the worlds of the NEA and homeschooling collide. Says Dr. Ray, a "very large proportion [of homeschool families] follow a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview and believe in the founding concepts of liberty and limited government along with active participation by citizens." Such concepts are shared by very few in academia, where much of the criticism of homeschooling originates.
To summarize Dr. Ray's study, adults who were homeschooled are far more likely to participate in community service activities, belong to churches and other organizations, attend college, and participate in politics. And 95% of the homeschool graduates say they are glad they were taught at home. Dr. Ray's study (along with common sense) effectively counters the supposition that schools operated by government-certified teachers know better than parents how a child best acquires knowledge and a worldview.
I therefore contend the NEA's hostility toward homeschooling (and private schooling and vouchers, too) is borne out of fear. In the liberal mind, if you can't beat it, regulate it. The NEA, which has a great deal of influence over public education policy, would have mandatory public education from preschool through senior high. Its objective is not to provide America's children with the best possible education, but, in a totalitarian sense, to control the substance that shapes their minds. Children who are removed from the grasp of the NEA and liberal policymakers are children over which they have no control. This is why the NEA recoils with horror at homeschooling -- its successes notwithstanding -- and demands stringent regulation.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 04:41 pm: Edit |
There are so many components to education; teachers are only one. There are federal and state requirements; there are school boards, superintendents, principals, curricula (not always of teachers'choosing), students and parents. For example, as dismayed as I was by my S's 5th grade teacher's lack of advanced math knowledge, I recognized that it was a priority for the school to have someone strong in the teaching of English/Language Arts. As time-consuming and frustrating it has sometimes been to advocate for my child, I also recognize that schools are not run for the outliers, but for the average student. In every case, my S's teachers have done their best. The great majority of them were not in favor of heterogeneous classes that put together students who could only read at 3rd grade level and students who tested above the national average on the SAT. It was a decision made by the principal, endorsed by the superintendent and the school board. But it was the teachers--who had received no training in how to handle such disparities--who had to implement that pedagogy.
Most of my S's teachers have been opposed to the plethora of tests, most of which have no utility because results come far too late to help with placement, but they have had to focus on the things that are going to be tested to the detriment of what will not. They have had no voice in making that decision.
Xiggi: I don't know how many bad teachers you've encountered. I can truthfully said my S has had only one teacher who was not a good fit for that class though she was dedicated and well-liked; I complained and she was reassigned. The greatest problem has been the fairly high turnover among teachers. Some have been fresh out of school, some came in from other professions and quickly found how exhausting it is. And yet, our turnover rate is probably better than in many other districts in the country. The biggest problem is not keeping bad teachers in the profession. The biggest problem is teacher retention. We don't have a teacher shortage; we have a teacher retention problem.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit |
>>Homeschooling provides a very clear distinction between liberal and conservative ideology. To start, homeschooling is anathema to liberalism.>>
Xiggi: What hogwash! I consider myself a liberal and have absolutely nothing against homeschooling. I would homeschool if I were capable of it both financially, educationally and temperamentally.
>>but the autonomy sought by these parents is certainly championed by conservatives.>>
Is this why this conservative government has imposed the ill-funded NCLB? My child's teachers supported his desire to take APs and did everything they could to adjust the schedule. It was the DOE (we do have a Republican governor, you know) that reminded me that all 10th graders must take the MCAS (who cares that APs are scheduled at the same time?) Where is the autonomy?
This diatribe is not worth reading further. Sorry.
| By Mini (Mini) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit |
Xiggi -- nice job, except you haven't described me, or the thousands of homeschoolers I have spoken to over the past 5 years.
For the record, I am well, well to the left of liberal (in case you haven't sussed that out already). The NEA position in fact correlates with the position of state governments and state constitutions in the most conservative states in the country -- that the state, not the parent, but the state is ultimately responsible for the child's education. We can say or think what we like - but most state constitutions are very clear on this point. It's true in Texas, it's true in Arizona, and it's true in Washington. And it's been true since Horace Mann came home from Prussia, having visited the public schools when they were closed, and caused an educational revolution as a result.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:17 pm: Edit |
I try to read beyond the labels and try to read from all sides. I DID write on top of the quote article that it was another right-wing report.
On a personal basis, I do not believe that our issues in education should be defined along entrenched political values. Should we assume that all liberals favor a public education and all conservatives favor a private one?
Is a person who believes in private choices a liberal or a conservative? What happens when the private choices are pitted against government regulations? You tell me!
Again, I may be naive but I believe that the choices made by families to opt for homeschooling transcend the political ideologies. The position of denying homeschoolers certain choices and privileges by attepmting to use regulations is a political statement.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:23 pm: Edit |
Xiggi:
As others have pointed out, whatever the position of the NEA, it's state regulations that govern homeschooling. Teachers have practically no input in this matter.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:30 pm: Edit |
A teethless monster is still a monster.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:42 pm: Edit |
Xiggi:
reserve your wrath for those who do have teeth, like those that told me the MCAS was more important than APs (try telling that to colleges)
| By Optimizerdad (Optimizerdad) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:48 pm: Edit |
Marite:
All right, I'll bite :-) - what's an/the MCAS?
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit |
Darn, I had to jump to google to find ou what MCAS were.
For a second I started to think that your youngest son was applying to medical schools since math had become so trivial.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit |
Hehe, I am not the only one
MCAS website
| By Dennis (Dennis) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 05:56 pm: Edit |
Xiggi, it is very clear where you are coming from and I don't see us agreeing anytime soon. So, enjoy your crusade.
For the record, one can indeed do a google search and find many sites that don't like the NEA position on any number of issues including homeschooling. I'm sure they're the sites you're using. However, the fact that there are such sites does not say anything about their accuracy or fairness. If the NEA is SO concerned with homeschooling why is there scarcely any mention of it on their website? Why is it not part of their legislative priorities? Go look for yourself.
Also, you either completely missed my point about community-building in schools or are deliberately misrepresenting what was said. My point was that extracurricular activities in schools don't happen in a vacuum. They are bound up with a variety of systems and relationships within each individual school. There are usually rules and expectations that connect in some way one's behavior and performance in school to participation in extracurricular activities. As I said, I can see why teachers, coaches, administrators, and even other students might find it difficult if homeschooled children just show up to play football or sing in the choir when they have no other connection whatsoever to that school.
As well, I find the statement you attribute to "Dr. Ray" ridiculous: "Says Dr. Ray a 'very large proportion [of homeschool families] follow a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview and believe in the founding concepts of liberty and limited government along with active participation by citizens.' Such concepts are shared by very few in academia, where much of the criticism of homeschooling originates."
So let's see, very few teachers are "traditional" (whatever that means) Jews and Christians. This is not true in my experience. But even if it were so, what does that have do with teaching reading, writing and math? Teachers are not there to teach religious values. I expect most parents, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. or even if they are atheists (and they have the right to be if they so choose), would rather teach religious or ethical values at home.
Even more ridiculous is the assertion that most teachers do not share "the founding concepts of liberty and limited government along with active participation by citizens." This is patently insulting and absurd. But I guess it fits well with the loony, right-wing conspiracy theories often floated around talk radio and the internet.
| By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 06:00 pm: Edit |
It's the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment tests, administered to 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10 graders. The Tenth-grade MCAS are the high-stakes test, without which one is denied a diploma. It is used for the purpose of NCLB to assess a school's performance as well. Thus, when a large proportion of my S's 8th grade schoolmates decided to boycott the test, the students were recorded as failing and the school was threatened with being labelled underperforming under the terms of NCLB. My S was taking two APs at the time the MCAS were administered, so he decided to skip them. In July, he received his AP scores for BC Calc and Physics C, Mechanics and Electricity and Magnetism: 5s in all. In November he received his MCAS grades: Failing. We had a good chuckle over this. Suppose, however, he had truly failed the MCAS instead of not taking them, how much good would it have been to him and his teachers three months after school had started? This, however, is what happens to students who are really struggling. It makes remediation so much more difficult to arrange.
Interestingly, the homeschooling movement has been energized by the introduction of the MCAS--the brainchild of three Republican governors. The homeschoolers I know are more like Mini than the conservative, religious homeschoolers found in many parts of the country.
| By Shennie (Shennie) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit |
As a public school professional, I have no problem with home schooling. Most of the kids I know who are home schooled are doing just fine both socially and academically. Their parents are often able to provide them with opportunities, such as extensive travel, that aren't available to public school students. I know several highly gifted musicians who are able to spend more time developing their talents because they are home schooled.
That being said, our state provides very little oversight of home schooled students and I know of a few students who are receiving very poor educations at their home. I think this is a small minority of home schoolers, but it still concerns me because these kids are essentially being neglected, but because there is no oversight, no evaluation, no testing, the kids are at the mercy of their parents. I no more believe that every home schooled kid gets a stellar education than I believe every private or public schooled kid gets one. But at least at the private and public school level, there is some amount of accountability that is not present at all for homeschoolers in many states.
And a word about taxes. You don't pay school taxes to support the education of your own children. We pay taxes to support the education of ALL the children of our SOCIETY. My favorite educational quote is from James Baldwin - "For these are all our children....and we will all profit by or pay for whatever they become."
| By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit |
Interesting thread. I was active with a group of homeschoolers for many years, and was impressed with these families' commitment to giving their children a first class education. I would say those kids were top drawer on academic knowledge, music, sports and any number of special skills because of the personal attention and opportunies made available to them. They also were able to make much better use of their time as they did not have to sit through the many wasted hours that are spent in school, a by product of mass education. I envied them was convinced that was the way to go if the parent could do it.
Many parents cannot. I homeschooled out of necessity for a couple of my kids. I was not one of those enthusiastic homeschool moms with precocious kids and ambitious plans. My kids were the ones falling between the cracks in the system and if I did not do something, they were going to fall far. I found out then, that I was not the only one in this predicament. Many parents end up homeschooling not because they want more time for extra activities and advanced, but because their children are not doing well in school. It could be that they are not doing well because of learning disabilities that were not being addressed in school for all of the legislature and funds being funnelled for those purposes. Maybe it was a behavioural issue. Maybe the kids just could not learn in a group setting. Maybe they were trouble makers that needed to be isolated and tutored. The reasons for homeschool are not just because the kids are so advanced and the schools are not moving fast enough. There were also families with kids that were doing adequately in the schools as far as being grade level in skills, but their parents felt they could be doing better and going further than the system was moving them. The Jay Mathew's take on the US homeschooling movement as having "no leader, and no reigning ideology" is ever so correct.
There is also the darker side of home schooling. There is the parent who is pushing the kid at a breakneck pace, convinced that genius is just a function of nurture, and that nurture means working the kid mericilessly. There is the parent who is willing to sacrifice their kid's academic skills for potential success in a sport, music, show biz,modeling, or just plain work. I've watched in horror as some of these parents have their kids working at some home job--website work, on line work, etc that should be the parents' primary business and a side dish to the kids' entrees of basic academic. Parents do not always have the best intentions for their children which was an assumption I had harbored for a long time. It was a bitter pill for me to swallow, and I did not believe what I was seeing for a long time. At this time, the number of success stories in the homeschoolers I know have been overshadowed by kid who have not passed their GEDs, did not learn enough to crack 1000 on their SATs when they were such bright kids in the earlier grades, and to boot, have lost interest in the endeavor for which they were pulled out of school.Even that group of bright kids that I so envied in that homeschooling cluster, have not turned out so great. Yeah, there is one Harvard kid in there that everyone points to and cites, and a handfull of others that seem to have excelled, but many of them have underperformed relative to their peers that they were beating hands down in middle school. What the heck happened in highschool, I do not know. I see two very bright young girls working their mom's daycare business--yet to take their GEDs, whose education has been community college courses. These girls seemed like such brilliant kids in middle school. Now, they are working for Mom who has trouble finding reliable help, they did not do well on their SATs, had some trouble with some schools and their lack of GEDs (which is one thing I am pushing them to take), SAT2 scores were abysmal as Comm college courses do not often cover advanced highschool material well. And they are not atypical. A larger number than I would think have dropped out of college--could not hack group learning. Overall, the record of homeschools has be not only underwhelming, but frighteningly bad as far as I could see.
Homeschooling is only as good as the parent and child involved. I think what happens is that too many parents, after successfully homeschooling with the kid transitioning into being responsible for the lessons in middle school, leave too much responsible to the kid at the time when they need more accountability and structure. Teenagers are difficult as it is and many are looking to get out of doing the work, and making excuses but a report card of downward trends can warn the parents of this change in attitude. When you are homeschool a so called trust worthy kid, he can fool you and himself for a long time. For those parents who remain proactive and vigilant during those rough years as the subjects get more difficult, and for those kids who truly are self motivated, home schooling can certainly be a custom fit plan that will take the kid further than any "one size fits all" educational system. But high school is often the time to step up parental involvement instead of slowly abdicating the responsibility to the child.
As for homeschoolers being permitted to join extracurricular activities, on a selective basis, there is unfortunately abuse as Vjjones as brought up. In some school districts there are minimum gpa standards that need to be met to participate in sports as well as to get into AP or upper level courses. And as the Blair Hornstein case showed, allowing a homeschooler to be valedictorian has its problems. How the heck can you assess grades when the parent is the grade giver? Part of the trick to getting good grades is performing for all of the different teacher types and styles and consistently doing well despite unfair grader and grading policies. How the heck can a homeschooler be a valedictorian? Top grades do not just showcase the best academian but the most adaptable student as there are many skills needed to do well in high school or any school. Many school districts gatekeep AP courses with the grades being a large part of what is needed to get into the courses. I have trouble with letting the homeschooler with his homespun grades given equal access to this courses. As for non grade based activities, many people oppose homeschoolers' participation in that these activities are part of the community and "team" building within a school and homeschoolers are not part of this team. I don't differentiate between the kid who can barely kick the ball, and one who would be the top athlete either. A school team is one that represents the good and bad and all else that comprises that school--the common thread being that all of the kids go to that school. The fact that the parents pay taxes does not hold any water for me. We all pay those taxes whether we have kids in schools or not. Heck, I am paying a fortune in school taxes and then another fortune in private tuition because I choose not to send my kids to the public school. Though there are some community activities that we do join despite not going to the school, I cannot imagine putting my kid in the public school band because the private school does not have one, or asking if my kid can try out for the highschool basketball team since I pay school taxes. There are districts that do permit this, by the way, on a limited basis, having agreements with other districts to open sports/EC venues to students who do not have programs in their home districts to participate on the other school's team. Some of them are even permitted to combine districts for a team if there are historically not enough kids for either district to field a team otherwise. Districts with those kind of rules should not have problems with homeschoolers joining the same activities, but those who want to keep it a school thing, I feel have the right to do so.
| By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 08:14 pm: Edit |
Dennis~
I am quite surprised that you would know where I am coming from and that I joined a loony crusade.
It is not that important to me to agree with you -or anyone- on this issue. I would prefer to continue to seek solutions and remove the dead weight that prohibits advances and reconciliation. For every lunatic like Dr. Ray, I am sure that we could findless countless counterparts inside NEA. I am not holding my breath to see the NEA cleaning its house, abandoning its political aspirations, concentrating on improving the education of our country, and eventually earning a little respect from outside its blinded by self-interest constituency.
| By Dennis (Dennis) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit |
Well, Xiggi, I never thought it very likely you would agree with me. But if you are truly about "seeking solutions" and finding "reconciliation," this is an odd way to go about it. Demonizing the NEA via extreme right-wing ideologues like Schlafly and Dr. Ray is hardly a step toward dialogue and mutual respect.
I would be interested to know what exactly about the NEA's agenda you find so terrible. Go to its website and read its positions on issues and see its list of legislative priorities. Here they are:
1)Education Funding: Increasing federal funding for for key programs, including Title I, IDEA and Pell Grants.
2) IDEA/Special Education
3) Changing aspects of NCLB
4) Educator Tax Relief
5) Reauthorize the Higher Education Act
6) Head Start
7) Child Nutrition
8) Career and Technical Education
9) Health Care
10) Literacy
This hardly seems like a radical, left-wing agenda and has EDUCATION as its main focus. Though I'm not an NEA member, I'm certainly in favor of most if not all their priorities. Which ones exactly represent blinded self-interest?
| By Calmom (Calmom) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 09:29 pm: Edit |
Good post, Jamimom. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
| By Tabby (Tabby) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit |
Re: I think we all require a swift kick in the rear from time to time, and standardized testing is a swift kick for the teachers, as much as they might hate it.
and
As far as their having to "teach to the test", they're wrong. If they're spending all their time doing that, they're making a big mistake. They just need to teach the basics, and teach them well. The test will take care of itself.
Chavi: Your swift kick statement is very off-base. I'm a public school educator who works extremely hard, and your sweeping generalization that we need a "kick" is very frustrating to those of us who put forth tremendous effort day in and day out to meet our students' needs. We don't need an asinine test like the ones generated by NCLB to "kick" us. I must also tell you that I can't stand the NEA and agree with very little of their ideology. Our common hatred of NCLB is our only bond.
I also need to let you know that the idea that "the test will take care of itself" is a myth. I have seen some otherwise satisfactory students do poorly on the high stakes test in our state because of its extreme focus on higher level thinking skills, instead of testing whether or not a student has mastered grade level expectations. This frustrates me to no end. The high stakes test is also a holy nightmare for dyslexic students. I know this from personal experience with one of my children.
| By Dadx (Dadx) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit |
I thought it was a list of eyes open self interest.
You can't get too riled up about these things. They are who they are. Its a public employees union. They perform an important, necessary service, but one that might be doable privately, unlike the police and the fire department.
The realization of this by the NEA and the fact that people are opting out of the system and having some success is a very troubling factor. In any case, I suspect that a court ruling would kill their ability to limit extracurriculars.
| By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit |
Hey Xiggi. . .Phyllis Schafly, WorldNet Daily, Focus on the Family, Dr. Laura. . .how could you leave Human Events, National Review Online and the Weekly Standard out? Don't you know what "fair and balanced" means?
A simple google search would reveal hundreds of sites that have voiced concerns about the NEA position.. . .familiar with the concept of an echo chamber?
| By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 03:27 am: Edit |
Our two daughters were home schooled K-12. I've met few professional teachers---unionized or not---that weren’t at some level horrified and/or personally threatened upon learning of our little home school project.
The horror, shock, fear, and suspicion started when we purchased our first Calvert course and continues to this day. These same teachers were not any more charitable when our daughters were accepted into good colleges, and I have no reason to think that graduation from these colleges will make those teachers any more comfortable with the feeling that their profession had nothing to do with our daughter's preparation for college. They miss the point, of course. Their profession had everything to do with it----just not them personally. Professional teachers prepared the Calvert curriculum we used. Professional teachers wrote every textbook we ever used.
If you search very carefully, good curricula and textbooks can be found. Good teachers are a bit harder to locate. Ahh... but try finding a good classroom in an American public school---where a good curriculum, textbook, and teacher can come together to produce good education! State and federal agencies, school boards, unions, and a host of other factors conspire against good classrooms---at a level that approaches national scandal.
Parents can (and often do) provide excellent classroom situations at home for their children which more than compensate for the parent's lack of teaching credentials.
I have little doubt that the NEA can produce enough fog to significantly undermine parents desperate efforts to educate their own children. Desperate? You really don't think we would have gone through all the trouble to home school our girls if we weren't desperate, do you? When our girls were toddlers, we took a long hard look at our local public schools. That was all it took to convince us.
| By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 08:36 am: Edit |
Morgantruce:
Not every public school is as bad as yours seem to be. I think of my S's 7-8th grades social studies teacher who spent two years teaching English in Taiwan and continues to keep up-to- date on Chinese studies so that she can teach a unit on China; or her colleague who regularly visits the Middle East and teaches another unit on that region. I think of another teacher with a B.A. from Tufts and Ph.D. from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who is teaching 6th-grade because he loves teaching young kids. He began as a volunteer in kindergarten to study how young children acquire literacy; he is responsible for getting my S to read chapter books (beginning with the Red Wall series) in 3rd grade because my S liked him so much he was willing to read long books in order to be in his reading group. I am thinking as well as my S's biotechnology teacher, with a Ph.D. from Tufts and a stint at the Draper Lab, who regularly asks for help from her former colleagues on behalf of her students. I am thinking of the social studies teacher with a Ph.D. in anthropology about whom my older S wrote his college application essay. There are more, but you get the idea.
Our schools have problems, some that were created at the district level, some due to state and federal mandates. I have spent quite a bit of time making sure my Ss received an appropriate education. I have encountered some teachers who were inadequate, some because they were inexperienced, some because they were burnt out. I have also encountered phenomenal teachers;I've even been instrumental in hiring some of them. They are not all out of the same mold, just as schools are not all the same. I've had conversations with the head of our local teachers'union. I am glad to report that he is very commonsensical and keen to cooperate rather than to confront. He is also very different from his predecessor.
Not all schools are the same, not all teachers are the same, not all union members are the same, not even all union heads are the same.
| By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 08:59 am: Edit |
I hope I didn't give the impression I thought they were.
On the other hand, I do think that the school and teachers you describe are the exception in America rather than the rule.
| By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 09:11 am: Edit |
Morgantruce:
I know you did not. Perhaps you are also right that our schools are quite different. From what you have posted before of your area, I might sorely be tempted to try homeschooling, too. As well, I know some families who homeschool because their child have learning disabilities and others who do so because their child's level of giftedness cannot be accommodated by the school system.
Interestingly enough, some of my S's best, most hard-working teachers have different takes on their union membership. One has been (and perhaps remains) a shop steward. Another has said in my hearing that she did not think the union represented her (that was when it had a more confrontational head who saw his job as protecting his members).
| By Jenniferpa (Jenniferpa) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit |
It's interesting, Morgantruce, that you experienced those kinds of reactions from professional teachers. When I pulled my son from the public school, the reaction of the teachers that knew my son were overwhelmingly positive. The only real exceptions were the teacher from whose class I removed him (surprise, surprise) and the school principal. Others were so supportive that they were offering on-going advice and curricular suggestions: two teachers who knew my son best said they thought I'd made the right decision. It made me realise that, unhappy as we were with the situation, there were those inside who were equally unhappy.
| By Garland (Garland) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:15 am: Edit |
"It made me realise that, unhappy as we were with the situation, there were those inside who were equally unhappy."
As I mentioned above, the band director of our HS, who was my son's mentor, role model, and source of inspiration, and who in many ways was the main reason he stayed there, homeschools his own kids.
| By Dadx (Dadx) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit |
For those interested in union and educational matters there is a WSJ column today about alternative teachers unions gaining membership. It begins on the front page. I was unaware of most of its information.
| By Texas137 (Texas137) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit |
Education bureacrats may be generally hostile towards homeschoolers. But I don't think that's generally true of actual classroom teachers. Our local homeschool support group includes many, many teachers homeschooling their own kids. Who knows better than classroom teachers what the negatives are to that form of education? In 11 years of homeschooling, I haven't had the experience Morgantruce describes of negative reactions from teachers generally. I had one teacher ask me for info on the support group that she could pass on to her sister. We have families in our support group who are homeschooling because a teacher at their child's school suggested it as the best way to meet their kids needs (usually highly gifted kids who have maxed out their schools but are not developmentally ready to be skipped multiple years ahead).
| By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:39 am: Edit |
I'm hard pressed to name friends in our social circle who are not professional teachers. A few have even home schooled their own children.
Teachers are not unlike other people who work for a living.
A fully certified ASE auto mechanic is interested to hear how you replaced the clutch in you own car. He is not interested in discussing how you think his business ought to be run.
| By Mini (Mini) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:19 am: Edit |
My mother was a 35-year New York City schoolteacher (who spoke to me like was 6 until I was well into my 40s.) When we first told her we were homeschooling, she looked my wife and I in the eye, and said, "That's GREAT! Don't you think I know what goes on there?"
| By Dennis (Dennis) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:56 am: Edit |
Wouldn't it be fair to say that it is dangerous to generalize about what "all teachers" or "most teachers" think about homeschooling based on one's own limited experience? Judging by the above posts, people have had a variety of experiences in this regard and we are just a tiny fraction of the general population.
| By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit |
Allow me, if you all please, to weigh in to the homeschooling issue:
I am a product of part homeschooling, part public school. I was homeschool until grade 9, upon which my mother sent me to public school.
I was born in the Bronx, and lived there until the age of 8. My mother let her family know at the last minute that she was deciding to homeschool, and by that time they were beginning to wonder at what was going on. My mother took my twin sister and I aside one day while we were playing and informed us that she was quitting her full time job to homeschool us. Although we were not fully aware of the implications of that decision, we were overjoyed. My grandmother, however, and other members of our family, insisted that my mother was making a huge mistake. How could she teach us with no training and only a high school diploma?
My memories of the early homeschooling years are a little mixed. My father (though he didn't reside with us) supported our family financially, but we did miss the income. There was a couple of rough bumps here and there when my Dad would not fully cooperate, but for the most part we were fine. My mom was a big believer in phonics and began teaching us to read at the age of 4. As a child I remember spending long, tedious (sitting down for long periods when you are that young feel bothersome, but I appreciate now) going over old-fashioned readers and learning the number line. Nevertheless, our learning progressed at a desirable pace and my mom was encouraged.
We joined a homeschool group known as the Brooklyn/Queens L.E.A.H. (for Loving Education at Home). She picked this particular one over other chapters, because of the general feeling that she got by visiting them. Most of the members were middle to upper-middle class whites and we pretty much stuck out like a sore thumb, but we were treated so warmly that I looked forward to every meeting. NY has strict rules about testing and regulation for homeschoolers, but the LEAH helped us out with it all. Every year, I took the Stanford Achievement Test with other LEAH member children, administered by the parents. My mother was very serious about results from this test, which assesses skills in various disciplines, as well as listening skills. It is administered over three days (which can be exhausting for children, but it is a yearly, unavoidable affair). All LEAH kids scored well on the exam, including my sister and I. LEAH kids were amazing, it wasn't atypical to hear that someone's S or D had scored above a 1500 on the SAT's.
We scored consistently about two grades higher on average than our grade level. My mother often brandished the results as proof to our family that we weren't receiving an inferior education.
My mother was a very intense schoolteacher and it showed. I remember once scoring on an average level in a reading comprehension subsection. My mom purchased a whole set of books designed to boost reading comprehension skills and added it to my personal list of classes. She also was a big spelling/vocabulary fanatic and continued teaching it as a separate class until 8th grade. I did 120 math problems a day, without a calculator, because she didn't allow one. I realized the fruitfulness of that rule when I saw my fellow high schoolers scrambling for a calculator to make simple calculations. Another thing she was a stickler for were the daily writing assignments. I freely admit that she often discouraged me in my writing simply because she had so many criticisms. Nevertheless, she sharpened my writing skills dramatically.
Despite all the work I was given, the way my mother designed our homeschool helped to foster within me a lot of sincere intellectual curiosity. I frequently did independent projects in subjects such as anatomy and human physiology, which delighted her.
The grading was also very rough. The year before I entered high school, I had a C+ average in math. During high school, I never received less than a 95 in any math class, ever. My extra preparation in homeschool helped me to skip two grades of math in high school.
My transition to high school, needless to say, was rough. My high school was typical of the inner-city with under-prepared students and large classroom sizes. A lot of the kids I went to school with had family with really severe problems, and in turn, they had severe problems. It is amazing the sheer quantity of kids that I knew in high school that weren't living with their parents anymore, or living with them intermittently. Fights between students would cause them to rush out of the classroom and cheer. I was myself assaulted by a fellow student during freshman year (something I haven't told my mother to this day).
I experienced varied reactions to homeschooling from administrators. My asst. principal rolled his eyes whenever I mentioned homeschooling, or any benefits that it brought to me, personally. A few other teachers have reactions varying from lukewarm to positive to just downright suspicious. I had a discussion with a teacher who said that homeschooling offended her because it said that any parent could teach their kids, a premise, she said that undermined her years of training and preparation.
My sister faced the same problem at a neighboring high school and was attacked by two different students who claimed that they didn't like the way she carried herself. She dropped out of high school completely, took her GED (received a ridiculously high score) and went to a four-year college.
I, unlike her, stuck it out and here I am today. If I had to do it all over again, I would have stayed homeschooled. Not just because my high school was bad, but I believe that the homeschool setting agrees with my personality in a huge way. Still, I don't occupy my mind with what could have happened, I choose to focus on all the things that I've learned from my experiences.
My mother is an excellent teacher, because I believe she worked magic with an average kid like myself. I will homeschool my own kids, with her advice, of course.
| By Garland (Garland) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 03:15 pm: Edit |
What a wonderful testimonial, Candi. Your mother must be very proud of you both, and must be a really remarkable woman!
| By Tabby (Tabby) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 03:36 pm: Edit |
Marite, you are so correct. I refuse to join a union because I do not buy into the party line of either of the two most prominent unions in my state. I cannot in good conscience give my hard-earned money to organizations that have beliefs that go against my very deepest convictions. I take my employment as a teacher of gifted elementary students very, very seriously and give 110% to them every day. It frustrates me to hear remarks that "all" teachers are "like this" or "like that", so thanks for your broad-minded and kind comments.
| By Achat (Achat) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 03:47 pm: Edit |
Great story, Candi! Looks like your mom has done a wonderful job with you and your sister.
| By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 03:54 pm: Edit |
Candi:
It must have been particularly hard to go from your wonderful homeschooling group to an underperforming school! Good for you that you managed to keep your eyes on the prize! Good for your mom, too!
Can I ask how the visit with the doctor has gone for your nephew? I continue to keep my fingers crossed for him.
| By Mini (Mini) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit |
Why does all of this have to be about teachers? I don't know anyone who goes into it for the money! Most teachers really care about kids when they enter the profession (though many get very disheartened very quickly.)
My problem is not with "bad" teachers, but with teachers "bad" and "good" trapped within what I personally think is a pretty much dysfunctional system.
But that's not why I homeschool, which has very little to do with schools one way or the other at all.
| By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit |
Thanks for asking, Marite.
He has re-gained most of the weight he lost prior, by the adding of additional rice cereal to his formula. He still gags and spits up large quantities of mucus, but without formula, which is helping him keep on the pounds. His doctor says the cause of the vomiting/spitting up was all on account of the mucus irritating the lining of his stomach. So a good portion of his problems are simply due to mucus overproduction. His doctor says that he feels that he might very well have CF, but a mild form. He says that he can't test a child of only 7 months for the disease, we have to wait until he is a year and a half old, which really makes us feel uncomfortable.
He advised that we not put him in daycare, if at all possible. I feel bad, because Mom has already signed up for classes and told everyone that she will be going to college to get her B.A. Now she is wondering what to do.
| By Reasonabledad (Reasonabledad) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 05:57 pm: Edit |
This is my first post. I find this site and (in particular) this thread very interesting and a little disheartening, because so many posting here have had really traumatic and negative experinces with the public schools. My wife and I removed our two children from the public schools after 6th and 5th grades respectively, and now we homeschool them both. I would like to emphasize that we do make occassional use of the public school facilities. Usually this takes the form of a location where the kids can take AP tests, or PSAT, SAT I, SAT II tests. for those who asked, we pay the full tax burden and the local schools have more money, not less, because we homeschool our children.
We homeschool because we had an unresolvable conflict with the middle school administration over our bright, ADD son, and we simply could not leave him in the clutches of the school's administration. Our daughter dropped out of school the next year because she realized that we were able to educate our children much better than the public school was doing, and she did not want to "fall behind" in terms of learning, by being left in the inferior (as she saw it) program.
This having been said, I can truthfully say that our children never had a bad teacher; perhaps they had a few teachers who were tired of the tremendous effort needed to educate kids, but they never had a bad one. The problems that the homeschoolers I know are reacting to are rarely the result of the teachers: they rest with the process of funding the schools, which is fundamentally flawed.
Simply put, I would like to see an educational system in which all of the education money for each child is assigned to the child, not to the schools, and certainly not to the NEA, which has a fundamental conflict of interest in any issue that trades off quality of education for security of teacher employment. By having the money follow the child, we would be able to reward top teachers, top schools, and top administrators for achieving excellence, and use the "free market" to weed out the poor performers. I suspect that this vision is what terrifies the NEA: teacher compensation being linked to performance, with an exit mechanism for children. The same outcome can come from the use of vouchers combined with rigorous testing, although it will be harder to exit the schools with only these two programs.
But this is the future of superior education for all children in the US. We broke up the telephone monopoly: teaching needs to be next.
| By Emptynester (Emptynester) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit |
"teachers... trapped within what I pretty much think is a dysfunctional system"
well, my homeschooling friends would argue that this system frequently accomplishs very successfully what it intends: creating a society that includes large numbers of adults who can endure almost unlimited amounts of tedium and boring repetitive activities (that may have no apparent worth to the doer), don't think critically and never consider questioning authority.
I don't blame the teachers either!
Mini, are you going to share why you do homeschool?
| By Mini (Mini) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 07:18 pm: Edit |
Heh, heh -- I was the editor and publisher of John Taylor Gatto's book "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling" and wrote the introduction - "The Success of Public Education". But this is not the time or place.
You can read about what I think on my website - I really don't want to clutter up this list here. www.skylarksings.com
Frankly, in retrospect (and I'm getting old), I'm not sure I can figure out who were the "bad" teachers and who the "good" ones -- I can remember those I liked and disliked, and how the ones I liked caused me to become heavily dependent upon them for their praise, which I am not sure, in the long run, did me a lot of favors.
| By Thedad (Thedad) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:50 am: Edit |
Mini, in a sense I'm in direct opposition to you: I'm waiting for the day that public schools are so relatively good that having to make choices outside of neighborhood schools would be relatively rare and for relatively rare reasons.
It's not a bigger challenge than, say, solving the homeless problem.
It does mean, however, that we as a society would have to actually value and make committment to our children, as opposed to offering lip service and token nods. A good education is dependent on parents, teachers, and the students themselves...most of the "solutions" I see overlook at least one part of the triangle.
| By Calmom (Calmom) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:54 am: Edit |
Morgantruce,
My experience with the public schools is exactly the same as Marite's -- I was going to compose my own reply, but quite frankly I couldn't put it better than she did. Of course, my particular anecdotes about the best teachers, or even the special moments with the less than perfect teachers, would be different -- but my kids have had wonderful experiences coming through the public schools & their lives have been tremendously enriched by their relationships with the diverse group of teachers they have encountered.
I think that our experience is very typical, actually. I have spent the past decade of my life working in education and I hear from parents with kids in schools all over the country; I also work with teachers from all over.
Of course things weren't always perfect, and there were some bad teachers and bad experiences along the way. But that's part of life.
| By Ryan2288 (Ryan2288) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:21 am: Edit |
Now I am not a parent, but a student that attends a Public School in the Atlanta area. Homeschooling I think would be a somewhat logical choice for parents from an educational perspective, but I think denying a kid the right to go to school leaves a huge gap in communication skills.
I know a few kids that were homeschooled through middle school, and even today they struggle making friends, finding ways to have fun and struggle with things such as peer pressure. I guess if you live in a horrible academic district it may have more positives, but I guess I feel homeschooling hurts a child more than it helps them in the long run.
| By Reasonabledad (Reasonabledad) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:26 am: Edit |
Ryan2288 - I understand your thought process, but you can't tell what the "real" story is unless you knew those kids before they were homeschooled, and then during, and then afterwards. They may have been even more introspective before homeschooling, which may have been helpful for them, even though they are struggling a bit now in public school. I know many homeschool kids who were failing in public school but who are succeeding in a homeschool environment.
I also know a number of painfully shy kids who needed to be homeschooled for a few years, and then returned to public or parochail schools later, when they could handle it better.
Homeschooling is not for every student, and certainly not for every parent, but where it works, it can work much better than the public schools.
| By Texas137 (Texas137) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:00 am: Edit |
some of the most successful homeschoolers are kids who are so far off the norm that schools cannot meet their needs. Homeschooling certainly didn't cause them to be different. Those kids were probably "different" long before they reached school age. If they had gone to school, highly negative social experiences would have been more likely than positive ones and they might be even worse.
Ryan - homeschooled kids are not "denied the right to go to school". Homeschooling won't work if the kid does not buy into the idea. Most of them are very grateful they don't have to go to school. But some of them want to try school at some point. That would be okay with most of the homeschoolers I know, and many homeschooled kids have tried school. Often it makes them more appreciative when they return to homeschooling.
Rigid overly-controlling parents who are hellbent on homeschooling regardless of what their kids want are probably rare. It's just too intensely personal and hands-on to be inflicted on someone against their will. Who wants to spend day after day in close quarters with a hostile, unhappy kid? It's probably easier to be rigid and controlling if your kids go to school and you don't have to keep it up 24/7.
| By Mini (Mini) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit |
" Mini, in a sense I'm in direct opposition to you: I'm waiting for the day that public schools are so relatively good that having to make choices outside of neighborhood schools would be relatively rare and for relatively rare reasons. "
--
I doubt we are in opposition. I just think there are good systemic reasons as to why that is not going to happen.
But there's always hope. Again, if schools were like libraries, where one could "pick and choose", about 90% of the problems with institutional education would disappear over night.
I'm sure you'd agree. (after all, you're sending your d. to Smith!)
| By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit |
Mini:
I like your library analogy precisely because not everyone agrees on their contents! I don't mean would-be censors.
Take for example the issue of core curriculum vs. general education requirements. There are some, such as Chicago and Columbia, that think students should read the same books because it makes for more meaningful conversations. There are some, like Harvard, who think that students should choose from a broad but still distinct set of offerings. There are some like Yale, that only ask that students take courses in certain fields. Their students may all be reading, but not from the same texts. And then there are schools like Brown that do not have a core or general education requirement. Their students are reading anyway.
In our district, we do have school choice in k-8, and we have 12 programs, each with its own curriculum. Within limits, parents and children can pick and choose. There are drawbacks to this approach, however. When all the students converge into the high school, curricular and pedagogical differences are very pronounced and make it challenging for teachers to build on what students already know and address the needs of all the students.
So everyone can go to a library and pick and choose which book to read. But I also find it equally remarkable that book clubs have mushroomed everywhere, and so many people are willing to take their cue from Oprah on what to read.
This is not meant to be an argument against homeschooling, just a riff on libraries
| By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit |
A number of parents in this thread live in excellent school districts. It's wonderful to hear how fortunate your schools are, but it's less-than-wonderful to hear you infer that even a simple majority of school districts in this country are blessed with classroom situations that are anywhere near what you seem to take for granted.
| By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit |
The vast majority of high achievers come from above average educational environments. Not many 1500 SAT scorers come from poor or inner city schools. Given the fact that CC is heavily populated with such students (and their parents), the perspective on the merits of puplic schools might be highly skewed here.
The fact that the majority of African American parents are for educational vouchers speaks to this fact. I agree with Morgantruce.
| By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit |
Valpal:
School vouchers are a totally different issue from homeschooling. Parents whose children are in underperforming and unsafe schools want the vouchers so that they can put the children into different schools, not so that they can keep them at home and teach them themselves. Few parents have the qualifications or the temperament to homeschool. I am in awe of parents who have the patience to homeschool their children because I don't. Given that, I am indeed fortunate to be in a district where it is possible for a high achieving child to get a good education. As Massdad can testify, however, my school district has plenty of problems; they particularly affect the average and struggling students. And I do not confuse the district, home to Harvard and MIT, with one in an inner city or in the Appalachias.
| By Calmom (Calmom) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:23 am: Edit |
Morgantruce,
I live in what is called a "low-wealth" school district. Per pupil spending in my district is the absolutely lowest in our state. I think that there are many districts and schools with serious problems, and definitely school funding is a significant issue -- in my community, where the majority of families are working-class, mid-level income, fundraising by parents is an integral part of the public school experience. But it is a total myth that the majority of schools and districts are bad -- the myth is fed in part by overreliance on standardized tests as instruments to measure school quality. Those tests don't tell a thing about individual performance or the quality of teachers -- for example, a school that has a strong support program and is successful at mainstreaming most of their students with learning disabilities will end up with lower overall test scores than a school that simply segregates such kids into low-quality special ed classrooms, simply because the school is allowing kids with lesser abilities to become part of the testing pool.
I woudn't presume to tell a homeschooler that I knew more than they about what is going on in their home -- so my question to is, if your kids were never in public school, what makes you think you have any clue whatsoever about what goes on in public school classrooms?
We are not and never have been in an "excellent" school district. My kids and many others attend school in typical districts, where parents who are concerned about education take the time to investigate what choices and options they have, and who work actively to build strong relationships with the teachers and to support the schools.
| By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 09:09 am: Edit |
There is a lesson to be learned in getting the most out of a public school system. Those who can impart this to their children and learn to do so themselves have achieved quite an accomplishment. I am not talking about those districts that are downright dangerous. Those are problems in themselves that need to be specifically addressed. I am talking about the usual, run of the mill public school with its specific lackings and strength.
There is no doubt that bypassing this system and tutoring the child is more efficient. The quality of the materials provided and the individual attention given can reap enormous rewards. Those parents who can do this continuously and consistantly can certainly give their children a tremendous education limited only by what their resources are. The wealthy historically have educated their children that way. A music lesson a day will even get the most tone deaf playing an instrument adequately. Few parents can provide high quality instruction for that many years consistently. I have homeschooled for shorter bursts of time and have much respect for those who have taken this route but can say that a public school is essential for us to have a large population of educated people. To put the responsibility of educating ones children onto the parents is not one most of us can shoulder. Many parents are having a tough time providing the old three squares and a cot.
Vouchers are are a whole different issue, but again you are splitting the children by the savvy and interest of the parents. I work at a school (pro bono) to help the small group of kids there who think they might want to go on to college. This is a school where the parents are really unable to do much for their children and their showing up is a testimonial of sorts. Anyone with any energy and resources would have moved out of this district or put their kids into a public school. These are the "leftover" kids, the breeding ground for the next generation of criminals and public assistance. They need the most help and vouchers would be useless for them. The vouchers would help most those who are the direct opposite of this group; those who are already using many resources and savvy.
In many ways, I am disappointed in taking the private school route. In doing so, I have deprived our family from an important experience in getting the most from what is available, and also deprived the public schools of another take on their methodology. We did it for quality of life reasons and expedience. Education was important for us, enough that we decided to spend the money on more upscale systems rather than trying to deal with what was available. But then there is a segment of our society that can imagine no other way. To stick their kids into a public school is as repugnant to them as it would be for any of us to put our kids in the school where I work.
I believe that homeschooling is certainly a viable option and that the districts should make available their lesson plans and syllabi (?) to those homeschooling. In fact it should be available to everyone. Most of the time, it is not particularly helpful anyways to anyone homeschooling, I have found. They are better off buying into Calvert or some other high quality curriculums available. But permitting homeschoolers to partake carte blanche on the district offerings can be disruptive to those in the system and I believe needs to be assessed on an individual basis. If grades or other class participation is a requirement for entry into something, homeschoolers may not be eligible.
Overall, I think those parents who are committed to homeschooling and who are doing a good job should be commended. The issue I have with homeschoolers is that there is often a "rah, rah" attitude about the endeavor that does not address the realities and difficulties for most people taking on this job. Particularly in the highschool level when the kids start needing some structure and standards and may start being less than honest if they are not being carefully assessed and monitored. To pretend that the pitfalls do not exist is doing a disfavor to many parents who enter this homeschooling mission and end up inadequately educating their children. I have seen this too many times , and the kids involved were very promising kids. Too many of the homeschooling groups harp on the positives and on their rights to exist rather than some of the real issues in this particular choice. I think that homeschooling is a very private decision, and though the NEA and other groups have no business putting impediments in front of homeschoolers, homeschooling groups need to face some of the problems that occur when families make this decision.
| By Kissy (Kissy) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 09:13 am: Edit |
I don't see school vouchers as a totally different issue than home schooling. I see them as different means to solving the same problem-finding an educational alternative to one's local public school which is not best serving the needs of the student.
Reasonabledad- Welcome to CC! Enjoyed reading your first post.
| By Shennie (Shennie) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:04 pm: Edit |
Jaminmom - What a great post on a difficult topic! I agree totally with your analysis.
| By Reasonabledad (Reasonabledad) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit |
Jamimom - I love your posts: I printed them for a discussion with my family about homeschooling. But one thing you said in passing hits me as wrong: "The fact that the parents pay taxes does not hold any water for me." In context I think you are saying that just because a homeschool parent pays taxes, the homeschool kid does not deserve any special access or rights to get publicly funded educational resources, like EC activities or such. Did i get your point?
Assuming a yes to this question, then I disagree. As you said, we all pay these taxes. But what do we pay them for? I think we pay these taxes to educate all of the kids in the geographic community, not all of the kids using the NEA's membership to become educated. So, my conclusion is that your kids in private school should be subsidized by tax dollars, and perhaps homeschoolers too, to some degree. The "school money" has been seized by taxation to provide education for all of the children in the community. All of the children. Not just those being taught by a powerful union that wants to "own" the income stream. Again, I think the money should follow the child.
Finally, if we did have the money following the child, then some children (with learning disabilities for example) would need more money than others. This allocation would be a painful process, but it would be necessary. Many kids are "left behind" in public schooling and perhaps some in private or homeschooling too. If money followed the child, there would be more options in many communities than exist today for these "left behind" children.
Sorry for the rant. I'll step off of my soapbox now.
| By Valpal (Valpal) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 01:50 am: Edit |
Marite: Yes, I know that vouchers and homeschooling are two very different educational options. The reason why I mentioned Vouchers, is because Morgantruce voiced the opinion that excellent public schools, like those a disproportionate number of CC posters attend, are not the norm in American education. The growing popularity of vouchers, private schools (both secular and parochial), and the homeschool movement, highlight a growing parental dissatisfaction with the constraints and academic discrepancies being experienced at most public schools. The discontent has grown to such an degree, that AfAm parents, who were always public schools' biggest champions, are now voicing the desire for alternatives in greater and greater numbers. And as Candi's mother has demonstrated, some are choosing the homeschool option.
| By Calmom (Calmom) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 06:29 am: Edit |
Jamimom - once again you have written an excellent and thoughtful post. You have also managed to put into words what I have been trying to say, with your reference to the usual, run of the mill public school with its specific lackings and strength and your statement,
In many ways, I am disappointed in taking the private school route. In doing so, I have deprived our family from an important experience in getting the most from what is available....
I would not agree that you have deprived your children - I have a feeling from your other posts that growing up in your family, your children had other opportunities to learn those lessons -- but at the same time you have really summed up one of the most valuable aspects of what my kids gained from their "run of the mill" public school education.
It frustrates me tremendously when people imply that if my kids did well in public school, it must be because I am in an "excellent" district (NOT) - or that somehow we stumbled upon some rare gem of a school. The reality is that I have 2 very bright, strong willed & independent minded kids who went to public schools in ordinary districts and learned to cherish what was good, and tolerate or ignore what was bad. High school has been a very special time for each of them, and I think their public school experiences have afforded them some very special opportunities for excelling academically and developing true leadership skills.
| By Marite (Marite) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 07:29 am: Edit |
Valpal:
The reason I like to keep vouchers and homeschooling separate is because in most cases, vouchers are used to take a child from an inferior school to what, one hopes, is a better school: a school with better teachers, with a clear curriculum, with books for the students, and a safe environment. However, by and large, the structure of schooling will be similar in both cases. Many parents do take their children out of public school because they are concerned over safety issues, but others do so because they object to standard curriculum (such as evolutionism, health education), or because they do not want their child taught in lockstep fashion, or their child has learning issues that cannot be accommodated by a public school, however excellent its curriculum and teacher and however safe it might be.
| By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 08:06 am: Edit |
Every parent of pre-school children has already figured out that sending their children to public school is quite a deal. A school bus provides transportation both ways, lunch is served, some adult will be watching them all day, and they will have lots of other children to play with. Best of all---it's free...well not really free, but you've already paid for it. You begin thinking, "How could I pass up 13 years of cheap daycare that nearly everyone else is taking advantage of?"
But then you begin to notice that a large number of young people in your town could be stars on Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" show---even the seemingly bright ones. Alarm bells sound when you hear them read something aloud one... word... at... a... time and there is a deadly pause at words with more than two syllables. Your curiosity leads you to examine some of the books these children are using in school and find that the biggest thing these books have going for them are the illustrations.
OK... I've seriously misstated the advantages and disadvantages of sending children off to school. A parent however, does not just decide to home school on the basis of it being a neat idea. The deciding factor is usually some variation of, "What are the school's REAL (rather than stated) priorities?" Your own level of skepticism will come into play in answering that question---and what you are willing to do about it.
If I had lived next door to Marite -------Marite gasps! 
----- I would have jumped at the chance to put my girls into such a school system. That however, was not an option for me------ Marite breathes a huge sigh of relief. 
There is an enormous amount of variation in public schools across the nation and, when examining them, we parents are a bit like blind people feeling an elephant. I had previously heard about the graceful sweeping tusks of these magnificent intelligent creatures, but such tusks were simply not on the end of the elephant that I was led to!
| By Marite (Marite) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 09:49 am: Edit |
Morgantruce:
LOL! I'd have loved your Ds to have been with my Ss! Do not believe for one moment that I have not considered the advantages of homeschooling at one time or another, for a variety of reasons. We did have one teacher who did not believe in tracking out of egalitarian beliefs, though she was excellent. She did not realize that holding my child to higher standards in ELA was a form of tracking that she did not allow him for math/science. We did have some mediocre teachers. There was at least one bully. Indeed a couple of my Ss former classmates were recently charged with serious crimes (gasp!).
But, despite our advanced degrees, we do not feel capable of teaching our own children. We can tutor, but that is different. I could never envisage myself spending time by a pond while my kid explored marine life; I just do not have the temperament. And despite what I have written above, our schools are safe.
Lest it be thought that our schools are perfect, our high school has been put on probation. But that has not prevented its top students from being admitted to MIT, Harvard, Yale, Swarthmore, Brown, Smith (yeah!), etc... It was that knowledge that made me think my S could do well at the high school, with some tweaking of his curriculum and schedule. If not for that, I might have joined the ranks of homeschooling parents. Actually, his curriculum and schedule have had to be adjusted to such an extent that he is in some way semi-homeschooled. I really do not want to pit homeschooling vs. public schools and public schools vs. private schools. You do the best you can with the resources you have, and no one ought to have to apologize to others who are not in their shoes.
| By Thoughtfulmom (Thoughtfulmom) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit |
Marite: "I really do not want to pit homeschooling vs. public schools and public schools vs. private schools."
I heartily agree.
I believe that, in some sense, almost all families are homeschoolers, because our children learn so much at home, whether we parents consciously realize it or not! The example we set by our own habits, our discussions at the dinner table, our conversations on long car trips, and countless everyday interactions have a profound influence on our children.
I attended regular schools for all of my own education (K through PhD), but I feel that I learned far more outside school than inside it.
I was inspired by the example of my librarian-poet-chess-playing-amateur-botanist father and my incredibly resourceful practical problem-solving mother.
I have fond memories of long walks through city parks, countless trips to the public library, and special weekend camping trips and mountain-climbing with my dad. I also have wonderful memories of my dad reading to us kids in his rich, deep, resonant voice, long after we kids were proficient readers ourselves. (I still enjoy reading to my own teenage children.)
And I have terrific memories of watching my mother do amazing things with stretching a budget, repairing appliances, building furniture, renovating an old house, etc. (She, in turn, had learned these things from watching her dad, who had an eighth grade education, but was superintendent of buildings & grounds at the Naval Observatory, which is now the vice president's residence.)
Marite again: "But, despite our advanced degrees, we do not feel capable of teaching our own children."
Very few, if any, "homeschooling" parents feel capable of teaching their kids everything they feel they ought to learn. Virtually all homeschoolers I know delegate some of the teaching tasks, especially as the kids grow older. Some homeschooling parents use co-ops, local college courses, outside tutors, apprenticeships in the community, etc. Some children are natural autodidacts and the parents can delegate much of the task of teaching to those children themselves (though, as Janimom cautions, not every child is equally suited to this approach.)
So I think home education is something of a continuum. As I said, I think virtually all families are "homeschoolers" in some sense.
Just about the only parents whom I could say are not homeschoolers at all would be those who send their children off to fulltime boarding school 12 months a year!
For the rest of us, I think it's safe to say that we're all homeschoolers to some degree. And I think we can all agree that parental involvement and example is an important part of our children's education, whether or not we choose to "subcontract" part of their education out for 30 hours a week in a conventional school.
And, by the way, to illustrate yet another part of the continuum, there are homeschooled children who actively volunteer in the public schools as mentors, tutors, and coaches to younger children. There are also homeschooled students who found and lead community youth organizations OPEN to all teens in the community, offering new opportunities for public and private school students, as well as homeschoolers.
It seems to me that it's most productive for ALL parents to support and encourage one another in making the best possible educational choices for their children, given their widely varying individual needs and temperaments, available local resources, etc., rather than arguing that one way is the best for everyone.
| By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit |
None of us approaches parenthood in a vacuum. We all have our own memories of school experiences. Without doubt, my own personal experience in public schools had more than a little to do with decisions I made as a parent.
I grew up living in and around major cities. I attended one grammar school K-6 that really did provide good solid basics to all students. After that I attended four different schools before graduating from high school. Those schools were very wide ranging in terms of quality and purpose. Two schools emphasized sports and the importance of staying out of trouble with the law---although a very large number of those classmates DID wind up doing hard time! Then I put two years in one high school which was of a very high quality; even today, any of us would be delighted to send our children to that school----great teachers, programs, labs, you name it. Today that school still sends its graduates to good colleges. Then I went to another school that seemed very average to me---even back then. So... I have experienced somewhat of a range of public schools.
None of that experience, however, prepared me for what I found in the schools where I now live. I can hear the CC chorus: "Why on earth did you settle there?" Every place on earth has its charms and shortcomings and each of us chooses as we see fit. Preparing a student for college is not a top priority here and the few students who do make it to one of several in-state colleges find it very tough going. The handful of students who have EVER made it to a top quality college (and I AM talking about the normal five-fingered hand....!) are SO rare that their teachers relate to those events with a strange mix of pride and amazement----as if someone they once knew left our solar system. If you haven't guessed by now, football is king here. Parents, teachers, and students pay more attention to football than breathing. You may think you have some idea of what football fanaticism is, but trust me: you haven't a clue!
Do I think schools like this are rare in America? Not at all. You won't find many of them in the suburban culture, but that leaves a lot of territory many of you are not familiar with.
| By Emptynester (Emptynester) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit |
I used to give lots of impressive explanations for homeschooling, K-8, to friends and relatives but the real reason I did it was--- for fun! It was endlessly entertaining and an incredibly self-indulgent experience. I did it for me. But I don't think it harmed my kids. At least, they are polite enough to claim it didn't.
| By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit |
Homeschooling can be a wonderful experience. And lots of fun for the entire family. Our neighbors homeschooled their kids until they reached highschool age and their thick binders which are their records for each year for each child are precious beyond all. I would get tears in my eyes going through them and such envy. This family made a real commitment to the task and reaped tremendous benefits.
My experiences with homeschooling were best left undocumented. It was not a happy time for me or for the child involved. So experiences can vary widely.
| By Texas137 (Texas137) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 02:52 pm: Edit |
>" I used to give lots of impressive explanations for homeschooling, K-8, to friends and relatives but the real reason I did it was--- for fun! It was endlessly entertaining and an incredibly self-indulgent experience. I did it for me."
I really relate to this! I think that matches my experience also. I used to joke that we homeschooled so I wouldn't have to take up golf. And the mental image people have of mom teaching the kids around the kitchen table really does just apply to K-8 (or even K-6). After that, the parents generally start feeling inadequate, at least for some subjects. And the kids are usually ready for either CC courses, distance learning, or independent study. (and if they aren't, you can always put them in school)
I also agree with the poster who pointed out that teenagers may not have the maturity to keep themselves on track without oversight. Even when the child reaches an age where the parent is no longer "teaching" them anything, the parent still needs to be very involved in making sure appropriate things get done.
I also agree with Jamimom that homeschooling is not for everyone. Learning styles, interests, personality differences, childrens' need to become independent, family dynamics, etc all play a role. Unless everyone involved is enjoying it, it won't be a success. And sometimes it works well for one child and doesn't work for another even in the same family. Or it may work well at one age and not at another with the same child.
| By Marite (Marite) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit |
Thoughtfulmom:
I feel that for me, teaching one's children it's bit like teaching a spouse to drive. Some people can do it, and others cannot. It has to do more with my own limitations than with the principle of the thing.
| By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 04:35 pm: Edit |
We made good public schools a priority to an extent that it warped our lives in a way, that and an insistence on a low-commuting time for TheMom to UCLA, an institution she has had no interest in leaving. Side effects including never buying our own residence until recently, including a spell where we lived in a cramped 900 square-foot apartment despite what would have passed for a decent joint income in most parts of the country.
I'm loath to second guess someone else's choices and am a bit hair-trigger about being judged in return...we all make choices.
The upside is that D received a very decent education for grades K-12 and it worked in a context that worked for the family as a whole.
I feel lucky that we were able to line up a set of options that worked for us...there are many places where I would shudder at the public school options within anything resembling a reasonable driving distance.
Continuation Part Two
| By Thoughtfulmom (Thoughtfulmom) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit |
Edit--moved to part 2
Report an offensive message on this page
E-mail this page to a friend
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |