California says "No" to homeschooling

You're right. I should have stayed above the situation.

It is just a bit frustrating to hear from a DL expert that home schooling is dumb. I took it personal since I have seen amazing results with my own son.

I have six kids and have chosen to home school only one of them up until the Christmas break. Sending him back to school has been nothing short of a disaster.

Just to make things clear, Rich was the one that launched the personal comments in his first post.

 

Yes, this is true. I would attribute it to reading ability. Every subject, and therefore every test, is going to require reading. If a student is a poor reader, he or she will not bode well on written tests.

So what makes a student a good reader? Research shows it starts in infancy with parents (or guardians) who provide good care for their children. Parents who actively talk to their children allow them to hear more words than parents who spend little time with their children. The research has shown that children growing up in poverty hear hundreds of thousands of words less than those students who do not grow up in economically disadvantaged homes. There are many reasons for this, but that's a separate issue. Because of this difference in the hearing of words, there is a difference in the students ability to read and write.

Students who are home schooled are most likely in direct connection with their teacher their whole lives. While originally this teacher may have been a parent, now with the development of home school networks, these teachers may be anyone from the community, even public school teachers. (My mother-in-law teachers creative writing and art to home schoolers. She has no degree, but has written several books and has had art shows and such.) Because of the involvement of the teachers with the students in the home school environment, they hear numerous words from an early age, and therefore are able to develop great reading skills.

This does not mean, however, that public school students do not develop great reading skills. They do! Unfortunately, the test scores of these students are averaged in with all other students. Yep, that includes students who come from horrible home lives who have a very poor reading ability because their parents never took the time to work with them.

I teach high school, so I'm separated from this by about 10 years, but this is why Kindergarten is so interesting. Teachers at this age get students who have never seen a book before to students who can read perfectly well. And yet it's their job to fix it. How hard is that!? This vast disparity between Kindergarten students is part of the reason there's a push for state funded pre-K. The belief is that if the public school gets involved in a child's life at an earlier age, they can try to help those at-risk students and boost their reading ability. That's a good idea... but will it work?

Everyone is going to have an opinion about schooling. Just remember to look at all sides and don't make assumptions. (Wow... I never thought all that reading and research I did as part of my MSEd program would come into play in a non-K12 environment!)

 

Home-schooling, to me, should be an available option. Like many other skills and pursuits available to parents, there are some who simply can't master it.

Public schooling fails in part because of a one size fits all methodology and a general lack of available resources to reach any higher standard.

 

Assuming that's true, do you think that those results can be scaled up to the entire population?

I can imagine that a highly motivated core of well-prepared home-schooling activists might do a pretty good job. But do you think that people chosen at random off the street (or out of evangelical churches) would do as well?

Imagine the reverse situation, where there are no public schools and all parents have the responsibility to homeschool their own children. I'd expect a large segment of children to grow up completely illiterate and the majority would probably only receive rudimentary educations.

Now imagine that somebody gets this wonderful idea of starting public schools. Imagine that pilot schools are started with all the advantages: idealistic well-trained teachers, no problem students, brand new facilities. Wouldn't we expect the products of these public school pilot programs to totally and utterly outshine the dismal results of universal homeschooling?

 

From what I have read there are some home schoolers that test really low on national tests. Yet more students test higher han average.

This is much like students in public school -- some are failing. Home schooling is definately not for every student and parent.

Will some parents really screw up? Absolutely yes. But you could say the same for public schools. Teachers are facing more complex problems these days that hinder their teaching ability. Some teachers are just not good at what they do.

My son is much like me in that he learns by doing. You can tell him all day, but he really needs to get involved with his work and ask questions as he runs into problems.

I am not against public schools by any means. Like I said, I have 6 kids in them right now. You have to see that child has specific needs. Public school simply cannot meet each one of those needs since it was design to reach the masses.

My oldest wanted to play high school football, so I did not hesitate to do my best to provide that for him. He's a great kid and deserves to experience things that will help develop him in any way possible.

I like your idea of starting polite schools with well trained, idealistic teachers. I agree that you would see students out do almost everyone under these circumstances. Personally I would like to be able to use my tax dollars to fund my children's education in the way that I see fit.

 

You could learn to use a civil tongue. Why are you so arrogant as to expect anything from anyone? Who are you?

No, my feelings aren't hurt, despite your pathetic attempt to characterize them. I just pointed out your immature lack of netiquette, which you continue to display.

As for your "points," who cares? Addressing them won't change your fundamentally flawed persona.

 

Really? Go re-read it. There is nothing personal in that post. Not a single comment pointed at anyone. Not you, not anyone. I expressed my opinion and gave a couple of observations, but I didn't call out anyone. Now you're using it as a poor excuse for your boorish behavior. Better yet, you're lying in the face of obvious contrary facts. Very nice.

 

I apologize to the DI-ers here for lowering myself and snapping at the wrong moment. It's just not worth it. I should know better.

Rich, your original post in this thread was insulting. I think that is easy to see. If you do not see that I don't really have anything else to say to you.

 

>>


The flaw in the argument that homeschooled kids test better because they make up 100% of the sample- as opposed to the kids in public schools whose averages are brought down by the masses looses water when you compare SAT results. (yes, SAT is strongly influenced by reading and vocabulary) Not everyone takes the SAT, and those who do are potentially college-bound; making the sample nothing less than the upper portion of the graduates.

Since most parents have no special K-12 training, it is my opinion that the significant variable is the motivation of the teacher (parent). Parents are personally invested in their children's success where the hired school teacher is not. I am not saying teachers don't care, I'm saying they are not invested in the child. It's not something the teacher or government can fix- it's just the effect of group schooling.
When a parent potty trains a child, they are wholly invested in the child learning the skill. When a homeschool parent teaches the child to read, it is the same commitment to success. Homeschool parents have an additional luxury that a hired teacher doesn't have- a reciprocal loving relationship.

 

Actually, CA didn't say no. This is a ruling by an appellate court, and since HSLDA wasn't involved because a member family wasn't in the case; HSLDA was not involved in the case. I believe that HSLDA will take the case on at this point, or another family, who is represented by HSLDA, may file suit.

My family is a homeschooling family, and we firmly believe based on our contacts that the vast majority of families who homeschool do so out of love and are capable of providing a quality education by fostering a "Love of Learning." Are there some homeschooling parents who don't provide a quality education for their parents? Of course, but they are in the minority.

As for successful homeschoolers, I count my children. My 16 year old son earned a 49 on the English Comp CLEP (I know - 50 is a pass, but not bad for a high school sophomore), my 15 year old daughter is enrolled at Clovis Community College and has passed the CLEP Analysis and Interpretation of Literature Exam. My younger children all read at grade level or above, and we have developed a "love of learning" culture in our home. IMO, having extremely restrictive homeschool laws is basically saying all homeschoolers must prove their innocence in order to homeschool.

As for some other successful homeschoolers:

http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/articles/052504.htm

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000038.asp

Shawn

 

The statements above are clearly assumptions. Yes, there are teachers who don't truly care about students or invest anything in them. However, I work with numerous individuals who do. I have colleagues who stay after school every day, without any extra pay, to help students. There are teachers who attend every extracurricular activity to be with the students. These are the teachers who are making a difference.

In my school it is obvious which teachers have good relationships with their students. For example, when students in my room behave great, and then turn into pure terrors in another teacher's room, it has to do with their respect for the teacher. Gone are the days when students are taught by their parents to respect teachers and other authority figures. In today's schools respect barely exists, and what remains has to be earned. THIS is why I make every effort to get to know my students. I talk to them in the halls. I attend their sports events. I wish them happy birthday. I do everything I can to make them succeed. It's why I love teaching so much. I love my students. I may not be family, but that doesn't mean they are not important to me, and I am not important to them. If we're going to be spending an hour together each day for a year, we might as well be happy with one another.

Unfortunately, not everyone is like me. There are teachers out there who are downright horrible. The problem is that teaching is an art. There's no perfect way to do it, and not all teachers have mastered teaching practices. There are teachers who have taught for decades who are just pathetic. So it begs the question, why are they still teaching? That's a result of poor administration, a lack of supervision, and an overall lack of teacher candidates who could replace these people. Sure, our administrators could fire all the bad teachers, but then who would be left? Is it better to have a long term sub in the classroom or a poor teacher who can at least teach the content somewhat? That's the decision that many administrators have to face.

However, to assume that teachers don't have a vested interest in their students is a gross fallacy. Even some of the teachers who are horrible at teaching have a desire to see their children succeed. Sometimes WE have more interest in the students than their parents, and often it because of that fact that children are failing. If parents would do their part, it could supplement the schools in tremendous ways! But this does not happen. We get parents with wombs that mass produce children when there is no desire or ability to raise them. Then it's the school's job to "fix" the kids. So are the public schools failing? Partly. But are parents failing? You betcha they are. There are parents out there who don't have that reciprocal loving relationship with their children, and I fear for those kids.

 

YES YES YES YES YES!!!! THIS is what it's all about. The educator MUST foster that love of learning. If it's a public school teacher, a private school teacher, or a homeschool parent, this is crucial to having the child learn. They should learn because they desire to acquire knowledge, not because they are being forced to do so simply to pass some stupid state test.

This love of learning is why I'm constantly dressing up as historical figures in my classes. The kids laugh when I wear tights or ridiculous outfits, but they remember it, and they always ask questions. This is how learning should be done. The educator, whoever it may be, has to be passionate about learning so that they can model this for their students.

Wooo... I love this discussion. Haha... makes me feel like I'm still in my classes with Walden.

 

It wasn't insulting towards you. You chose to respond in the way that you did, then lied about me getting "personal." If you react that way everytime someone has a different point than yours, you are truly an idiot. Personal enough?

 

Here's a short 'San Francisco Chronicle' story about this recent California court decision.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

It's a pretty dramatic decision that caught the homeschooling activists by surprise. The state court of appeals ruled in favor of California law that's been on the books since at least the 1950's, requiring that all children be taught by credentialed teachers. That teaching can be in public schools, in private schools or by private in-home tutoring, but the teacher must have a teaching credential.

The question now is interpreting where DL fits into this. Can the credentialed teachers supervise students remotely while their parents act as in-home teacher's aides? What kind of teacher-student contact, and how many hours of it, are going to be required?

 

That is a good question. I'm sure that subs and aids work in public schools in CA without being a fully credentialed as full time teachers are. You would think that there is a certain amount of time required to be spent with a credentialed teacher. With that in thought, I wonder if there is a way to still home school with limited supervision.

I can't see it being eliminated all together.

 

Actually, Jennifer, I can read perfectly fine. You stated that it is your belief that teachers are not vested in the children that they teach. As someone who works in a K-12 environment, I am telling you that your statement is an erroneous generalization.

 

I'm not sure if this is what Jennifer meant or not, but I would argue that teachers do not have the same level of vested interest that parents do.

I appreciate teachers and all that they do. Especially the ones like you.

Many of the problems that teachers face that hurt the teaching process are not really problems that teachers create.

 

>>

No, I said that parents were personally invested.

 

And with that I would agree with you. I would HOPE that a parent is invested in their child. I know not all are, otherwise we wouldn't have so many dead-beat moms and dads. But for those who take the time to work with their children and help them grow, they are surely invested.

Having our first child 6 weeks ago was a life changing experience. It's amazing how the child appears and you instantly care for them. I honestly don't see how people can have children and then not spend time with them.