Credentialed parents
Much is being made of the California case in which Justice Walter Croskey unilaterally decided that parents have no legal right to home educate. The Wall Street Journal takes Croskey's idea to task and highlights some of the facts about home schooled students.
Not in the least surprising, teachers unions in California are excited about the latest attack on home schooling. Such judicial nonsense will be used to lend credence to the false notion that only certified teachers are capable of educating. The proof that such is not the case abounds within the ranks of public educators, a significant number of which begin their teaching careers through lateral entry style programs. These programs allow college graduates with absolutely no teaching experience or college coursework to enter the classroom unsupervised as full fledged educators. With several years to add coursework and pass the PRAXIS exams, these novice teachers with nary an hour's worth of "classroom management" or "learning styles" undergrad work are paid at the same rate as any first year teacher.
So, which is it? Can you or can't you teach without credentials?
Any teacher worth their salt will admit that educating is an often complex combination of inspiration, dedication, perspiration and even desperation and frustration. It's not something you learn in those ridiculous college courses designed to elevate "teaching" from the blue collar hard work that it is to a "white collar" profession with all the perks and pretentious respectability that implies. Not to mention the power of unionized people living from paycheck to paycheck trying fervently to create false scarcity in order to up their social value.
In the words of an old proverb - Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
Better yet - Those who can teach, do it for free. Those who can't, unionize and pretend they are the only ones who can.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/03/28 @ 12:32 PM — (Reply)
I really don't care what you conservative cranks do with your kids. But teaching is a profession, and a skill, and as such it can be learned. You can be as inspiring as all get out but if you don't know the subject, you ain't teaching jack, and vice versa.It is a profession that deserves respect, and the few perks and small salary it pays. Also as typical with so called conservatives, traditionalists, whatever you are calling yourselves this week, you fail to see beyond your own hate.teaching is complicated. What about Special Ed? I guess we are just glorified babysitters too, huh? I am all for raising standards, but I think home schooling is a kneejerk reaction, however justified, and you are welcome to it, but don't disrespect teaching, or the massive amount of good it can do, or the amount of work it takes to become great at it.
Comment by Rand— 2008/03/30 @ 03:11 PM — (Reply)
And I suppose soldiering is a great profession, right? I mean every time I turn around you cranks are tellin us to lick the boots. I can tell you that killing someone is often a complex combination of inspiration, dedication, perspiration, frustration, blahblahblah. You know, your avatar is very telling. I love the way you guys want everyone who's not in right wing media to shut up, and patriotically shove our heads...talk about pretensious respectability. And with this "support the troops" crud, what do you people think, Mars the god of war sends a check down the 1st and 15th? We all support the troops with our taxes. They work for civilians and should respect us and our right to dissent. Another vomitous phrase is "just let us do our job". I suppose that means killing and profiteering at will. Your support for this president has poisoned you all, and should poison every thread on this blog.
Comment by Rand — 2008/03/30 @ 03:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/03/31 @ 06:15 PM — (Reply)
...and I say that with regards to your posts, not as a direct personal attack on whoever you are; I'm sure deep down you must be a thoughtful, mindful person. That's my guess. The American spirit is both liberal and conservative. You crazy kids have let your hate spin you out of control. I have some values that are conservative. You guys need to get a grip and become thoughtful, mindful proponents of conservatism, not mindless hatemongers. It's nice to vent like this. Thanks.
Comment by Rand— 2008/03/30 @ 04:43 PM — (Reply)
My comments aren't a knee jerk reaction to anything - they are based on personal experiences in the low paying, under-appreciated trenches. There is absolutely no shame in admitting that people can teach wonderfully without a teaching certificate. There is likewise no shame in admitting that many teachers with said certificate are horrible in the classroom.
If you think that a license is required to educate, then ask yourself why 90% of your college professors taught without one.
Think. It's patriotic.
Comment by Cate— 2008/03/31 @ 05:45 PM — (Reply)
P.S. Jesus loves you.
Comment by Cate— 2008/03/31 @ 05:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by riffran— 2008/03/31 @ 07:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/04/01 @ 05:05 AM — (Reply)
Maam, you seem to be saying that teaching is an inherent human ability. For some it may be, but there must be standards, and professional development and accreditation are reasonable. As far as bad teachers, I agree, and those responsibilities lie with administration, to protect children from that. It's not hard to find out who's who. Yes you may need to battle a union, but that again, is a reasonable step in the process. I have had some AWFUL professors, all math wizards are not able to impart knowledge. Also, college population is different from publiuc school's. Different expectations of faculty. I am not a Hillary supporter. Alot of people support her because of name recognition, closely related to a former president, being supported in large part by unthinking partisan reflex, anger. Sound familiar? I am not spewing trash. You right wingers have set the paradigm of hate. I am responding in kind, except I have the truth, compassion, the good, and a higher intellect and you guys couldn't stand to me in a million years with regards to this debate.Just look at your posts here. Nothing but name calling. You got NOTHING. Again, this corresponds to your posts only, and on a personal level, I hope you all are well and successful and wish you no ill. Don't give me that socialist crap either. You don't know me from a socialist, buddy, or a weasel for that matter. I can on occasion smell pretty awful. You right wingers need to step up and accept responsibility for what's happened in this country the last 7 years, have a little bit of honor for once, so we can move on. Conservatism used to be the bulwark against bad government. Pull your heads out. I am not sure is 'Jesus Loves You' taken on some kind of meaning for you Right Wingers now? some kind of backhanded thing? Maybe it has some second meaning in your part of the country? Just curious as to the nature of that response, if you would address that maam.
Comment by — 2008/04/01 @ 09:48 AM — (Reply)
Oh, OK, I just kind of looked at it again, but so you're saying Jesus loves me, and the second part is "...but I don't". OK. And you and the other poster kind of did a double team, like one on all fours behind my legs and the other pushes me from the front kind of thing. I wasn't familiar with that. I don't really think that's very smart, ceding good will like that, even jokingly. On that same note I think it's really crummy for you guys to use kool aid in the context of Guyana to attack someone. It's freaking creepy.
Comment by Rand— 2008/04/01 @ 10:05 AM — (Reply)
You truly are paranoid and need to discuss your issues with a CREDENTIALED therapist.
I said "Jesus loves you" because your comments are filled with anger and I was using humor to highlight the obvious contrast between us. Only one of us is angry on this page and it isn't me ;-) Only one of us has called names, and it hasn't been me. So while you are congratulating yourself on your intellectual prowess, perhaps you should get yourself hooked on phonics and learn to read. Doing so will prevent you from chasing windmills (as you no doubt already know, being as you are intellectually superior, that means fighting non-existent foes) Don Q.
Have a nice day ;-)
Comment by Cate— 2008/04/01 @ 03:19 PM — (Reply)
What's reasonable about taking away how a parent educates their children?
Rand I'm sure you'd be much better off starting your own blog. Your opinions I'm sure would draw many from the other side of the aisle.
A recommendation (for you higher intellect types)...it's much easier to follow your argument if you were to stay on subject.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/01 @ 10:20 AM — (Reply)
I think you guys ( and by that I mean concerned, involved parents, which you obviously are) should be given every latitude with regards to your kid's education. But to tear down the inherent good in the idea of public schools is what bothers me. Just like what you do to the concepts of journalism, or government. These are necessary institutions, and ones which could and should be able to do the Lord's work, but you guys can only tear at them. I damn well expect for the conservative side of the American spirit to take part in every crucial debate in this country; I wouldn't feel at ease if it was all one-sided. It's kind of like how some people get angry at Muslims for not speaking out against radicalism in their church- you guys need to muzzle the lying, manipulative media which has decided to represent you. Then we can get somewhere. Like Dr. Suess said, "Oh the places..." Hint taken regarding the "get your own blog" thing. It's been nice conquering this little corner. I am sincere when i say God bless each and every one of you, and God bless the American spirit. And in this time of division, let us all remember, lest we forget...Bill O'Reilly is a friggin lying creep.
Comment by Rand— 2008/04/01 @ 01:48 PM — (Reply)
Conquer away, Rand. With the kind of unsupported arguments, paranoid and baseless accusations, and circular logic you've exhibited here, people will get an even better understanding of the effectiveness of our public school system.
Comment by Cate— 2008/04/01 @ 03:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/04/01 @ 05:09 PM — (Reply)
I respect teachers....my wife is one...I respect the public school system and those parents who choose the public school system have my support....now can you get the teachers unions to support my right to home school or use a voucher system? Competition breeds innovation and improvement. This is what the public school system needs...not more tax money.
How on the one hand can you say this
you guys need to muzzle the lying, manipulative media which has decided to represent you.
But to tear down the inherent good in the idea of public schools is what bothers me. Just like what you do to the concepts of journalism, or government
Journalists do this to themselves...left and right when they show their bias (O'reilly is not a journalist).
Are you familiar with what Reuters did last year with the Israeli/Lebanon conflict? The doctored pictures? How about Dan Rather?
Telling others to turn their baloney detectors off comes off as the height of hubris.
I wish our country wasn't so divided but politics will not solve the problem. It's a matter of the heart and this is where Jesus does come in.
I wish you God's blessings as well and hope the next time you drop in on someone else's virtual porch you'll use some tact and be more courteous.
Cate is civil especially to those who disagree with her. Her and I have had many discussions in which we've disagreed, but I love Cate. She's will bend over backward to get along with those who disagree with her. Try it. We'll all benefit from some mutual understanding even if we disagree.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/01 @ 04:24 PM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/04/01 @ 05:02 PM — (Reply)
Your last sentence is excellent and says it all, Cate. Good one.
Good piece. z Good difference of opinion, too.
Rand...Muslims are NOT in 'churches'
Comment by z— 2008/04/01 @ 07:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by riffran— 2008/04/01 @ 09:52 PM — (Reply)
Well I...guess I didn't realize how important dodge ball is to some people. Point taken in regards to the virtual front porch thing. I have to say at this point that I have on more occasions than I have allowed my mind to remember, looked inside myself and thought "what a jackass you truly are, Randy. Geez-lou-friggin-weeze." It's true. Not necessarily with regards to politics, but other stuff. I am angry, I guess. Hmmm. The interaction here has been cathartic, theraputic even (remember the cartoon cat? "exit, stage left!"). I have four kids of my own and like John Cougar said "sometimes I still don't know what to do". In closing, I would like to apologize for this last post, and really, REALLY recommend Samuel Adams Cherry Wheat. As with beer as with blogs: enjoy responsibly. Point taken.
Comment by Rand— 2008/04/02 @ 01:06 AM — (Reply)
BTW Rand if you go to Home School Legal Defense Associations website you will see that on average homeschooled students score much better on the standardized tests then their public school counterparts. I think this is an indication that credentialling might not be all it's cracked up to be.
Have one on me.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/02 @ 03:26 PM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/04/02 @ 03:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2008/04/02 @ 03:52 PM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/04/02 @ 03:54 PM — (Reply)
Well I...guess I didn't realize how important dodge ball is to some people. Point taken in regards to the virtual front porch thing. I have to say at this point that I have on more occasions than I have allowed my mind to remember, looked inside myself and thought "what a jackass you truly are, Randy. Geez-lou-friggin-weeze." It's true. Not necessarily with regards to politics, but other stuff. I am angry, I guess. Hmmm. The interaction here has been cathartic, theraputic even (remember the cartoon cat? "exit, stage left!"). I have four kids of my own and like John Cougar said "sometimes I still don't know what to do". In closing, I would like to apologize for this last post, and really, REALLY recommend Samuel Adams Cherry Wheat. As with beer as with blogs: enjoy responsibly. Point taken.
Comment by Rand— 2008/04/02 @ 01:14 AM — (Reply)
Comment by riffran— 2008/04/02 @ 01:45 AM — (Reply)
I remember that cartoon
Comment by jim— 2008/04/02 @ 03:51 PM — (Reply)
Lashing out accomplishes nothing but giving the other side more justification in holding firm to their opinions, however misguided they may be. My own experience is that Cate has always been open to discussion, even inviting and encouraging thoughtful dialogue with differing opinions. She's rarely made her opinions without having strong rational thinking behind those. Even when she goes totally homophobic, it's backed by a cohesive and comprehensive set of faith and facts.
Same holds for many of her regulars, of course. EB, you know I always respect your analysis, even it's wrong.
So, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, here's my thoughts on home schooling:
1) I agree that, short of inflicting actual physical or psychological harm, parents should be given broad leniency in how they choose to raise their children. Home schooling is an absolute right of parents, and even if it could be proven (and it's safe to say that it's doubtful that it could be) that credential education was superior, I'd defend home schooling.
I personally can't support faith healing, but I have to accept and defend another parent's perogative to rely on prayer in lieu of modern medicine. I think the evidence is far more clear that medical science is superior to prayer, but it is not our government's role to dictate what people should believe. It is
2) The primary measure of educational success is parental and personal investment in the process. That is true regardless of the system- public, private or home schooling. EB's fact that home schooled students perform better than public schooled is, therefore, almost trivial to explain in that light- parents who home school their children are, almost by definition, engaged in their childrens' education. This article surveys research in this topic- and provides references for the studies cited.
EB's fact doesn't suggest that public education is flawed or should be dismantled. Rather, it suggests that parents ought to be more engaged in public schooling. The fault doesn't lie with the system, it lies with the parents who choose to detach themselves from the active raising (because education is very much fundamental part of raising) of the very children they brought into the world.
3) If a school system is failing the child, that is implies a failure of the citizen-parent. This doesn't entitle that parent to be rewarded with tax dollars to be spent elsewhere. A citizen can no more decide that they are no longer a part of ISD 422, but entitled to their share of the school district's budget because they have a child (or alternately, not required to pay their tax because they are childless), than they could decide they were no longer a resident of Blacksville, North Carolina, and therefore no longer obliged to pay their city's assessments. Public education is a govermental obligation, but excellence in education is a parental obligation.
4) My experience is that the people who complain the loudest about the failures of government, are the same people who fail to become involved in government. It's certainly true that with any governmental body, the tendency is for the bureaucracy to defend itself. The very nature of monopolies dictate that their first obligation is to protect its monopoly. This is true whether the monopoly is corporate or governmental... but the distinction is that governmental monopolies are accountable to the electorate. Anyone dissatisfied with their government has to take responsibility and work to change that government. Maybe one person can't change who sits in the Oval Office (though 500 in Florida can, it seems), but one person can most certainly change who sits on their local school board... in fact, that one person can BE the person who sits on their local school board.
5) Blasting teacher unions as the flaw in the system is misguided and misdirected. Unions exist to protect teachers from capricious and spurious decisions. Yes, they can provide a formidible shield against administrators and school boards, but they are not bullet-proof vests.
6) Once more (and I know I've said this many, many times): an analogy between college and K-12 is misguided. College students are expected to be personally engaged in their own education. K-12 students are not expected to have the same engagement without guidance. Ideally, this would be parental guidance, but since the parents can't be in class, the educator does need to have the ability to not only teach subject material, but also to engage the students in the subject. The credential process is one method to ensure this- though I agree with you, Cate, that it should not be the sole method.
Jeez... too much said- I gotta get back to work.
Peace out!
Comment by Michael— 2008/04/07 @ 07:35 AM — (Reply)
(1) Spot on - are we giving birth to fuel the matrix or raising our own young?
(2) If children were best suited to be reared en masse, why doesn't the human animal drop a litter like cats or dogs? From a purely biological standpoint, how can anyone possibly argue that nature intended human pups to be reared at a ratio of 25:1? Ask yourself why we medicate so many children in today's schools? Why are we inhibiting their natural curiosity with ritalin? For the sake of classroom management - not for the sake of an active child. Ah well... that's another topic for another day.
(3) On this I agree - we can't give tax refunds to parents who homeschool because frauds would abuse the privilege and because we really aren't paying for education when our money goes the school system. We are paying social insurance - we pay to keep kids off the streets, out of jails, and gainfully employed. How's that working out by the way?
(4) That's an easily dismissed premise, Michael. You're a liberal, I'll bet there are 10 to 1 odds you believe money controls politics and that special interest groups buy power. My homeowner's association couldn't even carry off an unrigged election - you think the local school board is different? Local politics is notoriously dirty and lacks the stringent oversight of federal elections and general interest that sells papers. No one watches the local guy until he reaches the governor's office.
(5) BS. One of my college profs routinely arrived to class drunk and the women in the class had more than enough cause to file sexual harrassment charges but the university dismissed all complaints because they didn't have another prof "credentialed" to teach his courses. In one first grade class in the county where I taught, a 1st grade teacher and her t.a. held a boy down and put a diaper over his clothes when he was talking out in class. They said he acted like a baby so... Neither one was so much as reprimanded. I could tell you enough stories about classroom abuse that your hair would stand on end and I could also list an embarrassingly long number of teachers who've been protected by unions for behaviors that would have children removed from their parents were the same acts committed at home or caught on video by a Wal-Mart surveillance camera. There is very little place for a job-protecting union when children are involved.
(6)
I take strong exception to the word "can't". That should be replaced with the more accurate assessment "choose not to be". Aside from that profound distinction, let me reiterate that the ability to "engage" a child is NOT a skill limited to a 'professional' educator. A 12 year old babysitter engages my children successfully all the time! The skills required in a K-12 classroom that you usually don't need in a university classroom are best grouped under the heading "classroom management". Skills that you don't need when you raise and educate children the way NATURE intended, by loving parents with a much lower ratio of children to adults ;-)
Wow - I didn't even have to invoke the divine. I can speak liberal. LOL.
Comment by Cate— 2008/04/07 @ 08:53 AM — (Reply)
2) 25:1 classroom ratio... good heavens, Cate, you're practically arguing for more teachers in our schools! At the least, increased teacher's aides could add a lot more personal engagement absent in many classrooms, and parent-volunteers could help out at minimal cost, even! And I'm in total agreement against the rampant medication flooding society.
3) sounds vaguely sarcastic, though I can't tell for sure. Tell me that parental engagement is not a vital factor in truancy, criminality or developing a work ethic, and we'll argue. Otherwise, I'll assume we're roughly in agreement.
4) Money is the least relevant on a local level, almost irrelevant. Money controls the media, and on a large scale, can affect politics. But find me an instance of corporate bigwigs buying their chosen candidates election to a local water conservation officer...
If you want to say that politics is a nasty game, that's not news to anyone who's survived high school cliques. But the reason Michele Bachmann (a truly vile conservative Republican you'd probably like) is now serving in the US House for the Minnesota 6th, is because she lead a crowd of like-minded home-schoolers to blast the Stillwater school district for not teaching "intelligent design" on an even par with evolution. Big changes often start small.
6) You're correct- my choice of the word "can't" ought to have read "choose not to," and I accept your revision, as I also accept the acknowledgement that credentials are not assurance that someone has the ability to educate. Nor is it a guarantee that someone with credentials has that ability.
So, the biggie seems to be 5) - the dreaded teachers unions. And frankly, since we're in something close to agreement elsewhere, I'll leave my leftist chant of the "Internationale" for another time. :)
EB- parents have a choice, and short of this admittedly seemingly absurd ruling from California (which I haven't yet had a chance to look over), I haven't seen much suggestion that parents ought to be REQUIRED to send their children to public schools. Private schools exist everywhere, and home schooling is always an option.
Choice doesn't mean subsidization, though. My parents chose to send me to a Catholic school, and I've chosen to send my son to one as well. But that's a choice I'm willing to spend my money towards- not yours, or my neighbors. My taxes would pay for the school district whether or not I had a child. And it will pay for the school district whether or not my child attends that public school's within that district.
As for asserting the quality of home education, I don't think I've ever spoken against it. I know several friends who have home-schooled, and with only one exception, have only seen exceptional results. Even the exception was exceptional academically... merely had some socialization issues, IMHO.
Comment by Michael— 2008/04/07 @ 12:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by riffran— 2008/04/07 @ 08:03 AM — (Reply)
I'm sure you realize I wasn't suggesting a dismantling of public schools. The studies suggests a lot of things, but the point I was trying to make was that to be a good teacher you needn't be credentialed. It also suggests you needn't spend a great deal of money for someone to get a good education. It also suggests that homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone.
In 1991, a survey of standardized test scores was performed by the Home School Legal Defense Association in cooperation with the Psychological Corporation, which publishes the Stanford Achievement Test. The study involved the administering of the Stanford Achievement Test (8th Edition, Form J) to 5,124 homeschooled students. These students represented all 50 states and their grades ranged from K-12. This testing was administered in Spring 1991 under controlled test conditions in accordance with the test publisher's standards. All test administers were screened, trained, and approved pursuant to the publisher's requirements. All tests were machine-scored by the Psychological Corporation.
These 5,124 homeschoolers' composite scores on the basic battery of tests in reading, math, and language arts ranked 18 to 28 percentile points above public school averages. For instance, 692 homeschooled 4th graders averaged in the 77th percentile in reading, the 63rd percentile in math, and the 70th percentile in language arts. Sixth-grade homeschoolers, of 505 tested, scored in the 76th percentile in reading, the 65th percentile in math, and the 72nd percentile in language arts.
The homeschooled high schoolers did even better, which goes against the trend in public schools where studies show the longer a child is in the public schools, the lower he scores on standardized tests. One hundred and eighteen tenth-grade homeschool students, as a group, made an average score of the 82nd percentile in reading, the 70th percentile in math, and the 81st percentile in language arts.
In 1990, the National Home Education Research Institute issued a report entitled "A Nationwide Study of Home Education: Family Characteristics, Legal Matters, and Student Achievement." This was a study of over 2,163 homeschooling families.
The study found that the average scores of the homeschool students were at or above the 80th percentile in all categories. The homeschoolers' national percentile mean was 84th for reading, 80th for language, 81st for math, 84th for science and 83rd for social studies.
The research revealed that there was no positive correlation between state regulation of homeschools and the home-schooled students' performance. The study compared homeschoolers in three groups of states representing various levels of regulation. Group 1 represented the most restrictive states such as Michigan; Group 2 represented slightly less restrictive states including North Dakota; and Group 3 represented unregulated states such as Texas and California. The Institute concluded:
...no difference was found in the achievement scores of students between the three groups which represent various degrees of state regulation of home education.... It was found that students in all three regulation groups scored on the average at or above the 76th percentile in the three areas examined: total reading, total math, and total language. These findings in conjunction with others described in this section, do not support the idea that state regulation and compliance on the part of home education families assures successful student achievement. x
Furthermore, this same study demonstrated that only 13.9 percent of the mothers (who are the primary teachers) had ever been certified teachers. The study found that there was no difference in the students' total reading, total math and total language scores based on the teacher certification status of their parents:
The findings of this study do not support the idea that parents need to be trained and certified teachers to assure successful academic achievement of their children.
We've homeschooled all three of our children. The older 2 graduated from high school at age 16. My 14 year old son is taking a college math course and plans on taking an additional college math and physics course next semester.
All parents really want is a choice. While some public schools are supportive, the unions and administrations on the whole do not. You're messing with their ricebowl and it costs them federal dollars when the bean counters can't include my child in their classroom.
While I lived in California the state was somewhat hostile to homeschoolers. Once we received a letter from the state superintendent informing us that we were to take our children to the closest public school and register them for an ISP (independent study program).
We retain HSLDA for such occasions. The law hadn't changed but some bureaucrat had decided that she could probably intimidate HS parents into following the letter. I believe it was done simply to be able to count my children as part of the system so they could receive the federal funds.
As far as the unions go....you might be interested in this video.
Michael what I'm most interested in is that parents are able to reserve their right to a choice be it public, private, home or charter.
Competition is a good thing.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/07 @ 09:18 AM — (Reply)
We can choose to kill our babies and demand that others pay for it but we can't reroute our own money to educate them once they turn 6. We hold diversity in such regard that we condemn attempts to alter or interfere with foreign cultures but we make suburban kids ride buses into the inner cities to be re-educated in failing schools. The things that make you go hmmmm.
Comment by Cate— 2008/04/07 @ 11:00 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2008/04/07 @ 12:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2008/04/08 @ 08:09 AM — (Reply)
Blasting teacher unions as the flaw in the system is misguided and misdirected. Unions exist to protect teachers from capricious and spurious decisions. Yes, they can provide a formidible shield against administrators and school boards, but they are not bullet-proof vests.
or having to come to school prepared
My experience is that the people who complain the loudest about the failures of government, are the same people who fail to become involved in government. It's certainly true that with any governmental body, the tendency is for the bureaucracy to defend itself.
I agree that people should be involved, however when it comes to providing a safe learning environment how long would you suggest people try to change the system while their child/ren suffer?
The primary measure of educational success is parental and personal investment in the process. That is true regardless of the system- public, private or home schooling. EB's fact that home schooled students perform better than public schooled is, therefore, almost trivial to explain in that light- parents who home school their children are, almost by definition, engaged in their childrens' education. This article surveys research in this topic- and provides references for the studies cited.
Parental involvement is most assuredly important. Hey if you think reading, writing and arithmetic trivial....more power to you. This doesn't negate the fact that the some public school's are failing our children.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/07 @ 09:37 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/07 @ 09:40 AM — (Reply)
The research base on adults who were home educated is growing; thus far it indicates that they:
participate in local community service more frequently than does the general population,
vote and attend public meetings more frequently than the general population, and
go to and succeed at college at an equal or higher rate than the general population.
As one homeschool researcher Dr. Patricia Lines has said, "Homeschoolers have not turned their backs on the broader social contract as understood at the time of the Founding [of America]. Like the Antifederalists, these homeschoolers are asserting their historic individual rights so that they may form more meaningful bonds with family and community. In doing so, they are not abdicating from the American agreement. To the contrary, they are affirming it.”
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/07 @ 09:58 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/04/07 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
Vouchers provide even more choice.
As for homeschooling each state is different. Some require you to simply file an affidavit and others want test results, examples of school work etc. HSLDA carries stories of the various things that homeschool parents go through state by state. They range from threats to remove children from the home to occasional visits from child protective services. One of several reasons why HSLDA is around is to protect those of us who have made this choice.
Choice doesn't mean subsidization, though. My parents chose to send me to a Catholic school, and I've chosen to send my son to one as well. But that's a choice I'm willing to spend my money towards- not yours, or my neighbors. My taxes would pay for the school district whether or not I had a child. And it will pay for the school district whether or not my child attends that public school's within that district.
Well by that token I don't see why bad schools should be subsidized with anyones tax money. Which is why MORE competition such as a voucher system that includes public schools could be effective. What's the problem with having even a portion of one's own tax money in return for a greater choice in a child's education.
The government doesn't give anyone money without strings attached as to how that money is spent. So many homeschoolers wouldn't care for or use the vouchers.
Vouchers have been working in Cleveland and it's costs are roughly a third of what it costs to send a child to a public school. I simply don't know why anyone would want to limit the marketplace. Again competition breeds excellence.
Parents of scholarship recipients who previously attended public schools were much more satisfied with every aspect of their choice school than applicants who did not receive a scholarship, but attended public school instead.
You can read more of the executive summary here.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/08 @ 09:05 AM — (Reply)
I think the key word here is college educated. These homechool cults want to be able to take a housewife who didn't go to college and teach her kids science and math. The problem is what they are really trying to do is teach their kids the Bible which is all they were taught. If your science or history class involves a Bible, it's not science or history its called Sunday School. Theres a place for that and its called Sunday School. If you want them to learn the Bible send them to Church. We don't teach evolution in your churches so don't teach creationism in our classrooms and don't try to pass it off as science.
Comment by toad734— 2008/04/16 @ 12:44 PM — (Reply)
Jackass !!
Comment by Ed— 2008/04/16 @ 04:30 PM — (Reply)
But toad's objections seem misplaced- s/he doesn't want the Bible to be taught in the classroom, but then complains if the parents teach it in the home? If a parent feels it's important for a child to learn religion, then home-schooling seems the inevitable solution.
Comment by Michael— 2008/04/17 @ 08:22 AM — (Reply)
You do a great job at representing the ill-informed. Congrats.
My family has membership in 5 different home school organizations. In one, 80% or better of the moms were public school teachers who left the system. In another group of about 25 families, only one of the mother's doesn't have AT LEAST a bachelor's.
Did public school teach you to make faulty assumptions without actual knowledge? Deriving a logical conclusion demands that you begin your thought process with FACTS.
Comment by Cate— 2008/04/17 @ 09:27 AM — (Reply)
people who homeschool are hardly involved in cults
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/16 @ 02:22 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/04/16 @ 03:56 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/16 @ 04:38 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/17 @ 09:45 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/16 @ 04:39 PM — (Reply)
BG
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/04/16 @ 04:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/04/16 @ 06:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/04/17 @ 09:47 AM — (Reply)
A bunch of flakes - God knows how bad it is today.
Comment by Woody— 2008/04/17 @ 03:07 PM — (Reply)