Homeschooling OK: A License to Make Dumb Kids

Actually, Homeschooled kids have higher statistics and better grades, more respectful of their elders and do better than public school. Now there is some bad parents that don't teach their kids just like their are bad teachers that don't care and don't help kids learn. As for your "cult" if you think there is no God, we came from millions of year of evolution then you would have no basis for morals. Moral, the difference between right and wrong came from religion. Atheist believe there is no reason for them to be on this earth, and if they believe in morals and values then thy are picking pieces they want from religion and making up their own belief. I would want my kids to have morals and values and know why. Homeschool is overall better than public schooling. Public schools put children in unnatural environments, in life you are never stuck in a group of people your age. It's only in schools. Since they don't want to hang out with people younger nor older then them, that makes them more anti social than homeschooler who often can hang out with people of any age. The public school as also dummied down there educational system to fit the average of low test scores that students get. America has one of the worst educational systems. SO before you bash homeschoolers look into what is really going on and whose really learning to live a better life.

Well, frankly, I'm a teacher and most of the home school kids I've seen are slower than the rest.

Brian,

"I don’t think parents need to be certified to teach their own children."

I agree. Except that this ruling goes beyond this statement my allowing for the personal decision to teach my kids this or that to be an acceptable alternative to the same standards that apply to any other schooling context. It's the uneven application of what a standard is that I am arguing against here. That virtually *any* situation in which someone feels able to teach is an acceptable alternative to any other educational context is the issue here. Not all will teach their kids that the earth is 6000 years old and that Harry Potter is the Devil's instrument of corruption. But that some will and that this is an acceptable alternative to public or other private schooling is the point of my entire post here.

To Drew,

I don't need to be certified by the state to have children or to raise children although I do need a license to operate a car. And, yes, while I think public school teachers should be certified, I don't think parents need to be certified to teach their own children. You're talking apples and oranges here. One is in a public system, a stranger charged with the welfare and security of dozens of pupils at a time. The other is someone who is taking responsibility for their own child's welfare. Secondly, I do not teach my children that the world is 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs did not exist or whatever the point is you were making about Harry Potter. We watch the Harry Potter movies together and my girls read the books.

Kathy, my girls are involved in girl scouts, on the swim team, basketball team, attend Sunday school, have taken group violin lessons, group sewing lessons, have sleepovers, attend parties, etc. etc. There is definitely not a lack of socialization going on with them. How much socialization do children get in the classroom looking at the back of the head of the child in front of them?

I am not some homeschoool fanatic although it's probably coming off that way here. My wife and I kind of stumbled into homeschool because we feel it is only natural for children to teach their parents and have always made a game of it. My personal feeling is, as a parent, my most important job is to teach my children. Whether that's math, science, how to balance a checkbook or moral character, while I might use the assistance of the state, I would never rely on the state. When our oldest was 4, she was pretty bored just playing all the time so my wife began to teach her a little more formally. By the time she was of age to attend kindergarten she was so far ahead of children her age, we decided to continue to teach her. We take it year-by-year with both girls and through grades 4 and 7 (they are each working a year ahead of their ages), it's worked out very well for our family.

Right Kathy. I should note that Melissa who commented above is also a public school teacher.

My issue is NOT about relative performance indicators here - even though that might be important. the issue I have is the apparent double standards that say that you can say "I am capable of teaching" and not have to work with standards other teachers have to meet. Moreover that any bloke off the street can have a "private school". It's foolishness.

The other piece is that why, if you want to homeschool your children, would you not want to have proper training to do so? It cheapens the art and dedication of our teachers who do not get paid enough and never get the levels of support needed to enhance programs well enough.

And yes, I do not want kids being taught the utter crap that many homeschoolers have a right to teach them in place of a good education. Sorry, the earth is not 6000 years old, dinosaurs did exist, and Harry Potter is not a real witch! Just look at the enrollment of Patrick Henry College and tell me how good that is. Just because we have the right to do something, does not mean that we have to tolerate ignorance as a society. This is why proper training should be commended and supported, not averted with legislative support.

I am a certified teacher that teaches in a public school. I work specifically with high school students that are at risk of dropping out for what ever reason. Some of my students have been "home-schooled" by the state provided curriculum and are behind. And can we talk about their socialization skills. That is the biggest problem. You cannot shelter this children forever. They need to learn how to deal with other children and all that goes along with that. Both the good and the bad. Either wise they will never make it in our society.

Alan,

Every bit of "data" I've ever seen, however selective or skewed, shows homeschooled children do better. Granted, I have not conducted my own scientific study on this nor have I dug into the motives of those presenting the data. So, for the moment, let's set that aside. However, similarly, you seem to have no data to support the notion that homeschooling is turning out "quite a few" dumb children along with a few smart ones.

You are absolutely right that I do not know how my children would be doing in public school. That is impossible to know since I cannot turn back the hands of time and have them taught that way. I can only look at children of what I assume to be similar ability and see how they are doing. My girls learned to read at a very early age and read way, way beyond their grade level. My 11 year old reads at the college level (based on standardized testing) and my 8 year old is at least at a junior high level. Maybe they would have graduated from Princeton by now if they had gone to public schools (little humor there). But, what I do know is they seem to be doing quite well homeschooling.

One thing you should know about me because I sense a little bias in your POV, my wife and I do not homeschool for religious reasons. On the list of reasons we homeschool that doesn't even make the list. We homeschool because we believe that our dedication to our children's education, the time we can spend with them educating them and the quality time we can spend with them while they are learning are invaluable. Yes, I would put my uncertified wife's ability to teach a child to read one-on-one up against the best "qualified" public school teacher one-on-thirty any day.

BTW, the reading program we are getting involved with is called Whiz Kids and we heard a presentation on it this past Sunday. The schools are not begging for volunteers to foster a sense of support for education or to give "enthusiastic parents" a chance to help out. Most people I know are plenty busy and are only looking to help out in places where they are needed (at least that's the case with my wife and me). The schools are asking for people to come in because children are being "left behind" and statistics show those children are likely to do very poorly later in life.

The last part of your last paragraph kind of confuses me. It seems you think that people are advocating homeschool as a replacement for all public school education. There may be some of those people. But, all my wife and I want is for us to be allowed to do what we think is best for our children, barring any evidence that we are harming them.

Most of our children's friends and our neighbors admire my wife and I for being able to homeschool our children and for the job we are doing with them. You're right that it's impractical for a number of families for a myriad of reasons. Economics is probably the number one factor. It takes sacrifice to be a full time teacher to your children. So, we are not saying shut down the public schools and force everyone to teach their own child. A lot of people don't have the ability or the patience, if they did have the money.

OK. Appreciate the dialog. I read your blog and usually don't say much. But, this topic hits pretty close to home for me. Every year we have to be aware of attempts to shut down the program we use and while I'm no Libertarian, I'm pretty sick of the government poking its nose into a system that is working very well for many families and turning out well-rounded, well educated children ready to compete against publicly schooled children in every way.

Peace,
Brian

Brian, you know your own children, you know the circumstances of your school district, and, to the extent that it is humanly possible, you know your own capabilities to help your children to learn. I obviously do not, so I am not in a position to sit in judgment in your particular case. I can only speak in general.

I have off and on visited home schooling web sites and have engaged some home schoolers in conversation and I have often heard the claim that "home schooled children do better than average." This statement is usually made with absolutely no reference to any sort of study that might provide a basis for it. Usually it is made in conjunction with the claim that their own children are "above average" but with no reference to the way in which this was assessed. And, of course, we (and they) don't know what their children would be doing in the public school. Maybe WAY above average.

This is much like the anecdotal evidence that suggests that all children in Lake Woebegone are above average. It should be treated with more than just a dose of skepticism. And yet it is stated and passed on as if it were a self-evident truth. I just don't think that is right, and it very well could lead someone into making a very bad decision for themselves and their children.

In only one case was a reference provided. This was a study conducted by a religious advocacy organization, one that engages in legal and political action to defend fundamentalist home schoolers. In other words, lawyers who are religious zealots on a crusade. I have never seen this study to assess it in detail, but I think, once again, skepticism would be in order.

This same organization cites studies that show that a teacher's credentials are not very well correlated to student success. From this we are supposed to believe that anyone, under any circumstances, can successfully teach their own children as well as - no! better than - a trained and educated public school teacher. Of course, such studies are all conducted among a population of practicing professional teachers, working with others in a supportive environment, not just anyone off the street. Once again, this is what you get from lawyers on a religious crusade.

You mention that one of the major failings of our public schools is the fact that too many parents rely on it solely to educate their children. The fact is that for many people this dependence is entirely reasonable for many reasons: economic, interpersonal, and simple intellectual competency. A single mom with an 11th grade education and a full-time minimum-wage job is not going to be able to add much to her child's education, and I think it is entirely right for the public schools to be expected to shoulder the burden.

You also mention that your public school district welcomes volunteers to help children learn to read. You take this as an indication that the school and the parents have failed. There are many reasons why a school would welcome volunteers, and it is probably the failing schools that would be least likely to do so. My own school district welcomes volunteers. Like yours, it is one of the best in my state, and we have a very good (not perfect) record of teaching our children to read. My guess is that the school system does this in order to foster a spirit of support for education and as a way of giving enthusiastic parents a chance to help out. I don't see this as being in any way negative.

Over all, I don't fear homeschooling will turn out droves of dumb children. Just quite a few - along with quite a few smart ones. There are just not that many people who will actually attempt it. It is, past a certain point, completely impractical and could never be a viable alternative to public schools. But since a child's education is at stake, it demands oversight, and if that oversight becomes burdensome, the state has every right to require attendance at a real private or public school.

Yes, of course my own example is selective. And, you are right that, as far as school aged children goes, any numbers for homeschoolers are going to be selective since many homeschooled children do not take the standardized tests. So, while the selective numbers do not necessarily prove that homeschooled children are getting a better education, neither have I seen any proof that there is a reason to fear homeschooling parents turning out droves of dumb children. In fact, the data that we do have (while selective) suggests just the opposite.

For me, this is a tricky subject. Every child should have the right to a free, quality education. But, that does not mean, IMO, that every child should necessarily be forced to have a government mandated education. Parent's have the ultimate responsibility for raising their children, not the government. I think one of the major failings of our public schools is the fact that too many parents rely on it solely to educate their children. My wife and I are signing up for a volunteer program to spend an hour a week helping publicly schooled elementary children learn to read. What kind of statement does it make about our public school system when the schools are begging for volunteers to come in and help the children read? Obviously, the parents and the teachers aren't doing their jobs in these cases. And, BTW, I live in one of the best school districts in the state of Ohio.

I am confident that I am providing a better education than my children would be getting in the local public school. I know, objectively, that they are doing better than their peers on the standardized tests. More importantly, as a parent, I think I have the right and responsibility to do what is best for my child, unless someone can prove that I am harming her.

RE: homeschoolers outperform publicly schooled children on academic tests.

Actually, selected homeschoolers outperform schooled children on tests adminstered by organizations that advocate for homeshcoolers.

Your own experience is an example of such selectivity.

But, regardless of your children's abilities or your credentials, if you are using a state-provided curriculum and your children are taking standardized tests, it sounds to me like you may very well be providing for a quality education that supports the public goals of universal, free, compulsary education. In that case, I would have no argument. The California ruling, however, does not seem to support those public goals.

While this "loophole" does leave room for homeschooling parents to teach (or not teach) their children anything they please, the reality is most parents homeschool because they care deeply about their children's educations and homeschoolers outperform publicly schooled children on academic tests.

There's no great danger that American children are to suddenly become even dumber because parents take an interest in their children's education. Sure, there is the potential for abuse, of the "loophole" but that is a risk I am willing to take given homeschooled children's track record over the years. I'll take a dedicated, caring, motivated teacher one-on-one over an overworked, underpaid, teacher one-on-thirty any day.

BTW, my wife and I homeschool our two children. We do use a state-provided curriculum and our children do take standardized tests. They have never failed to outperform the "average" student in the state of Ohio on any test they have taken.

I'm afraid you're all worked up over the exception rather than the rule. Most homeschoolers are getting a better education than their publicly educated peers. In fact, one objection some public schools have to homeschooling is the best and the brightest are being skimmed off the top of the public education system.

Peace,
Brian

AKMA,

I am distraught that there seems to be a clear loophole that allows for an uneven distribution of standards for teachers and students and allows for the declaration of a "private school" under a very anemic legislative characterization. If a house is declared a private school, it ought to have the same rigor of standards and accreditation as other private schools. Moreover, if it is a "private school" there are other issues with tax exempt status, state funds, and how these "schools" will be related to the public good. Moreover, the idea that if one thinks oneself as "capable of teaching", without solid criteria to render that defensible, it is a useless term. But this is why we have certification standards in place.

Are you really distraught that homeschooling is allowed, or only that some homeschool parents teach their kids stuff that you wish they wouldn't?

Ah there's the loophole I have been looking for....I'll adopt a bunch of kids and declare my house a "private school" - then I can actually teach! :)

Of course the thought of most parents doing that is very frightening.

The California's State Terminator says that the decision "confirms the right every California child has to a quality education and the right parents have to decide what is best for their children."

Obviously, he is a politician, and not a critical thinker! What happens when a parent decides that what is best for his child is to forego a quality education? This is not just a theoretical question, this is what is happening in the case under reveiw.