Post by cherryvalance on Aug 28, 2015 16:21:40 GMT -5
Again, although I'm a proponent of public ed (hello, teacher), I'm not automatically opposed to homeschooling and I don't automatically think all homeschoolers are falling short of educational standards. I do, however, have serious concerns about assessment and I'd like to see some major oversight in that area. None of the articles linked are convincing me.
Her kid is not black. I think she was just trying to say that she didn't want her kids growing up and seeing that type of treatment of black males and thinking that it's okay. Sorry if I'm overstepping tuck
We live in Seattle now, so it's less of an issue, but it was definitely a concern when we lived in Mississippi.
That thought has been with me all day, and I'm not sure how to ask this question without offending, so sorry if I do. But, are you saying that you would rather just take your kids out of the public school than have them witness the evidence of racism and race relations? And by moving to Seattle, are you saying you don't have to worry about race relations? How, as a homeschooler, do you plan to teach your kids about those really tough issues, when they aren't even able to *see* them happening? (I promise I'm not trying to be a dick here)
Of the small handful of folks I know that were homeschooled or did/do homeschool, all but one were/are normal "non fundie" types who genuinely want their children to be MORE educated and cultured than the public/private school system allows for. They or their children have all started college early and have gone on to be very successful adults. I guess I erroneously assumed that home school situations were subject to the same oversight and testing that the school systems were/are. I absolutely agree that safeguards do need to be put into place so that children in terrible situations don't fall through the cracks. I also understand that my personal experience isn't exemplary of "the norm" when it comes to homeschooling based on the comments in this thread.
I am absolutely not a fan of "big government", but as a PP stated, these kids are the future of our country and we, as the taxpayers of today, have a responsibility to ensure they're taken care of and become responsible, contributing members of society. If there are no checks and balances, we're in for a ride.
Post by gretchenindisguise on Aug 28, 2015 17:00:18 GMT -5
I think anyone who doesn't believe in some government oversight for children should go sit in on some CPS calls. The real ones, not the my 13 year old was playing by themselves at the park ones.
There has to be a realization that not everyone is like them. Not everyone is doing well. Not every family is safe. If you are, then this is a breeze. But if you're not, we have a duty to those children to know about it.
Would you be willing to comment on homeschooled students and the college admissions process? We have four children we are homeschooling and we hope to continue that up until they go off to college. —Elizabeth
Question Do you have a bias against homeschooled students? They don’t always have the classes available to them, such as AP, honors, labs, etc. If you don’t have a bias, what do you look for in a homeschooled student? The transcript may include nonstandard courses. How do we let a school know, other than with standardized test scores, how they might be a good fit for that school? — Leslie Howard
Answer Mr. Walker of Texas: Homeschooling is a more recognizable educational enterprise than it once was. This has made directors of admission more comfortable with their ability to properly evaluate a student’s readiness for the rigors of a challenging college curriculum and a student’s social adaptation skills. We recognize that there are many ways to get a rigorous education, and AP and honors classes are just two of the most popular examples.
We probably provide better service and a more complete and personal evaluation of our homeschooled children than we do to our more traditional applicants.
While homeschooled children present slightly different application materials, the differences are shrinking. We are seeing parents become more entrepreneurial in finding good educational experiences for their children, and more parents are pooling resources to provide the more specialized subjects in the sciences. The Web has allowed for a much broader and more organized enterprise than was ever possible. Even the term “homeschooled” has become a less accurate description of where learning takes place. The term is more descriptive of where the administrative staff resides and where the student’s “home room” might be.
Answer Mr. Syverson of Lawrence: We welcome homeschooled students. Just as with high schools, there is great variation in the strength of the preparation we see among homeschoolers. And in many instances, because they are not presenting a traditional set of credentials, it is important for homeschoolers to be particularly thoughtful about what they will include in their application. Some will submit a number of SAT subject tests taken over the course of several years as a way to document their mastery of these areas. Others will prepare for AP exams as another way to document, with a traditional metric, the rigor of their work. Many will submit one or more substantial works they have done as part of their courses.
Answer Mr. Poch of Pomona: I do have skepticism about some versions of home schooling. We will seek concrete evidence of preparation which may, for better or worse, fall both to a wider range of standardized testing but also to evidence of collaborative work with other students both academically and socially. The home schooled student does carry an additional burden of proof. How to address it?
Good and deep articulation of the courses of study followed. Representation of knowledge acquired and intellectual skills developed. Interview if possible. Admissions officers may rely more heavily upon standardized testing than we would like because the transcript of a home schooled student will carry the imprint of a parent and the references if written by a tutor or parent cannot address questions we would have regarding the engagement of a student with a teacher and peers in a classroom or collaborative learning environments.
Anticipate what we would like to see. Develop a full curriculum and make sure math and laboratory sciences are part of the experience. Even where general admission requirements may ask only for optional presentation of tests or where no SAT subject tests are required, I suggest that the student present those familiar representations of their work and achievement. If the standard expectation of the college is for two SAT subject tests, send more. Send four or five in different academic areas to fully represent a range of academic exposures.
Answer Mr. Brenzel of Yale: We see only a few homeschooled applicants, and we do occasionally admit a homeschooled student. Evaluation is usually difficult, however. It helps if the applicant has taken some college level courses, and we can get evaluations from those teachers. We are not keen on homeschooled students where the only evaluations come from parents and the only other information available consists of test scores.
We live in Seattle now, so it's less of an issue, but it was definitely a concern when we lived in Mississippi.
That thought has been with me all day, and I'm not sure how to ask this question without offending, so sorry if I do. But, are you saying that you would rather just take your kids out of the public school than have them witness the evidence of racism and race relations? And by moving to Seattle, are you saying you don't have to worry about race relations? How, as a homeschooler, do you plan to teach your kids about those really tough issues, when they aren't even able to *see* them happening? (I promise I'm not trying to be a dick here)
Not offensive - it's a totally valid question.
Honestly, I haven't really given much thought to the intersection of racism and homeschool since then. I'm not trying to minimize the importance or anything like that, it just hasn't been at the forefront of my mind.
I wanted my kids to be a bit older before they started to see how differently people are treated. I wanted them to be mature enough to understand that it's not fair, instead of just accepting it as how it is. That type of thinking is part of the problem, I'll admit. I never said it was a good reason.
I'm certainly not saying that I don't have to worry about race relations here. But, the area I'm in is much more diverse, so there's less "othering" of people of color, at least in my experience. Here, I think, she'd be more likely to notice that her friend is being treated differently. (I'm not as eloquent as I'd like to be here. I know it's not a well thought out idea.)
As far as teaching her about these issues, I think I can. When she's mature enough to understand, we'll discuss the news and really dig into history. We'll make sure it's a running conversation, and not just talked about for a few days in February for Black History Month. Unfortunately, racism and discrimination are everywhere, not just in the schools. People can avoid *seeing* it happen just by ignoring it. I'll just have to make sure my kids don't ignore it.
I haven't read all of the replies but you know what i don't get as someone who works at a university? We need official transcripts to consider the information on them valid yet with all of the different, not really defined guidelines for homeschooled kids, how do universities (or whomever receives these transcripts) know that the parents didn't just type in all As? More and more, we are requiring entrance exams, which is a catch 22 because some kids (like mine) don't perform well on high pressure tests.
Eta: just read a few posts above that mentions this.
alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=39384 A few, like Becca Hall, '03, pursue a free-form, follow-your-heart sort of home education known as "unschooling." During high school, Hall did an hour of math and an hour of writing each day, but filled the rest of her time doing crafts, taking nature hikes, apprenticing with an herbalist and studying labor history through old folk songs. Along the way, she picked up enough knowledge to earn a 1,480 on the sat (including a 750 out of 800 in math, a subject she once feared).
But a lifetime of "unschooling" can make it hard to embrace a structured institution like Stanford. Hall, who grew up near Seattle, says she's considering transferring to somewhere "more liberal," perhaps UC-Santa Cruz or Washington's Evergreen State. If she stays at Stanford, she will likely pursue an individualized major blending her interests in ecology and religious studies.
"It's definitely weird being in an institution now," the sophomore says. "I want to be able to pursue what I want. I want to be somewhere where it's okay if I don't want to follow the rules."
alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=39384 A few, like Becca Hall, '03, pursue a free-form, follow-your-heart sort of home education known as "unschooling." During high school, Hall did an hour of math and an hour of writing each day, but filled the rest of her time doing crafts, taking nature hikes, apprenticing with an herbalist and studying labor history through old folk songs. Along the way, she picked up enough knowledge to earn a 1,480 on the sat (including a 750 out of 800 in math, a subject she once feared).
But a lifetime of "unschooling" can make it hard to embrace a structured institution like Stanford. Hall, who grew up near Seattle, says she's considering transferring to somewhere "more liberal," perhaps UC-Santa Cruz or Washington's Evergreen State. If she stays at Stanford, she will likely pursue an individualized major blending her interests in ecology and religious studies.
"It's definitely weird being in an institution now," the sophomore says. "I want to be able to pursue what I want. I want to be somewhere where it's okay if I don't want to follow the rules."
UCSC is not less structured than stanfurd. The students are high more often, yes, but it's still a structured environment.
alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=39384 A few, like Becca Hall, '03, pursue a free-form, follow-your-heart sort of home education known as "unschooling." During high school, Hall did an hour of math and an hour of writing each day, but filled the rest of her time doing crafts, taking nature hikes, apprenticing with an herbalist and studying labor history through old folk songs. Along the way, she picked up enough knowledge to earn a 1,480 on the sat (including a 750 out of 800 in math, a subject she once feared).
But a lifetime of "unschooling" can make it hard to embrace a structured institution like Stanford. Hall, who grew up near Seattle, says she's considering transferring to somewhere "more liberal," perhaps UC-Santa Cruz or Washington's Evergreen State. If she stays at Stanford, she will likely pursue an individualized major blending her interests in ecology and religious studies.
"It's definitely weird being in an institution now," the sophomore says. "I want to be able to pursue what I want. I want to be somewhere where it's okay if I don't want to follow the rules."
Post by bourbonfan on Aug 28, 2015 17:46:59 GMT -5
This thread did not disappoint.
I had no clue homeschooling wasn't regulated nationally. But now that I know, it makes sense. I couldn't figure out how any of the homeschoolers I know were getting their kids to meet a minimum standard of educational requirements. Now I realize it's probably because they don't actually have to meet any.
That being said, I have nothing against homeschooling if done properly; but the reality is, my only experience with homeschoolers has been with either the religious conservative types or uneducated SAHMs who barely made it out of high school. So I do not have a favorable impression of it as a result. I know that doesn't mean all homeschoolers fall into this category but I will admit it does make me biased against people who have been homeschooled. I unfairly assume they may not be very educated and more than likely fall into the "crazy, religious right wing" population.
Again, I know this isn't the case and it's unfair of me to judge all homeschoolers based on shitty anecdotal evidence, but I'll own up to my unjust bias.
Seriously though, back to the whole point of this thread, regulations are necessary. The government has a vested interest in the education of its citizens, so saying it shouldn't be their business is incorrect. If you're doing such a great job homeschooling, and you're teaching circles around all these shitty public schools that are indoctrinating children to work 9-5, then why are you scared of proving it? I would think you'd love the opportunity to show how well educated your children are. <--- this is all for that "Aw" person, not the other homeschoolers who are ok with oversight.
alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=39384 A few, like Becca Hall, '03, pursue a free-form, follow-your-heart sort of home education known as "unschooling." During high school, Hall did an hour of math and an hour of writing each day, but filled the rest of her time doing crafts, taking nature hikes, apprenticing with an herbalist and studying labor history through old folk songs. Along the way, she picked up enough knowledge to earn a 1,480 on the sat (including a 750 out of 800 in math, a subject she once feared).
But a lifetime of "unschooling" can make it hard to embrace a structured institution like Stanford. Hall, who grew up near Seattle, says she's considering transferring to somewhere "more liberal," perhaps UC-Santa Cruz or Washington's Evergreen State. If she stays at Stanford, she will likely pursue an individualized major blending her interests in ecology and religious studies.
"It's definitely weird being in an institution now," the sophomore says. "I want to be able to pursue what I want. I want to be somewhere where it's okay if I don't want to follow the rules."
She is going to be a joy in the workplace.
She'll be fine. Homeschoolers are raising entrepreneurs remember? Not sucky 9-5ers.
flgirl, some of your comments were insensitive and reminiscent of the people who judge working moms who send their kids to day care and accuse them of letting other people raise their kids.
BTW, staunch atheist here and our first choice for private school is an Episcopalian school. We also looked at Jesuit schools.
I'm looking for the best education overall for my kid. I realize it may not be 100% what I want, and I am OK with that. We will deal with any discrepancies when we get to them. Also, despite not believing in God I'm not scared to let my kid learn something about religion and other people's beliefs.
This is me. The best preschool in the area is a Presbyterian school. Although we're atheists he attends school there because I care more about the quality of his education than being offended by him learning about Noah's ark.
If you change that word property to responsibility it's a lot less problematic for me. But then, the State may now OWN all the citizens, but it is responsible (to some extent) for their welfare. Is that really such a problematic admission, lurkingaw? I mean, assume some responsibility to take care of citizens. That's the point of armed forces, right? Safety regulations for cars? Regulations for airplanes. Why can't it apply to education of citizens?
According to my Tea Party parents, it's NOT the federal government's responsibility to ensure the welfare of its citizens. The federal government is supposed to be there to ensure our national security and nothing else. :^)
If you change that word property to responsibility it's a lot less problematic for me. But then, the State may now OWN all the citizens, but it is responsible (to some extent) for their welfare. Is that really such a problematic admission, lurkingaw? I mean, assume some responsibility to take care of citizens. That's the point of armed forces, right? Safety regulations for cars? Regulations for airplanes. Why can't it apply to education of citizens?
According to my Tea Party parents, it's NOT the federal government's responsibility to ensure the welfare of its citizens. The federal government is supposed to be there to ensure our national security and nothing else. :^)
FFS. Nothing destroys national security more quickly than a population who doesn't have its basic needs met. IE, their welfare.
If you change that word property to responsibility it's a lot less problematic for me. But then, the State may now OWN all the citizens, but it is responsible (to some extent) for their welfare. Is that really such a problematic admission, lurkingaw? I mean, assume some responsibility to take care of citizens. That's the point of armed forces, right? Safety regulations for cars? Regulations for airplanes. Why can't it apply to education of citizens?
According to my Tea Party parents, it's NOT the federal government's responsibility to ensure the welfare of its citizens. The federal government is supposed to be there to ensure our national security and nothing else. :^)
Because the Constitution says nothing about the general welfare of the population.
I'm very amused at the prospect of creating a major that "blends ecology with religious studies."
You could do it but it would have to be one of those independent studies programs. A BS in Ecology with a minor in Religious Studies concentrating on eastern religions (Shintoism, Buddhism and Jainism).
If you change that word property to responsibility it's a lot less problematic for me. But then, the State may now OWN all the citizens, but it is responsible (to some extent) for their welfare. Is that really such a problematic admission, lurkingaw? I mean, assume some responsibility to take care of citizens. That's the point of armed forces, right? Safety regulations for cars? Regulations for airplanes. Why can't it apply to education of citizens?
According to my Tea Party parents, it's NOT the federal government's responsibility to ensure the welfare of its citizens. The federal government is supposed to be there to ensure our national security and nothing else. :^)
Yep. Make sure nobody invaded the borders. But if your Dad kicks you every day, we don't need to know. We only keep you safe outside your house.
According to my Tea Party parents, it's NOT the federal government's responsibility to ensure the welfare of its citizens. The federal government is supposed to be there to ensure our national security and nothing else. :^)
Yep. Make sure nobody invaded the borders. But if your Dad kicks you every day, we don't need to know. We only keep you safe outside your house.
Or inside a womb. Other than that, you're on your own. Find some bootstraps.
Anecdote, but the admissions office I worked for scrutinized test scores, accomplishments, and essay more with homeschooled kids. Homeschool transcripts were harder to place because we didn't have history or a norm.
One clue we had with public/private schools and grade inflation was the class rank. If a kid was top 10 in their class of 400, that told us a lot. If they had a 4.0 but were ranked 30 out of 100, it told us that the school inflated grades (with many kids in the 4.1-4.5+ range). Homeschooled transcripts were accepted, but definitely given a more skeptical look because, like I mentioned earlier, most are all As. And since there is no one to rank against or a history (most colleges keep track of feeder high schools and how many kids matriculate there and how they fare) it is tough to put a ton of weight on those pieces of paper.
Another major disadvantage to homeschooling is lack of leadership opportunity. A big college admissions piece is leadership - student government, captain of sports teams, founders of student clubs or organizations. It is hard to make up for all of the extracurriculars offered at the high school level in co-ops. This is probably one of the reasons why the research shows 9-12 homeschooling does illustrate deficit in opportunities.
As for the OP and oversight. Absolutely, there should be oversight and even some standardization of homeschooling. I think families need to choose what is best for their kid - whether it be public, private, or homeschool. But I believe our society has a vested interest in making sure all of those venues are providing a solid, well rounded, objective educational experience.
Anecdote, but the admissions office I worked for scrutinized test scores, accomplishments, and essay more with homeschooled kids. One clue we had about schools and grade inflation was the class rank. If a kid was top 10 in their class of 400, that told us a lot. If they had a 4.0 but were ranked 30 out of 100, it told us that the school inflated grades (with many kids in the 4.1-4.5+ range). Homeschooled transcripts were accepted, but definitely given a more skeptical look because, like I mentioned earlier, most are all As. And since there is no one to rank against or a history (most colleges keep track of feeder high schools and how many kids matriculate there and how they fare) it is tough to put a ton of weight on those pieces of paper.
Another major disadvantage to homeschooling is lack of leadership opportunity. A big college admissions piece is leadership - student government, captain of sports teams, founders of student clubs or organizations. It is hard to make up for all of the extracurriculars offered at the high school level in co-ops. This is probably one of the reasons why the research shows 9-12 homeschooling does illustrate deficit in opportunities.
As for the OP and oversight. Absolutely, there should be oversight and even some standardization of homeschooling. I think families need to choose what is best for their kid - whether it be public, private, or homeschool. But I believe our society has a vested interest in making sure all of those venues are providing a solid, well rounded, objective educational experience.
The grade inflation is interesting about regular schools. I was in AP and Honors classes which were weighted. That was used for class rank, but our GPA was on 4.0 scale. So I didn't have above a 4.0 on my official GPA, but my class rank was much higher than a friend's who had a high GPA because she didn't take AP and honors classes.
I am a community college professor in one of the most economically diverse areas of the country (seriously: 1+ million dollar homes in gated communities, tiny farming communities, and incredibly poor and gang- ridden communities are all within our boundaries).
I see quite a few home schooled students in my classes. I am a little biased because generally they are actually some of my best students. Many of them want to go into healthcare: primarily nursing, pharmacy, or physical therapy. Those aren't "desk jobs" but they sure are great for contributing to society! They are also incredibly polite, respectful, and get along great with others in their classes.
In terms of oversight: I definitely agree with it *in theory*. However, how they might implement it presents challenges. Requiring a yearly medical examination? Great! But what about quack "doctors" just signing forms, or forgeries? Furthermore, many of the students that are home schooled have special needs (ADHD, autism, etc) that the schools cannot adequately address. How would the government *appropriately* and *cheaply* assess learning other than solely written exams? Some students could knock your socks off if given an oral exam, others would so much better if allowed to submit a portfolio. Who is going to pay for the assessment? Families that are homeschooling? Ok maybe, but what about those below federal poverty guidelines? Do they effectively not get a choice to homeschool their children? Note- most of them in this area that are in that situation are in pretty terrible public school situations. Teachers spend way too much time on classroom management and not enough time on teaching. My source? The teachers themselves, along with students from those schools.
Just wanted to give a slightly different perspective in this very long thread!
If the schools can't handle ADHD or autism, then how is a parent trained and skilled enough to do so?
Without oversight, nevermind the potential educational shortcomings, how is the state going to protect children from abuse like blanket training or worse?
katrana, you have good experiences from the kids who have left homeschool. I have no doubt they can be good students. I worry about those still at home.
I am a community college professor in one of the most economically diverse areas of the country (seriously: 1+ million dollar homes in gated communities, tiny farming communities, and incredibly poor and gang- ridden communities are all within our boundaries).
I see quite a few home schooled students in my classes. I am a little biased because generally they are actually some of my best students. Many of them want to go into healthcare: primarily nursing, pharmacy, or physical therapy. Those aren't "desk jobs" but they sure are great for contributing to society! They are also incredibly polite, respectful, and get along great with others in their classes.
In terms of oversight: I definitely agree with it *in theory*. However, how they might implement it presents challenges. Requiring a yearly medical examination? Great! But what about quack "doctors" just signing forms, or forgeries? Furthermore, many of the students that are home schooled have special needs (ADHD, autism, etc) that the schools cannot adequately address. How would the government *appropriately* and *cheaply* assess learning other than solely written exams? Some students could knock your socks off if given an oral exam, others would so much better if allowed to submit a portfolio. Who is going to pay for the assessment? Families that are homeschooling? Ok maybe, but what about those below federal poverty guidelines? Do they effectively not get a choice to homeschool their children? Note- most of them in this area that are in that situation are in pretty terrible public school situations. Teachers spend way too much time on classroom management and not enough time on teaching. My source? The teachers themselves, along with students from those schools.
Just wanted to give a slightly different perspective in this very long thread!
This is just...dumb. The arguments about quack doctors have already been addressed. "People might break the law!" is never a reason to not pass the law in the first place.
And as for special needs, the vast majority of SN students would do better in public school (or with special instructors) than homeschool. Public schools have IEPs and actual specialists addressing those needs.THAT is how students are assessed. (Most) mothers who homeschool do not have those resources. It's true that some parents have exhausted their PS resources and are homeschooling SN students because they are out of other options, but yet again, those are a very small percentage of the whole. Assessments would (and are) be paid in the same way they are already - homeschool students are still allowed to access those assessments through their local school districts. It's not about payments, or lack of funds. The infrastructure exists for catching students who might fall through the cracks, except HS families are intentionally opting out because there is no law compelling them to do anything about it.