PDA

View Full Version : Court: parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children



savafan
03-09-2008, 04:35 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.

"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."

The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level.

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
Union pleased with ruling

The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.

"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."

A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell issued a statement saying he supports "parental choice when it comes to homeschooling."

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which agreed earlier this week to represent Sunland Christian School and legally advise the Long family on a likely appeal to the state Supreme Court, said the appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be used to go after homeschoolers. "With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect," Dacus said.

Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons, from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools.

Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she's ready for a fight.

Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree.

"I'm kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep," she said. "I'm ready. I have damn good arguments."

She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs.

The ruling, Schwarzer said, "stinks."
Began as child welfare case

The Long family legal battle didn't start out as a test case on the validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case.

A juvenile court judge looking into one child's complaint of mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a right to educate their children at home.

The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school, but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children because that institution "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children, including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning through public charter schools - a setup similar to the one the Longs have, Dacus said.

Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed teachers to supervise students - whether in class or through independent study.
Ruling will apply statewide

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state.

"California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home," he said in a statement.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs' two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law.

"They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor," she said. "If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers."

Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."
Online resources

The ruling: To view the ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal, go to links.sfgate.com/ZCQR.

traderumor
03-09-2008, 05:30 PM
With all due respect to good teachers everywhere, it is a big fat assumption that "credentialed" teachers are better educators of any particular family's children than parents willing to do it themselves. Uncredentialed parents are teaching children at home at higher levels than the "professionals." This is such a horrible, regressive ruling, completely ignoring the successful alternative to government or expensive private schools that homeschooling has become. Keep the parents accountable and punish on a case by case, don't broad brush all homeschooling families as providing inadequate education California. Political garbage.

Caveat Emperor
03-09-2008, 06:15 PM
I've met a few people who were homeschooled and turned out OK -- but it still seems like a strange concept to me. My mother is pretty smart, but I doubt that she'd be a good authority on teaching science with her journalism degree.

And thats not even getting into all the stuff you miss by never eating an awful school lunch, never being out on the playground for a nerf football game, and never playing games in class when your teacher was just too tired to work.

TeamCasey
03-09-2008, 07:06 PM
It always seemed oddly sheltering to me. I'm fairly intelligent. I couldn't imagine attempting to teach a broad range of topics though. Strong in math and science ...... always weak in history and other social sciences. Bad habits, age and the internet have killed much of my grammar skills. ;)

Odd to me but I don't really have a strong argument for/ against the right to do it.

M2
03-09-2008, 08:03 PM
I'm editing this to reflect the regional dialect:


"At first, there was a sense of, 'Like ... no way.'"

SunDeck
03-09-2008, 08:41 PM
Home schooling is a perfectly viable concept. I have worked with home schoolers for years who used the library as a resource for their activities, curriculum and for study materials. That said, some of them were just bonkers, people I wouldn't trust with a ferret, much less an impressionable mind.

I think the appropriate way to regulate home schooling is to require kids to show proficiency of math, science, language arts, etc. Some states do, some don't.

camisadelgolf
03-09-2008, 08:45 PM
Some of my relatives are school teachers. I definitely think home schooling is a good idea.

GAC
03-09-2008, 08:47 PM
With all due respect to good teachers everywhere, it is a big fat assumption that "credentialed" teachers are better educators of any particular family's children than parents willing to do it themselves. Uncredentialed parents are teaching children at home at higher levels than the "professionals."

The teachers were sending home every night with my kids tons of unfinished classroom lessons, and telling the kids to have your parents help you complete it. We were spending 2-3 hrs/night helping our kids with assignments that should have been completed in class.

By the time we were done, my wife and I felt we had our teaching certificate and were, in essence, home schooling our kids. ;)

We also, a various times when two of our kids were in grades 1-6, had to pay for tutors to help our kids in such subjects as reading and math because the school said they were failing those subjects, not meeting the standards, and they didn't know what more they could do, and that WE needed to address the issue.

A vast majority of those home schooled go through approved and credentialed programs designed by educators. Home schooled children, just like public schooled children, also have to pass standardized testing also. Some of my relatives home schooled their kids and I've seen/reviewed the programs. They are pretty solid.

But not all are such, and it's those programs which do need to be investigated and some sort of oversight instituted.

I have friends who are teachers in the public school system. I have nothing but the utmost respect for their job and what they have to do. They are underpaid IMO.

The problem, for the most part, is not the teachers but the system (bureaucracy) they have to work under. IMHO, it's a mess. Here in Ohio they have the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT). You start to take it in your sophomore year and have six chances to pass it. The test consists of Reading, Math, Writing, Science and Social Studies sections. So all the teacher's curriculum is geared solely to the test and getting the student to pass it.

It's part of the No Child Left Behind

Here is the interesting part though, and this really upset me...

What if your child doesn't pass the test by the time they are ready to graduate in their senior year? Tough. They don't get their diploma, and don't get to participate in the graduation ceremonies.

No child left behind huh? :rolleyes:



This is such a horrible, regressive ruling, completely ignoring the successful alternative to government or expensive private schools that homeschooling has become. Keep the parents accountable and punish on a case by case, don't broad brush all homeschooling families as providing inadequate education California. Political garbage.

Exactly. But it's a bigger issue them that tr. The public school system, for the most part, has been a monopoly that's never been tested. There were no other alternatives, other then sending your kid(s) to a private school.

The growing home schooling programs has done that, and there are those within the public school system that don't like that one bit.

SunDeck
03-09-2008, 09:04 PM
And thats not even getting into all the stuff you miss by never eating an awful school lunch, never being out on the playground for a nerf football game, and never playing games in class when your teacher was just too tired to work.

Maybe, but schools are not the best place in the world for many, many kids. I have a son that is on the "high functioning" side of the autism spectrum. He is fine academically, but social situations are terrible for him. Unfortunately, because he is not a special education kid, the school doesn't have much they can do to meet their obligations under federal law. They are required to offer alternatives for kids like mine, but guess what, the most logical alternative may actually be an assigned home school teacher. Right now he is still in the classroom, but that may very well change in the next year.

Now, you may say, "sure, but your kid has autism", but I would venture to say that many people who pull their kids out of school do so because they find that the social situations are leaving their kids with all sorts of other problems. In my experience with home schooled kids, I'd say that of those who are not home schooled for religious purposes, a substantial number are kids who have fallen into some category that the school just doesn't do well with. That could be kids like mine, or some with anxiety disorders, highly gifted kids, or those who are just delayed in some way.

Schools are great with most kids, but not all of them.

KoryMac5
03-09-2008, 09:10 PM
I would not have a problem with home schooling if the parents were still involved with some aspects of the school. After school activities, and sports are all important aspects of every childs learning experience. I would imagine if parents who home school children would become more involved in their districts by following lesson plans and involving their children in activities the schools would soften their stances.

M2
03-09-2008, 09:38 PM
Maybe, but schools are not the best place in the world for many, many kids. I have a son that is on the "high functioning" side of the autism spectrum. He is fine academically, but social situations are terrible for him. Unfortunately, because he is not a special education kid, the school doesn't have much they can do to meet their obligations under federal law. They are required to offer alternatives for kids like mine, but guess what, the most logical alternative may actually be an assigned home school teacher. Right now he is still in the classroom, but that may very well change in the next year.

Now, you may say, "sure, but your kid has autism", but I would venture to say that many people who pull their kids out of school do so because they find that the social situations are leaving their kids with all sorts of other problems. In my experience with home schooled kids, I'd say that of those who are not home schooled for religious purposes, a substantial number are kids who have fallen into some category that the school just doesn't do well with. That could be kids like mine, or some with anxiety disorders, highly gifted kids, or those who are just delayed in some way.

Schools are great with most kids, but not all of them.

My son's also on the high functioning side of the autism spectrum, but our school system has a stellar program for him - in the classroom, helping him on the social side of the equation. The only downside is we're locked into where we live for the next eight years. PM me if you're interested in finding out more about how they run the program.

I can definitely see where you might want to consider home schooling in that scenario.

As for home schooling in general, I don't think there's any reason why a family shouldn't be able to make that choice. Yet when I taught at the collegiate level I had some home schooled students who were woefully underprepared. They couldn't write a lick and they melted down when they were informed their work needed dramatic improvement. The English department where I worked actually was looking to develop a remedial program specifically for home schooled kids because this was becoming a consistent problem (and because in Virginia home schooled kids were becoming a large market, the university didn't want to bounce all that tuition, room and board after a single semester).

There was also a to-do about home schooling in Massachusetts 10 years ago. Home schooled kids were showing huge gaps in their learning. Yet the number of home schooled kids in the state was too small to justify any sort of bureaucratic solution so it went nowhere.

vaticanplum
03-09-2008, 09:51 PM
I could never do it. Lack of qualifications aside, when I have kids they're going to be spending a certain amount of their day away from me so they can have a portion of their lives all to themselves and figure out some stuff on their own. My personality dictates that a certain amount of independence and privacy is vital for development -- both my future kids' and my own. That said, I see no problem with it if kids are able to show proper educational progress. I think it's a shame if parents have to do it for the sole reason that the schools aren't capable of educating the kids properly, as has been referenced above. I understand it given sheer numbers, I guess, but I still think it's a shame.

OldRightHander
03-09-2008, 10:57 PM
That's California for you. Always the leader in completely insane over-regulation.

oneupper
03-09-2008, 11:05 PM
I thought of doing it at one point. Math, Science, History, etc...no problem. Some other stuff...not so good.

Time is major constraint and the fact that my wife can't support both of us.
The alternative: try to live in the best school district possible (or private school).

So much for the "right" to education. (It's a joke...ok...let's not get starte on that).

GoReds33
03-09-2008, 11:20 PM
I think it would be easy teaching a kid if it was first to fifth or sixth grade. After that I'd be completly lost. I'd feel like one of those people on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader. Some of these kids now are really smart. I don't know if there's any qualification program you have to go through to homeschool your kids, but it should be very hard. As has been pointed out earlier, homeschooling is leaving some kids behind, with more to makeup at the collegiate level.

Caveat Emperor
03-10-2008, 01:54 AM
That's California for you. Always the leader in completely insane over-regulation.

Well, to be fair, we're getting into an area of law that is designed as much for the protection of children as it is anything else. A 7 year old kid doesn't know whether or not his parents are doing a good job teaching him, or whether he's being left behind his peers who are attending brick-and-mortar institutions. He doesn't get a say-so on where he goes to school and he certainly doesn't get the opportunity to make sure his own educational needs are adequately addressed. He/She's forced to rely on his parents and, indirectly, the State.

Regulations here protect the child and attempt to ensure that he or she doesn't walk into a university at age 18 and find out that the skills that are needed to succeed were never taught in the homeschooling program.

Johnny Footstool
03-10-2008, 02:31 AM
The whole idea behind teacher certification is to try to make sure only qualified educators are teaching your children. If you really want to home-school your child, just get your certification.

Imagine the uproar if a public school hired non-certified teachers. Parents would be horrified that their childrens' minds were being entrusted to "unqualified" personnel.

dougdirt
03-10-2008, 02:36 AM
Regulations here protect the child and attempt to ensure that he or she doesn't walk into a university at age 18 and find out that the skills that are needed to succeed were never taught in the homeschooling program.

That doesn't really fly considering the amount of friends I know that went to schools like Northwestern, U of Chicago and Johns Hopkins who showed up with their public school AP class educations and were well behind everyone else that showed up with them to class. Eventually they caught up with everyone, but they had to learn things to catch up that the other kids already were taught and knew.

TeamCasey
03-10-2008, 08:47 AM
I could never do it. Lack of qualifications aside, when I have kids they're going to be spending a certain amount of their day away from me so they can have a portion of their lives all to themselves and figure out some stuff on their own. My personality dictates that a certain amount of independence and privacy is vital for development -- both my future kids' and my own.

This was it in my little buddy's case. He isn't around a lot of kids at home. He just blossomed when he started school. It was amazing to see. His confidence grew and his reading took off. I also think he listens better to the teachers than the adults in his life because it's a structured atmosphere.

WMR
03-10-2008, 08:59 AM
Kids belong in school with their friends, enemies, girls, etc. etc. etc.

JMO.

SunDeck
03-10-2008, 09:42 AM
Kids belong in school with their friends, enemies, girls, etc. etc. etc.

JMO.

That's fine for most of the kids, but there are many for whom it's a daily struggle.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3006889&page=1

WMR
03-10-2008, 10:07 AM
I can certainly understand why that might not be a good option for children with developmental problems/issues.

As an aside, at my mom's elementary school, there is a FIRST GRADER who is SO violent, he requires an aide who "shadows" him the ENTIRE DAY. You can guess who pays for that. It can be a two-way street in many instances.

SunDeck
03-10-2008, 10:41 AM
I can certainly understand why that might not be a good option for children with developmental problems/issues.

As an aside, at my mom's elementary school, there is a FIRST GRADER who is SO violent, he requires an aide who "shadows" him the ENTIRE DAY. You can guess who pays for that. It can be a two-way street in many instances.

For what it's worth, the understanding of mental health and development has come a long way towards identifying "disorders" (a term I rather dislike because it makes kids sound broken in some way) and differences that are the root of kids' problems, whereas when I was in school, kids just got punished and expelled for similar behaviors.

It could very well be that this particular kid has something like ODD (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disorder/DS00630/DSECTION=2) and the school is doing what they are supposed to do. Once it is recognized that a kid has some behavioral problem that prevents them from participating in school (say, without being a major disruption to the other kids), the school is bound by federal and state law to come up with a plan that provides an adequate education for the kid.

Now, if the child had a physical disability that required a special ed aid and special desks and amenities, would you feel the same way about the "disorder"? From personal experience, I can tell you that people generally do not. Unfortunately, when a kid has something in their head that isn't working right, it is not treated the same as a physical or otherwise "obvious" mental disability.

15fan
03-10-2008, 10:47 AM
That's California for you. Always the leader in completely insane over-regulation.

:thumbup:

SunDeck
03-10-2008, 10:49 AM
Well, to be fair, we're getting into an area of law that is designed as much for the protection of children as it is anything else. A 7 year old kid doesn't know whether or not his parents are doing a good job teaching him, or whether he's being left behind his peers who are attending brick-and-mortar institutions. He doesn't get a say-so on where he goes to school and he certainly doesn't get the opportunity to make sure his own educational needs are adequately addressed. He/She's forced to rely on his parents and, indirectly, the State.

Regulations here protect the child and attempt to ensure that he or she doesn't walk into a university at age 18 and find out that the skills that are needed to succeed were never taught in the homeschooling program.

Having helped a lot of parents wade through the process of establishing a home schooling situation, I would agree. Some of these parents are convinced they can do a better job than the schools, yet their own critical thinking skills are so minimal that I am sure they can't be right.

Home schooling should be an option, but there has to be a way for those parents to know whether they are getting the job done or not.

I have met a few parents who were just barely literate, yet who have done a fine job of schooling their children. Most them were smart enough to know that there is a lot of external help to rely upon, such as local home schooling support groups, libraries, museums...local 4H even. It's amazing how many resources are out there, but it depends 100% on the parent taking control of the situation. In a way, it's not dissimilar to the parenting connection to school success. The more engaged the parent, the higher the likelihood that the kid will succeed.

RANDY IN INDY
03-10-2008, 11:14 AM
I've got to believe that there are a lot parents who are going to be a lot more engaged in the education of their child than some of the teachers that we've encountered in the public school system. Many times, the kids that truly succeed in any school system, are the kids where the parents are involved at home in the process. I truly believe that my wife and myself have been more instrumental in our son's learning than any teacher that he has had in school. Many of the concepts that he has learned, he has learned at home because we have had to teach, after the fact. He is a straight A student who loves to learn, but unfortunately, the teaching isn't always that great. This year he has been truly blessed to have an excellent teacher in his gifted (advanced) reading and math classes. That was not the case last year. There is no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of parents who could do a better job teaching their children than a majority of teachers in the school systems at this time. I do, however, believe that there needs to be a testing system and accountability for children that are schooled at home.

Chip R
03-10-2008, 11:22 AM
I've got to believe that there are a lot parents who are going to be a lot more engaged in the education of their child than some of the teachers that we've encountered in the public school system. Many times, the kids that truly succeed in any school system, are the kids where the parents are involved at home in the process. I truly believe that my wife and myself have been more instrumental in our son's learning than any teacher that he has had in school. Many of the concepts that he has learned, he has learned at home because we have had to teach, after the fact. He is a straight A student who loves to learn, but unfortunately, the teaching isn't always that great. This year he has been truly blessed to have an excellent teacher in his gifted (advanced) reading and math classes. That was not the case last year. There is no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of parents who could do a better job teaching their children than a majority of teachers in the school systems at this time. I do, however, believe that there needs to be a testing system and accountability for children that are schooled at home.


I don't think there's any doubt about that. The one on one or one on two or three experience lends itself to those instructors/parents being better engaged in the education of their students than a 1 on 30 or 40 or 50 experience. Plus the parents are going to care more about the welfare of their child(ren) than a normal teacher is simply because they don't have any other students to worry about and most importantly, it's their child(ren).

registerthis
03-10-2008, 01:00 PM
That's California for you. Always the leader in completely insane over-regulation.

And with one of the highest quality-of-life measurements in the nation.

Sign me up, dude.

WVRed
03-10-2008, 02:00 PM
For the record, I was homeschooled, so this is somewhat of a touchy issue for me.

However, I wonder how this would affect some of the distance learning alternatives that are available. Bob Jones University and A'Beka book are two video-schooling methods that are commonly used by Christian homeschoolers.

In this case, I doubt parents would have to go to college to be certified to pop in a DVD.;)

westofyou
03-10-2008, 02:06 PM
And with one of the highest quality-of-life measurements in the nation.

Sign me up, dude.

:thumbup:

Ltlabner
03-10-2008, 02:19 PM
While there certinally needs to be guidelines and oversite, I see no issue whatsoever with concered parents taking charge of their childrens education. With the huge amount of support materials now available, and the rapidly growing number of home-schooling people with whom you can combine resources, I just fail to see a down side. You really think all of these elementary school teachers are experts in every subject they teach? Please.

I can see home-schooling a child from K to Jr High School. Then somewhere in the Jr. High years (somewhere between 6th and 9th grades) integrating the child into public schools (depending on the maturity level of the child). Most kids don't cling to an elementary school identity as much as high school so IMO it's far less important where they went to elemetary school. Thus the child is sent into Jr. High with a theroetically better educational baseline. And who can argue with giving a child a solid education?

There's plenty of time for "socialization" of younger children outside of school events (cub scouts, youth sports, playing with kids in neighborhood, etc) so there's really no issue there. They can go find themselves and learn about independence when they get to Jr High (where they'll go into the teen years and do all of that anyway).

It's not perfect and it's not for everybody, but again, I really fail to see any downsides.

durl
03-10-2008, 02:26 PM
My mother is a retired teacher. I grew up around schools and teachers. Just because a school is available in an area doesn't mean it's the best place for a child to learn. Tenure can guarantee that bad teachers will always have a job even if children do not learn from them. That issue alone concerns me.

Also, home schooling may not be for every parent or child. The problem here is that the state is telling parents that they MUST make their children available for the education that the bureaucrats demand. Given the current state of education and test scores in America, it's insulting for them to believe that kids are worse off if they are home-schooled.

The other thing to be aware of here is not the decision itself, but the precedent. Will it be used as a stepping stone for further regulation? Will private schools be targeted next?

traderumor
03-10-2008, 03:17 PM
Hope this isn't too hard to follow, but my poor, uncredentialed homeschooling wife (we use ECOT curriculum and do have a "credentialed" teacher overseeing and grading all of our kids except the first grader, btw) had some comments relating to some things in this thread, so I thought I'd share.

We're such a cute couple :p:


"Kids belong in school with their friends, enemies, girls, etc. etc. etc."uh yeah, so they can learn how to get along with only kids their age who are as clueless as they are and then hope and pray that one of them doesnt come in with daddys gun or mommas butcher knife and kill them all. think it thru. schools now a days, a teacher who, yes has had an education, but is so tired because shes got 35-40 kids to take care of and all that the principals tell her to worry about is make sure those test scores are ok so we can get our money and kids who all they worry about is how good they look, or the girl/boy next to them looks and who they can talk to next. what kind of education is that? it isnt one! look at the kids that are coming out of the public school systems!!

"I could never do it. Lack of qualifications aside, when I have kids they're going to be spending a certain amount of their day away from me so they can have a portion of their lives all to themselves and figure out some stuff on their own. My personality dictates that a certain amount of independence and privacy is vital for development -- both my future kids' and my own. That said, I see no problem with it if kids are able to show proper educational progress. I think it's a shame if parents have to do it for the sole reason that the schools aren't capable of educating the kids properly, as has been referenced above. I understand it given sheer numbers, I guess, but I still think it's a shame."because thats the only way possible for kids to get some independance? to go to school 8 hours a day, then come home with homework for the whole entire evening and have NO LIFE outside of school. yeah, thats independance. geesh

"I would not have a problem with home schooling if the parents were still involved with some aspects of the school. After school activities, and sports are all important aspects of every childs learning experience. I would imagine if parents who home school children would become more involved in their districts by following lesson plans and involving their children in activities the schools would soften their stances."public schools are so threatened by us h/sers that they wont allow us to interact. i woudl love to be able to send the kids every once in a while to an art class there or gym, or wahtever, but the schoosl dont accept that. but we do have homeschool co ops where we do that very thing. since the schools make us completely on our own, we make it work. we dont jsut sit aorund and do nothing because "we can" like people try to make it look like.

"I think the appropriate way to regulate home schooling is to require kids to show proficiency of math, science, language arts, etc. Some states do, some don't."testing or not, we do have to follow guidelines. ya know, you can prove you did something without a test! argh!!

"And thats not even getting into all the stuff you miss by never eating an awful school lunch, never being out on the playground for a nerf football game, and never playing games in class when your teacher was just too tired to work."oh the horror of having to miss this. instead you get a home cooked meal, a mother who loves you with you all day, and you even get to take days off because you got plenty more work done in a day that PS kids get done in a week. geesh, what an awful life for these poor homeschoolers.


so much more to say, but i need to go tend to our poor abused kids who are outside playing nad having fun, even though were accused of not allowing our kids to do that

Johnny Footstool
03-10-2008, 03:28 PM
I can see home-schooling a child from K to Jr High School. Then somewhere in the Jr. High years (somewhere between 6th and 9th grades) integrating the child into public schools (depending on the maturity level of the child). Most kids don't cling to an elementary school identity as much as high school so IMO it's far less important where they went to elemetary school. Thus the child is sent into Jr. High with a theroetically better educational baseline. And who can argue with giving a child a solid education?

The quality of the child's education is the issue, though. And that's extremely subjective. Why not remove at least some of that subjectivity by requiring the proper credentials?

The article cites the case of one woman who has gone to the trouble of registering her own home school as "Oak Hill Academy," yet she can't find a reason to get the proper credentials as a teacher?

dabvu2498
03-10-2008, 04:08 PM
The article cites the case of one woman who has gone to the trouble of registering her own home school as "Oak Hill Academy," yet she can't find a reason to get the proper credentials as a teacher?

Darn fine basketball program she's got.

Ltlabner
03-10-2008, 04:09 PM
The quality of the child's education is the issue, though. And that's extremely subjective. Why not remove at least some of that subjectivity by requiring the proper credentials?

If the children are passing the state mandated proficiency tests to show they are actually learning something and at the same pace as the public school kids, I could give a rip if the parent has credentials or not. There's plenty of school teachers with degrees and credentials out the wazoo who can't teach squat (and lots and lots of good teachers...just making the point that teachers college and credentials doesn't make the teacher).

SunDeck
03-10-2008, 04:21 PM
What I don't get is why it's an all or nothing deal. Why can't Mrs. Traderumor's kids take part in some school activities? It's not like they are lepers. I can say with certainty that our kid would have far fewer problems if we could allow him to go half day, then spend the afternoons at home. My kid is something of a special case, but I really can't see the harm in letting a family participate in such a way.

I have not noticed educators feeling threatened by homeschoolers, although this decision certainly seems like they are in California (I would love to see the lobbying history behind this...). There was a lot of hostility towards HSers a decade ago, but in my work with educators and homeschoolers since then I have not perceived that schools feel threatened, so I am surprised by this ruling. Of course, I am in Bloomington- a very HS friendly community.

That is not to say educators don't look down their noses at HSers and stereotype them as a bunch of religious nutjobs. That is something I have seen up close and personal (along with the fallacy about homeshoolers and socialization). So much, in fact, that I still notice religiously motivated homeschoolers often seem surprised at how much support we offer them at my public library. My guess is only that my predecessor's attitude was not the same as mine.

Boston Red
03-10-2008, 04:59 PM
"And thats not even getting into all the stuff you miss by never eating an awful school lunch, never being out on the playground for a nerf football game, and never playing games in class when your teacher was just too tired to work."oh the horror of having to miss this. instead you get a home cooked meal, a mother who loves you with you all day, and you even get to take days off because you got plenty more work done in a day that PS kids get done in a week. geesh, what an awful life for these poor homeschoolers.

But those are the some of the very things most normal people remember most fondly about their childhoods. And most of the kids whose parents care enough about them to put in the effort to homeschool them desperately need some good solid time away from the mother who loves them.

durl
03-10-2008, 05:03 PM
I recently read that Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, will be teaching at Yale. I wonder if he has a teaching certificate?

There are many examples of politicians and CEOs being brought in to teach at universities although they have no teaching credentials. It's funny that they could teach at a university but would be barred from teaching their own kids at home in California.

Johnny Footstool
03-10-2008, 05:05 PM
If the children are passing the state mandated proficiency tests to show they are actually learning something and at the same pace as the public school kids, I could give a rip if the parent has credentials or not. There's plenty of school teachers with degrees and credentials out the wazoo who can't teach squat (and lots and lots of good teachers...just making the point that teachers college and credentials doesn't make the teacher).

The idea would be to have some kind of quality assurance before the kids pass or fail the proficiency tests.

I understand that the certification isn't some kind of magical crown that instantly transforms a person into a great teacher, but it guarantees at least a bare minimum of training. I know Kansas, for all the flak our school system gets, does have a fairly good certification program and requires teachers to take proficiency exams to renew that certification.

traderumor
03-10-2008, 05:07 PM
But those are the some of the very things most normal people remember most fondly about their childhoods. And most of the kids whose parents care enough about them to put in the effort to homeschool them desperately need some good solid time away from the mother who loves them.My wife bought school trays at the dollar store, takes them to our church sometimes and lets them go through the lunch line. Also, our kids spend the night with friends, go to friends' house and play, attend birthday parties, play on basketball teams, cheerlead, take part in coop art and writing classes, go on field trips, could go to the local school sporting events if they wanted to (most are not interested), have friends that go to public school, etc. and so forth.

While I appreciate what you are saying, our kids are not kept in a dark basement and served grool at the top of the steps.

They are normal kids, doing normal stuff, except they don't go through the Americanized idea of what education should be.

Johnny Footstool
03-10-2008, 05:10 PM
I recently read that Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, will be teaching at Yale. I wonder if he has a teaching certificate?

There are many examples of politicians and CEOs being brought in to teach at universities although they have no teaching credentials. It's funny that they could teach at a university but would be barred from teaching their own kids at home in California.

"Teaching" at the university level is actually just "lecturing." Professors are experts in their own field, but very few actually have degrees in education. Politicians, CEOs, famous authors, et al simply get up and talk for two hours every week. Their GTAs generally do the real teaching work -- grading papers, leading discussions, etc.

Ltlabner
03-10-2008, 05:14 PM
I understand that the certification isn't some kind of magical crown that instantly transforms a person into a great teacher, but it guarantees at least a bare minimum of training.


Their GTAs generally do the real teaching work -- grading papers, leading discussions, etc.

So how much training does it exactly take to be able to grade papers and lead discussions?

Seems to me it doesn't take a $80,000 university degree and memebership in the teachers union to teach a 3rd grader math. Once you get into high-school where the subjects are more specialized, it's harder on a parent. But we're talking about teaching a kid basic reading, writing and 'rithmatic. That doesn't take a specalized degree IMO. The teachers in elemetary school are generalists, so the only advantage they have over parents is a general understanding of educational theroy. This is far negatated by the parents specific understanding of how their child learns.

Somehow parents are able to teach kids to read, write, do very basic math and tie their shoes before sending their kids off to public school. But anything beyond that is way too much to handle? Please.

M2
03-10-2008, 05:46 PM
Somehow parents are able to teach kids to read, write, do very basic math and tie their shoes before sending their kids off to public school. But anything beyond that is way too much to handle? Please.

I've got no problem with parents who home school. My take is it's really not a societal issue unless large numbers of kids are being home schooled and not getting a good enough education as a result.

As for the ability of a parent to do the job, I suspect you've got to be one heck of a teacher to handle the entire educational span from preschool-12. Teaching the basics is one thing, but if you don't know calculus, then you aren't going to do a very good of explaining integration by parts. I know I'd be hard-pressed to explain plate tectonics or the oceanic warm water conveyor belt beyond a cursory encyclopedia entry, and I'd be utterly lost in how to fit that in with a larger earth sciences curriculum. I'd also be beyond useless at teaching my son to play the violin.

If you don't know Roman history, how do you propose to teach Western Civ? If you aren't well-versed in the humanities how are you going to teach a kid to write a well-constructed literary essay or to compare the philosophies of Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas?

I think we as a society should resist the temptation to pound every square peg. Yet I don't envy the parents who take on the responsibility of being the chief educators of their children. Even if you're well-rounded and dilligent, your children will still be bounded by what you know.

Ltlabner
03-10-2008, 06:00 PM
I've got no problem with parents who home school. My take is it's really not a societal issue unless large numbers of kids are being home schooled and not getting a good enough education as a result.

I think we as a society should resist the temptation to pound every square peg. Yet I don't envy the parents who take on the responsibility of being the chief educators of their children. Even if you're well-rounded and dilligent, your children will still be bounded by what you know.

That's why for me a good compromise is home school through the formative years up into the jr.high subjects when the subjects begin to get more specalized and indepth. Then transfer over to the public/private school system at that time.

WMR
03-10-2008, 06:09 PM
But those are the some of the very things most normal people remember most fondly about their childhoods. And most of the kids whose parents care enough about them to put in the effort to homeschool them desperately need some good solid time away from the mother who loves them.

Exactly. Kids need to go to school for this very reason. Mommy needs to let her kids become individuals and socialize with the same wide-ranging demographic that they will one-day encounter in the real world.

Ltlabner
03-10-2008, 06:16 PM
Exactly. Kids need to go to school for this very reason. Mommy needs to let her kids become individuals and socialize with the same wide-ranging demographic that they will one-day encounter in the real world.

The goal of education in the younger years is to teach students the knowledge and reasoning skills they need to survive.

"Becoming an individual" and socialization are nice side-effects of school, but that can be acomplished elsewhere.

WMR
03-10-2008, 06:19 PM
"Kids belong in school with their friends, enemies, girls, etc. etc. etc."uh yeah, so they can learn how to get along with only kids their age who are as clueless as they are and then hope and pray that one of them doesnt come in with daddys gun or mommas butcher knife and kill them all. think it thru. schools now a days, a teacher who, yes has had an education, but is so tired because shes got 35-40 kids to take care of and all that the principals tell her to worry about is make sure those test scores are ok so we can get our money and kids who all they worry about is how good they look, or the girl/boy next to them looks and who they can talk to next. what kind of education is that? it isnt one! look at the kids that are coming out of the public school systems!!

You think your kids are clueless?

Yeah, out of the tens of thousands of schools, and the millions of school-children, how many are involved in a school shooting? You've probably got just as good a chance of being killed during a home invasion while being home schooled than by a gun-toting kid while at school.

"think it thru [sic]" :lol: I see now where traderumor developed his debating techniques. Awesome condescension. ;)

The way you demean the public education system in this country is actually pretty sickening. The teachers you describe are much more the exception than the rule.

"Look at the kids coming out of public schools" ... Well, I came out of a public school and I graduated from Georgetown College in 4 years and will graduate from Case Western Reserve School of Law in May after 3 years.

You are entitled to do whatever you want with your kids as far as I'm concerned, please, however, save us from the ad hominem attacks on teachers and the good works that the majority of them do on a daily basis.

WMR
03-10-2008, 06:20 PM
The goal of education in the younger years is to teach students the knowledge and reasoning skills they need to survive.

"Becoming an individual" and socialization are nice side-effects of school, but that can be acomplished elsewhere.

Disagree.

School is as much about socialization in the early years as it is anything else. There is no way to accomplish the wide range of socialization across such a varied demographic that occurs at school in any other setting.

joshnky
03-10-2008, 06:22 PM
Exactly. Kids need to go to school for this very reason. Mommy needs to let her kids become individuals and socialize with the same wide-ranging demographic that they will one-day encounter in the real world.

You might be right but I feel that parents have the right to determine how their kids are educated. I'm not a proponent of home school for some of the reasons above but I'm not going to tell someone else what is best for their kids. Fact is, many home schooled kids go to college and are ahead of their peers in every way. On the other side, many public school kids get left behind and go to college (hopefully) and spend their first semester taking remedial English and Math.

WMR
03-10-2008, 06:23 PM
Of course they do, Josh. I just gave my opinion. That in no way was telling people what they should do with their kids.

WMR
03-10-2008, 06:24 PM
I'm a Libertarian. As long as your rights don't infringe upon me or mine, I say do whatever the hell you want.

BRM
03-10-2008, 06:46 PM
I'm a Libertarian. As long as your rights don't infringe upon me or mine, I say do whatever the hell you want.

So I ride around on my tractor naked as a jaybird?

WMR
03-10-2008, 06:50 PM
So I ride around on my tractor naked as a jaybird?

How about Mrs. BRM? :luvu::dancingco

Johnny Footstool
03-10-2008, 06:50 PM
So how much training does it exactly take to be able to grade papers and lead discussions?

It requires at least a degree of expertise in the subject matter. But that's college "teaching." It's not really germane to the the main discussion.


Seems to me it doesn't take a $80,000 university degree and memebership in the teachers union to teach a 3rd grader math.

No, but it would require more than a casual knowledge of 1+2=3. The ideal methods for teaching the concepts of long division, fractions, percentages, other mathematical concepts we learn in grade school are not common knowledge. I taught fractions and percentages to GED candidates, and it's not as easy as you might think.


Once you get into high-school where the subjects are more specialized, it's harder on a parent. But we're talking about teaching a kid basic reading, writing and 'rithmatic. That doesn't take a specalized degree IMO. The teachers in elemetary school are generalists, so the only advantage they have over parents is a general understanding of educational theroy. This is far negatated by the parents specific understanding of how their child learns.

Somehow parents are able to teach kids to read, write, do very basic math and tie their shoes before sending their kids off to public school. But anything beyond that is way too much to handle? Please.

Elementary school certification is certainly different from Junior High or High School certification. However, I still think any parent who is teaching their child and calling it "school" should follow the requirements for whatever level of education they are attempting to teach.

As for the parents' "specific understanding of how the child learns," most likely, those parents are going to do a great job with the one or two children they are teaching. But what if they don't? You have to do what you can to eliminate (or at least reduce) the possibility that mom and dad are lousy teachers.

Like I said before, the certification is no guarantee, but it does set a baseline.

BRM
03-10-2008, 06:52 PM
How about Mrs. BRM? :luvu::dancingco

She can't drive the tractor...no power steering. You'll have to settle for me.

WMR
03-10-2008, 06:57 PM
She can't drive the tractor...no power steering. You'll have to settle for me.

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/series/6003.html

Problem solved. I'll even train her how to use it myself. See what a nice guy I am??? LMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: ;)

BRM
03-10-2008, 07:00 PM
If I could afford a new Deere, I'd already own one.

WMR
03-10-2008, 07:02 PM
If I could afford a new Deere, I'd already own one.

Come to Bevins Motor Co., we give Hoosier fans a special 10% surcharge. And an 'extra special' financing rate through John Deere Credit. ;)

BRM
03-10-2008, 07:03 PM
Come to Bevins Motor Co., we give Hoosier fans a special 10% surcharge. And an 'extra special' financing rate through John Deere Credit. ;)

Yeah, I bet you guys really hook up the Indiana boys.

WMR
03-10-2008, 07:04 PM
Yeah, I bet you guys really hook up the Indiana boys.

We're all farmers underneath our red or blue. ;)

BRM
03-10-2008, 07:06 PM
We're all farmers underneath our red or blue. ;)

True. If I ever make it in there, I'll be sure to be completely decked out in red. A red International Harvester hat and an IU shirt. :cool:

SunDeck
03-10-2008, 07:56 PM
Disagree.

School is as much about socialization in the early years as it is anything else. There is no way to accomplish the wide range of socialization across such a varied demographic that occurs at school in any other setting.

So, before there were schools there was no socialization of children? :)

The argument against homeschooling based on socialization used to be a big deal, but it's not any more. Education researchers have accepted that homeschooling has little negative effect on a kids' socialization. Besides, with a lot of homeschoolers, one of the reasons they pull their kids out of schools is due to the fact that they specifically want to keep their kids away from the social values they believe pervade public schools and which are communicated peer to peer among kids. What you and I remember as the rough and tumble of our public school experience, some see as a barrier to their child's moral upbringing. That is not my personal viewpoint, however it just doesn't seem like the American way to restrict their right to assert that kind of value driven control over their child's educational experience.

Razor Shines
03-10-2008, 07:56 PM
True. If I ever make it in there, I'll be sure to be completely decked out in red. A red International Harvester hat and an IU shirt. :cool:

If you want a real deal then I'll let you borrow my JJ Redick jersey.

Razor Shines
03-10-2008, 08:00 PM
So, before there were schools there was no socialization of children? :)

The argument against homeschooling based on socialization used to be a big deal, but it's not any more. Education researchers have accepted that homeschooling has little negative effect on a kids' socialization. Besides, with a lot of homeschoolers, one of the reasons they pull their kids out of schools is due to the fact that they specifically want to keep their kids away from the social values they believe pervade public schools and which are communicated peer to peer among kids. What you and I remember as the rough and tumble of our public school experience, some see as a barrier to their child's moral upbringing. That is not my personal viewpoint, however it just doesn't seem like the American way to restrict their right to assert that kind of value driven control over their child's educational experience.

Well, I think another factor is where the parents live and which public school their kids would be going to. I grew up in the inner city of Indianapolis and was home schooled until 7th grade because my parents weren't able to afford private schooling until then. Before 7th grade I played sports at the Catholic school in my neighborhood, and I didn't have any trouble adjusting to school when I went. That's just my experience though.

If we had lived in an area with better public schooling or if they'd had their choice of which public school to send me to they wouldn't have home schooled me.

WMR
03-10-2008, 08:01 PM
it just doesn't seem like the American way to restrict their right to assert that kind of value driven control over their child's educational experience.

Oh I agree with that certainly, as I already stated.

I disagree with other portions of your post, but I agree that each parent should be able to make that decision for their own family...

WMR
03-10-2008, 08:01 PM
If you want a real deal then I'll let you borrow my JJ Redick jersey.

Bwahahahahaha... that's a good one Razor!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

vaticanplum
03-10-2008, 09:19 PM
But those are the some of the very things most normal people remember most fondly about their childhoods. And most of the kids whose parents care enough about them to put in the effort to homeschool them desperately need some good solid time away from the mother who loves them.

I wouldn't say it's a matter of what people do or do not remember fondly. i think the fact of the matter is that children are not always going to be surrounded by 24-hour-a-day love from mother, they will have to do things at a pace slower or faster than their own in certain environments, and at a certain point they're going to have to stomach a meal that isn't home-cooked. Unless their parents intend to shelter them from the world forever, and if that's their view of a good life, that's their point of view. I don't share it, I think the world is worth it in its tedious parts too, but it's a legitimate point of view and one that some people do succeed in holding all their lives.

I wanted to address that point, but I want to reiterate again that I think parents should educate their children however they see fit provided that some proof of education is required. I certainly do not think that all parents who homeschool their kids do so to shelter them.

SunDeck
03-10-2008, 09:36 PM
I certainly do not think that all parents who homeschool their kids do so to shelter them.
Many of the people I know who homeschool for religious purposes don't believe they are hiding their kids from anything. On the contrary, they believe they are shaping the moral character the kids will need to stand against the culture they see dominating the schools.

And man, I can't believe Wilymo doesn't agree with me. I thought we were like peas in a pod. :D

Ltlabner
03-10-2008, 09:45 PM
However, I still think any parent who is teaching their child and calling it "school" should follow the requirements for whatever level of education they are attempting to teach.

You have to do what you can to eliminate (or at least reduce) the possibility that mom and dad are lousy teachers.

I agree totally with para 1 (except the certification parts). I don't think parents should run willy-nilly and do whatever they want. But I'm pretty sure most home-school programs require children to be tested, routine checkins with a school district representatives, and sylibi to be approved before hand. Each district is a little different, IIRC. But the bottom line is there is oversight, not a bunch of parents doing whatever they want and calling it school.

As far as para 2, there's plenty of lousy teachers. Now you've got 25 to 30 kids dealing with a lousy teacher and unless the teacher does something really horrable you're stuck with them all year. If HS parents don't have the nack to teach, it will quickly show up in testing and can be delt with case by case. So if "what if they suck at teaching" is a big concern, it's an even bigger one at the public school.

There's lots and lots of good teachers out there, but lets not pretend all of them are fantastic and that only way to learn is via a public school system.

WMR
03-10-2008, 09:49 PM
Many of the people I know who homeschool for religious purposes don't believe they are hiding their kids from anything. On the contrary, they believe they are shaping the moral character the kids will need to stand against the culture they see dominating the schools.

And man, I can't believe Wilymo doesn't agree with me. I thought we were like peas in a pod. :D

Hehehehe... ;) What fun would that be? :) ;)

SunDeck
03-10-2008, 09:51 PM
Indiana requires no certification, no testing. But you have to show attendance.

Because we all know that is the most important thing about one's education; showing up.

Ohio's regulations are more aggressive:



Attendance:
900 hours per year
Subjects:
Language, reading, spelling, writing, geography, history of the United States and Ohio, government, math, science, health, physical education, fine arts (including music), first aid, safety, and fire prevention
Qualifications:
High school diploma, GED, test scores showing high school equivalence, or work under a person with a baccalaureate degree until child’s test scores show proficiency or parent earns diploma or GED
Notice:
Submit an annual notice of intent to the local superintendent
Recordkeeping:
None
Testing:
Submit with renewal notification either: 1) standardized test scores, or 2) a written narrative showing satisfactory academic progress, or 3) an approved alternative assessment

traderumor
03-10-2008, 11:59 PM
You think your kids are clueless?

Yeah, out of the tens of thousands of schools, and the millions of school-children, how many are involved in a school shooting? You've probably got just as good a chance of being killed during a home invasion while being home schooled than by a gun-toting kid while at school.

"think it thru [sic]" :lol: I see now where traderumor developed his debating techniques. Awesome condescension. ;)
The way you demean the public education system in this country is actually pretty sickening. The teachers you describe are much more the exception than the rule.

"Look at the kids coming out of public schools" ... Well, I came out of a public school and I graduated from Georgetown College in 4 years and will graduate from Case Western Reserve School of Law in May after 3 years.

You are entitled to do whatever you want with your kids as far as I'm concerned, please, however, save us from the ad hominem attacks on teachers and the good works that the majority of them do on a daily basis.
Um, sarcasm, Wily Mo. Didn't they warn you about that in your public school?;)

It seems rather odd to make ad hominem attacks within a post that you are complaining about another making ad hominem attacks (see bolded statement).

The public schools are a wasteland. They are not educating children, they are teaching children how to pass an achievement test. I graduated from one as well, before the achievement tests, graduated from Ohio State with Honors. I think my education was pitiful, having seen what is important for children to learn versus what they are teaching. 16 years of schooling, not one class on logic and rhetoric, one of the most critical skills needed for an educated person next to reading and math. Oh that's right, you had to be on the debate team to learn such skills.

BTW, my dear wife's stepmom is a retired school teacher. She used to beat her stepchildren. She has a little different take on "credentialed" teachers than you do, having been on the inside growing up.

VR
03-11-2008, 01:30 AM
We home-schooled our two oldest in California for a few years...they certainly make it tough. We had to have a lawyer on retainer as a perquisite of joining one of the local groups.

Got to Arizona, no problems. Washington/ Oregon, much of the same. Kids are required to test annually, as well as show attendance records....but no fear of the government knocking on your door to call you a misfit parent.
They were able to take any advanced classes within our school district that my wife didn't feel comfortable teaching. Also able to play sports within the district.

There are also many co-ops, "Friday" Schools (where certified teachers donate their time for specialized classes) etc etc etc.

Having grown up in Iowa and very naive to the concept, I was wary....but it can surely be done.

Our kids are all in public school now, because we are in a very good district...one of the tops in the state. Our 9 year old has Asperger's syndrome....and the school is the right place for him...as they have an incredible program to 'protect' him, while still providing an incredible learning environment.