What's wrong with Home Schooling?

[Shodan]

As I recall, teachers typically have significantly higher than average IQ's and, for math and science, high school teachers have training in their subject. Compared with other college graduates? Not that I heard - just the opposite, in fact. Those in education tend to have lower SATs and other measures of learning than other subject areas.

This notion that teaching is an incredibly difficult and esoteric area that is beyond the reach of the average parent is a little bizarre. Most of the difficulties in teaching in public schools is that you are teaching a room full of strange kids that you don't know very well. Parents don't have that disadvantage.

I mean, come on. Haven't any of the home school opponents ever helped a kid with his homework? Teaching the subject is not all that different.

Some schools used to accept teachers with no educational training at all, just subject matter experts, and to my knowledge they don't do any worse than those with a degree in education.

Not to denigrate teachers who do a good job, but this is not rocket science. If you can learn a subject well enough to understand it, you can understand it well enough to teach it. Especially when you have only one student going thru the material at a time. And doubly especially if it is only at the middle, or even high school, level.

Regards,
Shodan

[AlienVessels]

When you're the king you'll be free to go after some fraction of the 2% of U.S. school age students if you like. I'd rather my tax dollars go towards the larger problem: kids who are in the eighth grade and who cannot read, write, or do math and who are demonstrably slipping through the safety nets in the urban public school systems. To my mind those are the kids who pose a significant threat to the social fabric.

Turns out we can do both.

And the answer to correcting the problem with 8th graders not performing is NOT to hand them to other "8th graders".

The price per student to fix the urban school problem will be vastly more than simple requirements we already assess against public schools.

That's the wonderful thing about a democracy. We all get to vote on what seems to make sense for the majority. One consequence is that sometimes our tax dollars are spent in ways we don't entirely agree with.

I'm unaware of any democracies in which that doesn't occur. I certain think that parents that have the resources and qualifications should be able to teach their children at home, just as I'm ok with people posting a surety in an escrow account in lieu of purchasing auto insurance.

[dangermom]

And I didn't invent an interventionist policy with respect to schooling children. We require that kids be educated and we hold the schools to some standards. Parents homeschooling should be able to show they meet those standards.
I'm not sure that's true. Schools are required to have standards because they're supposed to prove to parents that they deserve the trust placed in them. Private schools aren't required to have the same standards, since they're not government bodies and presumably are voluntarily chosen by the parents. The parents are the ones with the actual job of looking after children's welfare, and they're assumed to be competent unless proven otherwise.

Public schools are supposed to have standards because they are supposed to serve the citizens. The state serves the citizens, not the other way around. The right to oversee a child's education reposes with the parents, who then may or may not decide to delegate that education to an outside party.

[AlienVessels]

I'm not sure that's true. Schools are required to have standards because they're supposed to prove to parents that they deserve the trust placed in them. Private schools aren't required to have the same standards, since they're not government bodies and presumably are voluntarily chosen by the parents. The parents are the ones with the actual job of looking after children's welfare, and they're assumed to be competent unless proven otherwise.

Public schools are supposed to have standards because they are supposed to serve the citizens. The state serves the citizens, not the other way around. The right to oversee a child's education reposes with the parents, who then may or may not decide to delegate that education to an outside party.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2004/compulsory_ed/020304_compulsory_education_laws.htm

That's the overview of how *compulsory* education in California works.

Homeschooling is currently in the grey area, but all the other options are regulated by the state.

Here is a web site from a Homeschooling Association. When you homeschool, you are asserting to the state certain commitments in time and resources and attendance of the student.

http://www.hsc.org/legalprivateschooloption.php#afteroct15

Teachers in private schools do not need to hold state teaching credentials, even though many state officials seem to think they do. The statute is very clear on this point. §48222 requires that the teachers be "capable of teaching," but this phrase is not explained or defined. We believe most people who can speak and read competently in English generally could be capable.

So basically is boils down to a judgment whether the "8th grader reader" (and by the way, that is the *average*, 50% are there or BELOW in skill) can teach capably.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Not to denigrate teachers who do a good job, but this is not rocket science. If you can learn a subject well enough to understand it, you can understand it well enough to teach it. Especially when you have only one student going thru the material at a time. And doubly especially if it is only at the middle, or even high school, level.
Rocket science? No. But there's a pretty great continuum with no maxing-out that I'm aware of: the better you are by inclination, training, and experience, and the more work you put into it, the more effective your teaching is. The best teachers are incredibly better than the worst ones.

And there are plenty of people I've encountered who understand a subject just fine, but are complete basket-cases when it comes to teaching it. Surely you've encountered those teachers also?

[Shodan]

The same can be said of parents. And we are not talking about the extremes, but averages. The average home-schooling parent, with a "class size" of two or three, is going to be better than the average teacher with a class size of thirty.

Sure, I have met several incompetent teachers. But that demonstrates my point - possession of a teaching degree is no guarantee of the ability to teach.

Teaching and tutoring are different things. Home schooling is pretty much tutoring, except with the advantage of added motivation (because it is your own kids) and much more immediate feedback on whether or not you the student is mastering the material.

The idea that teaching is so difficult that only someone with a degree in education can do it seems to be a mainstay of teachers union rhetoric. As mentioned, anyone who has successfully helped a child with his homework knows better.

And as I said, the idea that home schooling is dangerous because high school algebra is so difficult is pretty silly.

Regards,
Shodan

[heatmiserfl]

Compared with other college graduates? Not that I heard - just the opposite, in fact. Those in education tend to have lower SATs and other measures of learning than other subject areas.

This notion that teaching is an incredibly difficult and esoteric area that is beyond the reach of the average parent is a little bizarre. Most of the difficulties in teaching in public schools is that you are teaching a room full of strange kids that you don't know very well. Parents don't have that disadvantage.

I mean, come on. Haven't any of the home school opponents ever helped a kid with his homework? Teaching the subject is not all that different.

Some schools used to accept teachers with no educational training at all, just subject matter experts, and to my knowledge they don't do any worse than those with a degree in education.

Not to denigrate teachers who do a good job, but this is not rocket science. If you can learn a subject well enough to understand it, you can understand it well enough to teach it. Especially when you have only one student going thru the material at a time. And doubly especially if it is only at the middle, or even high school, level.

Regards,
Shodan

According to these cites, teacher wannabes and teachers have higher SAT scores and IQs than average college grades. Several cites say that average college grads IQs are 115, average teachers 120. I'm sure high school math and science teachers probably score a bit higher in certain areas (as they should).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/education/12teachers.html
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm
http://ezinearticles.com/?Average-IQ-Score---What-is-it-and-What-Does-it-Mean-For-You?&id=2065410

The only places where I saw lower scores were on suspicious-looking rightwing blogs with not references.

To address the bolded part in your post, all I can say as that you are exaggerating mine and others claims. All we're saying is that teaching is a skilled profession that needs skilled personnel.

I also want to say that just because homeschooling is a smaller endeavor than a whole classroom, it's still much more than tutoring. Even tutoring requires proper knowledge of the subject and communication skills.

And I am asking, why is schooling, in particular, so important that we should assume parental incompetence in this area, when the state and social default in almost all realms of parenting is to assume competence (and good intentions)? You follow? People have to do terrible things to their children in most respects to even run the risk of having the state (or anyone) intervene, yet AV says we should start out with an interventionist position with respect to schooling. Why the difference?
Because education in our modern society requires more skill than typical parenting skills. Most parents have reasonable skills to care for their children, just like most animals.

But, again, when I see people who think education is so easy I just think that this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect .
may be in effect.

[suranyi]

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2004/compulsory_ed/020304_compulsory_education_laws.htm

That's the overview of how *compulsory* education in California works.

Homeschooling is currently in the grey area, but all the other options are regulated by the state.

Here is a web site from a Homeschooling Association. When you homeschool, you are asserting to the state certain commitments in time and resources and attendance of the student.

http://www.hsc.org/legalprivateschooloption.php#afteroct15



So basically is boils down to a judgment whether the "8th grader reader" (and by the way, that is the *average*, 50% are there or BELOW in skill) can teach capably.

So who says those parents who are below 8th grade reading level are the ones doing the home schooling?

Basically, the law is that, as in all other areas of child rearing, the presumption is that the parents are competent unless there is evidence to the contrary in the specific case.

[AlienVessels]

So who says those parents who are below 8th grade reading level are the ones doing the home schooling?

Basically, the law is that, as in all other areas of child rearing, the presumption is that the parents are competent unless there is evidence to the contrary in the specific case.

From my perspective, people with an 8th grade or under reading level are not competent to teach material with above that reading level. If you can't master the daily newspaper, IMO that's evidence you're probably not competent to teach.

[Peremensoe]

From my perspective, people with an 8th grade or under reading level are not competent to teach material with above that reading level.

It would be hard to disagree with that. People who don't know French aren't competent to teach French, too.

It's also hard to see how that "perspective" is helpful.

[suranyi]

From my perspective, people with an 8th grade or under reading level are not competent to teach material with above that reading level. If you can't master the daily newspaper, IMO that's evidence you're probably not competent to teach.

Totally agree. Fortunately, none of the homeschoolers I'm familiar with have any difficulty in that area. First, find some homeschoolers that "can't master the daily newspaper", and then we can talk about what to do with them.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The same can be said of parents. And we are not talking about the extremes, but averages. The average home-schooling parent, with a "class size" of two or three, is going to be better than the average teacher with a class size of thirty.
I wasn't posting that to denigrate homeschooling; again, I have no problem with it at all. (I have problems with particular versions of it, but I have problems with particular versions of puppies, moms, and apple pies, too.) I was just responding to what I saw as an implication that a minimal level of skill in teaching is something we should accept, because teaching doesn't really require much skill. Part of my lifelong rant is that we should drastically raise the standards for teachers, and raise pay, self-determination, and status commensurately.

[Void1967]

I've seen people do this well, and when they do it results in kids that are very gifted......however I've seen it done bad. Where I live there is a governing body in the public schools that go out and 'assess and consult' if things aren't followed through, I understand that there are requirements and consequences for parents. In some places there are no gouverning bodies and that sucks.

If I had been stuck in a place where the neighborhood school was dangerous and drug-ridden I may have considered it, but my kids schools have been pretty good.

[lindsaybluth]

What's wrong with homeschooling? Why, the zombie indoctrination of course.

[lindsaybluth]

I had a handful of homeschooling friends in high school; the nature of the sport I did was often intense and led some to homeschool. They seemed to have enough social interaction and seemed smart enough. But I didn't know them well.

In college I dated a guy for 1 1/2 years who was homeschooled up until college save for a semester he decided to "try" public school.

Educationally he was smart and very well rounded. His parents were secular and both college educated (musician and nurse) so knowledge wise he was perfectly fine. He did a year or so of college credits at the local community college.

However, he had problems most other people do not. For example, his immune system was shit because he wasn't exposed to germs much. He would often get over-stimulated or overwhelmed with schoolwork and life; he would need to take a break and expected his professors and everyone else to hold his hand in doing so (he went to a small, liberal arts college so it worked). It took him 4 years to graduate in spite of his 1 to 1/2 years worth of incoming creidts from CC. He would often struggle with being laughed at or teased by well-established and definitely well-meaning friends. He would blow up and scream and clearly have anxiety issues that were in no way genetic but all due to his upbringing.

He had a wonderful internship one summer (in a good company in his field) that he up and quit because the work wasn't "emotionally or intellectually stimulating enough". WTF? Internships very rarely are satisfying in those ways; they're a foot in the door, dude. And he ran back home into mummy and daddy's arms without so much as a reprimand - except from me, who told him this was what the Real World was like. He often expected people to answer to his every whim, to cater to his needs and to think about what kind of emotional and intellectual satisfaction he was getting out of their interactions. In essence, he was not mature not self-sufficient.

It was very evident that his homeschool education was 100% at fault for not preparing him for The Real World. From what I understand, he's still having issues adjusting to the real world in terms of cooking, cleaning, maintaining an apartment, exercising, doing a good job at work (he asks lots of questions and is a general PITA seemingly). School is not just for education; you get a lot of socialization and learn how to navigate public life as well as deal with external factors (like teasing, bullying and so forth). An education in office politics and multitasking and self-sufficiency starts in school and it's tough if not impossible to develop those skills later in life.

[surrounded by literalists]

I am not a big fan of home schooling for many of the same reasons as listed here, but at one time I did homeschool my teenage son. Our problem was with his special needs. The school and teachers just didn't step up to the plate as far as he was concerned. They are overwhelmed with 45 or more kids to a class with about a fourth of those with 504 plans. He actually did better academically with homeschool than with the public school. The problem was that I couldn't get him out of his pajamas. At. All. He be came an isolated grizzly bear. I figured that failing grades were better than simmering teenage isolation.

I wanted to keep my teenage daughter home, but she wanted to be in high school with her friends, a decision she now regrets. The schools around here are basically just big 'one size of education fits all' warehouses. If you can't fit into their prepackaged curriculum, then too bad for you. My daughter is bored, frustrated, and disheartend from watching kids sell pot in class, watching the pregnant girls realize that Johnny Perfect is now Johnny Douchebag, being unable to use the bathroom because of either filth or vandalism, not being able to do homework on a computer with anything more recent than Windows 97, and having to clean rat urine and feces off of her desk every morning. Drug sniffing dogs, bomb threats, textbooks with semen sticking the pages together.

It just makes her tired, sad, and want to give up. Sort of the antithesis of school, don't cha' think?

[Johnny Angel]

It was very evident that his homeschool education was 100% at fault for not preparing him for The Real World. From what I understand, he's still having issues adjusting to the real world in terms of cooking, cleaning, maintaining an apartment, exercising, doing a good job at work (he asks lots of questions and is a general PITA seemingly). School is not just for education; you get a lot of socialization and learn how to navigate public life as well as deal with external factors (like teasing, bullying and so forth). An education in office politics and multitasking and self-sufficiency starts in school and it's tough if not impossible to develop those skills later in life.
I can see what you're saying, except that in this day and age don't we all know at least a couple of man-boys like this who don't have homeschooling to blame? They got socialized in the public school system, and still ended up unable to deal with the real world. Failure-to-launch seems to be a broader cultural phenomenon, and I've been hearing lack-of-intellectual-stimulation as an excuse for it since the early eighties, when homeschooling was all but unheard of.

Also endemic are personality problems produced by common maladaptive responses to the social pressures in the public school system. Socialization isn't a magic self-working process. A kid isn't necessarily going to get just the right amount of humiliation, demoralization and learned-helplessness that will reliably churn out a perfectly-tempered adult. What the system will do for your child is a crapshoot, though I can see the advantage to parents of having someone to blame beside themselves.

I'm not saying homeschooling wasn't this individual's problem. It just doesn't sound that different from how many people who aren't homeschooled turn out.

[lindsaybluth]

I can see what you're saying, except that in this day and age don't we all know at least a couple of man-boys like this who don't have homeschooling to blame?

True, I definitely know what you're talking about, failure to launch for boys in particular. I think he would have had smaller, minor issues because he was an only child of much older parents. But to the degree with which he had them was astounding (and IMHO caused by homeschooling) when compared to his intellect and generally very kind and outgoing personality.

So I would amend the "100% at fault" to "80% at fault", since being an only child of older and very doting parents no doubt had something to do with it too.

[SoundMind]

The argument that teaching is something that requires an expert, and so cannot be trusted to parents, is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worst. By that logic, children should be taken from their parents at birth and reared by state-approved, officially sanctioned child-development "experts" who know the "right" way to bring up a child. Kids spend only a small percentage of their time in school; if their parents can't be trusted, they should be turned over to the State, because after all, the State has "experts" who know what's best.

I know many people who have homeschooled their kids, and many people who were homeschooled. I have yet to meet any who were any less educated or any more nutty than the average clown with a public school education. Most of them shade a little above average for their age, and most of them went on to college (those who have reached college age, that is; some are still young). It amazes me that in the year 2011 there can still be so many un-informed, misguided people who feel there's some bizarre "cult-like" stigma attached to home schooling. Yes, some people who choose to home school are wackos. But guess what: there are lots and lots of wackos who are members of school boards, school administrations, social service groups, and teachers' associations, too. Home schooling isn't a fringe phenomenon anymore; millions of people in all parts of the country are home schooling these days. They do it for a great variety of reasons, and "I'm a wacko!" is only one of them.