Home schooling in CA

[wendybeth]

I don't know about California, but budget cuts have decimated the music, PE, after school sports and extra-curricular activities, art and other programs here in Washington. Ironically, it's largely due to the WASL, which is our state's attempt to adhere to the NCLB act. It's an incredibly expensive and very high-stakes test that has everybody in the public school system hating life right now. Tons of kids have just dropped out (No Child Left Behind really means only gifted and non-special needs kids will meet the graduation requirements, and those who drop out are not counted) and the school districts are only too happy to refer any kids who might drop their scores or prove a drain on their resources to the Homeschool programs.

Our state does have oversight and basic requirements for homeschool teachers. Besides, wasn't NCLB created to address the failing public schools? If they were doing such a bang-up job, why pass such a law?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't think anyone is claiming homeschooling has no value. However, the state has a vested interest in having a populace that is educated to some degree. To ensure that, oversight of some nature is required. At the base level, there are 2 models for achieving that. Either require some level of testing for the students (e.g. GED exam), or try to ensure that those doing the teaching are "qualified".

The pitfall of option 1 is that it often means catching issues too late. By the time they are testing, kids can already be behind and have missed critical learning periods. As Strangler pointed out, there are some well known developmental stages that are best for learning certain things. Missing those phases can have long lasting effects on a child's learning ability.

The pitfall of option 2 is that it does beg the question of what exactly defines "qualified", and there's no easy answer to that. It would certainly squeeze out a lot (not all, but a lot) of non-traditional options.

Option 2 has advantages, though. It mitigates the pitfall of option 1 in that it provides reasonable assurance that they'll be getting good info from the start, rather then finding out too late that they're missing things.

I remember almost nothing of 95% of what I learned in school.

I'd venture to guess that's not true. That's a perception caused by misrepresentation of the role of education. Any good teacher will tell you that education is less about facts than about learning how to interact with the world. Facts and tests are there as useful tools to gage progress, but most people have lost sight of the real purpose of education. You may have forgotten 95% of the specifics, however the basics of critical thinking that you received through your education are there whether you like it or not. This is why I, and most real educators, detest "No Child Left Behind." The focus is on factual regurgitation, not critical thinking.

[tracilicious]

Also, I'm really fond of this article about our education system.

[tracilicious]

I understand what you are saying, but so far we find so much reading and math in everyday life that the thought of sitting down and "teaching" these things is absurd. We don't have a school day (and never will as far as I can predict) but whatever amount of math life brings us is how much time we spend with it. As it happens, this is quite a bit. Granted, it takes more effort to incorporate higher math into everyday life as kids get older, but it is certainly possible.

As far as the law is concerned, the only thing that should matter with regards to education is that a person can support themselves. From a legal standpoint it shouldn't matter whether a person spends all their time on art or all their time on math, provided that they aren't a burden to other taxpayers later in life.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

As far as the law is concerned, the only thing that should matter with regards to education is that a person can support themselves. From a legal standpoint it shouldn't matter whether a person spends all their time on art or all their time on math, provided that they aren't a burden to other taxpayers later in life.

Then you agree we shouldn't have child labor laws.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Then you agree we shouldn't have child labor laws.

I'm not sure how saying that as far as the law is concerned the purpose of education is to produce functional adults is the same as saying there should be nothing to protect kids from child labor.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I'm not sure how saying that as far as the law is concerned the purpose of education is to produce functional adults is the same as saying there should be nothing to protect kids from child labor.

I thought your premises are that parental choices about how family business is conducted should be deferred to and that a child's interests in shaping how his formative years are spent should be deferred to. If the child would prefer to spend his day as a chimney sweep or a blacksmith's apprentice--rather than studying reading, math or art--and the family would have it so, why should the government intervene?

[BarTopDancer]

NCLB is a giant clusterfvck.

[scaeagles]

For the record, NCLB was written by big time liberal Ted Kennedy. Many people try to pin this on Bush, and this is what happens when trying to reach across the aisle. Anyway.....

Ciritical thinking is great and I agree should be the goal, but I believe that far too often bias comes in and when a student comes to a conclusion through critical thought that the teacher doesn't agree with....well, grades can suffer. Too often critical thought means thinking the way the teacher wants you to or coming to the same conclusion as the teacher. Indoctrination by government agencies is not a good thing.

Facts do, however have their place. There isn't a lot of critical thinking in locating France on a map or finding 8 times 7. Facts are important as well.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Facts do, however have their place. There isn't a lot of critical thinking in locating France on a map or finding 8 times 7. Facts are important as well.

Knowing what 8x7 is is well and good, but what good does it do if you are comparing, say, prices of different sized packages at the grocery store and can't even figure out that 8x7 is what you're supposed to be solving for? And how is knowing where to point on a globe at France useful if you can't comprehend the local and world impact of France building troops up along their border with Blegium?

Facts do have their place, however they are means to an end, they are not the most important component of education.