Many of us have pink-tinted memories of our experiences in school. We have a tendency to think back affectionately on the people we knew and cared about, and to forget the painful situations that often arose.
Dana over at Principled Discovery has had the courage to tell the truth about what school was like for her. She generally says she had a positive school experience - but when she thought back to what she had learned in school, there was a lot of pain stored there. Her post is called, "Homeschool stereotypes vs. public school realities," and it's worth reading all the way through. The lessons she learned in school reflect, to a large extent, what public school "socialization" really involves; and they ought to stimulate each of us to think seriously about what kind of socialization we really want our kids to have. I know one thing - the things she learned are not the things I want my kids to learn. That's why I homeschool.
One of these days maybe I'll get up the nerve to write about my own experience in school as a child. I hope my kids will have much better childhood experiences to write about someday.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Great Homeschooling Links
This morning I discovered a website with an amazing number of top-notch links for homeschoolers. From organization and forms to free online books; from SAT prep to online math games; from foreign language to a clickable mummy - this site has it ALL! And almost every link is free. I must have bookmarked 20 sites from links I followed from this site, and I haven't even gotten to the bottom yet.
The post goes by the unassuming title, "Lots of Links to Help Homeschoolers," and here's the link:
http://harmonyhealth.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/lots-of-links-to-help-home-schoolers/
Enjoy!
The post goes by the unassuming title, "Lots of Links to Help Homeschoolers," and here's the link:
http://harmonyhealth.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/lots-of-links-to-help-home-schoolers/
Enjoy!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Homeschoolers Transitioning to Public Schools
Not every homeschooler chooses to continue homeschooling throughout their child's school years. As a result, a significant question arises: what does it take for a family to have a successful transition from homeschool to public school? A doctoral student at the University of Missouri did his dissertation on the topic, and recently Milton Gaither reviewed it on his blog, Homeschooling Research Notes, in a post entitled, "Koonce on Transitioning from Home School to Public School."
Koonce's research was admittedly based on a very small sample of 13 Missouri families who agreed to be interviewed. That's too bad, because his conclusions are fascinating, and it would be helpful to have more statistics to confirm what he found. I hope someone will undertake further research on this topic. From Dr. Gaither's post:
In short, the single most significant factor in the students' successful transition, found in at least 9 of the 13 cases, was the school's perception of homeschooling. If the school was "understanding of the student's background," the transition was generally positive. If the school was "skeptical of the child's homeschooling background," the transition was generally negative. Given the overwhelming prevalence of negative attitudes toward homeschooling on the part of so many people involved in the public education system, this is unfortunate.
It is also clear from these results that's it's important for parents to make sure children are prepared for the transition. Two of the 13 families had negative experiences because the children were not prepared academically; this is sad given the innate advantages of homeschooling. The single negative experience due to social factors is probably less significant, since it could be argued that at least one of every 13 kids is going to struggle socially regardless of their educational background.
In the end, according to Gaither, Koonce offers some practical suggestions:
While I think homeschooling is a great option, and I believe many kids would benefit from homeschooling all the way through high school, there are many who will eventually end up in the public school system. Parents send kids back to school for many reasons, including the difficulty of the subject matter as they get older. Art, band, sports, and drama all draw families back to the school system. And because kids are going to go back to the schools, it's important that more research be done on the topic of this transition, both for the sake of the schools and for the children's sake. I hope someone undertakes a much more comprehensive study of these issues.
Koonce's research was admittedly based on a very small sample of 13 Missouri families who agreed to be interviewed. That's too bad, because his conclusions are fascinating, and it would be helpful to have more statistics to confirm what he found. I hope someone will undertake further research on this topic. From Dr. Gaither's post:
What made the transition positive or negative? Positive experiences resulted when the school system was helpful and understanding of the student’s background (4 students in his sample). Negative experiences resulted either when the school was skeptical of the child’s homeschooling background (5 students) or when the homeschooling background had not adequately prepared the child academically (2), socially (1), or procedurally (1).
In short, the single most significant factor in the students' successful transition, found in at least 9 of the 13 cases, was the school's perception of homeschooling. If the school was "understanding of the student's background," the transition was generally positive. If the school was "skeptical of the child's homeschooling background," the transition was generally negative. Given the overwhelming prevalence of negative attitudes toward homeschooling on the part of so many people involved in the public education system, this is unfortunate.
It is also clear from these results that's it's important for parents to make sure children are prepared for the transition. Two of the 13 families had negative experiences because the children were not prepared academically; this is sad given the innate advantages of homeschooling. The single negative experience due to social factors is probably less significant, since it could be argued that at least one of every 13 kids is going to struggle socially regardless of their educational background.
In the end, according to Gaither, Koonce offers some practical suggestions:
Koonce ends his study with some practical suggestions both for homeschooling parents and for public schools to help ease the transition. Homeschoolers should make sure their curriculum is sound, that they keep good records, that their kids take “an anual nationally normed test” and that they have “a positive mindset toward public education.” Public schools should recognize homeschooling as a normal and legitimate educational option, provide a user-friendly enrollment process and mechanism for giving homeschoolers credit for academic work done at home, tap into the energy of the involved homeschooling parent-type, provide a liason to help students with the transition, and encourage part-time enrollment as a first step for those who need it.
While I think homeschooling is a great option, and I believe many kids would benefit from homeschooling all the way through high school, there are many who will eventually end up in the public school system. Parents send kids back to school for many reasons, including the difficulty of the subject matter as they get older. Art, band, sports, and drama all draw families back to the school system. And because kids are going to go back to the schools, it's important that more research be done on the topic of this transition, both for the sake of the schools and for the children's sake. I hope someone undertakes a much more comprehensive study of these issues.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
What Americans Think About Homeschooling
There's a fascinating article on yesterday's MarketWatch website. It's entitled, "Homeschooling a Constitutional Right, Americans Tell LifeWay Research," and it shows that in fact the majority of Americans do believe that parents have a constitutional right to homeschool.
This is surprising, and demonstrates a profound change in perspective about homeschooling among society as a whole over the last 25 years or so. Back in the 80's, homeschooling was little-known, and many people thought it was a strange thing to do. Oh, a few people did it - the University of Nebraska, for example, even allowed kids to earn a high school diploma through independent study (I know, I got mine that way!). But mostly it was reserved to the fringes and to the exceptional situation: farm kids, missionary kids, kids with sicknesses that kept them out of school for long periods, and so on.
It speaks very well of the homeschooling community that since the 1980's homeschooling has become, not only accepted among the general population, but a constitutional right. This can only be the result of many dedicated homeschooling parents working exceptionally hard to show that homeschooling can in fact be as good a way of educating kids as any other schooling.
However, we still have our work cut out for us in demonstrating that homeschooling not only provides a good education, but also excellent social skills.
Remember, this is a perception, not reality. The general public thinks homeschoolers often lack social skills. It's up to us, as homeschooling parents, to help change this belief on the part of ordinary people, and the best way I can think of is to train our kids, very carefully and deliberately, in social skills. Manners, etiquette, kindness, consideration - these things must be taught on purpose and consistently. We spend large portions of our time with our kids; we have the chance to observe them regularly. It's critical that we observe our kids' behavior and their interactions with others, and that we correct them for inappropriate social interaction. The more we do this, the more likely it is that our kids will grow up to respond correctly in social situations.
It's encouraging to see that our culture is beginning to recognize the value of homeschooling, and the right of parents to educate children as they believe is best for them. And as we consistently raise children who contradict the general opinion about socialization, that misperception will also fall by the wayside, and people will see the truth about how good homeschooling can be for kids.
The California appeals court shocked the nation with its ruling in February," said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research. "We decided, as part of a broad survey of more than 1,200 adult Americans, to get their reaction and found that 61 percent strongly agreed that the Constitution guarantees the right of parents to homeschool, and another 25 percent agreed somewhat." Eight percent somewhat disagreed, five percent disagreed strongly, and two percent did not know, according to Stetzer. "Americans appear to believe that parents, not the government, should decide whether or not they should homeschool."
This is surprising, and demonstrates a profound change in perspective about homeschooling among society as a whole over the last 25 years or so. Back in the 80's, homeschooling was little-known, and many people thought it was a strange thing to do. Oh, a few people did it - the University of Nebraska, for example, even allowed kids to earn a high school diploma through independent study (I know, I got mine that way!). But mostly it was reserved to the fringes and to the exceptional situation: farm kids, missionary kids, kids with sicknesses that kept them out of school for long periods, and so on.
It speaks very well of the homeschooling community that since the 1980's homeschooling has become, not only accepted among the general population, but a constitutional right. This can only be the result of many dedicated homeschooling parents working exceptionally hard to show that homeschooling can in fact be as good a way of educating kids as any other schooling.
However, we still have our work cut out for us in demonstrating that homeschooling not only provides a good education, but also excellent social skills.
Many have expressed concern that homeschooling fails to provide adequate socialization and connection to broader society, often leading to weaker social interaction and skills. In the LifeWay Research survey, 54 percent of respondents agreed, somewhat or strongly, that "children who are homeschooled often lack social skills."
Remember, this is a perception, not reality. The general public thinks homeschoolers often lack social skills. It's up to us, as homeschooling parents, to help change this belief on the part of ordinary people, and the best way I can think of is to train our kids, very carefully and deliberately, in social skills. Manners, etiquette, kindness, consideration - these things must be taught on purpose and consistently. We spend large portions of our time with our kids; we have the chance to observe them regularly. It's critical that we observe our kids' behavior and their interactions with others, and that we correct them for inappropriate social interaction. The more we do this, the more likely it is that our kids will grow up to respond correctly in social situations.
It's encouraging to see that our culture is beginning to recognize the value of homeschooling, and the right of parents to educate children as they believe is best for them. And as we consistently raise children who contradict the general opinion about socialization, that misperception will also fall by the wayside, and people will see the truth about how good homeschooling can be for kids.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
The Ultimate Homeschool Environment
My Google alert today brought up a post from IEducation called, "6 Effective Ways to Create the Ultimate Homeschooling Environment." It's a pretty short post, and it has some decent ideas, but the more I read, the more frustrated I felt with it. So I decided to add a comment, and write my own post on the topic.
The post begins with this:
I should have known right away it wasn't going to be very helpful to me. You see, I don't believe homeschooling ought to be duplicating school at home. Homeschooling has many advantages and uniquenesses, and it seems to me we ought to take advantage of those. I've been homeschooling for 8 years now, and I'm pretty happy with our "homeschooling environment."
The author goes on to list the following "tips to create a perfect study environment."
1. Dedicated space.
Dedicated space? Not at our house! We use the whole house, the back yard, the neighborhood. As far as I'm concerned, homeschooling is LIFE! And learning is a part of life. Our favorite place to "do school" is the living room couch, but my kids use their beds, the floor in the family room, the outside swing - anywhere they want as long as they get their work done right. That said, we don't put on the TV during the school day, unless it's at lunchtime (and then it has to be educational videos, readily available from the library if you don't have them at home). My kids have learned to ask at lunchtime (even during the summer!), "Do we have any 'school' videos?"
2. Equipment Purchases.
The only part of this I use is the computer and educational programs. I do have a couple of small white boards, which the kids mostly use; but if I need to diagram or illustrate something that's not already shown in a book we're using, a piece of paper is usually easier to use than a white board, and it's more readily available (we don't have to go to our "schoolroom" to use it). My kids do each have a desk, but they use their desks only occasionally.
3. Organization.
Here I agree absolutely! We don't do homework assignments, and we don't have a lot of grades, so I don't keep track of those. But without organization, your homeschool will fall apart - and your kids won't be able to find those wonderful educational supplies you've spent so much time and money on. Invest in some tools to help you stay organized, because you're going to have a lot more "supplies" than a household that sends their kids to school. A cabinet or drawer unit for holding art supplies is the most significant thing I can think of, along with plenty of bookshelves. You will also have educational games and toys you'll accumulate over time, and you'll need a way to store those. But don't buy them all at once - get what you need for this year, and keep an eye out for sales. As your supply of resources builds, you'll want to invest in more.
Get yourself a good planner, too. Keep track of the records your state requires, either in files or in your binder or planner. And definitely write down books you loan out, and when and to whom they were loaned - you may think you'll remember, but you won't! :) Have a special basket, box, or shelf for library books, too, so they don't get mixed in with the rest of your books - and let your kids know if they don't return books to the basket, they are responsible for any fines!
4. Motivation.
I think the best way to motivate your kids is to show them you are learning right along with them. Use real books, preferably written by one author, rather than textbooks and workbooks, whenever you can. Textbooks are written by committee, and are therefore usually dull. But when you read a real book - whether historical fiction, biography, science, or literature - there is always something new to learn. Field trips, experiments, books on tape - all of these can teach us as homeschooling parents as well. And as the kids watch us being excited about learning, they get excited and motivated as well. At the same time, you can never go wrong with encouragement, or with reward big accomplishments (a tough math page ought to deserve at least a hug or a sticker or something!). :)
5. Syllabus.
The syllabus sounds like a lot of extra work to me, unless your state requires it. I do plan my kids' work, but I think a formal syllabus is a waste of time and prevents spontaneity. Instead, I spend that time and energy trying to find interesting, motivating materials and resources to help my kids learn. As for library books, suggesting categories is not a bad idea; I don't seem to need it, since my kids love to read. I'm also the primary person in my family looking for library books; I borrow dozens to read aloud or recommend to the kids when we are at home. (Usually I try to request them online before we go, so I can just pick mine up at the desk when we get there.)
6. Field trips.
Absolutely! I try to plan a number of relevant field trips every year. And even a trip to the grocery store can be a field trip, especially with little people (try a new fruit or vegetable each time, or point out different shapes, or have them help you figure out which size container is least expensive; there are a thousand things they can learn there - and it keeps them busy while you're shopping!).
I think if you want to have the "ultimate homeschooling environment," though, you will want to make your whole home a learning center. Obviously it's not financially possible for most of us to invest a large sum in "extras" all at once, but over the years, you will want to accumulate all kinds of things that will make your home a great place to learn. Here are some ideas:
Art supplies - as many different things as you can think of. Don't invest a lot if your kids are little - buy discounted things at the beginning of the school year when you can. Crayons, colored pencils, markers, watercolors, modeling clay (purchased or homemade), construction paper, cardstock, poster board, finger paints, stencils, foam shapes, glue sticks, white glue - these are all good for little guys. As they get older, you may want to invest in oil pastels, better quality colored pencils, charcoal, drawing pencils, watercolor pencils, acrylic paints, Plaster of Paris, and different kinds of paper for the different media.
Tapes or CD's - There are so many of these! Books on tape are fun; so are radio programs such as Adventures in Odyssey and Focus On the Family Radio Theater. And then there are the educational ones - geography songs, multiplication songs, Spanish songs, dramatized versions of American history, and more. These days many of these are on CD. Also be sure to invest in a good tape or CD player; if your kids are like mine, it will get hard use and you'll likely have to replace it fairly often.
Educational games and toys - I prefer the non-computerized educational games. We enjoy the Cranium series of games, but many of the Milton Bradley and Hasbro games also have educational value in the early years. Discovery Toys has some really excellent games, too, even for older kids. Puzzles of all sizes and types are fun and educational; so are building toys such as Legos, Magnetix, and K'Nex. Speed Stacks cups are also fun and increase eye-hand coordination.
Sports equipment - To encourage physical fitness skills, you'll want a basketball (or several), a soccer ball, some cones to mark out a playing field or at least a goal, a football, a playground ball (or several), a bat and baseball, and a bike. You may also want a badminton set, a volleyball set, a croquet set, golf clubs, tennis rackets and balls, and more.
Educational "tools" - My kids think these are toys, because we don't use them often for our formal "school" time. We like pattern blocks, Cuisenaire rods, geoboards (these use rubber bands on pegs to make shapes), counting bears, 3-D shapes, and attribute blocks.
Books - Books, books, books! Biographies, historical fiction, Usborne books, science experiment books, classic literature, Caldecott and Newbery Award books, picture books - you name it! Surround your kids with books, and read aloud every day so they begin to grasp what's in those books, and you are likely to end up with committed readers and learners for life.
One caution - DON'T try to do all of this at once! I've been homeschooling for 8 years, and an at-home mom for 12, and we have built up our supply gradually. I remember as a new homeschooler reading about this kind of environment and feeling totally inadequate because I just didn't have the budget for it. But the key is to do it slowly, but consistently. Choose a few things that fit your child at his or her age, and get those "for school." Then keep your eyes and ears open. Attend used book sales; watch for books, toys, and games at garage sales; pay attention to sale flyers. Get these kinds of things for birthdays and Christmas (and ask friends and relatives to do the same) rather than battery-operated dolls and the latest fads. Choose quality over quantity whenever you can.
Keep in mind that what your family needs is to some extent going to depend on who your family is. Your learning environment will be different from mine, or most likely from everyone else you know. The key, to my way of thinking, is to begin with the philosophy that you want your kids to grow up believing that learning is a way of life, and that it's fun - and to keep that philosophy in mind whenever you are shopping. If you choose carefully and stay consistent, eventually your home will be "the ultimate learning environment" for your kids.
The post begins with this:
Many people are now into homeschooling these days for whatever reason. It is important to design a classroom environment so the kids can feel as though they are at a school.
I should have known right away it wasn't going to be very helpful to me. You see, I don't believe homeschooling ought to be duplicating school at home. Homeschooling has many advantages and uniquenesses, and it seems to me we ought to take advantage of those. I've been homeschooling for 8 years now, and I'm pretty happy with our "homeschooling environment."
The author goes on to list the following "tips to create a perfect study environment."
1. Dedicated space.
Keep distractions away from the study area. No TV, no XBox, PS3, or any other gaming device. This is a time to learn and study. Keep it clean so the children will be ready to begin as they enter their home classroom.
Dedicated space? Not at our house! We use the whole house, the back yard, the neighborhood. As far as I'm concerned, homeschooling is LIFE! And learning is a part of life. Our favorite place to "do school" is the living room couch, but my kids use their beds, the floor in the family room, the outside swing - anywhere they want as long as they get their work done right. That said, we don't put on the TV during the school day, unless it's at lunchtime (and then it has to be educational videos, readily available from the library if you don't have them at home). My kids have learned to ask at lunchtime (even during the summer!), "Do we have any 'school' videos?"
2. Equipment Purchases.
Large white board. The teaching parent will use this frequently to show examples of
discussed topics.
One small student desk per child, or use a table for multiple students
Computer, an absolute must. A PC or Mac is needed to keep your child(ren) abreast of the latest technologies. Many educational programs are available online. Have your child(ren) involved in the selection of furniture and or equipment. They will take pride in their decisions and respect the condition of the particular items.
The only part of this I use is the computer and educational programs. I do have a couple of small white boards, which the kids mostly use; but if I need to diagram or illustrate something that's not already shown in a book we're using, a piece of paper is usually easier to use than a white board, and it's more readily available (we don't have to go to our "schoolroom" to use it). My kids do each have a desk, but they use their desks only occasionally.
3. Organization.
The parent and child(ren) need to stay organized. Keep record of books distributed, homework assignments, completed work, progress, and grades.
Here I agree absolutely! We don't do homework assignments, and we don't have a lot of grades, so I don't keep track of those. But without organization, your homeschool will fall apart - and your kids won't be able to find those wonderful educational supplies you've spent so much time and money on. Invest in some tools to help you stay organized, because you're going to have a lot more "supplies" than a household that sends their kids to school. A cabinet or drawer unit for holding art supplies is the most significant thing I can think of, along with plenty of bookshelves. You will also have educational games and toys you'll accumulate over time, and you'll need a way to store those. But don't buy them all at once - get what you need for this year, and keep an eye out for sales. As your supply of resources builds, you'll want to invest in more.
Get yourself a good planner, too. Keep track of the records your state requires, either in files or in your binder or planner. And definitely write down books you loan out, and when and to whom they were loaned - you may think you'll remember, but you won't! :) Have a special basket, box, or shelf for library books, too, so they don't get mixed in with the rest of your books - and let your kids know if they don't return books to the basket, they are responsible for any fines!
4. Motivation.
Encourage your child(ren) with their studies and reward them for great
accomplishments.
I think the best way to motivate your kids is to show them you are learning right along with them. Use real books, preferably written by one author, rather than textbooks and workbooks, whenever you can. Textbooks are written by committee, and are therefore usually dull. But when you read a real book - whether historical fiction, biography, science, or literature - there is always something new to learn. Field trips, experiments, books on tape - all of these can teach us as homeschooling parents as well. And as the kids watch us being excited about learning, they get excited and motivated as well. At the same time, you can never go wrong with encouragement, or with reward big accomplishments (a tough math page ought to deserve at least a hug or a sticker or something!). :)
5. Syllabus.
Go beyond what is required by your local government or Board of Education. Take trips to your local library and let the
child(ren) select or suggest a few categories from which they have to choose.
The syllabus sounds like a lot of extra work to me, unless your state requires it. I do plan my kids' work, but I think a formal syllabus is a waste of time and prevents spontaneity. Instead, I spend that time and energy trying to find interesting, motivating materials and resources to help my kids learn. As for library books, suggesting categories is not a bad idea; I don't seem to need it, since my kids love to read. I'm also the primary person in my family looking for library books; I borrow dozens to read aloud or recommend to the kids when we are at home. (Usually I try to request them online before we go, so I can just pick mine up at the desk when we get there.)
6. Field trips.
These are always fun adventures for the child(ren). Depending on your location, select venues where you can apply their studies with the community or regional activities.
Absolutely! I try to plan a number of relevant field trips every year. And even a trip to the grocery store can be a field trip, especially with little people (try a new fruit or vegetable each time, or point out different shapes, or have them help you figure out which size container is least expensive; there are a thousand things they can learn there - and it keeps them busy while you're shopping!).
I think if you want to have the "ultimate homeschooling environment," though, you will want to make your whole home a learning center. Obviously it's not financially possible for most of us to invest a large sum in "extras" all at once, but over the years, you will want to accumulate all kinds of things that will make your home a great place to learn. Here are some ideas:
Art supplies - as many different things as you can think of. Don't invest a lot if your kids are little - buy discounted things at the beginning of the school year when you can. Crayons, colored pencils, markers, watercolors, modeling clay (purchased or homemade), construction paper, cardstock, poster board, finger paints, stencils, foam shapes, glue sticks, white glue - these are all good for little guys. As they get older, you may want to invest in oil pastels, better quality colored pencils, charcoal, drawing pencils, watercolor pencils, acrylic paints, Plaster of Paris, and different kinds of paper for the different media.
Tapes or CD's - There are so many of these! Books on tape are fun; so are radio programs such as Adventures in Odyssey and Focus On the Family Radio Theater. And then there are the educational ones - geography songs, multiplication songs, Spanish songs, dramatized versions of American history, and more. These days many of these are on CD. Also be sure to invest in a good tape or CD player; if your kids are like mine, it will get hard use and you'll likely have to replace it fairly often.
Educational games and toys - I prefer the non-computerized educational games. We enjoy the Cranium series of games, but many of the Milton Bradley and Hasbro games also have educational value in the early years. Discovery Toys has some really excellent games, too, even for older kids. Puzzles of all sizes and types are fun and educational; so are building toys such as Legos, Magnetix, and K'Nex. Speed Stacks cups are also fun and increase eye-hand coordination.
Sports equipment - To encourage physical fitness skills, you'll want a basketball (or several), a soccer ball, some cones to mark out a playing field or at least a goal, a football, a playground ball (or several), a bat and baseball, and a bike. You may also want a badminton set, a volleyball set, a croquet set, golf clubs, tennis rackets and balls, and more.
Educational "tools" - My kids think these are toys, because we don't use them often for our formal "school" time. We like pattern blocks, Cuisenaire rods, geoboards (these use rubber bands on pegs to make shapes), counting bears, 3-D shapes, and attribute blocks.
Books - Books, books, books! Biographies, historical fiction, Usborne books, science experiment books, classic literature, Caldecott and Newbery Award books, picture books - you name it! Surround your kids with books, and read aloud every day so they begin to grasp what's in those books, and you are likely to end up with committed readers and learners for life.
One caution - DON'T try to do all of this at once! I've been homeschooling for 8 years, and an at-home mom for 12, and we have built up our supply gradually. I remember as a new homeschooler reading about this kind of environment and feeling totally inadequate because I just didn't have the budget for it. But the key is to do it slowly, but consistently. Choose a few things that fit your child at his or her age, and get those "for school." Then keep your eyes and ears open. Attend used book sales; watch for books, toys, and games at garage sales; pay attention to sale flyers. Get these kinds of things for birthdays and Christmas (and ask friends and relatives to do the same) rather than battery-operated dolls and the latest fads. Choose quality over quantity whenever you can.
Keep in mind that what your family needs is to some extent going to depend on who your family is. Your learning environment will be different from mine, or most likely from everyone else you know. The key, to my way of thinking, is to begin with the philosophy that you want your kids to grow up believing that learning is a way of life, and that it's fun - and to keep that philosophy in mind whenever you are shopping. If you choose carefully and stay consistent, eventually your home will be "the ultimate learning environment" for your kids.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Feminism and Homeschooling
There's an interesting blog entry this morning over at Kittywampus entitled, "Feminist Homeschooling - Why I Don't." I've heard a lot of arguments against homeschooling, but this one is new to me, and I find her thought process interesting.
As you know if you read my blog, I'm not exactly an avid feminist; still, I believe true feminism means advocating for a woman's right to make choices that are important to her, without being pressured by the culture around her. In that sense, I AM a feminist - though perhaps many feminists would disown me because I believe that in many cases conservative values are better for women than "progressive" values. I think women ought to be able to make their own choices, based on what is really important - if that means they choose to work, fine; if it means they choose to stay at home, that's fine too.
I'm especially interested in Kittywampus' reasoning for why women should work. She says about stay-at-home, homeschooling mothers,
And,
The question that comes to mind is this: are we feminists simply out of fear? My feminism is rooted in the belief that women should have the freedom to make choices in which we find fulfillment and satisfaction, rather than being locked into something we don't want to do just because men want us to do it. But it sounds to me like she's saying the opposite: women shouldn't have the freedom to do what we find fulfillment in, if it means we might be dependent on the men in our lives, because if those men should fail, we will be in serious trouble. We should follow the current cultural pattern and go to work so we will have a "safety net" in case our husbands should walk out on us.
Do we really want to make our choices based fear that the men in our lives might not follow through on their commitments? That's not the kind of life I choose. Instead, I married someone I was pretty sure I could trust, and we each made a willing commitment to the other. If he chooses not to follow through on his commitment to me, then certainly, there will be consequences in my life - just as there would be in his life if I chose not to follow through on my commitment to him.
All relationships are like that. Even in working relationships, there are costs if people don't follow through (suppose my boss should suddenly decide to stop paying me!). But if we choose to live our lives in fear, rather than in trust, we'll never find real contentment or satisfaction - whether we are working or staying at home.
My own feminism pushes me to make choices I believe are right for me as a woman - choices that bring me fulfillment and satisfaction. In my case, those choices include staying home with my children and homeschooling. I'm well aware there would be serious consequences if my husband chose to flake out (with life insurance, there would be fewer economic consequences if he died - in fact, we would probably be better off financially than we are now). But I'm not going to let my fear force me into getting a job I don't want, so I can live a pressured, harried lifestyle while someone else who cares less about them than I do raises and educates my kids.
That said, I do work part-time, one day a week, in the homeschooling enrichment program my kids are also enrolled in. Over the 12 years I've been home with my kids, I've worked a variety of work-from-home or part-time jobs, just to keep up my skills, and figuring that someday when the kids are gone I will work again to pay college bills and provide for our retirement.
And I'm pretty happy with my life. I have adult interaction in my work, at church, at homeschooling events, online, and in other social situations. I love interacting with my kids and being there to see the sparkle in their eyes when they "get it"! I love the way we've gone from the conflict of the preschool and early elementary years to true enjoyment in being together (and how many parents of a middle-schooler can say that?!). I love the way my kids have had to learn to get along, because they are each other's only playmates. I love sitting on the couch together reading a good story, going to the museum as a family rather than with 30 other kids, and taking a day off to go swimming or do something special "just because." I love sharing my excitement over a given time in history or a science concept or a great book. I love seeing my junior higher begin to adopt the values that are important to me, and to ask questions that show she's thinking about significant issues in her life.
I refuse to allow fear to rob me of that kind of fulfillment. I choose to trust, with full awareness of the possible consequences. And if my husband should choose not to follow through, I will then make the choices I believe are right for me as a woman under those circumstances. My belief in a woman's freedom - my feminism, if you will - demands nothing less.
As you know if you read my blog, I'm not exactly an avid feminist; still, I believe true feminism means advocating for a woman's right to make choices that are important to her, without being pressured by the culture around her. In that sense, I AM a feminist - though perhaps many feminists would disown me because I believe that in many cases conservative values are better for women than "progressive" values. I think women ought to be able to make their own choices, based on what is really important - if that means they choose to work, fine; if it means they choose to stay at home, that's fine too.
I'm especially interested in Kittywampus' reasoning for why women should work. She says about stay-at-home, homeschooling mothers,
If she works from home for pay, she rarely earns enough to survive financially if her marriage or partnership were to end.
And,
I see lots of female students hoping to be stay-at-home parents without much awareness of the attendant risk of poverty, and I suspect many mothers decide to stay home with the assumption that divorce or widowhood won't strike them personally.
The question that comes to mind is this: are we feminists simply out of fear? My feminism is rooted in the belief that women should have the freedom to make choices in which we find fulfillment and satisfaction, rather than being locked into something we don't want to do just because men want us to do it. But it sounds to me like she's saying the opposite: women shouldn't have the freedom to do what we find fulfillment in, if it means we might be dependent on the men in our lives, because if those men should fail, we will be in serious trouble. We should follow the current cultural pattern and go to work so we will have a "safety net" in case our husbands should walk out on us.
Do we really want to make our choices based fear that the men in our lives might not follow through on their commitments? That's not the kind of life I choose. Instead, I married someone I was pretty sure I could trust, and we each made a willing commitment to the other. If he chooses not to follow through on his commitment to me, then certainly, there will be consequences in my life - just as there would be in his life if I chose not to follow through on my commitment to him.
All relationships are like that. Even in working relationships, there are costs if people don't follow through (suppose my boss should suddenly decide to stop paying me!). But if we choose to live our lives in fear, rather than in trust, we'll never find real contentment or satisfaction - whether we are working or staying at home.
My own feminism pushes me to make choices I believe are right for me as a woman - choices that bring me fulfillment and satisfaction. In my case, those choices include staying home with my children and homeschooling. I'm well aware there would be serious consequences if my husband chose to flake out (with life insurance, there would be fewer economic consequences if he died - in fact, we would probably be better off financially than we are now). But I'm not going to let my fear force me into getting a job I don't want, so I can live a pressured, harried lifestyle while someone else who cares less about them than I do raises and educates my kids.
That said, I do work part-time, one day a week, in the homeschooling enrichment program my kids are also enrolled in. Over the 12 years I've been home with my kids, I've worked a variety of work-from-home or part-time jobs, just to keep up my skills, and figuring that someday when the kids are gone I will work again to pay college bills and provide for our retirement.
And I'm pretty happy with my life. I have adult interaction in my work, at church, at homeschooling events, online, and in other social situations. I love interacting with my kids and being there to see the sparkle in their eyes when they "get it"! I love the way we've gone from the conflict of the preschool and early elementary years to true enjoyment in being together (and how many parents of a middle-schooler can say that?!). I love the way my kids have had to learn to get along, because they are each other's only playmates. I love sitting on the couch together reading a good story, going to the museum as a family rather than with 30 other kids, and taking a day off to go swimming or do something special "just because." I love sharing my excitement over a given time in history or a science concept or a great book. I love seeing my junior higher begin to adopt the values that are important to me, and to ask questions that show she's thinking about significant issues in her life.
I refuse to allow fear to rob me of that kind of fulfillment. I choose to trust, with full awareness of the possible consequences. And if my husband should choose not to follow through, I will then make the choices I believe are right for me as a woman under those circumstances. My belief in a woman's freedom - my feminism, if you will - demands nothing less.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
More on Public Education
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on the topic of public education, entitled "The Greatest Scandal." In an effort to point out the differences between our candidates for President, the article highlights how school vouchers and privately-run public schools are improving education drastically for those students who are able to take advantage of them.
In Washington, D.C., for example, the Opportunity Scholarship Program provides parents of disadvantaged children with up to $7,500 to attend private schools. This is in fact a huge savings to the government, since the District of Columbia spends $13,446 per student per year. According the WSJ article,
These people are obviously needy - exactly the kind of kids who fall through the cracks in many public schools today. But as the WSJ article points out,
This is a program that is working! So are our leaders jumping at the chance to duplicate this kind of success rate? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Instead, they are instead refusing the reauthorize the program.
The article also mentions the phenomenal success rate of EdisonLearning in Philadelphia, which in 2002 took over 20 of the city's 45 worst-performing schools.
Wow - another program that is working! But again, the powers that be, instead of rushing to duplicate this kind of success, are trying to shut it down. "Last month, Philadelphia's school reform commission voted to seize six schools from outside managers, including four from Edison."
The WSJ article concludes with this:
So just exactly why does Mr. Obama think it's fine for him to have school choice - choice that costs him almost as much as our family makes in a year - but not for the rest of us?
School choice promotes competition, which almost always results in a better end product than a monopoly. In Colorado, open enrollment has allowed students some measure of school choice since 1994, and has been pretty effective; however, options are limited to public and charter schools, parents are responsible for transporting students to open-enrollment choices, and the best schools fill up quickly, often from within their own attendance areas.
But when we study the reality of what happens when families get real choices in education, we discover that, just as was true in Washington, D.C., choice means improvement. The Alliance for Choice in Education offers scholarships for children from needy families in Denver to attend private schools - and those students have a 95% graduation rate (in spite of the fact that 78% of their scholarship recipients have a household income of under $30,000/year, and the families are required to contribute half of the private school tuition!). Not only that, but students in these programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee, where school vouchers are widely used, show significant improvements in reading and math (between 7 and 15 points higher in their percentile ranking from their own previous scores).
So what's the conclusion? As might be expected, increased competition means improved schools. I am aware of no studies that show what happens to public school test scores when competition is introduced (via charter schools, open enrollment, school vouchers, or privately-run public schools). Admittedly, this might be difficult to determine, since the competition would undoubtedly "skim" some of the better students from the public schools; still, it would be interesting to see what heppens. It would also be interesting to see the results of school choice on individual students. (We may someday be able to see these results, as the Milwaukee Longitudinal Educational Growth Study has just released its "Baseline Report" - perhaps 10-15 years in the future we'll be able to tell whether students in school voucher programs in fact show greater improvement in their test scores and in their success rates in life.) But given what we know now, state and local governments across the nation ought to be looking to increase competition in order to improve performance for all schools.
In Washington, D.C., for example, the Opportunity Scholarship Program provides parents of disadvantaged children with up to $7,500 to attend private schools. This is in fact a huge savings to the government, since the District of Columbia spends $13,446 per student per year. According the WSJ article,
To qualify, a child must live in a family with a household income below 185% of the poverty level. Some 1,900 children participate; 99% are black or Hispanic. Average annual income is just over $22,000 for a family of four.
These people are obviously needy - exactly the kind of kids who fall through the cracks in many public schools today. But as the WSJ article points out,
A recent Department of Education report found nearly 90% of participants in the D.C. program have higher reading scores than peers who didn't receive a scholarship. There are five applicants for every opening.
This is a program that is working! So are our leaders jumping at the chance to duplicate this kind of success rate? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Instead, they are instead refusing the reauthorize the program.
The article also mentions the phenomenal success rate of EdisonLearning in Philadelphia, which in 2002 took over 20 of the city's 45 worst-performing schools.
The number of students performing at grade level or higher in reading at the schools managed by private providers increased by 6.1% overall compared to 3.3% in district-managed schools. In math, the results for Edison and other outside managers was 4.6% and 6.0%, respectively, compared to 3.1% in the district-run schools.
Wow - another program that is working! But again, the powers that be, instead of rushing to duplicate this kind of success, are trying to shut it down. "Last month, Philadelphia's school reform commission voted to seize six schools from outside managers, including four from Edison."
The WSJ article concludes with this:
Mr. Obama told an interviewer recently that he opposes school choice because, "although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you're going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom." The Illinois Senator has it exactly backward. Those at the top don't need voucher programs and they already exercise school choice. They can afford exclusive private schools, or they can afford to live in a neighborhood with decent public schools. The point of providing educational options is to extend this freedom to the "kids at the bottom."
A visitor to Mr. Obama's Web site finds plenty of information about his plans to fix public education in this country. Everyone knows this is a long, hard slog, but Mr. Obama and his wife aren't waiting. Their daughters attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where annual tuition ranges from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school.
So just exactly why does Mr. Obama think it's fine for him to have school choice - choice that costs him almost as much as our family makes in a year - but not for the rest of us?
School choice promotes competition, which almost always results in a better end product than a monopoly. In Colorado, open enrollment has allowed students some measure of school choice since 1994, and has been pretty effective; however, options are limited to public and charter schools, parents are responsible for transporting students to open-enrollment choices, and the best schools fill up quickly, often from within their own attendance areas.
But when we study the reality of what happens when families get real choices in education, we discover that, just as was true in Washington, D.C., choice means improvement. The Alliance for Choice in Education offers scholarships for children from needy families in Denver to attend private schools - and those students have a 95% graduation rate (in spite of the fact that 78% of their scholarship recipients have a household income of under $30,000/year, and the families are required to contribute half of the private school tuition!). Not only that, but students in these programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee, where school vouchers are widely used, show significant improvements in reading and math (between 7 and 15 points higher in their percentile ranking from their own previous scores).
So what's the conclusion? As might be expected, increased competition means improved schools. I am aware of no studies that show what happens to public school test scores when competition is introduced (via charter schools, open enrollment, school vouchers, or privately-run public schools). Admittedly, this might be difficult to determine, since the competition would undoubtedly "skim" some of the better students from the public schools; still, it would be interesting to see what heppens. It would also be interesting to see the results of school choice on individual students. (We may someday be able to see these results, as the Milwaukee Longitudinal Educational Growth Study has just released its "Baseline Report" - perhaps 10-15 years in the future we'll be able to tell whether students in school voucher programs in fact show greater improvement in their test scores and in their success rates in life.) But given what we know now, state and local governments across the nation ought to be looking to increase competition in order to improve performance for all schools.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Do We Need a New Federal Policy in Education?
Many people have written criticizing NCLB - the No Child Left Behind Act. I have my own criticisms of that act, which I will not go into here.
But the Forum for Education Reform has produced a 72-page report entitled "Democracy At Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education." In that report, they propose to increase federal spending on education by $29 billion per year. Considering that 2008 federal spending on education amounts to something over $67 billion, that's a pretty hefty increase - 43%.
Among their evidence in support of the "need" for this, you'll find this statement:
You'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of this position on American education in the mid-70's. In this sample chapter from Salem Press' book, The Seventies in America, the education scene during the 1970's does not look nearly as positive as the Forum for Education Reform would suggest. This was the decade of forced busing, "white flight," court-ordered equalization (meaning the court required that there be no more than $100 difference in spending between public school districts) and open classrooms. By 1975, according to this link, "reports showed that scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), used as a college entrance examination, had dropped dramatically since the previous decade." And this in spite of the fact that federal spending on education between 1965 and 1975 had increased by 207%! The final sentence in the chapter from the Salem Press book is: "Concern over apparently dropping test scores and over the quality of American education began to grow." Does this sound to you like the Forum for Education Reform's description of the mid-1970's in American education? (Oh, and by the way - until 1979 there WAS no U.S. Department of Education - so if the United States in fact "led the world in education" during the mid-70's, perhaps we ought to ask ourselves whether the federalization of American education might have had something to do with the decline in our schools.)
The Democracy At Risk report goes on to say that "the federal share of education spending was cut in half" during the 1980's. However, a more rational look at the situation is provided by the National Center for Education Statistics' report, entitled "Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 2002." On page 3 of this report, the most significant drop in education spending between 1980 and 1985 is reported in this sentence: "During this same time period, elementary and secondary education funds dropped 21 percent, after adjusting for inflation." And between 1985 and 1990, spending on elementary and secondary inflation actually increased 12 percent.
As for the Democracy At Risk report's "modest progress" during the 1990's, on-budget education spending for elementary and secondary education increased 87% between 1990 and 2002; "off-budget support and nonfederal funds generated by federal legislation" increased 281%. If this is modest, I wonder what it would take for them to consider a funding increase "substantial"! Federal spending on education has continued to increase throughout the 6 years since 2002.
But for the Forum for Education Reform, we are still not spending enough federal money on education. In fact, on page 27 of "Democracy At Risk," they spend an entire page praising the Finnish system, which provides teacher candidates with a 3-year graduate degree in education, paid for entirely (including room and board) by the Finnish government. And while I would agree that it appears the Finnish system has produced excellent results, raising Finland to the very top of the heap in international comparisons, the cost has been extremely high. While in the United States our 2008 Tax Freedom Day was April 23 (meaning the average American has to work until that date just to pay our taxes), in Finland they did not hit theirs until June 5. That means the average Finnish worker pays almost half his/her income in taxes!
There must be a better way to improve America's education system than just throwing more money at it. The U.S. Census Bureau provides the following information on per-pupil spending in different states:
But the amount spent per-pupil does not appear closely related to the likelihood that a state's young people will graduate from high school. Utah, which spent the least on education, had the second highest rate for high school graduation (88%), while the District of Columbia had only a 78% graduation rate. And the average graduation rate for the top five states in per-pupil spending was 81.8%, only .2% higher than the average graduation rate for the bottom five. The amount of money spent is clearly not the issue.
It seems to me that if this nation wants to improve our education system, we've got to do something besides continue to raise taxes and hand money to public school systems. As the Heritage Foundation article entitled, "Examining 'A Nation At Risk'" points out,
And we see our schools continuing to decline. On page 6 of the Heritage Foundation's Backgrounder, April 28, 2008, the graph makes it clear - as funding has increased over the years since 1970, student performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress has remained stable. The Heritage report continues,
And their solution? It's much better than the "Democracy At Risk" report's suggestions, which are full of "educationalese" - perhaps because it's written by private citizens rather than professionals in the education establishment. "Examining 'A Nation At Risk'" recommends:
And the Backgrounder article has this recommendation:
This is near and dear to my heart as a professional educator and homeschooler. I hope the leaders in our federal government listen.
But the Forum for Education Reform has produced a 72-page report entitled "Democracy At Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education." In that report, they propose to increase federal spending on education by $29 billion per year. Considering that 2008 federal spending on education amounts to something over $67 billion, that's a pretty hefty increase - 43%.
Among their evidence in support of the "need" for this, you'll find this statement:
By the mid-1970s, achievement had improved, college-going rates for African American and Hispanic students were equivalent to those for white students, and teacher shortages had been nearly eliminated. The United States led the world in education.
However, many of these initiatives were ended in the 1980s and the gains lost when the federal share of education spending was sharply cut in half. Although modest progress was made in the 1990s, other countries have surged ahead with strategic investments in systems that promote top-flight teaching for higher-order skills in every school.
You'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of this position on American education in the mid-70's. In this sample chapter from Salem Press' book, The Seventies in America, the education scene during the 1970's does not look nearly as positive as the Forum for Education Reform would suggest. This was the decade of forced busing, "white flight," court-ordered equalization (meaning the court required that there be no more than $100 difference in spending between public school districts) and open classrooms. By 1975, according to this link, "reports showed that scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), used as a college entrance examination, had dropped dramatically since the previous decade." And this in spite of the fact that federal spending on education between 1965 and 1975 had increased by 207%! The final sentence in the chapter from the Salem Press book is: "Concern over apparently dropping test scores and over the quality of American education began to grow." Does this sound to you like the Forum for Education Reform's description of the mid-1970's in American education? (Oh, and by the way - until 1979 there WAS no U.S. Department of Education - so if the United States in fact "led the world in education" during the mid-70's, perhaps we ought to ask ourselves whether the federalization of American education might have had something to do with the decline in our schools.)
The Democracy At Risk report goes on to say that "the federal share of education spending was cut in half" during the 1980's. However, a more rational look at the situation is provided by the National Center for Education Statistics' report, entitled "Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 2002." On page 3 of this report, the most significant drop in education spending between 1980 and 1985 is reported in this sentence: "During this same time period, elementary and secondary education funds dropped 21 percent, after adjusting for inflation." And between 1985 and 1990, spending on elementary and secondary inflation actually increased 12 percent.
As for the Democracy At Risk report's "modest progress" during the 1990's, on-budget education spending for elementary and secondary education increased 87% between 1990 and 2002; "off-budget support and nonfederal funds generated by federal legislation" increased 281%. If this is modest, I wonder what it would take for them to consider a funding increase "substantial"! Federal spending on education has continued to increase throughout the 6 years since 2002.
But for the Forum for Education Reform, we are still not spending enough federal money on education. In fact, on page 27 of "Democracy At Risk," they spend an entire page praising the Finnish system, which provides teacher candidates with a 3-year graduate degree in education, paid for entirely (including room and board) by the Finnish government. And while I would agree that it appears the Finnish system has produced excellent results, raising Finland to the very top of the heap in international comparisons, the cost has been extremely high. While in the United States our 2008 Tax Freedom Day was April 23 (meaning the average American has to work until that date just to pay our taxes), in Finland they did not hit theirs until June 5. That means the average Finnish worker pays almost half his/her income in taxes!
There must be a better way to improve America's education system than just throwing more money at it. The U.S. Census Bureau provides the following information on per-pupil spending in different states:
School district spending per pupil was highest in New York ($14,884), followed by New Jersey ($14,630) and the District of Columbia ($13,446). States where school districts spent the lowest amount per pupil were Utah ($5,437), Idaho ($6,440) and Arizona ($6,472). (More info here.)
But the amount spent per-pupil does not appear closely related to the likelihood that a state's young people will graduate from high school. Utah, which spent the least on education, had the second highest rate for high school graduation (88%), while the District of Columbia had only a 78% graduation rate. And the average graduation rate for the top five states in per-pupil spending was 81.8%, only .2% higher than the average graduation rate for the bottom five. The amount of money spent is clearly not the issue.
It seems to me that if this nation wants to improve our education system, we've got to do something besides continue to raise taxes and hand money to public school systems. As the Heritage Foundation article entitled, "Examining 'A Nation At Risk'" points out,
This year, American taxpayers will spend more than $9,200 on the average public-school student. That's a real increase of 69 percent over the per pupil expenditure in 1980. The total bill for a student who remains through high school will be almost $100,000.
And we see our schools continuing to decline. On page 6 of the Heritage Foundation's Backgrounder, April 28, 2008, the graph makes it clear - as funding has increased over the years since 1970, student performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress has remained stable. The Heritage report continues,
We also know what doesn't work: Federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind. That law required states to test students, but it ends up giving states an incentive to "dumb down" their tests to maintain federal funding.
A 2006 study by University of California researchers found the gap between state and federal proficiency scores had increased in 10 of 12 states examined since NCLB was enacted. It's better to simply let states provide the funding and hold themselves accountable.
And their solution? It's much better than the "Democracy At Risk" report's suggestions, which are full of "educationalese" - perhaps because it's written by private citizens rather than professionals in the education establishment. "Examining 'A Nation At Risk'" recommends:
We have big problems in our education system. But we'll solve them from the bottom up, not the top down.
It's time to slash the regulation and start creating the educational system our students deserve.
And the Backgrounder article has this recommendation:
At the federal level, Congress should reform federal education policies to protect academic transparency, eliminate inefficient bureaucracy, and encourage innovation at the state and local levels. Policymakers should embrace policies that give more families the freedom to choose their children’s school; allow school leaders to innovate and develop successful school models and improve teacher quality; and allow parents, lawmakers, and the general public to hold public schools and students accountable for results.
This is near and dear to my heart as a professional educator and homeschooler. I hope the leaders in our federal government listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
