Any adults who were homeschooled?

[metime]

We can give great examples all day long and people can counter those with their homeschooling horror story but in the end neither one is a reflection of homeschooling. There is no one way to catagorize homeschoolers because there are far too many variables. It is the same thing in PS.

The average household does not exist, the average public school child does not exist, there is no average homeschooling family.

Your 1, 2, or 20 experiences (good or bad) have nothing to do with how I homeschool my children just like my bad experience with the local school system has nothing to do with the quality of education that others can get out of it. It is all relative to the variables that cannot be governed like parenting style, ideals, and needs. I think this is a good thing because it means we are all unique.

 

[laurie31]

Thanks laurie31 for sharing all that with me. I had not thought of any of that with the testing. DD took her last test this past spring anyway. From now on it'll be SATs and ACTs.

And then, someday in the future, you'll have her wedding to plan!

You're welcome!

And if you seriously would like me to help with wedding stuff, just pm me. It's been awhile though, and of course I don't know the good stuff like who's the best photographer/florist/caterer in your area, but I know how to address an invitation if both spouses are doctors, if a couple is married but she kept her maiden name, or if there are adult children still living at home.

(and part of me is so excited about planning my dd's weddings some day, or *cough*helping them plan*cough* their weddings, but then the very idea of them being old enough to marry is something I hope is a long time off! Did you SEE that vid a DISer posted of himself dancing with his DDs to Steven Curtis Chapman's "Cinderella" song? Omgosh, I BAWLED!!)

We can give great examples all day long and people can counter those with their homeschooling horror story but in the end neither one is a reflection of homeschooling. There is no one way to catagorize homeschoolers because there are far too many variables. It is the same thing in PS.

The average household does not exist, the average public school child does not exist, there is no average homeschooling family.

Your 1, 2, or 20 experiences (good or bad) have nothing to do with how I homeschool my children just like my bad experience with the local school system has nothing to do with the quality of education that others can get out of it. It is all relative to the variables that cannot be governed like parenting style, ideals, and needs. I think this is a good thing because it means we are all unique.

 

[MiniGirl]

We can give great examples all day long and people can counter those with their homeschooling horror story but in the end neither one is a reflection of homeschooling. There is no one way to catagorize homeschoolers because there are far too many variables. It is the same thing in PS.

The average household does not exist, the average public school child does not exist, there is no average homeschooling family.

Your 1, 2, or 20 experiences (good or bad) have nothing to do with how I homeschool my children just like my bad experience with the local school system has nothing to do with the quality of education that others can get out of it. It is all relative to the variables that cannot be governed like parenting style, ideals, and needs. I think this is a good thing because it means we are all unique.

Agreed.

I ran into an acquaintance today. She works at the school board dealing with truancy problems. I never really thought much about "legalized truancy," and I asked her about it. She said that the school boards in some counties are now encouraging homeschooling for their truancy cases. It is a way to lower drop out numbers, etc. Unfortunately, it also lumps these cases in with those of us who are serious about homeschooling and brings down our averages, results, etc. I hope it doesn't also serve as a reason for more regulations for homeschoolers. Recent studies have shown that homeschoolers in states with little to no regulations do just as well as those in highly regulated states.

ETA: I should say that I am not against some regulations and accountability. My dds are evaluated every year by a certified teacher to show they are indeed learning and making progress. I have no problem with that. I am thankful, though, that our state does not require a certain number of days or hours per day. I'm also glad I don't need to plan what we're doing a year out. I have no doubt that we would meet those requirements. I'm just glad I don't have to keep a log.

 

[kymberlykane1]

Regarding the bolded, I think we agree that the current standardized tests available do NOT do a good job of measuring a student's knowledge. I think the grades they earn in their regular classes should be sufficient to show progress. Ironically, I did have my homeschooled DD take them after her first year at home. I wanted to make sure *I* was doing a good job - lol. She actually performed very well, except in the area of ecology. Well, it never occurred to me to teach ecology in the 6th grade. I thought the required subjects of English, Math, Science, and Social Studies, but my social studies curriculum did not include any information about ecology, and obviously the state curriculum did. (I also taught US Geography, Art, Music, and Bible. The test didn't bother measuring any geography knowledge, and I consider that very important).

My real concern is this: if a homeschooled student takes this standardized test, and does poorly, then what? Is someone going to come along and say the child must return to public school? How is that fair? What about all the public schooled children who do not perform well? No one suggests they must leave the system because it isn't working for them. So I'm not opposed to the tests themselves, I just worry about what might be done with the information.

I recall another thread (I think it wasn't about schooling at all, but about different words used in different parts of the country) where a 4th grade teacher complained that all her students missed a question about a subway. The only thing they knew by that name was a sandwich. They couldn't grasp how you could ride on a sandwich. I'm sure kids in NYC would know all about subways, but that doesn't mean they are *smarter* than children who live where there is no such thing.

I think the reason I personally am unaware of the "legalized truancy-type" of homeschoolers is because that wouldn't be possible in this state. We are REQUIRED to be affiliated with a cover group, keep attendance records, lesson plans, and grades. I must submit my yearly curriculum and weekly lesson plans to my group's administrator, and also submit grades quarterly. I must document 170 days of school attendance. My cover group is 250 families (almost 600 children) and they are quite organized. I don't see how anyone could just coast along and not actually teach their kids anything here. I'm certain it could happen though, in places that don't require record-keeping and grades.

DisneyGirl, I'll be praying that everything is okay with your mother. Planning a wedding is fun but also stressful. I know your DD must want her grandmother to be happy and healthy to attend the ceremony. I hope you get good news very soon.

Finally, back to the OP's question again, here is an article about the ACT results of homeschooled students.

THANKS for that information about the amount 10K being spent by the schools to educate kids and that the homeschooled student only gets the benefit of 500.

I really think that this needs to get addressed by law makers. We need some new thinking.

It is unfair that parents can't get some additional money in tax rebates to provide better home education. (Realize when I say this, that it might be scary as parents might homeschool that aren't qualified just to save the bucks). Maybe some money spent to actually visit homes , spot check tests, content of reading , reports written, and special assessments ? I also think that the folks that do not have kids , should get a tax break back for services they are not receiving. Why on earth are we giving parents a tax credit / incentive to have kids when they are going to be taking services each year and tapping into the educational money pot ? Seems we should be giving them a bill of the tax credit each year to fund the services and make up the shortfall.

Interesting ideas being exchanged here. Have a great day all.

 

[laurie31]

THANKS for that information about the amount 10K being spent by the schools to educate kids and that the homeschooled student only gets the benefit of 500.

I really think that this needs to get addressed by law makers. We need some new thinking.

It is unfair that parents can't get some additional money in tax rebates to provide better home education. (Realize when I say this, that it might be scary as parents might homeschool that aren't qualified just to save the bucks). Maybe some money spent to actually visit homes , spot check tests, content of reading , reports written, and special assessments ? I also think that the folks that do not have kids , should get a tax break back for services they are not receiving. Why on earth are we giving parents a tax credit / incentive to have kids when they are going to be taking services each year and tapping into the educational money pot ? Seems we should be giving them a bill of the tax credit each year to fund the services and make up the shortfall.

Interesting ideas being exchanged here. Have a great day all.

I think maybe you misunderstood the money part of that article. The point was to illustrate that you can get good results without spending Big Bucks.

However, it is the public school system spending (on average - it varies even within states) $10,000 per child, and it is the PARENTS spending whatever they choose to spend on their child's curriculum. Some parents spend much more than $500, some spend far less. I spent $500 alone on just dd's foreign language (we use Rosetta Stone) and $250 on her chemistry, because it came with all the chemicals and reagents we need for the labs. Her math was about $100, English was $250. I was able to buy the history book used and spent only $10. We won't talk about what I spend for dance, band, music lessons, and riding lessons, as although that "counts" as music and PE for her, public schooled children also participate in (and spend money for) those type things. But we definitely do not need the public schools spending ANY money on our children, and at this point they do not.

I'm not interested in any help from the government. On the one hand, extra money would be nice, but on the other hand it would concern me that it could entice someone to homeschool who is otherwise not motivated to educate their children. It's not something to venture into lightly.

Also, usually government money comes with strings, and I would rather DIE than give someone the right to pop into my home uninvited and unscheduled. No, I have nothing to hide, but the 4th amendment gives me (and all law-abiding citizens) protection from unreasonable searches, the right to be secure in my own home, the right to privacy. If there is reasonable cause, then yes, the government has the right and even the obligation to protect my children from abuse and neglect, but if I am doing nothing wrong then please leave me alone, thanks. I don't want some stranger coming in and deciding that I should or shouldn't teach my DD the way I do, any more than they can decide where -or if- we attend church, or what I serve for dinner.

As for the argument that only parents should fund schools, as long as we have the public school system in its current incarnation, in other words, it is still the main - and for many children the ONLY - avenue by which our citizens are educated, then it is a public service that should be funded by all, just as we pay to pave the roads or staff the police and fire departments.

Should only those whose homes catch fire pay the salaries of the firefighters? Of course not. In the same way, we all benefit from public education. If we don't pay for schools, and parents won't/can't educate their own children, where will the future workers come from? Where did most of today's workers come from? Now, in my own little dream world, everyone would home school, so there would be no need for our tax dollars to be spent on public schools. However, in Real Life, I know that homeschooling is not the right situation for every child or every parent, just as public school is not right for every child.

I read a great article several years ago that actually gave an objective list of the pros and cons of public, private, and home schooling, comparing and contrasting the good and the bad. Which one is best for a child should be decided by the parents. We've actually done all three - lol. My older DD went to private school for 3 years, then public school for 3 years, and we're starting our 3rd year of homeschooling. My younger dd did private school for 1 year, and public school for 5 years. She will come home next year. It's all about what's best for the individual child and family.

 

[MrsPete]

Regarding the bolded, I think we agree that the current standardized tests available do NOT do a good job of measuring a student's knowledge. I think the grades they earn in their regular classes should be sufficient to show progress. Ironically, I did have my homeschooled DD take them after her first year at home. I wanted to make sure *I* was doing a good job - lol.

The standardized tests have -- in reality -- never been so much about measuring what the students know as they've been about making sure that the schools are doing what they're supposed to do.

In THEORY, standardized tests shouldn't be a bad thing:
The state says 3rd graders should study this list of things.
The 3rd grade teacher teaches that list of things.
The 3rd grade test covers that list of things.
We all know, of course, that the reality isn't like that at all.

I'm not 100% against standardized tests, largely because the classroom grades don't always accurately reflect what the child actually knows. One teacher grades "harder" than another, one teacher is just a better teacher than another, one school has access to loads of books while another doesn't. I'd say that in an ideal situation, the child would be graded perhaps 70% on the year-long classroom grades and 30% on the standardized test. The classroom grade includes such qualities as creativity, time management, and perserverence, and the standardized test shows what the child can do completely on his own and in a timed situation. Combining these grades gives a whole-child picture.

She actually performed very well, except in the area of ecology. Well, it never occurred to me to teach ecology in the 6th grade. I thought the required subjects of English, Math, Science, and Social Studies, but my social studies curriculum did not include any information about ecology, and obviously the state curriculum did. (I also taught US Geography, Art, Music, and Bible. The test didn't bother measuring any geography knowledge, and I consider that very important).

I don't think there's a good way to take into consideration that homeschoolers don't follow the same game plan. Of course, in public schools, the state curriculum is a necessity. If every teacher was free to choose whatever he or she likes to teach, some kids would end up reading To Kill A Mockingbird three times and never getting around to long division! When you're part of a system, you have to play your part.

By the way, in my state kids hit geography hard in 7th and 8th grade. My 7th grader's been studying maps intensely of late!

My real concern is this: if a homeschooled student takes this standardized test, and does poorly, then what? Is someone going to come along and say the child must return to public school? How is that fair?

I suspect absolutely nothing would happen. There is no governing body to regulate homeschoolers who either did poorly on a test or who just plain didn't take the test.

In public school, if a kid fails certain key classes, the school is required to provide remediation.

I ran into an acquaintance today. She works at the school board dealing with truancy problems. I never really thought much about "legalized truancy," and I asked her about it. She said that the school boards in some counties are now encouraging homeschooling for their truancy cases. It is a way to lower drop out numbers, etc.

That's awful! At my school we do sometimes try to help kids find a different situation -- community college or other options -- but I know for a fact that we do not ever suggest that a family with an attendance problem consider homeschooling!

By the way, I just heard today about yet another case of "legalized truancy" -- yet another family who didn't send their kids to school on a regular basis, and who decided they'd homeschool. In the case of this family, every teacher who's had any contact with them knows very well that they don't really have much interest in their kids' education, and I'd bet my next-month's paycheck that family won't do a single lesson at home.

 

[MrsPete]

It is unfair that parents can't get some additional money in tax rebates to provide better home education. (Realize when I say this, that it might be scary as parents might homeschool that aren't qualified just to save the bucks). Maybe some money spent to actually visit homes , spot check tests, content of reading , reports written, and special assessments ? I also think that the folks that do not have kids , should get a tax break back for services they are not receiving. Why on earth are we giving parents a tax credit / incentive to have kids when they are going to be taking services each year and tapping into the educational money pot ? Seems we should be giving them a bill of the tax credit each year to fund the services and make up the shortfall.

I disagree. You and I don't pay taxes so that our individual children can recieve an education; instead, we pay taxes so that we can live in a society in which every child can receive an education.

We pay taxes so that we can live in a society in which everyone is literate and educated. Obviously, the results vary widely, but everyone in America -- no matter how poor or how disadvantaged -- has the opportunity to make something of himself through the public school system (having grown up a poor child with parents who were distracted by many other issues and who essentially left my education in my own hands, I am very grateful for the public school system and the opportunities it provided to me). Your taxes are educating the children who will one day become doctors, construction workers, and accountants -- those children will one day deliver your grandchildren, build your dream home, and complete your taxes. You will reap the benefits of public school education, even if your children never set foot inside the building. Also, by providing educating all children, we are vastly cutting down the number of people who would turn to crime if they were unable to work because of ignorance.

If our taxes paid for OUR OWN CHILDREN, then only people who become parents would owe those particular taxes, and they'd only owe them for the few short years that they are raising school-aged children. Instead, we all -- the teenager at his first job, the father in his prime earning years, and the retiree who earns only social security --we all pay school taxes with every paycheck because we are paying to educate SOCIETY.

I think maybe you misunderstood the money part of that article. The point was to illustrate that you can get good results without spending Big Bucks.

Apples and oranges.

You can't compare the cost of educating one child with the cost of educating a classroom full of children. The majority of the cost of public schooling goes to pay for the building and the teachers' salaries. In contrast, homeschoolers are doing their work in their own homes and they don't consider that a separate cost. Also, parents aren't paid for homeschooling, so the two largest costs in public education don't exist in homeschooling. Busses are another huge cost.

Materials, though they are much less than the above-mentioned large items, are more costly to obtain in large numbers. You can find one used copy of Rosetta Stone on ebay for a good price (I did), but you're not going to find enough for a classroom of students to use. You can check one copy of a novel out from the library, but if you need a classroom set, you're going to have to pay full price. You can re-use your friend's child's math workbook, but a classroom teacher can't make-do with that one copy. It will always cost more to educate large numbers of children.

It's all about what's best for the individual child and family.

I would also argue that what's right for a certain child at age five may or may not be right for that same child at age fifteen.

 

[binny]

I am not going to get into the argument. I will tell you why we are doing it though.

I have 3 kids. All of them at different levels. 1 special needs, 1 "peer" and one gifted. I am finding that I can reach all of them and they are ALL getting what they need. I am not a perfect teacher by ANY means and this is our first year but I really am a part of what they learn now. Yes we use a virtual school and some would argue that it isn't "real" homeschooling but I would definitely argue with that! I put in a LOT of hours doing this.

Last year was horrible. My girls were horribly bullied and it took me threatening to bring in the media to get ANYTHING done there. They were also in classes of more than 30 kids. My "peer" child actually regressed.

We are also in process of moving, so I found that we could do the K12 program here and it would transfer to our new State. That was my main reason for starting but honestly if my choices were teaching in an outhouse and returning the girls to where they went last year I would teach in an outhouse.

I have really become a convert to homeschooling. If you asked me even 6 months ago my answer would have been "NO WAY".

When we get to our new State, we may go back to regular school but it will only be after we find the right one!

 

[TheDisneyGirl02]

My real concern is this: if a homeschooled student takes this standardized test, and does poorly, then what? Is someone going to come along and say the child must return to public school? How is that fair? What about all the public schooled children who do not perform well? No one suggests they must leave the system because it isn't working for them. So I'm not opposed to the tests themselves, I just worry about what might be done with the information.

DisneyGirl, I'll be praying that everything is okay with your mother. Planning a wedding is fun but also stressful. I know your DD must want her grandmother to be happy and healthy to attend the ceremony. I hope you get good news very soon.

I doubt anyone would force a home school student to go back to public school. If there were such a test and a student didn't 'pass' I would think that maybe there would be more frequent testing just to assure that the student would stay on level. I'll be honest with you, if I was homeschool my child (I don't have kids yet), I would want to make sure that they were learning and retaining the information that I was teaching them. I would probably do the same thing you did your first year of HS (I think you said that you had your DD take the standardized test) just make sure that he/she was OK.

Thank you for your prayers - things got a little worse today for my mom and we learned that my grandfather needs to be put in a nursing home as of tomorrow (they told my aunt and dad that they were discharging him tomorrow and they needed to have a place for him to go! ). My mom is going for some tests and I'm just praying that they come back normal. I'm really stressed over everything that is going on... I do appreciate your kind thoughts.

Agreed.

I ran into an acquaintance today. She works at the school board dealing with truancy problems. I never really thought much about "legalized truancy," and I asked her about it. She said that the school boards in some counties are now encouraging homeschooling for their truancy cases. It is a way to lower drop out numbers, etc. Unfortunately, it also lumps these cases in with those of us who are serious about homeschooling and brings down our averages, results, etc. I hope it doesn't also serve as a reason for more regulations for homeschoolers. Recent studies have shown that homeschoolers in states with little to no regulations do just as well as those in highly regulated states.

I think you made an excellent point here about the truant students being homeschooled - they (both the students and probably the parents) don't care about an education. They are the parents who should absolutely be held accountable for what their child is learning. They are the ones who paint a bad picture for everyone and that is sad.

 

[allison443]

THANKS for that information about the amount 10K being spent by the schools to educate kids and that the homeschooled student only gets the benefit of 500.

I really think that this needs to get addressed by law makers. We need some new thinking.

It is unfair that parents can't get some additional money in tax rebates to provide better home education. (Realize when I say this, that it might be scary as parents might homeschool that aren't qualified just to save the bucks). Maybe some money spent to actually visit homes , spot check tests, content of reading , reports written, and special assessments ? I also think that the folks that do not have kids , should get a tax break back for services they are not receiving. Why on earth are we giving parents a tax credit / incentive to have kids when they are going to be taking services each year and tapping into the educational money pot ? Seems we should be giving them a bill of the tax credit each year to fund the services and make up the shortfall.

Interesting ideas being exchanged here. Have a great day all.

I have three kids who have never attended public school, although I live in NJ and we have notoriously high property taxes, which fund education in our state. By choice we sent the kids to Catholic school. So should I not have to pay my taxes, or should I get a tax break for all the tuition I have paid over the years?
What about special needs kids who need more services? Do you want their parents to pay more?
I do not agreee with you. It was our choice not to use the public education provided.

 

[allison443]

That press release was interesting. However, in some states all high school seniors are required to take the ACT, not just the college bound ones. I would assume the homeschool students who took the ACT were the ones who wanted to go to college and needed the scores to submit with their applications. So I would think that might be a factor in some of those statistics.

 

[allison443]

However, it is the public school system spending (on average - it varies even within states) $10,000 per child, and it is the PARENTS spending whatever they choose to spend on their child's curriculum. Some parents spend much more than $500, some spend far less. I spent $500 alone on just dd's foreign language (we use Rosetta Stone) and $250 on her chemistry, because it came with all the chemicals and reagents we need for the labs. Her math was about $100, English was $250. I was able to buy the history book used and spent only $10. We won't talk about what I spend for dance, band, music lessons, and riding lessons, as although that "counts" as music and PE for her, public schooled children also participate in (and spend money for) those type things. But we definitely do not need the public schools spending ANY money on our children, and at this point they do not.

I'm not interested in any help from the government. On the one hand, extra money would be nice, but on the other hand it would concern me that it could entice someone to homeschool who is otherwise not motivated to educate their children. It's not something to venture into lightly.

Also, usually government money comes with strings, and I would rather DIE than give someone the right to pop into my home uninvited and unscheduled. No, I have nothing to hide, but the 4th amendment gives me (and all law-abiding citizens) protection from unreasonable searches, the right to be secure in my own home, the right to privacy. If there is reasonable cause, then yes, the government has the right and even the obligation to protect my children from abuse and neglect, but if I am doing nothing wrong then please leave me alone, thanks. I don't want some stranger coming in and deciding that I should or shouldn't teach my DD the way I do, any more than they can decide where -or if- we attend church, or what I serve for dinner.

As for the argument that only parents should fund schools, as long as we have the public school system in its current incarnation, in other words, it is still the main - and for many children the ONLY - avenue by which our citizens are educated, then it is a public service that should be funded by all, just as we pay to pave the roads or staff the police and fire departments.

Should only those whose homes catch fire pay the salaries of the firefighters? Of course not. In the same way, we all benefit from public education. If we don't pay for schools, and parents won't/can't educate their own children, where will the future workers come from? Where did most of today's workers come from? Now, in my own little dream world, everyone would home school, so there would be no need for our tax dollars to be spent on public schools. However, in Real Life, I know that homeschooling is not the right situation for every child or every parent, just as public school is not right for every child.

I read a great article several years ago that actually gave an objective list of the pros and cons of public, private, and home schooling, comparing and contrasting the good and the bad. Which one is best for a child should be decided by the parents. We've actually done all three - lol. My older DD went to private school for 3 years, then public school for 3 years, and we're starting our 3rd year of homeschooling. My younger dd did private school for 1 year, and public school for 5 years. She will come home next year. It's all about what's best for the individual child and family.

I agree with you! I pay tuition and many more expenses for outside enrichment-by my choice!
The part I bolded sums up my feelings as well!

 

[luvmyfam444]

subscribing

 

[Planogirl]

I have a question. This is probably something I've overlooked so forgive me if it's been mentioned. I just can't find it.

Some have mentioned that homeschooled students were accepted into college without issues and I think that's great. Do the colleges often base this acceptance only on SAT's and Act's? I realize that some states have requirements and tests but apparently some don't. (Like Texas from what I understand.) So how does anyone know whether a HS student is actually learning anything?

Just curious how that works.

 

[laurie31]

Links for you, with the more pertinent parts quoted here, for they are LONG.

http://www.freetohomeschool.org/docs/nche/000000/CollegeExcel07.pdf

A Harvard University (MA) admissions officer said most of their home educated students “have done very well. They usually are very motivated in what they do.” Results of the SAT and SAT II, an essay, an interview, and a letter of recommendation are the main requirements for home educated applicants.

University of Kentucky homeschool applicants “have to provide a portfolio of what they have done throughout their high school years” that is “creative and informative.” A UK admissions officer also said, “Our homeschoolers (about 50) tend to be very bright, and have scored very high on standardized tests.”

The Dartmouth College (NH) admissions officer explained, “The applications I’ve come across are outstanding. Homeschoolers have a distinct advantage because of the individualized instruction they have received.”

University of Alaska/Fairbanks has had over 300 home educated students in the last few years, several of which were in their honors program. The program director, Mary Dicicco commented, “They have been wonderful students on the whole!”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3955/is_200410/ai_n9443747/?tag=content;col1

How Colleges Approach the Home-Educated

Jennifer Sutton (2002) wrote in Brown University's alumni magazine, "Although the number of homeschoolers applying to college is still small, it represents only the first wave. The next homeschooled generation-the real boom-is just hitting puberty."

Research and probability show that the home-educated college applicant is very likely to succeed in college, both academically and socially. Consider that the home-educated typically have strong self-discipline, motivation, and self-initiative. "These kids are the epitome of Brown students," says Joyce Reed, who became an associate dean of the college twelve years ago. "They've learned to be self-directed, they take risks, they face challenges with total fervor, and they don't back off" (Sutton, 2002).

 

[metime]

I have a question. This is probably something I've overlooked so forgive me if it's been mentioned. I just can't find it.

Some have mentioned that homeschooled students were accepted into college without issues and I think that's great. Do the colleges often base this acceptance only on SAT's and Act's? I realize that some states have requirements and tests but apparently some don't. (Like Texas from what I understand.) So how does anyone know whether a HS student is actually learning anything?

Just curious how that works.

Actually a lot of the elite collgese are not really looking at grades very much. My daughters PS actually tried to go with out grades because of they are not reflective of a student. While they would still get a number and GPA they would not get a letter. If a child goes to a school with lower expectations and gets straight A's and a child goes to an more difficult school and gets a B average it does not mean the A student from a less difficult school will be better suited to a college like Harvard.

Those elite colleges are aware of certian highschools and their expectations. Colleges look at civic service, extra curricular activities, letters of reccomendation, and SAT and ACT scores.

 

[allison443]

Actually a lot of the elite collgese are not really looking at grades very much. My daughters PS actually tried to go with out grades because of they are not reflective of a student. While they would still get a number and GPA they would not get a letter. If a child goes to a school with lower expectations and gets straight A's and a child goes to an more difficult school and gets a B average it does not mean the A student from a less difficult school will be better suited to a college like Harvard.

Those elite colleges are aware of certian highschools and their expectations. Colleges look at civic service, extra curricular activities, letters of reccomendation, and SAT and ACT scores.

I'm not clear on what you're saying-if your dd's school was giving "a number and a GPA" those are grades, just not letter grades

Also I have gone through the college application process twice recently with my two oldest kids, and most colleges, especially the elite ones, absolutely look at grades for kids who attend regular school. They also want to see that the applicants have taken the hardest level of course offered at their school. I agree that they look at the different high school to see the "level" the school is at. Maybe you mean for homeschool kids, the colleges take a more holistic approach, which definitely makes a lot of sense.

Also from what I have read, it seems many teenaged homeschoolers enroll in college classes (just like some regular school students do) where presumably they get grades and would be a good indicator for the colleges they are applying to. Plus while some colleges are now SAT-optional, most colleges still require a standardized test, either the SAT or the ACT, and they definitely consider those scores.

 

[metime]

I'm not clear on what you're saying-if your dd's school was giving "a number and a GPA" those are grades, just not letter grades

Also I have gone through the college application process twice recently with my two oldest kids, and most colleges, especially the elite ones, absolutely look at grades for kids who attend regular school. They also want to see that the applicants have taken the hardest level of course offered at their school. I agree that they look at the different high school to see the "level" the school is at. Maybe you mean for homeschool kids, the colleges take a more holistic approach, which definitely makes a lot of sense.

Also from what I have read, it seems many teenaged homeschoolers enroll in college classes (just like some regular school students do) where presumably they get grades and would be a good indicator for the colleges they are applying to. Plus while some colleges are now SAT-optional, most colleges still require a standardized test, either the SAT or the ACT, and they definitely consider those scores.

Nashoba Superintendent Michael Wood held an informational forum April 29 at Florence Sawyer School in Bolton to give Nashoba parents more information about his plan to test a new system of standards-based reporting. Parents at the forum said their biggest concern was whether colleges would accept student transcripts without “A’s” and “B’s.”

“The job of our school is to prepare [children] for college and life,” said Bolton resident Jason Lovinger. “It’s got to be easy for [colleges] to interpret, otherwise they’re going to trash it.”

Wood commented that schools usually have the responsibility of adapting their transcripts so that they are informative enough for the colleges to which they are sent.

“Some schools don’t have a weighted GPA … they have a way of equalizing the playing field,” Wood said. “We would not need to give up the GPA.”

According to a brochure sent to Nashoba households, there are nine subject areas in which students are expected to meet standards that are defined by the state curriculum frameworks. With the proposed grading system, students would no longer receive letter grades, but rather a report stating whether they meet the expectations of each standard.

“We teach the standards and we want to report out to parents about how their kids are doing for the standards,” said Wood. “We think educationally, that’s the right thing to do.”

This is the quoted from the local paper Mr. Wood is the SI of the district and this district has a high percentage of kids who go on to Harvard, MIT, Yale and so on. This is only being looked at as a request from the colleges that there be a more accurate way to see if a student has met state standards.

Where I live the local Public schools do not meet state standards and have been "updating" the curriculum for 3 years or so (the state is already withholding funding). Just because a child has all good grades in a public school system and has a high GPA does not mean they meet the state standards. Until there is a new form of measure they still take into account the less accurate one but it isn't weighted as heavily as you may think.

Also the GPA was beeing kept for the parents not the colleges. The parents wanted the GPA as a measure. The colleges are the ones insisting that number and letter grades and GPAs are not reflecting if the student is meeting state standards but only if the student is meeting that particular teachers expectations.

 

[kymberlykane1]

I have three kids who have never attended public school, although I live in NJ and we have notoriously high property taxes, which fund education in our state. By choice we sent the kids to Catholic school. So should I not have to pay my taxes, or should I get a tax break for all the tuition I have paid over the years?
What about special needs kids who need more services? Do you want their parents to pay more?
I do not agreee with you. It was our choice not to use the public education provided.

No , I do not think that tax breaks should be retroactive.

I'm not sure that special services should really cost more. I think that they need to over haul the educational spend and control costs better. If they managed the costs, leveaged discounts , etc they should be able to deliver a quality education to each student at a more reasonable price.

All I'm pointing out really is that the government has a huge shortfall. IMO, this is because they mismanage the funds they have for services they provide. Also, we need some new thinking at the top and yes, I think it's fair that people pay for services they recieve. Because we have done something one way for decades doesn't mean that is the only way it's going to work.