Not educating child

[princessmom29]

Fortunately, the lovely thing about America is that you don't have to take their word for it because you don't get a say in how anyone else raises their children. :

In a public assistance state, I feel there has to be some accountability. We as taxpayers are gonig to end up supporting the children comingo out of bad homeschool environments who are unemployable. Make them ineligible for public assitance and I would agree that wether or not they get an education is te family's business. As long as I have ot support them, I think they need to be checked on.

 

[skater]

The point of testing is to make sure that you really do know what you are doing so the child does not suffer the consequences if you do not. The other point of testing would be to catch those who say they are homeschooling but don't, see OP. Again, so the child does not suffer the consequences.

Again, if my child can complete grade level curriculum, can get A's on tests (including in classes outside of the home), can converse intelligently with people of any age, I think I know where they are . I don't think most children of homeschoolers (with a few exceptions as in OP's description) are suffering. There is no point in testing for my family. If society is truly worried about kids being educated or not, statistically speaking, they need to look elsewhere.

 

[princessmom29]

As I said in the previous post - I know better than the "experts" who write the test whether or not my child is able to complete the work at his or her grade level. And how well he or she can complete it. If DD is getting consistent A's on her tests, then I can assume she is at grade level .

One of my children learned to read at a later age than many children in public school (he was 8). (He was learning steadily but somewhat slowly). Two years later, he loves to read and is catching up with his grammar and writing at an accelerated pace. He's at grade level now, and I suspect that he may exceed grade level at the end of the year. He has a natural spelling ability that just developed this fall and was a surprise to me. My point is that a standardized test at 8 would in no way reflect the whole picture of who he would become. I knew that he would be OK better than a standardized test would "know." And he is confident in his intelligence because he has no idea that he started reading chapter books at a later age than some of his peers. I'm glad that he didn't have an expert or a test telling him otherwise. No two children are alike and nobody knows my children's ability like I do. I just don't see the point of having them tested .

Everyone THINKS they "know" that their child is "just fine" even though they are behind grade level. When it is YOUR child you are inherently biased. Parents are simply not objective evaluators in this situation. There is inherent bias it is impossible to eliminate. That would be the point of testing. To allow the parent's inherent bias to be eliminated form the situation and evaluate wether the child really is progressing steadily toward being on grade level, and to identify WHY they are not perfroming to grade level standards along with what needs to be done to fix it. If my work had never been compared to benchmark testing, no one would have realized how behind I was in seplling and my dyslexia would not have been identified. I wouldn't have gotten the coping skills I have. No parent wants to admit thier child may have a problem.

 

[FireDancer]

Since standardized tests are an important topic for a lot of you I have a question. I always thought that the standardized tests were designed to confirm that you have a grasp on the general knowledge that you are supposed to know once you have reached a certain grade/age. I hear about people "teaching to the test" all the time but don't see why that would be necessary even with standardized tests. If the whole point is to test your accumulated knowledge wouldn't teaching specifically for the test kind of defeat the purpose? It would be just like every other test and test just the immediate short term knowledge you were just given as opposed to the long term knowledge you have accumulated.

They implemented what they called senior tests into the school system I was in while I was in high school. They were test given to seniors that you had to pass to graduate. You were able to take each of the four tests (science, government/social studies, math, english) up to 3 times and once you passed any of the four you didn't have to take that one again, just the ones you failed. Our teachers never taught us specifically what was on the test. Had we been paying attention to the subjects over the previous 12 years we had the knowledge. Doesn't teaching to the test kind of negate their intent as I understand the intent which is to test the accumulation of what you should have learned in class up to that point?

The questions were things like the minimum age to become president, the number of senators, the number of counties in Ohio, the proper formula for the ideal gas law, what area of the country a specific Indian group was found in, or solve math equations you should be able to at that point. All of these are things that after 12 years of education you should just know without having to be taught specifically again for the senior test.

Sorry for the tangent but I have always wondered about the unnecessary practice of teaching for a test and this seems like the perfect place to ask it.

 

[princessmom29]

Again, if my child can complete grade level curriculum, can get A's on tests (including in classes outside of the home), can converse intelligently with people of any age, I think I know where they are . I don't think most children of homeschoolers (with a few exceptions as in OP's description) are suffering. There is no point in testing for my family. If society is truly worried about kids being educated or not, statistically speaking, they need to look elsewhere.

But how does society know you aren't giving them A's on things at home, and only enrolling them in courses you know they can do? Carrying on a conversation dosen't have much to do with being able to add and subtract for instance. Are we suppoed to just assume everyone is honest and take them at thier word that their kids are being educated? If not, how do we decide who may be lying and test just those children?

 

[skater]

In a public assistance state, I feel there has to be some accountability. We as taxpayers are gonig to end up supporting the children comingo out of bad homeschool environments who are unemployable. Make them ineligible for public assitance and I would agree that wether or not they get an education is te family's business. As long as I have ot support them, I think they need to be checked on.

Who are we supporting now? I don't think is the homeschoolers. In fact, you could say we are saving the government money. I pay taxes and still purchase my own curriculum. Nobody else is paying for my children's education. In fact, I also pay for music lessons, drama experiences, and other extra "stuff" that might be covered in a public school.

I think if we're worried about who is unemployable, we need to look at other places. Most homeschoolers are doing it because they care about their kids and think they can educate them better. There are a few exceptions, but that is true of any group of people.

I really don't care too much if somebody tells me I have to test my kids. It just feels like a waste of time, and time is important to me.

Having said all that, I want to make it clear that I have nothing against the public school system or teachers. I may even add to my degree so that I can teach in that system one day. Also, my middle child may be entering a public high school next year (so he can play his sport). I think teachers have their hands full with the challenges of children coming from families that just don't care. Also, I don't judge parents for their educational choices - I'm thankful we all have those choices. And I'm thankful I was able to make those choices for my family.

 

[princessmom29]

Since standardized tests are an important topic for a lot of you I have a question. I always thought that the standardized tests were designed to confirm that you have a grasp on the general knowledge that you are supposed to know once you have reached a certain grade/age. I hear about people "teaching to the test" all the time but don't see why that would be necessary even with standardized tests. If the whole point is to test your accumulated knowledge wouldn't teaching specifically for the test kind of defeat the purpose. It would be just like every other test and test just the immediate short term knowledge you were just given as opposed to the long term knowledge you have accumulated.

They implemented what they called senior tests into the school system I was in while I was in high school. They were test given to seniors that you had to pass to graduate. You were able to take each of the four tests (science, government/social studies, math, english) up to 3 times and once you passed any of the four you didn't have to take that one again, just the ones you failed. Our teachers never taught us specifically what was on the test. Had we been paying attention to the subjects over the previous 12 years we had the knowledge. Doesn't teaching to the test kind of negate their intent as I understand the intent which is to test the accumulation of what you should have learned in class up to that point.

The questions were things like the minimum age to become president, the number of senators, the number of counties in Ohio, the proper formula for the ideal gas law, what area of the country a specific Indian group was found in, or solve math equations you should be able to at that point. All of these are things that after 12 years of education you should just know without having to be taught specifically again for the senior test.

Sorry for the tangent but I have always wondered about the unnecessary practice of teaching for a test and this seems like the perfect place to ask it.

there are essentially 2 different kinds of standardized tests.
1. Tests like SAT 10, which are desigend to test general knowledge where teaching to the test is pointless.

2. Tests like IOWA basic skills and other state tests that measure mastery of a curriculum. THESE are the tests that are looked to for NCLB requirements, and you can absolutely talior your teaching specifically to what will be asked on these tests.

category one is great and what DD's school does. Public schools are forced into option 2 unless they want to fail to meet increasingly unrealistic standards and become "failing schools".

 

[knitster]

In a public assistance state, I feel there has to be some accountability. We as taxpayers are gonig to end up supporting the children comingo out of bad homeschool environments who are unemployable. Make them ineligible for public assitance and I would agree that wether or not they get an education is te family's business. As long as I have ot support them, I think they need to be checked on.

While I do not advocate educational neglect, I disagree that a "good" education is required to have a job. There are plenty of jobs that require little to no formal education. And, frankly, plenty of highly educated people end up on public assistance in times of need. My husband holds a bachelors and masters and, for a time, was unable to find a job that paid enough to make ends meet and I was in the middle of a high risk pregnancy so I couldn't work and we had to be on assistance for about a year.

But regardless of all that, the volume of public schooled graduates far outweighs the number of homeschooled graduates on assistance, so that argument really doesn't hold water.

If society is truly worried about kids being educated or not, statistically speaking, they need to look elsewhere.

Exactly.

 

[skater]

Everyone THINKS they "know" that their child is "just fine" even though they are behind grade level. When it is YOUR child you are inherently biased. Parents are simply not objective evaluators in this situation. There is inherent bias it is impossible to eliminate. That would be the point of testing. To allow the parent's inherent bias to be eliminated form the situation and evaluate wether the child really is progressing steadily toward being on grade level, and to identify WHY they are not perfroming to grade level standards along with what needs to be done to fix it. If my work had never been compared to benchmark testing, no one would have realized how behind I was in seplling and my dyslexia would not have been identified. I wouldn't have gotten the coping skills I have. No parent wants to admit thier child may have a problem.

Your assumptions are just not true. I care about my kids more than anyone else, and I want them to well. If they're struggling with something, I get them help because I want them to be OK. I do give them tests at home, and I don't tell them the answers ahead of time or grade them more easily than I would someone else. In fact, I'm teaching a high school class at our co-op, and my DD complains that I grade her harder than the other students .

And, if one of my children struggles in spelling or has a learning disasbility, I would be the first to recognize it because I'm with him or her every day. I see how their minds work and what types of problems they may struggle to solve. I am the first to "admit" if my child has a problem, because I more than anyone, want them to succeed in life.

 

[skater]

But how does society know you aren't giving them A's on things at home, and only enrolling them in courses you know they can do? Carrying on a conversation dosen't have much to do with being able to add and subtract for instance. Are we suppoed to just assume everyone is honest and take them at thier word that their kids are being educated? If not, how do we decide who may be lying and test just those children?

Why would I lie? I want them to succeed in life. And if a kid can add and subtract, but can't have a conversation (for a job or college interview, for instance), how can they function in society?

 

[Becky2005]

Since standardized tests are an important topic for a lot of you I have a question. I always thought that the standardized tests were designed to confirm that you have a grasp on the general knowledge that you are supposed to know once you have reached a certain grade/age.

I think that's how it USED to be until it got to the point that if 99.9% of your students don't test at grade level we are not going to give your school money and we are going to not only not give your school money, we are going to come in and close you down, fire all your teachers and replace them with whoever we deem is better at fixing the kids because obviously you can't teach if 99.9% of your kids can't pass this test regardless if they have a documented issue (i.e. are getting remedial help, they must pass grade level test anyway -- so what that they ARE improving every year).

You better believe I would be teaching to the test also....let's say the test question is "Sally has 3 apples and Johnny has 2 apples, how many apples do they have?" I have no idea what is on the test but assuming the lower grade ones.

You can bet a lot of my homework assignments are going to be Sue has 3 apples and John has 2 apples, how many apples do they have?

Even though my child who is decent in math may fail that because he would be spending so much time trying to read the words that he would lose the numbers vs. just asking him what is 3+2 or 2+3?

OR let's say they know one of the questions on the test ask specifically about a history event -- say in Illinois case -- lots of questions about Abraham Lincoln and the civil war but they only ask you a question or two about the Revoluntary war.

Do you think the teacher is going to teach you much about the Revoluntary war other than the answers to the couple questions you know are on the test? The will cover that for maybe a week, possibly go over it again before the test with a "sample test" (that is basically the exact question) and spend a majority of their time on Abraham Lincoln and the civil war.

I suppose in a way we always did this anyway because I found it hysterical in Jr../High School they even bothered publishing the back part of the history books -- we never got there. We started over again every year at the beginning, so no real current history was ever really discussed.

With homeschool you could spend as much time as you wanted/needed on these subjects or any subject. If you asked me to name the Presidents in order, I couldn't do it -- I could tell you Taft was the one that had a special bathtub made...anything else I could tell you is because I actually lived during the time it happened and some of that may even be vague except once I got into Middle School when we did the mock election.

 

[knitster]

The assumption that homeschool moms are fudging their kids grades and letting them off easy is not true - at least not for me and the other homeschoolers that I know irl. I am very hard on my kids - probably too hard - and I don't let the move on until they've mastered whatever subject we're covering. For example, if my son get below a B on his math work, he has to redo every problem he got wrong and he has to do it till he gets it right.

 

[princessmom29]

Your assumptions are just not true. I care about my kids more than anyone else, and I want them to well. If they're struggling with something, I get them help because I want them to be OK. I do give them tests at home, and I don't tell them the answers ahead of time or grade them more easily than I would someone else. In fact, I'm teaching a high school class at our co-op, and my DD complains that I grade her harder than the other students .

And, if one of my children struggles in spelling or has a learning disasbility, I would be the first to recognize it because I'm with him or her every day. I see how their minds work and what types of problems they may struggle to solve. I am the first to "admit" if my child has a problem, because I more than anyone, want them to succeed in life.

Why would I lie? I want them to succeed in life. And if a kid can add and subtract, but can't have a conversation (for a job or college interview, for instance), how can they function in society?

All of this may very well be true of you, but my point is that all we have is your word on that without some kind of evidence to back it. I simply DON'T believe everyone is that upstanding and honest, or that everyone is capable of being that objective when it comes to thier own children. I have seen way too much evidence to the contrary. So, without a benchmark to emasure, how do we weed out those like you and those who are not adequately educating their kids?

 

[princessmom29]

The assumption that homeschool moms are fudging their kids grades and letting them off easy is not true - at least not for me and the other homeschoolers that I know irl. I am very hard on my kids - probably too hard - and I don't let the move on until they've mastered whatever subject we're covering. For example, if my son get below a B on his math work, he has to redo every problem he got wrong and he has to do it till he gets it right.

Agian, how does anyone else know this without some kind of proof??

 

[skater]

The assumption that homeschool moms are fudging their kids grades and letting them off easy is not true - at least not for me and the other homeschoolers that I know irl. I am very hard on my kids - probably too hard - and I don't let the move on until they've mastered whatever subject we're covering. For example, if my son get below a B on his math work, he has to redo every problem he got wrong and he has to do it till he gets it right.

Isn't that the truth? I usually make my son re-do every math problem if he gets more than 1 or 2 wrong . But at least you know they've mastered the subject!

 

[skater]

Agian, how does anyone else know this without some kind of proof??

I'm very thankful that I don't have to prove the truth of my words to you or anyone else. I'm accountable to my kids, my DH, the Board of Ed (I have to show them books we're using as well as some samples off work), and to my God.

If all families were held to the standards you're discussing, our country would be graduating much better educated young adults. Testing or not, we all know that there are too many children graduating way below standards - even illiterate. Why not concentrate on the real problem - I don't believe homeschoolers are it!

 

[knitster]

Agian, how does anyone else know this without some kind of proof??

Nobody else needs to know. In America I have the right and freedom to educate my child as I see fit and as long as I'm in compliance with the laws in my state, nobody needs to concern themselves with my children. I pay my taxes that support the schools that my children don't attend and I comply with the TX homeschool laws - that's all the state and the general public has a right to know about.

 

[princessmom29]

Nobody else needs to know. In America I have the right and freedom to educate my child as I see fit and as long as I'm in compliance with the laws in my state, nobody needs to concern themselves with my children. I pay my taxes that support the schools that my children don't attend and I comply with the TX homeschool laws - that's all the state and the general public has a right to know about.

And when they are not educated to the point of being able to support themselves, the general public ends up paying to support them. That ias the crux of my issue. When you (the general you) choose not to educate your children, the whole of society ends up fottingthe bill. As long as that is the case I think there should be some accountability. I think there needs to be some form of accountability in ALL forms of education, not just homeschool. I am not going to take a teacher's word that she is educating the students without any evidence to back that up. Why should that be any different when the teacher just happens to be mom?

 

[princessmom29]

I'm very thankful that I don't have to prove the truth of my words to you or anyone else. I'm accountable to my kids, my DH, the Board of Ed (I have to show them books we're using as well as some samples off work), and to my God.

If all families were held to the standards you're discussing, our country would be graduating much better educated young adults. Testing or not, we all know that there are too many children graduating way below standards - even illiterate. Why not concentrate on the real problem - I don't believe homeschoolers are it!

Why not fix ALL of the problem, not just some? We KNOW about the public school children who cannot read. By and large, we DON'T know about the homeschool kids who cannot read, and believe me, there are some out there. The poblem with the public school kid who cannot read goes much deeper and is much more complicated than just not having access to an education, and much of it honestly cannot be fixed by the school.

 

[princessmom29]

Isn't that the truth? I usually make my son re-do every math problem if he gets more than 1 or 2 wrong . But at least you know they've mastered the subject!

Why in the world would you do that? Why not just give him more examples of the skills he has NOT mastered rather than haivng him redo problems he got RIGHT?