California court strikes a blow for children; homeschooling virtually outlawed.

[aneeshm]

One further question: are the standards being applied to the homeschools going to be applied to the public schools?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by GePap
Why is it that most of the rest of the world does not have these stupid problems with education? Why is it that in many places in the world, including many poor countries with neglegible resources compared to the US public education actually works well enough to get their kids to read and do math? Why is it so hard to make American children monolingual while so many other states can make their children multilingual?

Is this level of stupidity reserved specifically to the US and to a much lesser extent Canada?

The more your travel the world, the more you realize that EVERY country thinks that their educational system is below average. I had an adult student in Korea who wanted to send her son to live with his uncle in Washington D.C. so he could go to public schools there and get a better education.

The educational system in Korea is a ridiculous mess. The public schools have 40+ kids/class, the teachers are uneducated and rely on memorize/repeat learning and the country spends 10% of its ENTIRE GDP on tutors and after school classes and study so hard that you get elementary school kids getting sleep deprivation since they're doing homework until midnight but despite that the university system is so screwed up (huge chunk of college students spend four years drinking soju and not showing up to class and graduate anyway) that they don't end up knowing anything more than people from other countries by their time their done with college.

Also a lot of those international tests are crap since they compare all US high school students with only college-track students in other countries.

[MJW]

Due to the fact that there is a fixed number of good jobs the US does not need to have a good education system. In fact it is bad for it because it costs money and time.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Bosh

Also a lot of those international tests are crap since they compare all US high school students with only college-track students in other countries.

I honestly don't know why we don't have 'tracked' systems. I don't like the idea of a test at taken at 3 detemrining whether you go to college or not. But we could have it voluntary. And allow people to switch if they wish.

A lot of the people who do poorly in highschool don't want to be there. They are often a bad influence on those around them who do want to be there (I can't count the number of people who had big dreams but fell in the wrong crowd).

I know people can change, and they should be allowed to. For example, I have a friend who basically failed out of highschool. You can always go to community college though, so he did that, and did well enough to go to a 4 year university after a couple years in community college. After graduating with his bachelors, he then entered University of Marylands PhD (physics) program (one of the best in the nation). So we allow people to be academic tracked, and to change, now.

But we don't allow people to do so when thety are young. We throw them into the same school. Or if they are lucky enough to live near a magnet school/etc, then if they test high enough they can go there.

But that isn't the same as having college tracked and otherwise tracked education. And the classes are often different, but despite that we keep them together, which influences those who are trying to succeed.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
One further question: are the standards being applied to the homeschools going to be applied to the public schools?

Good question. Most schools have uncredentialed teachers, but they are suppose to replace them after they fined qualified teachers to fill the spot. The truth is that a credential doesn't make you a better teacher except for maybe the student teaching experience. This is a stupid law.

[Arrian]

Hmm. Seems to me there is merit to homeschooling, and "teacher training" isn't what makes a good teacher.

I wouldn't homeschool a child were we to have one, for several reasons... but I could see why another person might make a different choice - and be right to do so, depending on the circumstances. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that kids must be taught by accredited teachers.

-Arrian

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm. Seems to me there is merit to homeschooling, and "teacher training" isn't what makes a good teacher.

I wouldn't homeschool a child were we to have one, for several reasons... but I could see why another person might make a different choice - and be right to do so, depending on the circumstances. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that kids must be taught by accredited teachers.

-Arrian

Yes, from the teaching material my mom sends me it seems like the primary purpose to teacher training is to suck all of the joy out of any subject.

I'm making a reading comprehention textbook for the boss at the moment and all of the reading passages are all modified versions of whatever is the most entertaining things posted on Fark on any given day, beats the crap out of any reading text I had when I was a kid

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm. Seems to me there is merit to homeschooling, and "teacher training" isn't what makes a good teacher.

I wouldn't homeschool a child were we to have one, for several reasons... but I could see why another person might make a different choice - and be right to do so, depending on the circumstances. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that kids must be taught by accredited teachers.

-Arrian

Look into it. Likely there's a group of parents who teach kids the basics and the the concepts behind their work. More often than not they do use tutors also. It prepares the kids for the current work environment rather than the industrial age cookie cutter public schools we have now that rob the kids of imagination for the sake of conformity.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a better indication of skill or ability than no indication whatsoever. If you have an issue with the certificate requirements, that's understandable... but wanting children taught by those with absolutely no oversight is completely ridiculous.

My point is that there isn't a crisis with California homeschooling. There really isn't a pressing problem with children coming out there behind their peers.

The problem is in the public schools. Certifying homeschooling parents doesn't do anything to solve the problems of the public schools.

For instance, you don't give drivers licenses to make people good drivers. You make requirements for drivers licenses to try to weed out the bad drivers.

Right. The way I see this is forcing a tank driver who was in the military to earn his driver's licence. Parents are more competent in many cases, and have proved it over and over again in the results.

Read the article more closely. There were complaints made, they were investigated, the children's learning environment was deemed unsuitable, and that's why it went to court in the first place.

Complaints by whom? The school board?

There likely is a law along those lines. (In a manner of speaking, this law functions that way in this specific case. Since how it's been applied is in regards to children who's education was found to be lacking.)

Then what's wrong with the law? Why are the laws on the books insufficient to deal with the problem? I agree with you that oversight should be there, but this is like using a hammer to drive in a thumbtack.

That is not all. You can have properly trained tutors overseeing the education at home. There are other options as well like video classrooms, private schools, magnet schools, ect.

(A parent who really cared about their child's education would go for a good private/magnet school. They'd still be involved in their child's education of course, but the facilities and specialized teachers are something homeschooling just cannot provide in most cases.)

That depends on the child. Honestly, some students do well in a school environment, others do not. I think that a parent should make the decision as to what should be the best way to educate their child, not the state.

In any case, if there is a problem with this situation, it's with the process to aquire credentials for teaching, not with requiring them.

No, the problem is requiring them. It's an unnecessary burden, it does nothing to address the real problem, and it harrasses parents who are trying to do the best for their kids. It also rewards irresponsibility. The solution isn't to make things harder for the responsible parents, but to make things harder for the irresponsible ones. Forcing everyone to get credentials won't improve education in California.

Having a minimum qualification for those responsible for teaching children is a good thing. No amount of twisting of statistics or ignoring reality will ever change that BK.

So why don't we require all teachers to have a Phd?

It certainly can be. Though the parents who just drop their kids off (or let them take the bus) and that's the extent of their involvement in their education are almost surely not going to be good teachers. Public schools are failing in large part because parents aren't involved in the process. That's a choice the parents make, since it's quite easy to be involved in your child's education even if they go to public school. (My parents definitely were involved.)

So why is the state of California punishing the parents who are so involved and determined that they are educating their children at home?

If we really cared about our kids, we'd have parents involved in their kid's education whether it's public, private, or homeschooled, as well as make sure that those who are teaching the children... whether public, private, or homeschooled... were qualified to do so.

Agreed. The solution then should be "how do we engage the parents who are in the public system," not "how can we make it more difficult for parents who have withdrawn from the system to do so?"

Sadly, some sort of parental licensing would cause such an uproar... and be impossible to enforce... but it really would be best for children if parents had to have some sort of minimum level of training in how to be a parent before having kids.

What a world. Where the state issues licenses for you to have kids. What do you want them to do? Issue hall passes whenever you have to take a piss? How about having the state decide how much gas you put in your car, regulates the lightbulbs you use, regulates how hot and how cold your house can be. Decides for you what you can and cannot eat.

Why on earth would you want to do this, unless you want to tell other people that they can't have kids? Man, freedom is precious. What you call for here is disgusting, and I hope it never happens. The state belongs to the people, not the people to the state.

You can't just pretend that credentials and training provide nothing simply because a credentialed teacher in a public school has to teach 30+ students simultaneously, most of whom are just there cause they have to be and who's home/social life is in complete odds with their education, instead of being able to have 1 on 1 attention.

I agree, and it is a flaw in the public system. This is one reason why homeschooling provides superior results.

There is value in 1 on 1 attention, undeniable. That doesn't mean there is no value in properly trained teachers/tutors being involved. A good system would give children 1 on 1 instruction with properly trained instructors.

So why are we trying to make things more difficult for parents who are properly trained instructors. If you've ever been a parent, you would understand better, why parents who are involved in their child's education make all the difference in the world. You seem to see all parents as irresponsible, when in reality, most of them do a good job.

I would rather see parents step up for their children, rather then dropping the burden on other people, and it bothers me when I see the state encouraging people to rely more on them rather then on themselves. It would be better if the state just got out of the way, and let people succeed on their own. Would that the pioneers of previous saw us today? Do you think they would be honoured by what the US has become?

You want to get rid of the training just because 1 on 1 is better than 1 teacher for 30 students. That's nonsensical.

No, I fear that the state considers itself to be the parent of the children, and that the children belong the state. I fear what Hitler said when he said the same thing, and that this is yet another step towards the abyss.

Parents should be allowed to teach their children without the interference of the state if they choose to do so. This is a big responsibility, but if parents stepped up the children would be better off then they do now.

Either you are saying that public school teachers shouldn't be required to have their teaching certificate, or that homeschooled should. Which is it?

You miss my argument. I am arguing that homeschooled children should not be held to a higher standard then those in the public school.

I did not argue that homeschooled children should be held to the same standard. Look at what you are saying here. You are saying that professional educators should be able to get better results then homeschooled children. They do not, we see precisely the opposite. The solution should be to improve the public schools, not impose a higher standard of performance on homeschooled children.

If you ignore reality and pretend that average cases make everything ok for those being left behind.

I don't, I already argued that the state should use the laws it has to help the children who are falling behind.

So you admit that homeschooled children, on average, perform better then their professionally educated peers?

You assume competency is already there. This case clearly argues against you, since it went to court because the competency was found lacking.

For the vast majority of homeschooled students, they already have competent instructors. There is no need to increase the standards, when they exceed the same standards that the state of california insists for itself.

Credentials will weed out some of the bad cases. It's the least we can do. (And of course the better the credential process, the better it will work. That's it's own issue though.)

Why should applying a broken system to one that is working improve the working system?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm. Seems to me there is merit to homeschooling, and "teacher training" isn't what makes a good teacher.

It'd be nice if math teacher knew how to add and if English teachers knew how to spel. :frown:

Ever see the contestants on "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" Would you want one of them teaching your child? Do you think you're smarter than they are?

[Ben Kenobi]

More often than not they do use tutors also. It prepares the kids for the current work environment rather than the industrial age cookie cutter public schools we have now that rob the kids of imagination for the sake of conformity.

Here here!

QFMFT.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


It'd be nice if math teacher knew how to add and if English teachers knew how to spel. :frown:

Ever see the contestants on "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" Would you want one of them teaching your child? Do you think you're smarter than they are?

Most of those wouldn't be homeschooling. Most of the people who do homeschooling are dedicated to their childs wellbeing. Which is th reason they are homeschooling.

A few aren't, (and I have see examples of this), but are just really missed up. But you can tell that the kids can't pass tests or whatever. You don't need to set up high requirements to homeschool in the first place.

The number of kids that homeschooling is failing is a lot lower then the number of kids that our public schools are failing (and you can replace number with percentage).

To be honest, it is quite obvious that this is just maneuvering on the part of the teacher unions. And note, I support teachers... I Think they should get higher pay/etc. But this is obviously stupid.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I would bet that that this would drive overall education down in the state. Many good homeschoolers (which are the majority of homeschoolers) will have to send their children to public school (Which is worse, on average, then homeschooling). Meanwhile, a few bad homeschoolers (there aren't many bad ones) will send their kids to public school (which is better). This is, from studies/etc, a very small portion of the homeschoolers.

So you end up with a lowering of the education in california (not a whole lot, as most people don't homeschool, but a bit).

A far better way to handle poor homeschoolers is to test the children (same tests as public school children get). If the children are doing decently (40% or better, compared to public school children) then let the parent teach them however they wish. BTW, the studies that I saw on a casual google were that homeschoolers were in a 20% higher bracket compared to their public school peers, so I am sure that even a cut off at 40% will be a very small minority of homeschooled students (and some of those will be ones with real issues studying, where the parent is doing everything right).

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
My point is that there isn't a crisis with California homeschooling.

There in this specific case there was deemed to be a crisis, which according to the article is why it went to court.

Certifying homeschooling parents doesn't do anything to solve the problems of the public schools.

It could help prevent cases like this.

Right. The way I see this is forcing a tank driver who was in the military to earn his driver's licence. Parents are more competent in many cases, and have proved it over and over again in the results.

You are confusing factors when judging results. Homeschooling generally has concerned parents (not always though), which is an important factor in any child's education, public, private, or homeschooled.

It is inane to pretend that the poor results of public schooling are because of teachers being credentialed, and that the better results of homeschooling are due to the parents not being credentialed.

It obviously has more to do with the home environment. That is not a justifiable reason to drop qualification. (It may be a good argument about how to change qualification processes... but dropping qualification altogether is just mindnumbingly stupid.)

Complaints by whom? The school board?

The article doesn't say, just that there was concern the child had been abused by the parent. (Which how would the school board even know about, if the kid wasn't going to class?)

Then what's wrong with the law? Why are the laws on the books insufficient to deal with the problem? I agree with you that oversight should be there, but this is like using a hammer to drive in a thumbtack.

There are plenty of problems with the law, you'll have to be more specific with your inquiry.

Requiring oversight by qualified teachers/tutors isn't one of them. (The methods to gain that qualification might be. But making sure some registered sex offender isn't "teaching" kids would be a nice place to start the "qualification" process. Demonstrating the ability to teach might be a good one as well.)

You seem to assume this will have to result in draconian measures. It really doesn't. If all the people who give their children good educations at home just throw their hands up in the air and scream about the sky falling, it very well may happen though. Last I checked we were still democratic here in Cali... if something is wrong, fix it... but please figure out what you're really arguing about first. This isn't about qualification being required, it's at most about the qualification process.

Work for better qualification process. (Hell, if a parent could show they've educated their child to the current grade level in a satisfactory manner, I'd support giving them some sort of limited teaching credential for their kids in that age range.) Don't try to remove valuable safety precautions in the law just so that no accountability will remain.

I think that a parent should make the decision as to what should be the best way to educate their child, not the state.

There obviously have to be limits. I know you agree with that, because you wouldn't support child abuse, molestation, or anything like that. We can disagree about what limits on parental choices there should be, but obviously there have to be limits.

That is what the state is for. Citizens coming to some sort of agreement about what the limits are. I personally don't think screening teachers in some manner is a horrific injustice... It's not screening teachers and learning environments at all, that will lead to some specific cases of horrific injustice for our children.

So why don't we require all teachers to have a Phd?

Obviously a Phd isn't required to be a good teacher. There are skills that are required to be a good teacher (or even just a passable teacher). We should screen to make sure those skills are present in some manner.

After-the-fact screening is a method to apply, but pre-emptive screening is important too.

What a world. Where the state issues licenses for you to have kids.
....
Why on earth would you want to do this, unless you want to tell other people that they can't have kids? Man, freedom is precious. What you call for here is disgusting, and I hope it never happens. The state belongs to the people, not the people to the state.

I do think there are cases where people have demonstrated that they shouldn't have the right to have children. Crack whores. Child sex predators. That sort of thing. (I think there are even some laws along these lines already. That wasn't what I was talking about though.)

But what I was talking about is that there should be some sort of education involved before people have children that will help them develope the skills that are necessary to provide a good home environment to their children.

I find it very sad that this type of thing is considered too draconian. We can test for the ability to drive, but when it comes to whether or not we **** over future generations, there's no concern. Parent's "freedom" is the end-all-be-all and very few people really care about the child's actual freedom.

Freedom doesn't equate to irresponsibility, but that's what it's become in our culture's lexicon. Virtually all our social problems stem from that one little mistranslation. We get issues like poor results from public education, and everyone wonders why throwing money at eductation isn't working... when the problem really isn't the kids or even the schools, but the parents (and other societal pressures). But try to point that out, and demand responsibility from parents, or suggest proactive measures... and you're some sort of totalitarian 1984 big brother in a black SUV and dark sunglasses.

So why are we trying to make things more difficult for parents who are properly trained instructors. If you've ever been a parent, you would understand better, why parents who are involved in their child's education make all the difference in the world. You seem to see all parents as irresponsible, when in reality, most of them do a good job.

You aren't listening. This isn't to hamper the good parents, it's to weed out those bad ones.

No, I fear that the state considers itself to be the parent of the children, and that the children belong the state.

There are cases where the state has to step in to protect the child. You can try to ignore this all you want, but it's simply fact.

I fear what Hitler said when he said the same thing, and that this is yet another step towards the abyss.

*Have some tinfoil*

Wanting teachers to be qualified is not an outrageous request for a law to make.

Parents should be allowed to teach their children without the interference of the state if they choose to do so. This is a big responsibility, but if parents stepped up the children would be better off then they do now.

You already agreed that there has to be oversight. You're just arguing with yourself now.

You miss my argument. I am arguing that homeschooled children should not be held to a higher standard then those in the public school.

They aren't. Teachers - homeschool, public, or private - are being held to the same standard by this specific ruling.

For the vast majority of homeschooled students, they already have competent instructors.

If this is true then there should be an easy way to take those competent instructors and give them credentials to teach (at least in that environment).

Why are you so opposed to a law that says nothing more than that teachers should have some minumum level of competency to teach?

Why should applying a broken system to one that is working improve the working system?

It's not applying a broken system. Unless you think that requiring qualification for teachers is "broken"... in which case you are saying there shouldn't be any qualifications for teachers in any venue, which is ridiculous.

It's also is not applying anything to a "working system". If we get to a point where working systems are being targetted, then I'll agree with you. (At least to the extent that the "working systems" should be allowed to continue by providing some manner of eased compliance to the law.)

But a child welfare case where the parents were found to be lying to the state about their children's education is not it, sorry. This law has a benefit precisely because it can be used to protect children who's education is being neglected.

[Ben Kenobi]

It could help prevent cases like this.

As opposed to having the kids write the same standardized exams as all the public school kids?

They obviously found out that these kids in particular were struggling, so the issue isn't the ability of the school to find them but how to prevent this from occuring.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to oversight, I just disagree with you on what will be effective. The laws in place are effective, and there is no need for more oversight.

It is inane to pretend that the poor results of public schooling are because of teachers being credentialed, and that the better results of homeschooling are due to the parents not being credentialed.

Where did I say that? I said there are problems, and that credentialing of homeschool parents is a way for the public school to clamp down on what they see as competition. That is the only reason I can think of why they would favour this 'solution' over many other things.

dropping qualification altogether is just mindnumbingly stupid.

Where did I say that teachers ought not to be qualified? Wow. I'm obviously not getting through to you.

I am in favour of the current credentials in the public school, and I think teachers ought to be trained in this manner. I think the training needs to be improved, and I certainly don't believe that removing certification will fix the public school.

I also don't see how forcing homeschool parents to certify will fix the myriad problems with the public schools.

The article doesn't say, just that there was concern the child had been abused by the parent. (Which how would the school board even know about, if the kid wasn't going to class?)

Good question. I think there is more to this one case, and I think one of the TEACHERS complained.

Requiring oversight by qualified teachers/tutors isn't one of them.

I have no problem with oversight. I think appropriate oversight would to have the children write the same standardised exams as everyone else.

You seem to assume this will have to result in draconian measures.

It already is in other countries, like Germany for example, where they will take children away from their parents if they are found homeschooling, and the families have to flee to a free country in order to keep their kids.

This isn't about qualification being required, it's at most about the qualification process.

You might think so, but you should try listening to what other people are saying here. You might see the issue in such terms, when people here are saying that the qualification should not be required. The qualification requirements will not improve the state of education in California, and will have a severe negative effect as people leave, or give up and drop their kids into the public school, which is exactly what the unionised teachers want.

Work for better qualification process. (Hell, if a parent could show they've educated their child to the current grade level in a satisfactory manner,

Then they should have the authority over their children, period. They have proven they are successful, and the state should just leave them be. There is no need to give them teacher credentials.

Don't you get it? The parents think the credentials are bull****, and so do most of the folks here. They don't want the credentials, if they did they would go back to school and get them.

That is what the state is for. Citizens coming to some sort of agreement about what the limits are.

Unlike you, I don't see homeschooling as child abuse.

Obviously a Phd isn't required to be a good teacher. There are skills that are required to be a good teacher (or even just a passable teacher). We should screen to make sure those skills are present in some manner.

That's not the job of the state to screen parents. Sorry. That's part of the job of being a parent to teach your kids.

If as you say MORE education and MORE credentials make a better teacher, then we should require them to have PhD because that will make better teachers.

Or you can admit that teaching is much more then having that piece of paper, and that the piece of paper shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of teaching.

That wasn't what I was talking about though.)

So why digress on those examples if they weren't what you were thinking of?

But what I was talking about is that there should be some sort of education involved before people have children that will help them develope the skills that are necessary to provide a good home environment to their children.

A baby license? Been done by Stalin and Hitler. Good job in a democracy.

I find it very sad that this type of thing is considered too draconian.

It is draconian. As I said, the state belongs to the people, not the people to the state. Once you get that you will understand why people here are so opposed to these measures which erode parental authority.

Parent's "freedom" is the end-all-be-all and very few people really care about the child's actual freedom.

Look at social services. Does the state really do a good job at looking after people?

Honestly, parenthood is a huge responsibility, which is why we shouldn't entrust the state to be our mommy and daddy, because it does a crappy job of doing so. Why do you have more faith in the state then in individual parents?

You aren't listening. This isn't to hamper the good parents, it's to weed out those bad ones.

Then why not simply put the kids back in public school, when they fall too far behind in homeschooling? That's my question. Why are the old laws insufficient at fixing this problem? Right now, you are encouraging parents to just dump their kids in the public schools, because that is the path of least resistance.

If this is true then there should be an easy way to take those competent instructors and give them credentials to teach (at least in that environment).

Why are you so hung up on the credentials? If the kids are well taught, it shouldn't matter at all.

Why are you so opposed to a law that says nothing more than that teachers should have some minumum level of competency to teach?

Because people are elevating the state to gage which parents are and are not fit to teach. That is not right. Again, I have been saying over and over again, that the state is not the one that should be responsible for a child's education. The state should just stay out of the way and let the parents do their jobs.

It's not applying a broken system. Unless you think that requiring qualification for teachers is "broken"... in which case you are saying there shouldn't be any qualifications for teachers in any venue, which is ridiculous.

No, I think the public school is broken, and that the current teacher training system is not giving us teachers who can do their jobs. The problem isn't the credentials, but that the credentials don't indicate competency. That is the problem I have with the system, and forcing homeschooling parents to go through that system is foisting a broken system on one that works.

It should be the opposite. The teachers should be going to the parents and figuring out why what they do is working.

But a child welfare case where the parents were found to be lying to the state about their children's education is not it, sorry. This law has a benefit precisely because it can be used to protect children who's education is being neglected.

Then fix this one case. Don't clamp down on everyone.