| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
 Posted - February 21 2004 : 2:02:24 PM
|
Don't egg me on, Kay! 
But since you have . . .
Thinking more about how it's American to encourage home education options, and un-American to force ps on us all in the name of the collective, I remembered K-12 lab schools on university campuses in every college town I've lived in, back to 1959.
These well-funded, extremely well-staffed, seemingly progressive "public" schools shamelessly creamed off the children of professors and grad students and prominent townfolk. It was completely justified, because the general public good eventually would be served by whatever was learned in these programs about different educational theories and methods. Then public schooling might be able to do a better job for the citizenry, and even if it didn't, mankind's knowledge would be advanced.
Kinda like the moon shot or climbing Mount Everest -- life-altering benefits for a couple of guys who actually get to go, to be sure, but the "public" justification is in new knowledge that might benefit the general citizenry. Valuable beyond measure, uncontrolled and unanticipated, like real education! How marvelous!
These lab schools are publicly funded but run like private schools or special charters. They are still going strong, and I've never heard anyone criticize them, from socialists to fundamentalists to anti-ps homeschool zealots, not even integrationists or mainstreamers.
So, is it reasonable to say home education options (and other alternatives to straight ps) can present similar potential knowledge and development for the general citizenry, benefits for which the public risks little up front?
No telling what we few brave explorers who choose the unusual path may learn, but how could any intellectual suggest it would be better not to go and never to know?
How repressive, almost like the Dark Ages! |
 |
|
|
Kay Brooks
Nashville
TN
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 2:21:36 PM
|
We've got a couple of those in Nashville also. You never hear a peep of complaint about these schools, except when folks aren't able to get in because their waiting lists are sooooo long. And Ms. McDowell's (former?) employer Vanderbilt University has one. University School in Nashville was founded as a 'demonstration school' for Peabody College (since absorbed by Vanderbilt University.)http://www.usn.org/about/usn_history.htm
JJ wrote: quote:
So, is it reasonable to say home education options (and other alternatives to straight ps) can present similar potential knowledge and development for the general citizenry, benefits for which the public risks little up front?
Oooh, oooh, I've got a current example. We have a legislator here who has introduced legislation to require private and homeschooled students to take the same exit exams that public schools do. Part of his justification for this intrustion and expense is:
quote:
THE PURPOSE FOR THE BILL WAS TO TRY TO GET A METHOD TO RATE THE PROGRESS OF STUDENTS IN TENNESSEE BY GIVING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STUDENTS AS WELL AS HOME SCHOOLER'S A TEST THAT WOULD BE FAIR AND THAT ALL THREE GROUPS AGREE ON. THAT WAY WE MIGHT BETTER EDUCATION IN TENNESSEE BY LEARNING FROM EACH OTHER. [Rep. Mike Turner D-Nashville](http://tnhomeed.com/Alert.html)
|
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 2:52:05 PM
|
Hoist on his own petard, right there in his own legislative words --
Nice example. |
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 5:07:46 PM
|
There's a three-page thread with some great backup info called "Homeschooling Changing School Instead of the Other Way Around?" that relates to this concept. Here's the link and the first post from that folder, FYI:
http://www.nhen.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=118
Found and previously posted in May 2002 by Terri of Florida's LIFE list, these excerpts of data and analysis support the view that in the future it is homeschooling that will affect school and society, rather than the other way around.
Home Schooling in the United States:
Trends and Characteristics
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n26.html
Kurt J. Bauman
U.S. Census Bureau
Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 10(26).
Abstract
Home schooling is a subject of great fascination, but little solid
knowledge. Despite its importance, it has received less research
attention than some other recent changes in the educational system,
such as the growth of charter schools. It could be argued that home
schooling may have a much larger impact on educational system, both
in the short and long run. This report uses the 1994 October CPS,
and the National Household Education Survey of 1996 and 1999 to
examine popular characterizations of the home school population.
Excerpts of analysis from HS in the US:
"Home schooling has emerged with, and indeed is linked to, other
emerging educational trends-on-line education and other systems that
allow families and individuals to choose their own educational paths
(school vouchers, charter schools). At the same time, it flies in
the face of trends towards educational standardization, such as
national curricula and systems of assessment. Another type of
standardization is resulting from establishment of increasingly
detailed systems of occupational credentialing and licensure
(Adelman 2000).
"...The period of institutional flux now reigning in education may
be the start of a departure from the 20th century model of
regimented instruction for students entering an industrializing
world. Schools seem to have lost some of their legitimacy as they
have lost a clear functional role in preparing youth for their role
in the larger economic system (cf. Bowles and Gintis 1976, Dreeben
1968).
Rather than representing a definite trend
towards "individualizing" instruction, however, home schooling may
represent an attempt by parents to reclaim the schooling process-to
make schooling valuable in ways that are understandable to them
through the cultural means at their disposal (Swidler 1986).
... There is a true tension between home educators and the school standards movement, just as there is between home schooling and the increasing demand by employers for occupationally specific training and credentials. What these movements have in common is not a conservative agenda but an attempt by each sector with an interest in schooling to gain greater control over the system."
And:
"If home schooling continues to grow, demand will grow for the types
of services that are starting to be offered by public schools and
distance education providers. A result will be pressure on schools
to design school curricula that allow students and parents to pick
and choose what they like. According to some observers, another
result will be the creation of new schools and school-like
institutions built around the common needs and concerns of home-
schooling families (Hill 2000)."
"We have just begun to see the emergence of home schooling as an
important national phenomenon. Unless the needs of parents are met
in different ways, it is likely that home schooling will have a
large impact on the school as an institution in coming decades."
Terri then wrote: "These observations, while obviously constituting only one analysis, are worthy of consideration. Rather than fearing greater insitutional control over home education, it appears that perhaps educational insitutions have more to fear -- or to hope for,
depending on your view - from home educators."
A future I could live with!
|
|
|
|
dcobranchi
DE
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 5:10:52 PM
|
A coupla questions-
1) Is his main example even correct? Can CA cyber-charter parents use public money to purchase curricula from BJU Press?
2) Is no one even going to point out that charters (cyber or otherwise)aren't homeschools?
Daryl Cobranchi |
Daryl Cobranchi
http://cobranchi.com |
|
|
|
Shannon
CA
USA
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 6:01:57 PM
|
No, they cannot purchase BJU nor any other religious curriculum materials, and if they are doing this it is breaking regulations and they could be open to a big time lawsuit.
Homeschooling comes in many forms. I think of cyberschools, charters, public ISPs and private ISPs (some have more stringent requirements than public anything!) each as a different type of 'curriculum' or 'route' that any homeschooler in CA can chose or not chose to use. They all are in addition to just going it alone as a PSA/R-4 solo private school in your home.
If all folks who use any public money for homeschooling in any year of their homeschooling careers are 'not' considered homeschoolers by someones definition, then the state of CA would have almost no homeschoolers!
Using public money or not using it, does 'not' define homeschooling!
Shannon, happily homeschooling in CA for nearly a decade in various modes
******************************
dcobranchi has posted to the NHEN.org Legal & Legislative Forum regarding the subject - 2004 American Educational Research Association.
Here is the text of the message:
*****************************************
A coupla questions-
1) Is his main example even correct? Can CA cyber-charter parents use public money to purchase curricula from BJU Press?
2) Is no one even going to point out that charters (cyber or otherwise)aren't homeschools?
Daryl Cobranchi |
|
|
|
dcobranchi
DE
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 7:23:17 PM
|
| Sorry- didn't mean to disparage anyone's efforts. Of all the states, CA's regs confuse me the most. |
Daryl Cobranchi
http://cobranchi.com |
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 7:28:40 PM
|
Hey Daryl --
Glad you spoke up though. Can you maybe suggest or help us think of some way that the issue about charters and homeschoolers could be used as a "positive" in this debate with people who are against charters and home education and everything that isn't standardized State schooling?
I hadn't thought of it coming up in this context , but heck, why not, if it can be effective somehow?  JJ |
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 21 2004 : 7:44:04 PM
|
I hope it's not too late to say I really like Paul's take on this to date too. Can't wait to see more. I have a comment on this part:
quote:
I had some lengthy discussions with Rob Reich after his appearance on the old NHEN newslist, and some of his problem (I haven't read Apple yet) obviously came from unbalanced exposure to homeschoolers - like too many academics, he met them primarily through conferences involving the HSLDA's research arm.
Point taken, and could the rest of the Reich/Apple "problem" come from unbalanced exposure to public schoolers? I spent too many years in close proximity to public schoolers to dare publish scholarly papers presenting them to the Thinking Public as models of good citizenship -- we could all do with less generalizing about heterogeneous groups of all kinds! JJ |
|
|
|
Valerie
Missouri
USA
|
Posted - February 22 2004 : 08:06:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shannon
No, they cannot purchase BJU nor any other religious curriculum materials, and if they are doing this it is breaking regulations and they could be open to a big time lawsuit.
Do your mean the families can't purchase the religious materials with the money they receive from the state or that they can't purchase the materials while in 'status other than R-4?'
I've read in other forums from the people using a state or DoD program (IDEA International) that they have used the 'state money' for the 'state-approved purchases' thereby freeing them to use their 'own' money for the purchase of the religious materials (just like anyone else affiliated with public schools), hence the confusion.
On AHA-Political Action there was a recent discussion relating to NCLB about the situation in Utah (of which I am ignorant except for that small exposure, so don't ask me to dissect it) where the kids have a regular block of time called "Release Time" in which they leave the main school building to go to a separate building for missionary something-or-other. Apparently all kids get 'released' but only the LDS kids go to 'Seminary.' Again, it's one of those situations where you have to be so close to it as to see the fine differences in whether this is really part of the public school program or if a walk of perhaps 50 feet exempts it. (there was disagreement between two listmembers 'on the ground')
con: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1996/nancydec96.html
1996 Challenging The "Release Time" Program In Utah's Public Schools
pro (posted in rebuttal to the con): http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26055
2002 Sneering agnosticism
quote:
Homeschooling comes in many forms. I think of cyberschools, charters, public ISPs and private ISPs (some have more stringent requirements than public anything!) each as a different type of 'curriculum' or 'route' that any homeschooler in CA can chose or not chose to use.
Again, this is what causes the confusion about what 'homeschooling' is. All may be 'routes' but the 'boulevards' aren't 'lanes' and the 'streets' aren't 'superhighways.' Each fulfills different functions and receives different support services. The ones serving the public get state money, the private roads don't.
quote:
They all are in addition to just going it alone as a PSA/R-4 solo private school in your home.
If all folks who use any public money for homeschooling in any year of their homeschooling careers are 'not' considered homeschoolers by someones definition, then the state of CA would have almost no homeschoolers!
[ typed with bemusement, not heat ] So what if California has no 'homeschoolers?' If you're still able to do as you see fit, does it matter if there are no 'homeschoolers?'
The relevance I see to this thread is whether Scott will have time in the debate to clear up the confusion.
|
Valerie
http://www.militaryhomeschoolers.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_military_homeschooler/ |
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 22 2004 : 09:42:05 AM
|
quote:
The relevance I see to this thread is whether Scott will have time in the debate to clear up the confusion.
Why would he want to, though? How would it help homeschooling to introduce that "confusion" in a debate against progressives who don't care how hsing is defined or whether hsers take state money or not? They argue basically that everyone belongs to the State collective, period, and the State has the right to impose standardized progressive schooling on us in the name of our own collective good, even without providing any government incentives in return.
So what's the practical value, debate-wise, of mentioning even clear distinctions in the way we hsers see hsing -- much less murky, confused, or controversial ones?
I'm not arguing, I am asking, simply because I don't see it. Can you (or perhaps I should say can "we" in this discussion) connect the dots up in a way Scott could use this issue in the debate to the advantage of the entire "homeschooling movement?" I'm more than willing to throw my own efforts behind it if so. |
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 22 2004 : 10:00:26 AM
|
To help show that the Reich/Apple agenda isn't really related to confusion about defining homeschooling (actually, it's not about confusion or hsing at all, it's about clearly and intentionally beating up on hsing as a handy way of attacking the ideological Right and advancing the causes of the ideological Left):
A Review Essay: two Michael Apple books
Amy Stuart Wells
Teachers College, Columbia University
Teachers College Record Volume 106 Number 2, 2004, p. -
http://www.tcrecord.org
ID Number: 11208, Date Accessed: 10/8/2003
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=11208
Educating the "Right" Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality.
Michael W. Apple. New York: Routledge/Falmer, 2001, ISBN: 041592460X, 340 pp.
The State and the Politics of Knowledge. Michael W. Apple. New York: Routledge/Falmer, 2003, ISBN: 041593513X, 259 pp.
(Severely excerpted from the Teachers College review of Apple's books)
These are hard times for people on the political left. . .
For the last 20-plus years, many of the most popular political themes in education, including “excellence,” “choice,” and “accountability,” have been defined mostly by conservatives who create public policies that project their view of the world onto every school and community.
Meanwhile, more liberal policy makers are left scratching their heads, confused about how the problems in public education came to be defined by those who have traditionally offered little support for these schools. Still, they are apparently unable to come up with viable alternatives. Furthermore, they find it very difficult to reject proposals for greater “excellence,” “choice,” and “accountability” in public education. It is a bit like arguing against sliced bread.
The result is that conservative agendas, embodied in legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), gain bi-partisan support and thus become the new mandate on how to whip the many “failing” public schools into shape (Blair, 2002; Olsen, 2002).
Indeed, the way things are going, NCLB and other conservative educational policies may lead to the complete dismantling of a universal and free public educational system that was once the envy of the world. There are many observers–conspiracy theorists, perhaps–who would argue that such an outcome would not be an accident.
The conservatives’ success in recreating the public’s understanding of public education and its shortcomings can depress even the most optimistic leftist. . . Indeed, there are many days when it all seems a bit too overwhelming. Apple, a well-known critical theorist and sociologist of education, remains committed to keeping the left engaged politically and not losing hope. . ." |
|
|
|
PSoroosh
Orange County
California
USA
|
Posted - February 22 2004 : 11:03:31 AM
|
In California, those enrolled in a charter program no longer can "get money" directly, they simply get to tell the charter school what materials they want to use in their homeschooling program and the charter school orders the materials (up to a dollar limit). The vendors must be approved by the school (but NOT by the state, that is one difference between the public schools and charter schools) and they will not approve a vendor that sells ONLY religious materials. However, Christian curriculum providers, such as Sonlight, are often approved because they sell both religious and nonreligious materials. Resources that are clearly religious in nature would not be allowed, but some slip by - I've seen art programs with Bible verses at the top of each page, for example, purchased with charter school dollars.
Given that this debate is taking place IN California, where homeschooling is generally understood broadly and inclusively as educating our own children outside of a conventional classroom-based school under one of the five legal options, R$ (PSA), private isp, public isp, charter isp, or private tutoring, and given that the main thrust of the arguments against homeschooling will be based on the false idea that we're depriving our children of contact with the diversity of the "outside world," I don't think the legal structure of homeschooling is going to be of much interest. These people are really accusing us of harming the larger society by isolating and brainwashing our kids - they say it more elegantly, but that is what it boils down to and that is what needs to be addressed.
|
~pam
"Personally, I'm always ready to learn, although I don't always like being taught."
Winston Churchill |
|
|
|
PSoroosh
Orange County
California
USA
|
Posted - February 22 2004 : 11:08:05 AM
|
What we really need to do is to present substantial believable evidence and logcial arguments that can't be ignored - our kids are no more and probably much less isolated from the larger society than schooled kids. Without some kind of evidence, all the debate will really be is them speculating and bringing up isolated cases and us (homeschoolers) saying, "But, you're wrong - that's not most of us."
So I'd want, for example, to pass around photographs of multicultural homeschooling groups (I offer mine, if you want some), photos of homeschooled kids working at homeless shelters and food banks, photos of kids marching in Martin Luther King Day parades, photos of ethnic and racial minority members speaking at homeschooling conferences, photos of homeschool families doing volunteer work of ALL kinds, etc. Pictures that directly refute the accusations against us being worth a thousand words. (It has been my experience that juvenile court judges, seeing photos of the kids at homeschooling group activities and busy in the community, etc., are far more inclined to allow homeschooling to continue. The picture evidence seems to be very convincing to them that the kids are not being isolated.)
I think the reality is that our kids are FAR less isolated and far more involved in their community than kids who go to neighborhood schools and are growing up to be caring and involved and aware citizens.
They are NOT bussed into schools that are being forced to integrate - that IS what they are missing. (We could go on for days about whether the forced integration is promoting racial and ethnic understanding or not, but that's irrelevant because the people we're debating clearly think it does.) We do something better - instead of forced integration, we have natural real relationships.
Homeschooled kids of course do tend to more strongly reflect the values of their parents - the extra time and attention they get from us has that effect. And these people DO think of school very much as a place to get kids away from their parents so that they can be influenced away from what is assumed to be their parents' flawed thinking, irrational beliefs, and harmul-to-society racism, etc. How can they build a better society if they can't get the kids away from their parents to inculcate them with THEIR belief systems?
I think that is really the crux of what they have in mind and we can't really win that debate since they are right - if they can't separate the kids from their parents, they can't undermine the parents desire to instill their own values in their kids.
But - we can easily make the case that homeschooled parents' values are extremely diverse and not at all antisocial.
Having only HSLDA reps on the panel, though, really hurts OUR case. It demonstrates exactly what we'd want to refute.
Given the bias against the religious right, it seems this is one time the religious right could really benefit from the fact that homeschooling does NOT belong only to them. I offer NHEN's diversity - we can send someone to be included on this panel who is well-read, articulate, and offers a view of the diversity of the homeschooling community that is FAR broader and more inclusive than anybody from HSLDA can probably even imagine.
Scott, my homeschooling group includes Moslem, Jewish, Quaker, Baptist, Messianic Jews, Pagan, Baha'i, atheist, agnostic, Catholic, Unity, evangelicals, other protestant denominations, and probably more. We have African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Middle Easterners, and other minorities. We have stay-at-home dads and single mothers. We are FAR more diverse than the neighborhood school I pulled my oldest child out of 10 years ago.
Presenting evidence of such a homeschooling group - photos and descriptions - would make it awful hard for those you're debating to make any kind of case that homeschoolers don't rub shoulders with different kinds of people <G>.
|
~pam
"Personally, I'm always ready to learn, although I don't always like being taught."
Winston Churchill |
|
|
|
JJ Ross
Florida
|
Posted - February 22 2004 : 11:44:38 AM
|
quote:
Having only HSLDA reps on the panel, though, really hurts OUR case. It demonstrates exactly what we'd want to refute.
Given the bias against the religious right, it seems this is one time the religious right could really benefit from the fact that homeschooling does NOT belong only to them. I offer NHEN's diversity - we can send someone to be included on this panel who is well-read, articulate, and offers a view of the diversity of the homeschooling community that is FAR broader and more inclusive than anybody from HSLDA can probably even imagine.
Scott, I really, really agree with this. Everything I've read from and about both Reich and Apple (more than I've posted here) says this is almost a set-up deal in the first place. I hope it's only a set-up from one side, progressives setting up HSLDA in a game of Straw Man.
If this is accurate, and the way to win is to play their game and beat them at it, Pam's approach sounds like a winning strategy.
Let's don't let it turn into a set-up of home education itself as a political football in a get-out-the-base game between the Right and the Left, to see how far we can be kicked in which direction! JJ
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2004 American Educational Research Association
Forum Read Only
