California homeschooling revisited
Not too long ago, a California court issued a decision that seemed to doom homeschooling in the state for most families. The court ruled that in order to teach their own kids, parents would need a teaching credential for the appropriate age. Naturally, most parents don't have a credential.Now, however, the court has granted a request for a rehearing and has hinted that it may re-evaluate the entire decision, according to the SFGate website. Although the law in California -- which requires all children between the ages of six and eighteen to either attend a full-day school or be taught by a credentialed tutor -- has been clear since the 50's, it has not previously been enforced.
After the court's initial decision, however, there was much outcry (and some celebrating) and Governor Schwarzenegger even weighed in, promising to change the law, if necessary. The children in the case were being homeschooled by their mother, but were considered part of an independent study program at Sunland Christian School. The children's father objects to the teaching of evolution in public schools and does not want his children exposed to homosexuality.
Intellectually, I think that kids should be taught by someone who not only knows the subject material, but also knows how to teach the subject material. As an American, however, I am loathe to tell others what they should or should not do, be it what to believe, who to love, or how their children should be educated.
I think that an important part of what makes (or, perhaps, made) this country great is that anyone can do any darn fool thing they like, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. It seems to me that ought to apply to teaching your kids too, be it by sending them to a public school, teaching them at home, or anything in between.
Recent Posts
- How do you deal with broken highchairs? (5/11/2008)
- Not your mother's mom club (5/11/2008)
- Pregnancy tips all moms can use (5/11/2008)
- Most powerful lesbian moms (5/11/2008)
- Mom movies (5/11/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
meredith 3-28-2008 @ 12:53PM
Whew. I am glad that man's children aren't in school with mine, too.
Reply
Kerri 3-28-2008 @ 2:22PM
You could argue that teaching children at home when you are not credentialed is harmful, by way of deprivation I guess.
Reply
Sandyone 3-28-2008 @ 4:29PM
That'd be quite a stretch!
SKL 3-28-2008 @ 2:36PM
I would bet money that Shakespeare's teachers didn't have to get a four-year bachelor's degree in teaching. Let's be honest, it isn't all that. Maybe for people who would otherwise suck at it, but. To me it's a barrier to entry for other people who would make great teachers but don't have the time and money to spend four years in teacher's college. No way this should have anything to do with how we educate our children. God help my kids if their education depended on some of the credentialed teachers I have dealt with.
Reply
Sandyone 3-28-2008 @ 3:19PM
It would be really nice to see a high profile homeschooling case about a *typical* or *normal* homeschooling family. I guess that's the thing...there are so many different ways and styles of homeschooling that no one can agree on what's "normal" or "typical". I don't foresee any news outlet making a big deal out of a regular family, anyway. They just like to take an aberration and hold it up as "those homeschoolers".
"so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. " Funny thing, that....there are some pretty hefty arguments that illustrate how institutionalized school hurts kids and society.
"Intellectually, I think that kids should be taught by someone who not only knows the subject material, but also knows how to teach the subject material."
I would also add, "who also knows the child being taught".
I'm going to start a pool...once the "must be credentialed" excuse is proven worthless and laid to rest with it's "what about socialization?" cousin, what will the anti-homeschoolers come up with next?
It's just another way of doing things, people. Homeschools are turning out academically successful children in droves. When institutionalized schools can legitimately claim 100% success, I'll consider imposing such a standard on homeschools. When there are no geeks and no reading-below-8th-grade-level graduates of the public and private schools, then you can talk about socialization and credentials for homeschools. When school kids who can't pass the tests are required to be homeschooled, you can then require homeschool kids who can't pass the tests to be sent to school.
Why are some so threatened? They don't really think that people need a degree to have learned something, do they? Is a great teacher any less of a great teacher because I'm *good* at teaching my children without having had to go to school to learn how to do it?
(Roger, did you do some extra reading on homeschooling between your last post on this and this one? This post is less angry, though just as condescending, as last month's posts.)
Reply
SKL 3-28-2008 @ 3:47PM
If I remember correctly, Roger's wife is a "credentialed" teacher, so he's biased.
roger.sinasohn 3-29-2008 @ 11:21AM
Rather than "biased" I would say "well informed".
I grew up in an accounting office. I could do ten-key touch practically before I could walk. It drove me nuts hearing people say things like "all you have to do is mention your job and your dinner is a tax deduction!" or "Don't pay a CPA -- you can do your taxes yourself! They don't know anything you don't." I know how difficult it is to become a CPA and, sure, for some people, preparing their own tax return is relatively easy (just like, for example, teaching a kid to ride a bike) but in a lot of cases, to maximize your return and make sure you don't end up in trouble with the IRS, it's wise to have a professional do your return.
Similarly, in many cases, teaching someone to read requires more expertise than just knowing how to read. I could do my own taxes despite some complicated issues, but I would rather let someone who knows what they're doing, has been well trained in doing it, and who does it all the time take care of it so I don't end up on the wrong side of a desk at the IRS. In the same way, I would rather have someone who has the training, experience, and familiarity with teaching make sure my kids are well educated than do it myself and risk screwing it up.
But that's just me. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think I'm an idiot for hiring a CPA to do my taxes and for sending my kids to public school.
And, yes, my wife has a credential. She also has a Bachelors, a Master's, a CLAD, fifteen years experience as a classroom teacher, and twelve years experience as a dance teacher (for kids ages three to eighteen) before that.
She is well known in her school district as the teacher that new teachers are sent to to learn classroom management, how to make use of centers in the classroom, and how to deal with kids who have behavioural issues. The local university (a school known for its college of education) sends her student teachers whenever possible. She also develops materials to support the curriculum used by teachers throughout her district and has trained other teachers on integrating technology into the curriculum.
SKL 3-29-2008 @ 3:00PM
Roger,
1) If a concerned homeschooling parent came upon some difficulty in getting something across to his child, don't you think he would get some help with that difficulty rather than just let it go? On the other hand, can you honestly say that all the kids in a first-grade public school classroom are getting the help they need to tackle their reading difficulties, etc.? No way - the teachers don't have "time" to help each child with difficulties, and they are quick to blame the PARENTS for not working with them one-on-one at home - notwithstanding most parents' lack of a "teaching credential."
2) Thanks for the info on your wife's background, but that proves nothing about the majority of kids in the California public schools, unless all the teachers are that qualified, which I know is not the case.
3) I am also well-informed as I (a) mostly completed my degree in elementary/special ed before changing majors, (b) have spent thousands of hours working in classrooms, (c) have spent thousands of hours outside of classrooms working with kids who weren't getting what they needed from their "credentialed" teachers, and (d) read pretty much everything there has been to read about educational research since I was in high school. Maybe you are too skittish to teach your kids and maybe you would suck at it, I don't know. But I know that the presence or absence of a teaching credential makes a lot less difference in the quality of education than the presence or absence of true concern for the individual child. On that scale, the average parent scores much higher than the average teacher.
4) Oh, and if teachers are so much better at teaching kids, one would expect that the children of credentialed teachers would be the most accomplished kids on the block. In my experience, the opposite is more likely to be true.
5) As for earning the CPA designation (which I have), there is no comparison, because what you said in your original post is that knowing the subject matter isn't enough; a child should be taught by someone who knows "how" to teach the subject matter. But to get a CPA, one must merely take academic courses, pass a test that covers only academic knowledge, and take some superficial steps to prove one is ethical. A CPA is not required to study or demonstrate how he's going to explain things to clients, how he's going to schedule his day, how he should handle a client that throws a fit in his office, etc. If a California credential can be gotten by anyone who proves (by taking a single test in a convenient setting at no cost) that they have the academic knowledge possessed by the least knowledgeable credentialed teacher in the school system, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. If it requires a teaching degree, with thousands of hours of fluff courses that most people would not otherwise take, you can't compare that to a CPA license.
Sandyone 3-29-2008 @ 4:56PM
Roger, that's some pretty impressive information about your wife. She is, however, rather unusual, and certainly not representative of the average teacher. It's terrific that she has accomplished all of that and is gifted and generous enough to share it with others. Our country needs public schools. (Sure, they need a huge overhaul, but we still need them.) The country needs them, but the individual does not. The individual needs the style of education that suits him best and will allow him to reach his full potential. Public school just isn't always the best option.
There are far too many homeschoolers who are thriving in myriad ways for anyone to make a blanket statement that education can't be optimal unless it's administered by a credentialed teacher.
You're worried that you'd mess it up? I have the same worry about myself!! That's one of the things that keeps me learning (and praying!) and doing. I don't know a single homeschooling parent who doesn't worry that the kids might be missing something. We'd be incredibly foolish and arrogant to think we had everything covered. We're honest with ourselves and realize that NO ONE has everything covered. There are holes in the education of even the top students in our schools. Homeschoolers get to tailor those holes so that they cause the least amount of trouble for their students.
I just don't get why "I couldn't do it" seems to always translate to "no one should" when homeschooling is involved.
eugene 3-28-2008 @ 3:46PM
Children who are home schooled tend to score higher than kids who get public education.
So yes, I agree, children SHOULD be taught by people who know the material and know how to teach, whether or a teacher is that person is up in the air.
Reply
Sandyone 3-28-2008 @ 4:10PM
It should also be noted that this family wasn't in the court system because of homeschooling. The children accused the parents of abuse and *that* is what brought the attention of the authorities. It was not the father's disagreement with the school system's teaching the acceptance of homosexuality or evolution.
Reply
Mary 3-28-2008 @ 7:13PM
I am a parent who is deciding to homeschool my children and a teacher going to graduate school.
I agree that to be successful as a homeschool teacher one should have a love of learning.
In general, to pass the test to become a teacher you need about an 8th grade education. The math was basic algebra, the reading was at a 7th grade level, it was the easiest test I have ever taken. I could agree that a parent has to pass that test to teach their children. Why not?
Most teachers I know that are highly successful in education support homeschooling if it is done for the right reasons. It really is what is best for the child if the parent is capable.
Reply
W. H. Heydt 3-28-2008 @ 9:37PM
So let me get this straight (if you'll pardon the obvious connections...), in spite of the fact that his own kids are being homeschooled, he doesn't want *other* *peoples* kids to learn science in a science class?
(And, of course, he doesn't want his kids to be exposed to people whose brains are wired differently with respect to sexual orientation.)
Wanting his own kids to remain ignorant of one of the most successful scientific theories around is all very well, by why does he object to others learning about it?
Reply
Sandyone 3-29-2008 @ 6:27AM
I think the "commonly quoted reasons" for this particular family's decision to homeschool are that they don't want the kids being taught evolution instead of creation and that they don't want their kids being taught that the homosexual lifestyle is morally acceptable. This second point is vastly different than not wanting your kids exposed to homosexuals.
To answer your question of why he wouldn't want other kids to learn about evolution, perhaps he would like to send his kids to public school without having to worry about his kids being taught ideas that directly contradict his faith.
Homeschoolers are often chastised for simply pulling their kids from school instead of leaving them in and trying to make changes. Other times, they are told, "Your kids aren't in these schools...butt out." Whichever is convenient is the one that is chosen.
LMT 3-28-2008 @ 9:40PM
We often see these "different" kids at the park. They are about 8, 10, and 12 years old I would guess. They wear capes. Their hair is greasy. They bring with them swords made out of tin foil and play weird games in the bushes. They don't make eye contact with anyone other than eachother. Hip hip hooray for homeschooling.
Reply
eugene 3-28-2008 @ 11:11PM
Right, because nearly every social study done on the issue has shown that early home schooling does not affect socialization and social skills in a negative way... but lets say those studies are wrong, like the studies that show homeschooled children test better than their peers of similar socio-economic standing.
Are you suggesting that these people with interests that you're so keen to look down on aren't found in public schools? But of course there are. So what explains them? Since schools with their expertly trained educators should be able to re-educate these pour souls into becoming exactly the same as their peers right?
And what is so wrong with people wanting to act out their fantasies? Is it so much more odd compared to doning armor made out of plastic and chasing an oblong leather ball about a field? But I suppose that's what public education is truly good at, stomping out imagination and osteracizing those that don't seem to fit in with the popular norm.
Sandyone 3-29-2008 @ 6:27AM
So, would requiring their parents to be credentialed put a stop to such awful behavior? Or perhaps you are saying that the parents should not have the right to allow their children to engage in such awful behavior?
Exactly what do your comments have to do with the fact that the court decision is going to be revisited?
W. H. Heydt 3-29-2008 @ 2:01PM
Re Sandyone...
Okay...let's tackle the issue of evolution in school...
In a *science* class, one expects *science* to be taught. In a biology class, that means that the modern Theory of Evolution is the best *scientific* explanation we've got that underlies the whole subject. While there is a lot of research and controversies about some of the details (timing, which selection forces are more important than others, etc.), the general structure of the theory is extremely well grounded and supported by many other disciplines and mountains of facts. To question the basic validity of the theory is just being perverse. To challenge it on religious grounds is just being obstinate.
There have been several efforts over the last 100 years to try to get religious beliefs taught as historical, biological fact. The first was simple creationism, in both YEC (Young Earth Creationist) and OEC (Old Earth Creationist) forms. When the courts threw that practice out on First Amendment grounds, the creationists tried for "equal time". That failed the court tests as well. The next effort was "scientific creationism", which the courts realized was simply creationism covered with "sciency" vocabulary. Then came "Intelligent Design", which has been shown to be the same old creationism dressed up in a new veneer to try to look like science--but so poorly done that it fails as science even more thuroughly than the older versions of creationism did. Now the ID proponents are pushing "teach the controversy" (without specifying what *scientific* controversy there is!) which is just like the old "equal time" argument.
The basic point is, if you want religion in schools, it belongs in either a philosophy class or a comparative religion class--and *not* in a science class. (And if you think people who want creationism taught in biology classes, just wait to see what they'd say about a *real* comparative religion class!)
I don't care if someone wants to arrange for his kids to be scientifically illiterate. I object when he wants to ensure that other people's kids are kept scientifically illiterate.
What do you think is going to happen when his kids gets out from under his sheltering wing? What happens when they encounter people that are familiar with what science tells us about the natural world and can give them incontrovertible evidence that their beliefs about the age and development of the natural world are not only wrong, but laughably wrong?
Reply
Sandyone 3-29-2008 @ 4:55PM
I don't get the whole evolution debate, actually. It just doesn't seem like something that's worth the fight. As a Catholic, there is plenty of room for Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the biblical account of creation in my worldview. Evolution is really not relevant in my life. I think too many people just want to argue about something. I've got bigger fish to fry than Evolution.
I wouldn't keep my kids out of institutionalized schools over evolution. There are plenty of other, far more damaging theories and practices out there. We actually don't keep our kids out of institutionalized schools because of any negative experiences/reasons. We homeschool for positive reasons. There is simply no better education that my kids can receive. In addition to an outstanding education for them, *I* am learning or relearning an enormous amount.
Homeschooling is definitely not for everyone, but it is certainly a valid lifestyle. It's disingenuous (at best) for people who believe they couldn't (or shouldn't) do it to make up excuses for preventing the rest of us from doing it. (Hmmmm...this sounds an awful lot like why you want this guy to lay off the "no evolution in schools", though I'm not sure this guy pushes for that...I think you might have misunderstood that, but I'm not really sure.)
W. H. Heydt 3-29-2008 @ 5:35PM
Re #19 (Sandyone)...
You're just being sensible now. The Catholic church has no problems with MET (Modern Evolutionary Theory), and recent popes have stated agreement with it--including one who noted that one Gallileo in 2000 years is enough. What the Catholic church supports is actually what is referred to as "Theistic Evolution", which accepts the findings of MET, but insists there was divine action in there somewhere, but undetectably.
Those who have problems with MET are--generally speaking--conservative fundamentalists. Most of the objectors are Christian, but there are some fundamentalist Moslems as well. The general tenor of the complaint is that MET contradicts a literal reading of whichever English language version of the Bible they adhere to. The feeling is that if *anything* in the Bible can be shown to be wrong, then *nothing* in the Bible can be correct--and their entire house of cards of belief comes tumbling down. This approach fails the any test for sensibility. When pressed, you will find such people do "interpret" the Bible so that selected passages support whatever it is they choose to believe. That begs the question about why they won't permit "interpretation" of Genesis 1-2 to correspond to what examining nature tells us.
(What it boils down to is that if the Earth is less than 10K years old, then rocks lie. I'd rather conclude that the data we can glean from rocks is more accurate than a book that contains bronze age mythology.)
Reply