Virginia doesn't even make sure homeschool kids are taught.

[lilah]

An engineer at NASA even without a teaching certificate can run circles around a high school science teacher who graduated toward the bottom of his or her class.

I once had a math teacher who was a former physisist from NASA. He was a very smart guy but he was a terrible teacher. He had no classroom management skills so students could get away with being rude and disruptive. He did not explain concepts well to students who struggled to understand (and were often distracted by the ruder and disruptive students). He never had any variety in his lessons, they were dull and repetitive. I'd often do my homework in class. I had to take remdial math classes in college because I was so far behind my peers.

The reason why he had no certification? I went to a private school that did not require it. Most of my teachers were really knowledgable and capable of educating but he was not.

So moral of the story is that knowledge and intelligence don't get your very far if you can't teach your way out of a paper bag.

[synchroswimr]

I've worked in the education department at NASA. The scientists and engineers are generally very smart and very nice, but most are terrible communicators and teachers to the general public, in my experience. Many of them know it, too, and were happy to have guidance from me, a somewhat experienced educator (of course some weren't, because they were arrogant and thought all you need to teach is a fancy degree).

[emmiedahl]

Bullshit.

Yeah, our charter school was a part of the district and teachers were part of the union. It offered a more experience-based type of learning and much more advanced curriculum. It was great for the child who went there; I could not afford so many children in private school and our district had no elementary school gifted program except for the charter schools. The charter schools in that community out-performed the other district schools, but that was mainly because they took the best and brightest students and required a ton of parental involvement. I now live in a different state and my children are receiving a similar education through our new district's gifted program.

I support choice for parents, but you do not get to hobble your children by giving them a crappy education at home, and you certainly do not get to open a shitty school with public funds. If you are doing something other than public school, it needs to be comparable to or better than the education received at the local public school. I absolutely believe that the government has a right and a responsibility to ensure a minimal level of education in future citizens.

[Nesomja]

The problem with testing and monitoring of home schooling is that that way the state defines how education should be delivered - and there is no universal agreement as to how best educate a child. For example, I am home educating my 4 year old son because here children go to school at 4 and they start to learn to read. By the end of their first year of school they are tested on reading. At the end of their second year they are tested on phonics, and at the end of their third year they are tested again. There is no research which indicates that starting learning to read at 4 is necessary or an advantage, and quite a lot which indicates that it can cause problems later for some children who are immature or young in their year group. In Finland children aren't taught to read until they are 7, and yet by the time they are 10 they are at the same level as children here who started when they were 4.

So if we had mandatory testing here, and if I was required to keep up with children in school, I would have to teach my son to read, even though there is a lot of evidence to back me up that this is not necessary, and might be harmful.

I agree that teachers do an amazing job and are highly skilled individuals, but I think that home educating is a completely different job and different skills are needed. There is research which shows that children learn very differently at home to how they learn at school - much more informal learning goes on, and therefore the parent does not need the same skill set as a teacher (look at Alan Thomas' website if you want to see the research itself).

However, this does not take away the problem of those who use home schooling as a way to limit their children's opportunities and development - this is akin to child abuse in my opinion and should be treated as such.

[pomology]

Also throwing around certain areas were most of the kids don't graduate says nothing about the teachers. Not when you don't take in account other factors. How many kids in those areas had to drop out of school to support their families? How are teachers responsible for keeping kids in school? Kids arent dropping out because of bad teaching.

This reminds me of the fact I've heard thrown around a bit that no kid is going to succeed if they come to school with an empty stomach. No matter how talented a teacher is, they can't compensate if a child's basic needs are not being met.

In my opinion, there are two things that desperately need to be done before we will get any real educational reform in this country. 1) Make sure all kids have their basic needs being met. 2) Make teaching a respected profession. A profession that has the salary and benefits that anybody who works that hard deserves.

[emmiedahl]

This reminds me of the fact I've heard thrown around a bit that no kid is going to succeed if they come to school with an empty stomach. No matter how talented a teacher is, they can't compensate if a child's basic needs are not being met.

In my opinion, there are two things that desperately need to be done before we will get any real educational reform in this country. 1) Make sure all kids have their basic needs being met. 2) Make teaching a respected profession. A profession that has the salary and benefits that anybody who works that hard deserves.

I know it varies by area, but in my town teachers are paid much more and have better benefits than other professionals with their level of education and experience.

Of course, we have good schools also.

[dawn9476]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/more-than-7000-virginia-c_n_1890644.html?utm_hp_ref=education&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

F&$%. I left a really displeased comment on the Huffington Post fb post about this, since they actually asked if this should be allowed.

If you dug into homeschooling and state rules all across the south, you will probably find this is common. Texas has homeschooling diploma mills where kids don't really have to get a diploma.

[dawn9476]

Unrestricted home schooling has been supported by the libertarian party. It's not couched in those words, the message is rather subtle.

Which really contradicts their free enterprise and free market message. To limit your child's education, you may be limiting their free market potential and holding them back.

[Wolfie]

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... /209200333 this seems to apply here, even though it's a different state. It's a case of a charter school that wasn't.

[Megan]

There is no research which indicates that starting learning to read at 4 is necessary or an advantage, and quite a lot which indicates that it can cause problems later for some children who are immature or young in their year group. In Finland children aren't taught to read until they are 7, and yet by the time they are 10 they are at the same level as children here who started when they were 4.

So if we had mandatory testing here, and if I was required to keep up with children in school, I would have to teach my son to read, even though there is a lot of evidence to back me up that this is not necessary, and might be harmful.

Eh, the 7-year-old reading thing focuses on formal reading lessons. It seems like many Finnish children enter 1st already knowing how to read or having begun to learn. Finland provides childcare and kindergarten classes to children. 97% attend kindergarten, which includes pre-literacy elements on the curriculum. Many children are learning prior to 1st grade. According to an APA article, 43% of entering 1st graders in Finland are "emergent readers" and 30% are "precocious readers". (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=EJ684936). Is there anyone from Finland who can talk about reading ages there?

[Wolfie]

So if we had mandatory testing here, and if I was required to keep up with children in school, I would have to teach my son to read, even though there is a lot of evidence to back me up that this is not necessary, and might be harmful.

While I agree that a child not reading before 5 is not an issue, I'd like to see some citations on the fact that a child learning to read young could be harmful.

(my sister didn't read until she was 8, she is fine now but has never gotten the joy from reading that the rest of our family does- she refused to read out of choice, not ablility, long story.)

And if testing isn't involved (and I am the first to say that we've gone too far with testing), how do you propose that they do monitor homeschooled children to make sure that they are doing something?

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I remember flat out refusing to learn to read when I was being homeschooled. Just, not doing the lessons. It went on for-ev-er until my mom offered me the most pitiful bribe, a sheet of stickers shaped like a train.

An experienced teacher probably could have handled a situation like this very easily.

[Wolfie]

I remember flat out refusing to learn to read when I was being homeschooled. Just, not doing the lessons. It went on for-ev-er until my mom offered me the most pitiful bribe, a sheet of stickers shaped like a train.

An experienced teacher probably could have handled a situation like this very easily.

Oh, stickers were offered very early on. What finally worked was when she realized that she was the only one of her peers who was not reading. Never underestimate peer pressure. (and in a homeschool situation, you would only have siblings around, no unrelated peers to help change your mind.)

[DarkAnts]

Yeah, our charter school was a part of the district and teachers were part of the union. It offered a more experience-based type of learning and much more advanced curriculum. It was great for the child who went there; I could not afford so many children in private school and our district had no elementary school gifted program except for the charter schools. The charter schools in that community out-performed the other district schools, but that was mainly because they took the best and brightest students and required a ton of parental involvement. I now live in a different state and my children are receiving a similar education through our new district's gifted program.

I support choice for parents, but you do not get to hobble your children by giving them a crappy education at home, and you certainly do not get to open a shitty school with public funds. If you are doing something other than public school, it needs to be comparable to or better than the education received at the local public school. I absolutely believe that the government has a right and a responsibility to ensure a minimal level of education in future citizens.

The charter school my nieces attend will take anyone. They even accept children with individual learning plans. They select students through a lottery program. My older niece got in when the younger one was accepted in kindergarten (they accept all siblings if one child gets in). My older niece is dyslexic. My sister had been pushing the school to test her since kindergarten because it runs in both sides of the family. They refused to do it until she was well into 1st grade. She grew to hate reading during that short time because of the learning disability. The charter school started the year by testing color overlays on her. They have done wonders for her. She is at grade level for reading now and excels in math. My nieces are lucky to be in such a good school. You are in for good once your name is pulled in the lottery.

I do think that parental involvement is important for any student and school. Schools with active PTA's do better at fundraising and involved parents listen to the teacher. They usually dont blame the teacher because they are active in their child's education. One thing fundis dont understand is that you can be involved in your child's education while they attend a normal school.

[Conuly]

While I agree that a child not reading before 5 is not an issue, I'd like to see some citations on the fact that a child learning to read young could be harmful.

(my sister didn't read until she was 8, she is fine now but has never gotten the joy from reading that the rest of our family does- she refused to read out of choice, not ablility, long story.)

And if testing isn't involved (and I am the first to say that we've gone too far with testing), how do you propose that they do monitor homeschooled children to make sure that they are doing something?

My understanding is that the research suggests that pushing reading instruction on a child who isn't ready for it yet is what may be detrimental - not that reading early is detrimental.

And that's just common sense. If a child isn't ready to do something yet, making it a big deal might turn them off the subject entirely, or they may learn bad habits in order to keep up even though those same habits slow them down later in life.

It makes sense to delay instruction in reading until most typically-developing children can be assumed to be developmentally ready to read for just this reason, but that does not mean that it makes sense to prevent a child who IS ready to read from doing so just because you think they haven't hit the magic age yet.

An experienced teacher probably could have handled a situation like this very easily.

Maybe, maybe not. Aside from the fact that all teachers perforce start out inexperienced and therefore some children have inexperienced teachers at any given point in time, teachers in schools do have to teach larger class sizes and often find themselves limited on how they can handle certain subjects.

The older niece has thus far had at least two major issues in school, both with different aspects of writing. One was lack of adequate handwriting instruction - something which I do not at all blame the teachers for, because, again, it's hard to teach handwriting and make sure children are consistently practicing it correctly if you have a lot of them! - and once with the daily journal they're supposed to complete, which is every day supposed to be on the same exact subject, "what I did in school today".

It's a stupid assignment, and it's no less stupid this year than it was in the first grade, and it's a school policy that the teachers cannot change. And it's effectively led to a girl who liked to write becoming a girl who dreads the very thought of writing. (And she's far from the only one.) And she simply doesn't do it, because in the end the teachers cannot force her to write any more than your mother could force you to read.

And she likes school well enough, but we can't kid ourselves that any educational system is perfect.

[YPestis]

My understanding is that the research suggests that pushing reading instruction on a child who isn't ready for it yet is what may be detrimental - not that reading early is detrimental.

And that's just common sense. If a child isn't ready to do something yet, making it a big deal might turn them off the subject entirely, or they may learn bad habits in order to keep up even though those same habits slow them down later in life.

It makes sense to delay instruction in reading until most typically-developing children can be assumed to be developmentally ready to read for just this reason, but that does not mean that it makes sense to prevent a child who IS ready to read from doing so just because you think they haven't hit the magic age yet.

I am not a education major so I'm unsure what you mean by "developmentally ready" to read? My understanding is most kids, who have no learning disabilities and are of normal intelligence, are capable of learning their alphabet by by age 4 or 5. I always figure when I have kids, I'll read to him and maybe try to teach as I read (pointing out letters and such) but would expect them to learn their letters by kindergarten and to read by first grade.

I hope not to be a pushy mama but I'm not comfortable with letting kids dictate when they want to learn to read. The learning process to literacy is not "fun" compared to playing with toys or watching TV, so it seems kids will always choose to do the more 'fun' thing rather than learn to read. However, once they start reading, many find joy in that. I also don't my kdis to wait until peer pressure forces them to learn. That seems a bad habit to get into, because then your child's academic achievement is dependent on the quality of their friends. How do parents know when a child is "ready" to learn to read?

[lilah]

I think one of the reasons why reading at 4 or younger is not developmententally apropriate is that kids need to use that time to be exploring the world, having more sensory rich experiences, learning how to regulate their behavior.

One other issue is bakcground knowledge. I work in a poorly performing urban school where only 20% of students are proficient readers. Many more students can read ut they can't understand complex texts. They have very limited life experiences and so much of their education is building up more comprehension and background knowledge.

[Conuly]

I am not a education major so I'm unsure what you mean by "developmentally ready" to read? My understanding is most kids, who have no learning disabilities and are of normal intelligence, are capable of learning their alphabet by by age 4 or 5. I always figure when I have kids, I'll read to him and maybe try to teach as I read (pointing out letters and such) but would expect them to learn their letters by kindergarten and to read by first grade.

I hope not to be a pushy mama but I'm not comfortable with letting kids dictate when they want to learn to read. The learning process to literacy is not "fun" compared to playing with toys or watching TV, so it seems kids will always choose to do the more 'fun' thing rather than learn to read. However, once they start reading, many find joy in that. I also don't my kdis to wait until peer pressure forces them to learn. That seems a bad habit to get into, because then your child's academic achievement is dependent on the quality of their friends. How do parents know when a child is "ready" to learn to read?

Nowadays they expect kids to know their alphabet BEFORE entering pre-k, and to be reading simple books BEFORE entering first grade. Your perfectly reasonable expectations are about two years off of what the current trend is in the US.

Developmentally ready means the exact same thing it always does: They have to be able to learn it with a reasonable amount of instruction, and not forget what they learned within a few days. Some children can learn to read easily at three or four or five, to the level currently expected. For others, it's extremely difficult, and to no real benefit that can't be had by starting that level of instruction a little later. And delaying instruction slightly would do no harm to the early readers.

To leave kindergarten here, children are expected to be reading at a "d" level. Books at that level include "10 for Dinner", "From Head to Toe", and "Bears in the Night". These are books they're supposed to be able to read IN kindergarten. If you wait until first grade to "teach them to read", even if they already know the alphabet, they're considered "behind".

[delilahdog11]

This isn't about reading or teacher's pay or homeschooling, but is still is the vain of what is being discussed. But here is an interesting article about what can happen when schools become privatized. This is what worries me about charter schools and school vouchers. Are they just another way to indoctrinate kids into a certain way of thinking?

From the great state of Louisana: I lived there for several years and have wanted to move back until that asshat, Bobny Jendall, fucked everything up

[link=]http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars[/link]

[smores]

I am not a education major so I'm unsure what you mean by "developmentally ready" to read? My understanding is most kids, who have no learning disabilities and are of normal intelligence, are capable of learning their alphabet by by age 4 or 5. I always figure when I have kids, I'll read to him and maybe try to teach as I read (pointing out letters and such) but would expect them to learn their letters by kindergarten and to read by first grade.

I hope not to be a pushy mama but I'm not comfortable with letting kids dictate when they want to learn to read. The learning process to literacy is not "fun" compared to playing with toys or watching TV, so it seems kids will always choose to do the more 'fun' thing rather than learn to read. However, once they start reading, many find joy in that. I also don't my kdis to wait until peer pressure forces them to learn. That seems a bad habit to get into, because then your child's academic achievement is dependent on the quality of their friends. How do parents know when a child is "ready" to learn to read?

I do hope that you pushing them to learn letters, etc before school also means you will be doing it in a fun manner. Learning can be fun, if you do it the right way. I have so many ideas on learning for littles that I will be excited to do with my little. :)

[emmiedahl]

I hope not to be a pushy mama but I'm not comfortable with letting kids dictate when they want to learn to read. The learning process to literacy is not "fun" compared to playing with toys or watching TV, so it seems kids will always choose to do the more 'fun' thing rather than learn to read. However, once they start reading, many find joy in that. I also don't my kdis to wait until peer pressure forces them to learn. That seems a bad habit to get into, because then your child's academic achievement is dependent on the quality of their friends. How do parents know when a child is "ready" to learn to read?

A child who is ready to read knows the alphabet and the sounds the letters make, and is beginning to try to sound out words. When they get there, around 4 for my kids, I teach them them to read. I use a very boring program that is extremely effective but we cover the book in stickers as we finish units and I make sure to get them more interesting books from the library. My kids have always wanted to read because it means they don't have to harass the parents and older siblings every time they want to hear a story. We don't have cable and video games are allowed on weekends only, so reading is a major form of entertainment around here. However, some children are not ready until much later. Most children who come from a literary-type family will want to read because it is what the bigger people do.

Disclaimer: I am a little bit of a tiger mom; I don't berate them or punish them, but I have high expectations that they are expected. They should do well in school and activities because that is a kid's job. If every kid at that school was an illiterate hooligan, they would be expected to perform to the same standards.

[Sobeknofret]

I hope not to be a pushy mama but I'm not comfortable with letting kids dictate when they want to learn to read. The learning process to literacy is not "fun" compared to playing with toys or watching TV, so it seems kids will always choose to do the more 'fun' thing rather than learn to read. However, once they start reading, many find joy in that. I also don't my kdis to wait until peer pressure forces them to learn. That seems a bad habit to get into, because then your child's academic achievement is dependent on the quality of their friends. How do parents know when a child is "ready" to learn to read?

My son was just not ready to read until fairly recently, and he's nearly nine. It terrified me beyond words. He knew his ABC's at four and experimented with writing words, but reading just didn't stick. We worked through phonics programs and encouraged him to keep trying, but until around April/May of this year he was not capable of reading anything but the simplest of three word readers, and even those were slow going. It wasn't for lack of examples or desire on our part: his bookshelves are filled with books of all levels; we read constantly to him; and we're fanatic readers ourselves. Suddenly, it just clicked for him, and he's currently ripping through the Magic Treehouse books like crazy. He still doesn't have much interest in reading, but he can do it, which I'll settle for right now.

The point is, no amount of good examples, providing material for him, reading out loud to him, or pressure to read was going to get him to read before he was ready to do it. He had to develop into it emotionally/mentally and then decide to do it himself. At the same time, all his circle of friends suddenly were reading and discussing books with each other. Was it a bit of peer pressure? I think it certainly helped encourage him and his other friends.

[keen23]

I'm in Arizona, and "specialty" charter schools are currently all the rage. It seems like a new one opens every few months. Teachers are not required to have a teaching degree. Anyone with a bachelor's degree can be a teacher in these schools.

There's the Humanities based curriculum school- heavy on social studies, reading classical literature, history, English, politics, and required Latin and foreign language classes right from kindergarten. Very weak on math and to a lesser extent science.

The Arts school that has an extended day program, that includes an hour each day in both music class and performing arts classes. This school has very bare basic "fundamentals" like reading and math and science, but produces almost professional quality madrigal shows at each Christmas time.

There are Sports schools

Bible based education (Psalm 91 school is one I know of off hand)

Back to Basics education- nothing except reading, writing, math and science

Montessori schools

Farming and Equestrian schools

My kids go to public schools. Our school system while poor, actually ranks in the top 10% of the state. The top rated elementary school in the state is in our district, and it's a public school. I think some of the charter schools are good, some are awful. The differences between each school are dramatic. Many of my friends send their kids to charter schools, and the infighting between the schools is ridiculous. There's a huge turnover of teachers and principals each year. When a new school opens the parents and teachers in the charter schools seem to be transfixed by the idea of a shiny new toy and jump ship to the great new thing. My daughter's friend is in 4th grade and has been to 3 different charter schools in as many years because her Mom always wants the "best" (i.e. newest) even if the school is unproven.

[Sobeknofret]

I'm in Arizona, and "specialty" charter schools are currently all the rage. It seems like a new one opens every few months.

I'm one state over from you and we've got a ton of charter/magnet schools here as well. Here, charters are run by the school district and the teachers have to have a current teaching certificate, although they do the "themed" charters as well. We have a STEM elementary, a few vocational hs's, montessori's, arts and music, an international school, and at least one HS that focuses on community service issues. The problem is that the school district is so badly run and many of the schools are so bad that the demand for the charter schools is really high. One school we looked at had a lottery to get into the admissions lottery! Some schools, like one particular charter Montessori, are in such high demand, that there are precious few openings for the lottery anyway, and the likelihood of getting one of the few spots that open up every year is almost nil. Private schools are hugely expensive; we were paying over 12K a year to send our son to a private elementary. When it no longer became an option for us we decided to homeschool, and so far it's working really really well.