Fundie homeschoolers

[Toothfairy]

Do fundie kids get state tested? I know every state is different but some require parents to submit their curriculum and homeschooling program to the district for review. Certain states also require homeschoolers to meet certain requirements. So how do fundie kids get away with certain things? In my state it's require for homeschoolers to get state tested. If they fail then the homeschooling program is put on probation. Homeschoolers also have to be taught certain subjects, not just the bible.

[lemonhead]

I don't know what it's like now, but I'm curious to hear from current or recent homeschooling kids or parents. When I was growing up (Texas in the mid 80s to early 90s), I believe there was very little regulation. This was on the heels of the Austin TEA (Texas Education Agency, not the other Tea) Party, which we participated in and which led to the relaxing of state homeschooling regs, so things may be very different now. I do remember taking a standardized test around 6th grade, along with a group of other homeschooling families in our church, and I took the pre-SAT, but I'm pretty sure that was voluntary. My mother kept a record of my "courses" and I got a transcript and diploma when I "graduated" when I was 16. I don't remember any questions from local or state authorities about my progress or curriculum. I hope it's different (more regulated) now.

[Snarknado]

It completely depends on the state and their regulations. In California there is no mandated state testing. In fact all you have to do is file an affidavit once a year. I homeschooled for 10 years. Fortunately, I did a good job, my kids are all in their first year of public school and are thriving. Don't know why I felt the need to clarify that. LOL

[LaLele]

In IL it is a free for all. Very very few rules and regs. No filing of affidavits. No testing. Just cross your fingers and hope everyone who says they homeschool actually teach something.

[salex]

One of the big arguments against Common Core is coming from Homeschoolers because they veiw it as infringing on their ability to "teach what they want'

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/10/How-Will-Homeschoolers-Be-Affected-By-the-Common-Core-Standards

“If the Common Core does become a national curriculum for every student in America,†Estrada explained, “the pressure will one day build to where laws may be passed requiring homeschoolers to conform their education to the Common Core.â€

Breitbart News asked Estrada why, with serious concerns about loss of control over education choices and parent involvement in education, parents and other citizens have only just recently begun to express their outrage about Common Core.

“We believe that this is just the beginning of the outrage, “ said Estrada, “and HSLDA and many others are continuing to expose the dangers and problems of the Common Core.â€

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

One of the big arguments against Common Core is coming from Homeschoolers because they veiw it as infringing on their ability to "teach what they want'

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/10/How-Will-Homeschoolers-Be-Affected-By-the-Common-Core-Standards

Common Core isn't state testing. Common Core was developed in hopes of fixing No Child Left Behind's mess in failing to prepare students for standardized testing. Common Core is a curriculum requirement, which is absolutely awful. It fills in some holes but it creates other gaping holes.

But, standardized testing exists with or without Common Core.

To answer the original question, most states dont require standardized testing for homeschoolers (and, at least in California, private schools are exempt unless the school or the organization it's under decides to use a standardized test). Standardized testing isn't to find out how smart a kid is, it's to "determine how effective a school is at teaching students." And the SAT/ACT are "to determine how prepared a student is for college." Though, standardized tests really do neither. They just point out who is good at taking tests and who isn't.

[YPestis]

To answer the original question, most states dont require standardized testing for homeschoolers (and, at least in California, private schools are exempt unless the school or the organization it's under decides to use a standardized test). Standardized testing isn't to find out how smart a kid is, it's to "determine how effective a school is at teaching students." And the SAT/ACT are "to determine how prepared a student is for college." Though, standardized tests really do neither. They just point out who is good at taking tests and who isn't.

Standardized testing, and tests in general, are not perfect and they do give advantage to those that test well, but educators and college admissions people still need a way to compare children from different parts of the country. It's unfair to base students' achievement solely on their high school grades (or grades mom gives them) because schools differ in their academic difficulty and grading techniques. From personal experience, I would say AP exams and the SAT subject tests are a bit better than SAT I and ACT in terms of testing what a student knows and how prepared they are for college.

I find it odd that so many people are against any type of standardized testing at the elementary and high school level and yet few complain that graduate schools rely so heavily on them for admission. Law schools lean heavily on LSAT. Med schools use MCAT. Business schools use GMAT. Many other other programs use GRE. Aside from b-schools, most graduate programs depend heavily on their testing protocol to compare people from different academic backgrounds. In fact, testing is a requirement for many careers. I don't believe everyone that tested better than me was smarter, but I also don't think they were all merely "better testers". Sometimes, tests do single out the smarter or better prepared student, however imperfect they may be. Even if they don't, that's how the world rolls and children should be expected to learn to take exams.

I think fundies really fail their kids educationally when they fight so hard to avoid any regulations. They just don't want to make an effort to ensure their children are learning at a minimum level. Instead, they fall on the excuse that "testing doesn't tell me anything" fallacy. As if just by teaching the student, one can ascertain what that child has learned. Personally, I feel many fundies fear that any standardized testing their children participate in could reflect poorly on them. That's why they prefer voluntary testing. This means only a self-selecting population to take exams. Mainly, those that are very much academically (or testing) superior. That homeschooling fundie school, Patrick Henry, like to brag about their "high" SAT scores but they don't require SAT for admission and the scores are provided voluntarily by the students. Gee, I wonder how many low scoring students volunteer their scores?

I also wonder what would happen if more homeschoolers were expected to be tested, or at the very least, expected to show a curriculum and work turned in. I bet there would be some shocking deficiencies in some of these fundie schools. I'm thinking about the Duggars with their self-taught "computer school" and the Maxwells with their "Bible based" education. It's pretty appalling what passes as education amongst fundies (and a few non-fundies).

I guess it's one reason I remain wary of homeschooling in general. I don't object to parents teaching their own students. It's just that so many states don't regulate it as they would public schools, forcing me to accept at face value that little Johnny really is learning at grade level. Companies won't accept mom's recommendations, why should I?

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Standardized testing, and tests in general, are not perfect and they do give advantage to those that test well, but educators and college admissions people still need a way to compare children from different parts of the country. It's unfair to base students' achievement solely on their high school grades (or grades mom gives them) because schools differ in their academic difficulty and grading techniques. From personal experience, I would say AP exams and the SAT subject tests are a bit better than SAT I and ACT in terms of testing what a student knows and how prepared they are for college.

I find it odd that so many people are against any type of standardized testing at the elementary and high school level and yet few complain that graduate schools rely so heavily on them for admission. Law schools lean heavily on LSAT. Med schools use MCAT. Business schools use GMAT. Many other other programs use GRE. Aside from b-schools, most graduate programs depend heavily on their testing protocol to compare people from different academic backgrounds. In fact, testing is a requirement for many careers. I don't believe everyone that tested better than me was smarter, but I also don't think they were all merely "better testers". Sometimes, tests do single out the smarter or better prepared student, however imperfect they may be. Even if they don't, that's how the world rolls and children should be expected to learn to take exams.

I think fundies really fail their kids educationally when they fight so hard to avoid any regulations. They just don't want to make an effort to ensure their children are learning at a minimum level. Instead, they fall on the excuse that "testing doesn't tell me anything" fallacy. As if just by teaching the student, one can ascertain what that child has learned. Personally, I feel many fundies fear that any standardized testing their children participate in could reflect poorly on them. That's why they prefer voluntary testing. This means only a self-selecting population to take exams. Mainly, those that are very much academically (or testing) superior. That homeschooling fundie school, Patrick Henry, like to brag about their "high" SAT scores but they don't require SAT for admission and the scores are provided voluntarily by the students. Gee, I wonder how many low scoring students volunteer their scores?

I also wonder what would happen if more homeschoolers were expected to be tested, or at the very least, expected to show a curriculum and work turned in. I bet there would be some shocking deficiencies in some of these fundie schools. I'm thinking about the Duggars with their self-taught "computer school" and the Maxwells with their "Bible based" education. It's pretty appalling what passes as education amongst fundies (and a few non-fundies).

I guess it's one reason I remain wary of homeschooling in general. I don't object to parents teaching their own students. It's just that so many states don't regulate it as they would public schools, forcing me to accept at face value that little Johnny really is learning at grade level. Companies won't accept mom's recommendations, why should I?

Actually, there are many ways to assess what the child has learned without a test. Tests are just a way of assessing the most students with the least work. Homeschooling parents don't need to assess "the most students," so they can rely on other ways of testing their knowledge.

Plus, homeschooling allows the children the way they learn. If you start standardizing homeschooling, you remove the benefits. Many colleges look to homeschooled children over those in traditional school routes because they're not bogged down by "standards" so they are actual learners.

Yes, fundies make up the largest portion of those who oppose regulations, but that's because they make up the largest portion of those homeschooling to begin with. However, like secular homeschoolers, they majority of homeschooling fundies aren't out to limit their child's learning potentials (except maybe with the whole evolution thing; but that's a topic the child could easily learn later in life). Most homeschoolers, secular and religious, enjoy the freedoms of teaching the way they want, encouraging life long learners, and avoiding the mess that is our educational system.

And, I never said I was only against standardized testing in the lower grades. I think all standardized testing limits the ability to understand how much someone actually knows. I, for one, am a horrible test taker. Before a test shows up, I can know all the answers, but once I have it I suffer from two problems: 1. I get bored and lose focus; 2. I completely forget everything or I over think everything. So, despite an exceptionally high ability to apply what I know, critically think, and teach others what I knew, as well as having a very intense drive to research and learn all I can about any topic I have questions about, I always had average/lower than average test scores.

[snarkopolis]

I find it odd that so many people are against any type of standardized testing at the elementary and high school level and yet few complain that graduate schools rely so heavily on them for admission. Law schools lean heavily on LSAT. Med schools use MCAT. Business schools use GMAT. Many other other programs use GRE. Aside from b-schools, most graduate programs depend heavily on their testing protocol to compare people from different academic backgrounds. In fact, testing is a requirement for many careers.

That's cause they'll never use those ebil higher edumacation. Who nneds a masters to sell cars or cut down trees? Unless you want to have that forestry degree so you know what kind of tree, the impact of cutting down the tree, what you should plant in its' place, etc. You know, that critical thinking aspect of a career, or life.

[luv2run]

I live in Maryland, and have been home schooling for

8 years. I only home school my older three kids. My 7 year old son has autism, and we think my 4 year old may be (so far just diagnosed apraxia, so she receives special ed and speech in their pre K class), but I currently home school a 7th grader, 5 grader, and 3rd grader.

The state requires to file a notice of intent, and two portfolio reviews a year with the board of education. Unless enrolled under a specific/state/county approved umbrella/oversight groups. And you have to review with those groups as well. They submit their info to the board of education annually.

I do assessment testing. I didn't this year, mainly because I know where they are academically as we

are enrolled with Seton Home Study, and they scored above average last year when I did test them. My 3rd grader has a tutor for her reading as she's dyslexic. The tutor is a reading specialist who just received her Masters Degree, so I go with and do what she tells me for that particular child.

I think if you home school, it's important to have them assessed. At a difficult point in our life, I had to put the kids in public school, and they were behind in reading comprehension, math, and just basic social skills. Because I fell into the fundie/Catholic trap and didn't stay on top of what I should have regarding their education.

School can't be all fun and games. Good study habits were lacking for sure.

At least in my home school group, you will find a divide in those families that work above and beyond for their kids education, supplementing the gaps where needed, and those who have an entitlement mentality, and think school and testing is beneath them. Because they're Catholic.

It's maddening, actually.

[luv2run]

And I personally don't do the assessment testing. I pay to have them do it over a two day period, under someone else. I think it's important for someone other than the parent to do that.

[Childless]

In my state, you have to submit an attendance sheet. That's it. They don't require you to submit your curriculum, participate in any testing, or even get an assessment by a public official. It's quite scary what type of adult may be coming out of a home schooling situation in this state. They don't even have to know how to read as long as a parent submitted an attendance sheet every year. In my opinion, there is to much of a chance of failing a child. If you're doing home schooling correctly, then why would you be worried about a minimum amount of oversight to ensure a child is learning at grade level? As a member of the community that must deal with these kids once they enter adulthood, I think I'm well within my right to insist on some oversight. It'll be my tax dollars going to pay for their welfare when they aren't capable of holding down a job. It'll be my tax dollars that end up housing them in the jail when they resort to crime to survive because they aren't capable of taking care of themselves. It could be my house they decide to rob or my family members they decide to injure if they do resort to a life of crime. No one lives in their own little world where their actions affect no one but themselves. The members of the community in which they reside must also live with the consequences of their decisions.

[chissprincess]

Standardized testing, and tests in general, are not perfect and they do give advantage to those that test well, but educators and college admissions people still need a way to compare children from different parts of the country. It's unfair to base students' achievement solely on their high school grades (or grades mom gives them) because schools differ in their academic difficulty and grading techniques. From personal experience, I would say AP exams and the SAT subject tests are a bit better than SAT I and ACT in terms of testing what a student knows and how prepared they are for college.

I find it odd that so many people are against any type of standardized testing at the elementary and high school level and yet few complain that graduate schools rely so heavily on them for admission. Law schools lean heavily on LSAT. Med schools use MCAT. Business schools use GMAT. Many other other programs use GRE. Aside from b-schools, most graduate programs depend heavily on their testing protocol to compare people from different academic backgrounds. In fact, testing is a requirement for many careers. I don't believe everyone that tested better than me was smarter, but I also don't think they were all merely "better testers". Sometimes, tests do single out the smarter or better prepared student, however imperfect they may be. Even if they don't, that's how the world rolls and children should be expected to learn to take exams.

I think fundies really fail their kids educationally when they fight so hard to avoid any regulations. They just don't want to make an effort to ensure their children are learning at a minimum level. Instead, they fall on the excuse that "testing doesn't tell me anything" fallacy. As if just by teaching the student, one can ascertain what that child has learned. Personally, I feel many fundies fear that any standardized testing their children participate in could reflect poorly on them. That's why they prefer voluntary testing. This means only a self-selecting population to take exams. Mainly, those that are very much academically (or testing) superior. That homeschooling fundie school, Patrick Henry, like to brag about their "high" SAT scores but they don't require SAT for admission and the scores are provided voluntarily by the students. Gee, I wonder how many low scoring students volunteer their scores?

I also wonder what would happen if more homeschoolers were expected to be tested, or at the very least, expected to show a curriculum and work turned in. I bet there would be some shocking deficiencies in some of these fundie schools. I'm thinking about the Duggars with their self-taught "computer school" and the Maxwells with their "Bible based" education. It's pretty appalling what passes as education amongst fundies (and a few non-fundies).

I guess it's one reason I remain wary of homeschooling in general. I don't object to parents teaching their own students. It's just that so many states don't regulate it as they would public schools, forcing me to accept at face value that little Johnny really is learning at grade level. Companies won't accept mom's recommendations, why should I?

Regarding the bolded: I can't speak for anyone else, but to me the big difference is that the k-12 system is compulsory while graduate school is not. Going to graduate school is still a largely voluntary thing (though that may change as credential inflation continues). When you decide to go to graduate school you voluntarily decide to jump through the hoops required to get there. Little Johnny in 3rd grade who comes from a disadvantaged background and doesn't have the cultural capital often assumed by standardized tests doesn't get to get out of taking the test by opting out of 4th grade*.

For the record, I'm not against testing, even standardized testing, but I am against the idea that the best way to evaluate all students is by seeing who does best on a multiple-choice, fill-in-the-right-bubble-to-mark-your-answer test, or by any other test that relies on one method of assessment like that (i.e. I wouldn't be any happier with an all-essay-questions test).

* Unless his parents homeschool him in a state that doesn't require homeschoolers to do standardized testing, I guess.

[SoybeanQueen]

It definitely depends on the state. In my state, you do not have to do any sort of standardized test for homeschooling. The only requirement is that you register your homeschool as a non-accredited private school. You don't have to say which students are in it, or do any type of reporting. Just register.

I know a lot of homeschoolers here, and the vast majority do fine. Several of them are former public school teachers, many have college degrees. There are a few lazy ones that probably aren't teaching their kids very much, but I don't thinking implementing testing to catch those few would provide any benefit to the rest.

I have one homeschooler, 3 in public school, and a toddler not in school at all. We'll call him "unschooler." My 3 that are in the local school don't seem adversely affected by the changes in curriculum and testing this year, but my guy at home doesn't handle that learning style as well. The public school is in the run-up to testing for this year. It's chaos. The kids are spending hours per day on computerized test prep programs. Seems wasteful when they have really good teachers who could be giving lessons. But, testing.

In states where homeschools are considered private schools, I don't think we will see the same requirements for testing that public schools have. That's the whole advantage of having private schools at all - they don't have to do things the same way public schools do.

[lilwriter85]

I grew up in New Mexico and I knew a fundie lite family that homeschooled and their kids were tested every year. That was back in the 90s, I have no idea if it still happens now.

[Ampak]

In Texas, it is a free for all. My cousin and SIL both homeschool. My SIL is an idiot. I don't even think she has a GED. She was a Denny's waitress when she met my brother. She took her kids out of school because she was scared of school shootings and wanted to teach them about God. Pretty odd to me since they don't even goto church. She is just paranoid and overprotective. I never see them doing any school. They are constantly playing computer games. My cousin and her husband are well educated (PHDs) and think they are smarter than everyone else. Their 12 year old is at (my estimation) a 2nd grade level based on what i've seen.

[Toothfairy]

I'm not against standardized testing, I just don't like how schools are only teaching kids how to take a test. I'm also not against homeschooling because my daughter attends an online hs. However with fundies how do the parents know if their child knows certain things. Or need extra help. Like algebra,biology,english. Some kids can't read or write at grade level. How will they assess them? Knowing the bible will only get you so far.

[Snarknado]

My kids never did any standardized testing at all. Because I was the one teaching them and grading their work I knew where they were as far as retaining the knowledge.

[Mama Mia]

I find it odd that so many people are against any type of standardized testing at the elementary and high school level and yet few complain that graduate schools rely so heavily on them for admission. I?

Ummm.....you do know that it only a very small percentage of people who go to graduate school, right? So obviously the general population isn't going to know, or care, how admission to graduate school is determined.

[Arete]

Yes, but the general population expects its lawyers to have passed the bar, its physicians to have passed state licensing requirements, and even its teenage drivers to pass a standardized test before they are let loose on the road. In fact, in all these cases, the general population not only expects but demands these groups be tested to prove what they know. It seems that the only thing some people think should be off limits is standardized testing to determine who is retaining what from their primary education.

It's a tool, and a useful tool. I'm going to out myself completely and say I am very much behind national standards and a national curriculum, because it is unfair that a kid living in Bumblefuckistan to not have access to the same level of education as a kid in Boston. It won't be smooth and it won't be pretty to get there, but it is a worthy goal to reach. A lot of kids who test poorly don't have a grasp of the subject matter, it isn't that every single one of them is a poor tester.

[DGayle]

Regarding the bolded: I can't speak for anyone else, but to me the big difference is that the k-12 system is compulsory while graduate school is not. Going to graduate school is still a largely voluntary thing (though that may change as credential inflation continues). When you decide to go to graduate school you voluntarily decide to jump through the hoops required to get there. Little Johnny in 3rd grade who comes from a disadvantaged background and doesn't have the cultural capital often assumed by standardized tests doesn't get to get out of taking the test by opting out of 4th grade*.

For the record, I'm not against testing, even standardized testing, but I am against the idea that the best way to evaluate all students is by seeing who does best on a multiple-choice, fill-in-the-right-bubble-to-mark-your-answer test, or by any other test that relies on one method of assessment like that (i.e. I wouldn't be any happier with an all-essay-questions test).

* Unless his parents homeschool him in a state that doesn't require homeschoolers to do standardized testing, I guess.

This sums up most of my thoughts on it. Children are being taught that their intelligence is whatever grade they get on a test. This tears them down. Adults going to graduate school have the maturity to realize that a test, even a high-stakes one, isn't a full measure of their minds. An adult who can't take and pass tests to get into law school or any other institution has other options. Little Johnny has to return to the same institution that have already told him he's stupid because he can't test right, and now, thanks to Common Core's testing being based primarily on thinking the way they want you to (CC is NOT merely another method--it is THE method you MUST think in), a lot testing grade sends the message to him that he can't even use his brain right. He has no options. Learning isn't supposed to be about a skill set. Sure, if you go into computer sciences you may need a skill set that includes certain programming languages. But if you don't have the ability, you have other options. Turning learning itself into a skill set send the destructive message that if you can't do it right, well, you're fucked and can't do even the most basic things right because you apparently can't learn.

It's options. Adults have them. Kids don't. And since governments want the easiest way to assess in some quantifiable way, it's a test, and with those tests comes everything from a child passing to a teacher keeping their job to a school getting funding. School funding is on the backs of our children. We don't carry that burden when we decide to apply to law school. The law school will go onward with others. Our children's schools can lose the ability to pay teachers.

So yes, I am very much against standardized testing for our children. Revert back to how it used to be, where it was merely to give the districts an idea of strengths and weaknesses in their schools, instead of these tests being used for everything else, and I'll get back on board. Testing was never meant to be used for funding, and for our kids to be responsible for their teachers getting a paycheck or a pink slip.

[Swamptribe]

Testing was never meant to be used for funding, and for our kids to be responsible for their teachers getting a paycheck or a pink slip.

Exactly. Way back in the dark ages of the early 80's, I took a course on grading. It was taught by a professor who used to make a living making up SAT tests. One of the best courses I ever took. She pointed out that testing in class isn't so much testing the students, but testing the instructor to see if you had gotten the relevant points across. It was a way for the instructor to measure his or herself. She did a great unit on lesson plans and how to upgrade and improve them as you go along. She was one of the best instructors ever.

[chissprincess]

This sums up most of my thoughts on it. Children are being taught that their intelligence is whatever grade they get on a test. This tears them down. Adults going to graduate school have the maturity to realize that a test, even a high-stakes one, isn't a full measure of their minds. An adult who can't take and pass tests to get into law school or any other institution has other options. Little Johnny has to return to the same institution that have already told him he's stupid because he can't test right, and now, thanks to Common Core's testing being based primarily on thinking the way they want you to (CC is NOT merely another method--it is THE method you MUST think in), a lot testing grade sends the message to him that he can't even use his brain right. He has no options. Learning isn't supposed to be about a skill set. Sure, if you go into computer sciences you may need a skill set that includes certain programming languages. But if you don't have the ability, you have other options. Turning learning itself into a skill set send the destructive message that if you can't do it right, well, you're fucked and can't do even the most basic things right because you apparently can't learn.

It's options. Adults have them. Kids don't. And since governments want the easiest way to assess in some quantifiable way, it's a test, and with those tests comes everything from a child passing to a teacher keeping their job to a school getting funding. School funding is on the backs of our children. We don't carry that burden when we decide to apply to law school. The law school will go onward with others. Our children's schools can lose the ability to pay teachers.

So yes, I am very much against standardized testing for our children. Revert back to how it used to be, where it was merely to give the districts an idea of strengths and weaknesses in their schools, instead of these tests being used for everything else, and I'll get back on board. Testing was never meant to be used for funding, and for our kids to be responsible for their teachers getting a paycheck or a pink slip.

One other thing I would add is that an adult who wants to take the GRE (and to some extent older teenager taking the SAT or ACT) has options in terms of improving their own ability to perform well on the test. Things may have changed since I took my tests (I know the format of the SAT has changed and will probably change again soon) but there are plenty of resources out there for practicing them, from books with practice tests to entire courses designed to help the test-taker do better. So at least in theory, an adult or an older teen has a lot of options for practicing the tests, learning all the little tips and tricks to doing better on them, and becoming familiar with the format before taking the actual test. And depending on how they structure their practice, this is familiarity they can build in the weeks and days right before the test, not the kind of familiarity that comes from taking the test one year and being vaguely familiar with it the next year. Now again, maybe things have changed since I was a kid taking standardized tests in the k-12 system, but I don't even remember us even having the option to practice tests ahead of time. The first time you got to see the test was the day you took it. So unless all this test-practicing the kids are doing nowadays involves practicing the actual type of tests they're going to take, they don't even get the option of trying to find ways to work around, say, being a bad test-taker or having to take a test that just doesn't work with their learning style. And yet, that entire test is one of the most important academic things they will do all year and impacts everything from the student's self-perception to how much funding their district gets in the future.

[SoybeanQueen]

I agree that there are some poor home-teachers. I think if you look at the longer-term stats that are available now about homeschooled kids getting into universities and being generally successful adults, there's clearly a good group of home-teachers who are finding ways to teach their kids at least as much as they would learn in public school.

"How do you know if they know anything?" is a really common question. My son was behind in reading coming out of public school. I searched high and low and read research about factors that play into reading difficulties and created an intensive remedial reading program for him. I'll use several outside assessments to check his progress. Of course, some of the research shows intensive one on one time is just as effective as fancy reading programs, so I won't know if I'm really a genius for creating this plan or if my mere presence is enough. As long as he reads well, I suppose it doesn't matter.

In other subjects, I don't find that he needs a big formal assessment. I give him math pages to work on. I grade them. If he has all of them right, isn't it fair to say that he understands that material? For us, 80 percent is the cutoff for passing. Miss more than that and we do the whole lesson again.

Some homeschool subject plans have assessments built in. I think if someone is paying attention at all, they will know how well their child is doing in any given subject. I also look at the Common Core standards for each level so that I can make sure my son knows at least that much when he chooses to return to public school.

[SoybeanQueen]

I have the flu and just used most of my energy typing the last long reply. This may not make sense.

"And yet, that entire test is one of the most important academic things they will do all year and impacts everything from the student's self-perception to how much funding their district gets in the future."

Yep. And in the future, it will also affect how the teachers are evaluated.

My daughters were both really irritated that "exemplary" is no longer a score range on the new tests. They saw that as a goal worth reaching for.