I am still slogging through my e-mail, but I will get back to the discussion in the Tea Party myths post as soon as I get a few minutes.  I am also working on a follow up post, which will address a few more points.

Tomorrow, I will be gone for most of the day.  Vermont homeschoolers will be gathering tomorrow at the State House as an educational opportunity and demonstration of our presence.

As I posted about last month, the Commissioner of Education wants to eradicate the Home Study Office and place homeschoolers under the jurisdiction of their local public schools.  Not only that, but there is also talk of mandatory NECAP testing for all homeschoolers.  Both of these proposals are an unacceptable infringement of our homeschooling freedom.  Our presence in Montpelier will send a message to the legislators that we will be back, if there is legislation that affects us in the next session.  The event tomorrow is not a rally or protest.

I will have footage from the event that I will post tomorrow evening or Wednesday.

Political message aside, it should be a great day to get out with the kids and see the State House without all of those wacky tea partiers there!  (Wow, two trips to Montpelier in as many weeks.)

I think magnet schools can be a good thing, though I am disappointed that they chose to have a “sustainability” academy, rather than one that focused on math, science, and technology.

The Free Press had an article the other day about the magnet schools, which open in the fall, and how the applications are coming along.

So far 85 students have applied to the magnet schools from elsewhere in the city and “about three” students who live near the two schools have applied to go to other city schools.  (Gee, with such a small number, one would expect the superintendent to be more exact.)

The schools seem to be achieving the goal for which they were created.  Both schools have a 90% population of children who qualify for free or reduced lunch.  In contrast, the incoming kindergarten class for Barnes will have a “poverty” rate of 50%, Wheeler 63%.  (I have quotes around poverty because the free and reduced lunch guidelines are not poverty level, though those terms are used interchangeably in the article.)

Here’s what caught my eye, though.

Wheeler has slots in several grades, including kindergarten, for students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch.

In other words, if poor kids – which, by the way means under $39,220 for a family of four – will be turned away based solely on the fact that they are too poor.

Sorry poor kids, no Academy for Integrated Arts for you.  Try again next year.

That seems kind of, I don’t know, discriminatory.

The school district calls this criterion: socio-economic balance (reflecting the diversity in our community).

That’s funny.  If it reflected the diversity in the community, then it would not need to be artificially engineered.

I am not opposed to the schools themselves.  I think an integrated arts school is a great thing.  We do integrated arts here in my home school and it is a wonderful way for kids to learn.

I do think it is unfortunate that the children are being selected based on their parents’ income level.

The school district wants to feel good about its poverty numbers, so it is adjusting the numbers solely for that purpose, without regard to the benefit this school would provide to kids of all income levels.

The latest word from Education Commissioner Armando Vilaseca is that the change would require the approval of the legislature (since the proceedure for homeschooling is dictated by a very detailled statute), so nothing will be done this year.

This is not over, though.  The new commissioner does want to take a look at ways to streamline the home study enrollment process.  We should expect a proposal next year.

That’s what we do.  Well, we don’t cut positions in our family, but we do cut out expenses.  It’s amazing how things I think I can’t live without one year go on the chopping block the next.

The Times-Argus had an article the other day about the cuts, specifically focused, at least titularly, on the St. Johnsbury prison closing.  But there was something else tucked in there that caught my eye.

According to the article,  “Some of the proposed cuts rely on shifting responsibilities to local communities, the federal government and other organizations.”  One of those proposed shifts is “having local school districts oversee the state’s home school program.”

Currently, the state Department of Education has a full-time, year-round Home Study Office.  There is a small staff (three, I think) that deals with homeschooling parents’ questions and approves enrollment applications.

Just as a side here, for those of you who don’t know about homeschooling in Vermont, every year, parents need to send in enrollment packets with the curriculum for the coming year and an assessment of the prior year, as well as some other administrative stuff.  The Home Study Office reads through all of this information and determines whether or not the parents are meeting the legal requirements for homeschooling, providing an education in the six subject areas required by statute (which applies to all schools, public, private, and home) at the age and ability-level of the child.

The Home Study Office costs between $250,000 and $300,000 per year.  There are over 2,000 families enrolled in the home study program.  (There are also families who homeschool without enrolling.)

Now, normally I am a fan of local control.  I am not a supporter of centralized government.  I believe strongly that when the people making the decisions that affect your life can see you, as opposed to a bureaucracy that only knows you as a name or number, it is usually better.  They have to see the consequences of their actions as they impact real people in their community.

For every rule, there is an exception, and this is one exception.  I will give you three reasons why this is a bad idea, followed by a couple of solutions. (Bolded, for easy skimming!)

The way our education funding system is set up, the local schools have a financial incentive to have homeschool students return to the schools. The funding they receive from the state is based on number of pupils.  For every homeschooled student, they lose money from the state.

In contrast, the state saves money for every homeschooled student.  The state pays block grants per pupil.  Fewer pupils means less money going out.

There is a conflict of interest when the body charged with approving homeschool enrollments has a financial interest in seeing homeschooling fail. That alone is a good reason to keep the approval process with the state.

Another concern, as a homeschooling parent, is that the public schools, in general, will be less understanding of homeschooling, why people do it, how it is beneficial, and that it is okay to do learning differently than it is done in a classroom. Whereas most homeschooling parents allow for their children to learn in an unconventional way, most school personnel have doubts about those methods, despite the success rate of homeschooling.

A third reason this is a bad idea is that there will be an uneven application of the law.  This is the case in Massachusetts, where the local school districts oversee homeschooling.  The oversight varies from a simple letter of notification required in some places to a detailed list of all materials that are going to be used and proof that the parent is qualified to teach requested in other districts.

I inquired with the school district where my parents-in-law live (in Mass.) and the packet they sent me asked for all kinds of  detailed, privacy-violating information that went way beyond ensuring that the children were receiving an education.

My solution would be to cut the Home Study Office and not replace it with anything. My longtime readers know that I advocate an “innocent until proven guilty” approach that assumes parents are educating their children and not abusing them, unless there is reason to investigate.  Our current law assumes we all need a thorough annual investigation.

Ideally, the law should only require a notification be sent to the local school that the child will be home schooled.  Parents should still be required to provide an education in the six subject areas required by law and to assess the child’s progress annually using the currently accepted methods.  Except, instead of sending these to the state (or a local school) to be reviewed, the parents should keep them on file, to be turned over in the event of an investigation prompted by a concern over neglect.

Obviously, that won’t happen.  Parents are not trusted with the rearing of their own children without government intervention these days.

Besides, Armando Vilaseca, the Commissioner of the VT Dept. of Ed., already told homeschoolers he cannot support notification only with no oversight.

Okay, so my real solution is to do nothing.  Keep the system the way it is. The local school districts are not equipped to handle home study enrollment reviews – most are not well-versed in the complexities of the law – and this “unfunded mandate” could cost the local schools more than it saves the state.

Again, this is an idealistic solution.  Commissioner Vilaseca has expressed support for local oversight.  Given that he is charged with finding positions to cut in the Department of Education, my guess is that this will go forward.

If the state is determined to cut the Home Study Office, it is important that homeschooling parents have an alternative to the local school available. In New Hampshire, parents can have their enrollment reviewed by the public school, a private school (which usually charges a fee), or the state.

We need a fail-safe in place if we are faced with a school district that is hostile to homeschooling.  It is unfair to parents to subject them to an unevenly applied law, enforced by an entity with a financial stake in seeing them denied their right to homeschool, without providing options for relief.

Update: Nothing will be done this year.

BURLINGTON SCHOOLS SEEKING PEER MODELS FOR PRESCHOOL
By Jeanne Collins, Superintendent of Schools – Burlington School District, Colchester Ave
Wed, 12 November 2008

The Burlington School District Essential early Education Preschool is looking for 3 & 4 year olds with good play, communication and behavior skills.

Slots Available: 3 Mornings a week or 3 Afternoons a week

“A GREAT PRE-SCHOOL EXPERIENCE”
MUST BE A BURLINGTON RESIDENT

Advertising for children who can be good role models does not exactly leave one with the best impression of the public pre-school, does it?

They should have just said: “Openings available for your well-behaved child with good communication and play skills to learn poor behavior, bad words, and how to fight with other children.”

Good behavior does not rub off on 3 and 4 year olds, but bad behavior does. In fact, it rubs off on children of all ages. And it is very hard to undo, trust me.

In today’s Burlington Free Press, the results for the state science tests were published and Vermont students did not do well.

Bear in mind that these are the tests that were designed by Vermont teachers to correspond to the current curriculum guidelines in Vermont. It was supposed to alleviate teaching to the test and allow testing what was already being taught.

Let’s have a look at the schools my children would go to, if they were not homeschooled.

First up, Champlain Elementary in Burlington. Both of my school-aged children were there for grades K and 1, and grade 2 for the oldest. The test is given in grade 4. They are currently in grades 5 and 6, so my 5th grader would have taken this test last spring.

At Champlain, 60% of students were at or above standard. That breaks down to 84% of children who do NOT receive free or reduced lunch, but only 37% of children who do. (My kids do qualify for free or reduced lunch.)

Next, we have Edmunds Middle School, also in Burlington. My oldest would have started there this year, but would not take the test until grade 8, when the test is administered.

At Edmunds, a whopping 32% of students scored at or above standard proficiency. That breaks down to a pathetic 4% of free and reduced lunch children and 54% of their financially better off peers.

When they get to Burlington High School, they can expect that only 20% of students will pass the state science exam. That’s 3% of the F/R lunch kids and 28% of the rest.

Fortunately, I plan to homeschool all the way through.

My plan, God willing and kids cooperating, is to have all of my children spend their last two years of Homeschool High earning an associates degree from community college, or at least getting a few classes under their belt.

So why does this matter? I mean, besides the fact that a publicly funded institution is failing to do what it is designed to.

One of the leading reasons that people give for violating parents’ constitutional rights to privacy with excessive homeschooling regulations is the fear that the parents will not give their children an adequate science education.

That reason is not only given by the anti-Christian zealots, who do not want parents to be allowed to teach their children that God created the Earth, but even by seemingly sensible legislators right here in the great state of Vermont. I was personally told by the former chair of the Vermont Senate Education Committee that there needed to be oversight to make sure that children are receiving an education in subjects like science.

As a home school in Vermont, I must demonstrate yearly progress commensurate with age and ability in each subject area (which includes science) for each child in order to continue to operate my homeschool. Every year. For each child. In each of the six subject areas, prescribed by law. At the sole discretion of the state. Or I cannot homeschool any of my children.

Yet the public schools they would attend can fail to provide an adequate education, by their own standards, for 40% of 4th graders, 68% of 6th graders, and 80% of 11th graders and continue to operate without consequence. (According to the article, the science scores do not affect federal funding.)

I wonder when the state is going to hold the public schools – the state’s schools – to the same standard as it holds home schools.

I will not hold my breath.

Okay, so it wasn’t technically a debate, but this was America’s first real look at the two major party presidential candidates, side-by-side.

I admit that I haven’t seen it. I watched a few clips pertinent to what I am going to talk about here, but I have not had a chance to see all of it.

When I heard that Pastor Rick Warren was the interviewer, I thought, Ick. Why?

C’mon, pastors, stay out of the political spotlight. Did you not learn anything from those who came before you?

Does anyone even know why he did this forum? I can’t seem to find that information.

A story in the Boston Globe reported that the forum took place in the church’s sanctuary. That is just so wrong, I don’t even know where to start. These guys about cover it.

I am not a big “tall wall” person, but even I think that asking the candidates what Christianity means to them, in a candidate forum, just doesn’t sit right with me.

That said, I have read around the internets, from people on both ends of the political spectrum, that McCain did much better than Obama in that format. If that is indeed the case, it does not bode well for Obama, given that there will be many more forums to come before November.

Better Qualified?

When asked which Supreme Court justices he would not have nominated, Sen. Obama named Clarence Thomas.

Let me transcribe.

Uh, I don’t think that he, uh..uh..I..I don’t think that he was an ex…, a strong enough jurist or legal thinker, uh, at the time, uh, for that elevation.

Notice how he avoided completing the sentence “I don’t think he was an ex…” Could it be he was about to make the same criticism of Justice Thomas that people are making of him – the he lacks experience?

Victor Davis Hanson asks, at Pajamas Media, “Why would Obama think, given his own credentials, that he was better qualified for President than Clarence Thomas was for the Supreme Court?”

Good question.

Define Rich and Don’t Avoid the Question

The left is a little upset that, at the Warren forum, John McCain defined rich as over $5 million – except that he was joking! He is laughing (not maniacally)! Rick Warren is laughing (a lot)! And, here’s the clincher, he says, “but seriously,” afterward!

(Here’s the clip – it’s at 1:33)

Steve Benen, who also didn’t get the joke, took issue with the fact that McCain avoided the question.

Yeah, kind of like when Obama avoided the question of when human life begins, stating that “answering that question with specificity is above [his] pay grade.”

Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, former spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and now public policy director for the diocese of Rockville Centre, N.Y., called the comment a “dodge that wasn’t even intellectually respectable.”

And it’s only August, folks.

Education and Attention-Different Children

By now, I am sure you have heard about US Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps’ outstanding performance in Beijing and his record-setting 8 gold medals. (Read the article – it is unbelievable!)

But did you also know that he has ADHD?

The New York Times had an amazing and inspiring interview with his mother, Deborah Phelps, about her son’s struggles with school as a child. It is an absolute must read.

She will never forget one teacher’s comment: “This woman says to me, ‘Your son will never be able to focus on anything.’ ”

Fast forward to today.

Too many adults looked at Ms. Phelps’s boy and saw what he couldn’t do. This week, the world will be tuned to the Beijing Olympics to see what he can do.

And, boy, what he did do. Simply incredible.

It is tragic that our society is so willing to discard children with attention differences because we are unwilling to change our vision of what learning should look like.

Michael Phelps’ story is a perfect example of what ADHD children can accomplish when they are allowed to find their passions and develop them. Unfortunately, many children are cast aside by the education system and do not have the opportunity to find and have nurtured their strengths, instead finding themselves labeled as damaged goods.

That is why educational alternatives are so important. We must move beyond the notion that the public schools are sacrosanct and embrace options that will produce more success stories from children who fail to thrive in the current educational model.

A Funny

Funniest Obama video ever. (This is not a “right-wing smear machine” piece either.)

I usually ignore them; I have more important things to do with my time than try to reason with a bunch of ignorant bigots with impenetrable prejudices.

This time, though, I would like to get a few things off my chest. (Mostly, this comes from the comments on the above linked post, not the post itself, and others like it that I have read.)

(1) Atheists and other anti-Christians, you do not have to oppose homeschooling just because some people might *gasp* teach their children religious views that you do not like.

The world does not revolve around you and your opinion. Get a life, for Pete’s sake!

And thank God that these kids are not in school trying to witness to your spawn.

(2) Being a credentialed educator is not that big of a deal. I am sorry to have to say this. I have respect for people who are educators – believe me. I happen to be the type of person who generally cannot stand to be around any child that did not incubate in my uterus for 9 months, so I can not imagine the amount of patience and dedication it takes to spend 180 days a year with other people’s children. I applaud you. I don’t understand you, but I applaud you.

That said, I have to share this story. Have to.

When I went to college, I was a physics major. After two years of physics classes, a year of work study in the physics department, and a summer interning in a physics lab, I decided that I did not want to be a physicist.

Well, there are not too many majors that you can change to with a background of physics- and math-intensive course loads and still graduate on time. The first one I looked into was education. I started with a couple of courses to see how I liked it.

Want to know what happened?

I so seriously blew away the professor, with an academic performance level that he was unaccustomed to, that he took me aside and told me that I should go back to math or science because I would not be challenged in education and it would be a waste of my intellect to stay.

I kid you not.

And I am not even that smart!

So you see, I cannot help but snicker every time some “credentialed” educator labels me as “unqualified.”

(3) How on earth can anyone consider homeschooling parents selfish? Excuse me, but do you have any idea what we give up to homeschool?

Take a look at the last time this blog was updated, for example.

I have no life. You, in all likelihood, do.

I am doing this because I love my children dearly and want them to have the best life possible. And school was not helping them achieve that goal. So, I homeschool them.
I enjoy it and I really would not have it any other way, but it is hard work. Really hard work.

So, next time you put your dreams on hold to make someone else’s life better, go ahead and call me selfish. Until then… you know what you can do.

(4) Stop saying that home education is inferior to public education.

Did you miss the memo?

I don’t think I could give my children an inferior education, even if I tried. Just by the very nature of spending the day interacting and conversing with an educated adult one-on-one, they gain most of the skills needed to lead an educated life.

And the rest only takes a couple of hours a day.

(5) Math. One of the great homeschooling myths is that home educated kids have substandard math skills.

This one totally annoys me because I love math. That is what I ended up changing my major to after the education fiasco. And not because I thought it would be useful for a career, but because I thought it would be fun. FUN.

I use the cream of the crop when it comes to math curriculum. The only one out there that might be superior is Singapore Math, which is based on math standards used in, well, Singapore.

As for the public schools… I’ll let Oak Norton handle that one.

(6) If you are concerned about socialization, rest assured, my children play daily with the kids in the neighborhood, where they learn such useful social terms as the “C” word and “peach stuffing,” which, if you don’t know what that is, trust me, you don’t want to. (Those are the poster children for the homeschool movement, by the way. And, yes, my kids try to stay away from them.)

Okay, I think I have sufficiently vented.

Besides, I can’t really think of any other homeschool stereotypes that don’t fit me. I am proud to be a wacky libertarian, conservative Christian, who reads the Bible, makes her own bread and soap, and occasionally clothes too, and doesn’t believe that man evolved from apes. (Yes, I know, I know; not apes, but a common ancestor. Gee whiz, I’m not science illiterate.)

Here is the line that tells you everything you need to know about Vermont’s schools.

Just how much the NECAP math scores mean is under debate. Teachers and principals are asking: Was the test too difficult, or not?

Okay now, as an educator myself, if my pupils took a standardized test and came out below proficiency, I would say it was due to one of two possibilities.

Possibility one: I did not cover the material that was on the test. If this was the case, the blame lies squarely with me. The questions I would then ask are, Why did I not cover the material on the test and how can I make sure that I do in the future?

Possibility two: I covered the material, but the children did not master it before we moved on to another topic. If this was the case, the blame, again, lies squarely with me. The questions I would ask are, How did I not know that my students were not mastering this material and how can I make sure that my students are getting the material before I move on, in the future?

At no point in time would I even stop to ask if the test was too hard.

How can a test that was designed around the standards of what I am already supposed to be teaching be too hard?

The only possibility is that the students were not taught the material to mastery level.

That can be because the material was not presented or because the students did not have the time to master it, but the fact remains, they did not have mastery of the material in question and it is my job to get them there. Period.

To expect anything less of our schools is a disservice to the students.

The difficulty level of the test is irrelevant.

The only questions worth considering at this time are, why do the students not have mastery of this material and how can we engage them enough to get them there?

The article goes on to cite that Vermont is at or above national averages with performance.

Unfortunately, that is not enough. We have a national educational crisis.

Still, these comparisons are no consolation to those who say the national math performance is weak relative to competing nations. Earlier this month, a long-awaited National Math Panel report said American math curriculums have too much breadth and too little depth.

The report recommended that American schools streamline math teaching in kindergarten to eighth-grade to emphasize proficiency with whole numbers, fractions, and aspects of geometry and measurement that are preludes to algebra.

More students should take algebra in eighth grade, the report urged, and Americans should drop the “erroneous” idea that math success is a function more of aptitude than effort.

The test was not too hard; math education is too easy.

Math education has been watered-down, with the expectation that the smart kids will pick it up and the not-so-smart kids won’t be able to get it anyway.

The problem is with the way we are teaching math.

I can say that because the NEA does not have me in its back pocket. Can the same be said for our politicians, who need to call for reforms?

The problem has been identified. The solutions have been presented. Now all that remains is for the educrats and the educators to do the right thing.