Here is my testimony as it is currently written. Many interesting thoughts for future posts, I think. I had some difficulty with this, as I was writing this more with my “teacher hat,” relying on my preparation by the public system to work in the public system, noting problems which even those who are responsible for the current state acknowledge. I chose not to go into issues more deeply or more passionately simply because I am speaking to a group of legislators who have expressed concerns with homeschool families remaining outside of state oversight. At any rate, here is what I wrote thus far:

I graduated from the University of Kansas with a degree in education and began teaching in Texas through Teach for America, an organization which places top college graduates in high needs school districts. I taught for two years, receiving over forty hours of professional development training through the district and through Teach for America. I left the classroom to work with foster children in Nebraska and eventually left this field in order to homeschool my own children.

I am opposed to Legislative Bill 1141 because it is based on several faulty assumptions.

1. Senator Schimek herself has noted to reporters that she does not know if there is a problem among Nebraska’s homeschool families, thus the legislation addresses a hypothetical concern rather than a known problem. [source]
2. It violates the proper relationship between the state and individual families who have done nothing to arouse suspicion. In a properly functioning republic, it is the citizenry which oversees the state, not the state which oversees the citizenry. The accountability measures currently used in schools serve to keep Nebraska’s public schools accountable to parents and taxpayers, and thus are a necessary part of public education. This does not extend to homeschooling families who receive no state or federal funding and are capable of assessing their own children.
3. It assumes that standardized testing is valid and reliable enough to make life-altering decisions for every homescholed child in Nebraska. (The other two options are not as troubling in this regard, but the insistence upon proving that a child is “on grade level” as defined by the state is similarly problematic.

Even the National Education Association, a nationally recognized professional association and lobbying group, has raised concerns with the use of standardized tests used to evaluate teachers in public school classrooms where the state has a justifiable interest in monitoring quality and adherence to specific standards.

Standardized tests should be used to guide instruction by helping identify gaps in learning and groups of students who need the most help. But test scores alone should never be used to punish students, teachers or schools by cutting funding, closing schools or firing teachers. [source]

Parents provide regular assessment in their homes to guide instruction. What this looks like varies, from formal tests taken at the end of each chapter, purchased standardized tests, portfolio assessments, or ongoing dialogs with children. Assessment can be much more individualized in the family setting because the student-teacher ratio is smaller and parents know their children better than anyone else.

As sixth grade teacher Debby Dundas is quoted as saying on the NEA’s website,

Local teachers, not policy mandates, should be able to determine what is best for each child. We are sensitive to their individual situations, and we can determine the best way for them to learn. This involves a combination of teacher intuition, creativity, and patience. Sometimes I have to sneak education through the back door.

Mandates are often unrealistic–and unfunded–goals set for all children, regardless of their truly special needs. [source]

This is even more true when the parent is the child’s educator, for no one has a greater interest in a child’s educational success than the parent.

I have little doubt that this legislation would have forced my daughter into an accredited program had it been law last year. My daughter was significantly below grade level in reading. While we were using a sequential program of instruction, I drew on my early elementary education experience, my coursework in child development and the philosophies of prominent leaders in the homeschool movement, including Dr. Raymond Moore, the author of “Better Late Than Early.” The result was that we waited. She continued on target in her other subject areas, I read to her extensively and she continued to enjoy listening to literature and talking about literature. Her reading gradually developed, but at a very slow pace. Rather than pushing her, I waited for her.

This approach is defended by the research summarized in Dr. Moore’s book, Better Late Than Early and is supported by many homeschool advocates.

The Moore Foundation analyses [1] concludes that, where possible, children should be withheld from formal schooling until at least ages eight – ten. Elkind [3] warned against student burnout which has become pervasive in American schools. Rohwer [4] agreed, basing his conslusions in part on investigations in 12 countries by Sweden’s Torsten Husen. Husen subsequently confirmed Rohwer’s perceptions, according to a letter from Husen, Nov. 23, 1972. Rohwer, with deep concern for conceptual demands of reading and arithmetic, offered a solution:

“All of the learning necessary for success in high school can be accomplished in only two or three years of formal skill study. Delaying mandatory instruction in the basic skills until the junior high school years could mean academic success for millions of schoolchildren who are doomed to failure under the traditional school system.” [source]

All children develop at their own pace. Forcing a child too young to accomplish tasks for which he or she is not ready produces only frustration, not learning. One of the advantages of homeschooling is the ability to pay close attention to the individual needs of each child, adapting teaching strategies and curricula accordingly. Research demonstrates that this approach works.

More recent research includes a review by Cambridge University, released this month, which was summarized by a Reuters article,

Starting school at the age of four is “stressful” to children and does not help their education, according to a major review of English primary schools which also concluded kids take too many tests too early. [source]

Near the end of second grade, my daughter suddenly became interested in reading and began doing so voraciously. In less than a semester, she has caught up with and passed her peers according to the testing I have done with her. What would have been gained by forcing her into a traditional classroom, simply because she was a little behind her peers, and I chose to follow an educational philosophy different from the state in how to bring a child to proficiency in basic skills?

Education is important to us all. This is a large part of why we have chosen to homeschool. But education cannot be so easily reduced to a subset of skills to be obtained by a particular age or grade. The insistence on this sort of narrow view of education fails to take into account the individuality of each child, places undue pressure on parents to conform to the state’s model, and does not allow for parents to direct the education of their children as guaranteed by the US Constitution, and consistently upheld by the US Supreme Court. In Troxel v. Granville, the court provides a summary of related cases:

The liberty interest at issue in this case–the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.” Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534—535 (1925), we again held that the “liberty of parents and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” We explained in Pierce that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Id., at 166. [source]

This bill would violate this fundamental liberty in order to address a concern that has not yet been proven to be an actual problem. It also fails to address the real learning differences between children, forcing all those who learn at a slower pace or in different ways to leave their homeschools where they receive far more individualized attention than is possible in any public or private school.

I’ll post later this afternoon or tonight regarding how the session actually goes. So stay tuned…

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

[tags]homeschooling, homeschool, LB 1141[/tags]