For those who have been following the discussion between Stephen Downes and homeschoolers who took his post on the California ruling as an attack against homeschooling, he has responded with a post in which he better clarifies his stance and answers some of the points I brought up in my posts (Homeschooling is NOT abuse and Note to Homeschoolers: Don’t be psychotic. I would like to address some of these points for a few reasons:
- I appreciate his willingness to continue in the discussion.
- The certification issue remains a common criticism of homeschooling.
- I enjoy the conversation.
Here, I only wish to address one aspect of his post, that of qualifications. Most of the rest really stems from a misunderstanding of what exactly he was trying to say in his original entry and there is no purpose in further belaboring the point.
(Unless otherwise noted, all block quotes are from Stephen’s entry.)
On qualifications…When discussing teachers and certification, there are essentially two issues to be looked at when applying this to the homeschool situation:
- How effective certification is at determining teacher effectiveness in the classroom, and
- Whether or not this applies to the home environment.
To a large degree, the former is a rabbit trail, but as a former public school teacher one I find interesting. My degree is in education, and I was trained to be a high school teacher. I entered teaching through Teach for America, however, and achieved my actual certification through an alternative certification program in Texas.
1. How effective is certification at determining teacher effectiveness in the classroom?
These programs have received a lot of research in recent years due both to the increasing pressure of No Child Left Behind to have “highly qualified teachers” (read certified) in the classroom and to the extreme difficulty of staffing schools in high needs areas with anyone remotely qualified to teach. In 2006, for example, Washington, D.C. approached a crisis situation as it was going to be forced to let go of 370 uncertified teachers simply based on their lack of certification. This is a common situation in our urban areas, and even in our rural areas.
There has been a great deal of research, some of it determining that certification is not a determining factor in the educational success of a child and some of it determining that it is. The study (pdf) I selected for my response was based on two factors: one I had readily at hand, and recency of the study. In 2001, the Abell Foundation released the Teacher Certification Reconsidered (pdf) that purported to review existing research, questioned the validity of research which had found benefits to certification and actually entered into official policy discussions on how to best prepare teachers for the classroom.
This was quickly answered by Linda Darling-Hammond in the paper cited by Stephen, Research and Rhetoric on Teacher Certification: A Response to “Teacher Certification Reconsidered.”
And this, of course, was promptly answered by the Abell Foundation. And the debate wears on. But there is a statement in this rejoinder which bears heavy significance not only for how we staff our classrooms, but for home education and this discussion:
The issue at hand here is not whether schools of education offer some helpful and valuable coursework. They undoubtedly do. The issue is whether individuals who have not taken any education coursework (valuable or not) are at such a disadvantage that they should not be allowed to begin teaching. The evidence that would justify such a restriction is simply not there.
As Stephen notes in his response to the 2006 study of New York City schools,
And they admit that the subjects of the study are people who have been selected; they are highly motivated and educated. They are therefore not representative of the much wider population that is not certified.
Which is precisely my point. Certification is little more than a selection process. To pursue it, one must necessarily be interested in teaching. I found the process actually hindered expertise in the subject area because in my program, at least, I ran into problems with having too many hours in my concentration area (I was seeking a concurrent Liberal Arts degree in German) and had to stop taking German classes so as not to endanger my education degree, although I was studying to become a German teacher.
It is not the certification that is assisting these teachers to perform reasonably well in under-served areas of our public school system, but the fact that they are highly-motivated and well-educated (especially in the case of Teach for America, which is highly selective). This defines the homeschool family, particularly the motivation aspect. We also do not have to deal with the issues confronting school districts which accept uncertified teachers such as:
- Insufficient materials
- Extreme poverty (Teach For America serves some of these areas in Texas)
- Large class sizes
- Gangs
- School violence
- District corruption
It amazes me that an uncertified individual, regardless of their enthusiasm and education level, could walk into these situations and have such an impact on their students that there is even room for researchers to disagree that there is a difference between them and those who went through the certification process. A process, I might add, which includes up to a year of substitute teaching, experience the uncertified teacher does not have.
The Finnish comparison is interesting. Especially considering the buzz created recently among homeschooling blogs regarding the exact same results of Finnish schools. Finnish teachers, it seems, are doing a lot of the things homeschoolers have done all along, namely, they are more relaxed, focus on basic skills and have a greater degree of freedom. Also, home education, while uncommon, is allowed. It certainly appears to have more regulations than many American states, but the parents themselves are not required to be certified. (I cannot verify the validity of that forum discussion, but it is all I could find.) A recent article in the Wall Street Journal provides an interesting reasoning for Finland’s success, beyond even the social issues which plague the US:
Teachers must hold master’s degrees, and the profession is highly competitive: More than 40 people may apply for a single job. Their salaries are similar to those of U.S. teachers, but they generally have more freedom. WSJ Online
In other words, they are educated, have a great degree of freedom in their own classrooms and the city is not in the position of begging for teachers. And somehow, I doubt their teachers do as poorly as many of our certified teachers do on the very tests they are preparing their students to pass. I do not think it a fair comparison to isolate the differences between American and Finnish education systems to the single factor of certification.
And it is wholly unrelated to how we should treat homeschooling in the United States.
2. Should homeschoolers be certified?
As Stephen points out, it is not about certification, but qualifications.
I am rather more interested in the qualifications, rather than the certification, of the person educating the learner.
So we agree. Except, perhaps, on what constitutes said qualifications. At this point, I am not sure how Stephen proposes to ensure such a thing if certification is not the measure, but I would like to look at some of his analogies:
On the whole, this assertion is implausible. While we agree that certified plumbers may be incompetent, and that uncertified plumbers may be competent, on the whole, in general, we take certification to be a reliable indicator of competence. And this belief is reflected in our behaviour: on the whole, we opt for certified plumbers, certified dentists, and certified doctors.
This is perhaps my favorite analogy used by those outside of homeschooling to illustrate why it is homeschooling families should have to be certified or demonstrate “qualifications” by some means or another. On the surface, it seems wholly reasonable. And I will admit that if I were to seek a plumber, I would not be impressed by some guy named Jack who said he knew what he was doing because, after all, he has a toilet at home, too. Certification is a measure to compare competing unknowns.
This analogy works only when looking at strangers, and is a fair enough assessment of why I would prefer a certified teacher instructing my child in a public school. At least then I would have some idea that the person had been through some sort of program before taking on responsibility for teaching my child. It does not follow from the above, however, that I cannot change out my own toilet, despite the fact that I lack proper credentials to do so. It also does not do justice to why, after only two weeks as a second grade teacher, the parents of my students so vigorously fought to have their children remain in my class rather than moved to that of a certified teacher with years of experience. (My position was eliminated due to small class size and I was reassigned to another grade level). Before they got to know me, they certainly would have selected the certified teacher over the uncertified stranger from another state. But once the relationship and trust was established, certification was irrelevant.
Medicine and dentistry are a little different, requiring specialized skills and the actual opening of human bodies.
I know of no research that suggests that a person untrained in carpentry would be as able to teach carpentry as someone who has been trained as a carpenter.
This is a strange comparison, but I think that Stephen and I look at education very differently. Here, he is talking about a specific skill. Carpentry. Education is a much broader concept, ill-defined, and encompassing many “skills” that are primarily mental. Really, however, the same critique applies as to my comments regarding plumbing.
And his lack of knowledge of research really does not prove anything. I do not know that much about carpentry, but should my children ever develop an interest, I shall engage the services of a carpenter to instruct them. Or give them the tools to discover. After all, that is how my grandfather learned, who eventually built his own house and constructed many fine examples of craftsmanship despite his lack of formal training in the field.
Nor am I aware of any studies showing that a person who is illiterate is better able to teach literacy than someone who is literate.
And now we are reaching into the absurd. So now that someone who is illiterate might conceivably get it into their ill-educated head that they want to homeschool (although I’m unsure how they will figure out what the law is in their state, let alone how to file the paperwork), we are going to mandate all homeschool families to become certified?
Teacher certification allows us to get some handle on those – and other – qualifications. It is by no means perfect, and ‘alternative certification’ even less so. But it is demonstrably better than nothing.
For classroom teachers. Maybe…a little…depending on which studies you want to look at. But this “us” is important. Who are “we?” And what is it that any mandates we put on public schools are attempting to do? All of the current focus on accountability in education politics rests on the premise that the school system is accountable to me. In fact, in a free society, the entire government is accountable to me. I am not accountable to the government, nor to the education system.
When a parent chooses to send his child to public school, the school (the state, if you will), acts “in loco parentis,” in the place of the parent, in executing those duties which primarily befall the parent. Thus systemic oversight is justified, necessary even. The opposite, however, is not true. When I choose to homeschool, I do not act “in loco regimenis” (or whatever the Latin would be).
Certainly, if it is discovered that I am manifestly unqualified to teach, the state has some obligation to ensure that proper decisions are being made with respects to the education of my minor children. But the burden of the proof is on the state to show that I am not fulfilling this, it is not on me to prove that I am. Much like the burden of proof rests with the state in proving probable cause to search my home for drugs, rather than on me should an officer knock on my door.
And this, I believe, is the central disagreement between Stephen and me.
Who is responsible to whom?
On abuse specifically…
I do not defend anyone who is “manifestly unqualified” to teach, including obvious cases such as the Long family, in their decision to homeschool. But certification is an unnecessary extreme that will not guarantee any further protection from what Stephen seems to fear most: true child abuse.
The problem is, there is a certain number of parent-child relationships that are not healthy. “During FFY 2005, an estimated 1,460 children died due to child abuse or neglect.” A certain number of parents who will not seek alternatives, even if they are failing. A certain number of parents who will not even be able to recognize that they are failing.
Interesting to note, perhaps, that most child abuse occurs in young children, before compulsory education laws take effect. From the same study:
- Children in the age group of birth to 3 years had the highest rate of victimization at 16.5 per 1,000 children of the same age group in the national population;
- More than one-half of the victims were 7 years old or younger (54.5%);
How do we propose to care for them?
Most of these children who were of compulsory education age also were publicly educated, yet the abuse was not spotted. Many of the families had contact with CPS (39%), yet the abuse was not substantiated or not viewed as severe enough to act more aggressively to protect the children. Some of these children died in the foster system or in adoptive situations where the child was placed there by CPS, with an entire system of oversight, including teachers, counselors and social workers each trained to spot signs of abuse.
And yet the children still died.
I agree that we need some basic measures in place in order to reasonably ensure the safety of all children. Certification is an unnecessary extreme in this discussion that really does nothing to improve actual oversight.
The system caught the Long family, and the court could have as easily ruled that the parents were unqualified since the law states that a teacher must be “capable of teaching.” Anyone with an abuse record should immediately be suspect. Anyone who pulls their children from school following an abuse investigation should immediately be suspect.
Still, we cannot force state involvement in the private lives of everyone who chooses to home educate merely because there are a few people who might choose to harm their children. We need reasonable safeguards, but the state cannot cease to respect the rights of the citizenry simply for fear of what could happen. The greatest predictors of child abuse is low maternal education, acceptance of Medicaid, a mother who left the home by the age of 14, the presence of other young children in the home and maternal depression. We do not, however, increase oversight over anyone fitting this profile, despite the proven correlation to abuse.
Because we need more than a statistical correlation and more than a fear. We need evidence of abuse, and then the state may act.
[tags]homeschooling, homeschool, home school, education, certification[/tags]
The problem is, some people assume that homeschooling is abuse, because it “deprives” children of a “normal” upbringing and education.
Quote:
“The problem is, there is a certain number of parent-child relationships that are not healthy.”
Re-Quote:
“The problem is, there is a certain number of TEACHER-child relationships that are not healthy.”
Comment:
It sounds to me that abuse is not the real issue here. It reeks of the scent of SS style totalitarianism. What else would you call the wanting of unjustified intrusion in the home by the state along with the attempt to raise suspicion in the community by stereotypes like home schoolers are abusers? Totalitarianism is a nasty concept but is there a pattern that is leading the US down this path in general?
There’s a definite pattern, it’s distorted if one views it with one eye squeezed shut. Constant Nazi and SS evocations, WND-style, especially coupled with the kind of secret society relgious cultism is prone to (witness the current security-hyper screenings of EXPELLED! which also intercuts the Nazi and Germany fear throughout) make homeschooling look full of dangerous extremists to the voting, regulating, child-protecting public. I tend to think that safety and freedom is served when we’re less fearful and reactionary, rather than more . . .
JJ Ross: “I tend to think that safety and freedom is served when we’re less fearful and reactionary, rather than more . . .”
Agree, that is why I tried to temper the statement with;
“Totalitarianism is a NASTY CONCEPT but is there a PATTERN that is leading the US down this path in general?”
The thought line here is three fold:
i) The US was founded as a Representative Republic with governance by the populace.
ii) The US is now tending towards Democracy with governance by a select few of the populace (i.e. Class I issue in NE where the public opinion was undercut by the few politicians, Border enforcement nationwide etc where the will of the people is being ignored).
iii) From Representative Republic to Democracy to WHAT?
That is the question. Regardless of conspiracy theories, secret societies etc, etc, there is a general pattern that if NOT CORRECTED can only lead to such SS style state control. The attempted intrusions of the state on parental rights, the constant deluge of home schoolers are abusers (leading to nosy neighbors reporting on their fellow citizens) spells to me a direction that needs to be reversed.
If we are unable in a level headed manner to discuss the consequences if this pattern continues then before we know it our nightmares will be upon us. It is a call to protect our freedoms not a rash statement WND style.
Look through history. Did the Germans want the SS state? I assume the majority did not. But a head in the sand approach to the rising SS state paid no favors to the nation in general.
On studying early American History there is a distinct difference between then and today. At the founding even the so called lowest class read and debated issues of the day. They considered themselves scholars with the freedom to discuss these ideas. Today, try to discuss a topic such as this and you are immediately labeled effectively ending the debate. So in the vacuum of debate those with ill intentions control unabated.
If I am condemned in these statements then explain why. The beauty is in the discussion and the opportunity for learning.
No thanks. I’m with the majority on this one, that grabbing Nazis and the SS for personal rhetoric automatically makes any argument not level-headed, by definition, thus unworthy of pursuing.
Thank you, you just made my point. Look at the SS but not the argument.
Dana, I don’t think I will ever come to common grounds with Stephen on this issue because I believe he and I sees the role of government differently. American government was created on the principles of individualism and freedom. Government intrusion into the life of the citizens was supposed to be very limited. Our current government doesn’t look anything like this ideal. I would go so far as to say that most Americans, no matter what their party affiliation, do not recognize any limits on the power of the government.
Instead of recognizing that all humans have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; we think that BIG government secures these for us.
Great thoughts ~
JJ Ross, you said:
I’m with the majority on this one, that grabbing Nazis and the SS for personal rhetoric automatically makes any argument not level-headed, by definition, thus unworthy of pursuing.
And I agree with you for the most part, particularly in this instance. I don’t think it justified to call in to question the opinions of some guy in Canada by crying “Nazi.” And in most of the instances where the accusation crops up, it is pointless, killing any rational discussion because we have at that point left any attempt at reason and entered purely into the emotional, much like crying “abuse” for the teaching of anything we disagree with.
That’s why I like “Godwin’s Law.” It is inevitable that Hitler will eventually be brought into just about everything.
However, I do slightly disagree that any time Hitler is referred to automatically makes any argument unworthy of pursuing. Sometimes, it is a wholly valid comparison, but such things are invalid and immoral on their own, regardless of whether or not Hitler had anything to do with. It shouldn’t be necessary to reach to Hitler in such a discussion, but doing so does not automatically dismiss the validity of the point.
It just makes it harder for some of us to get to the real point, because we are a little tired of absurd connections and “lazy logic.” : )
I agree, Julie, and I think this differing view of “rights” versus government responsibility really is at the heart of the disagreement. Part of that stems perhaps from the fact that he is Canadian, and every culture is a little different. But we certainly are in no shortage of people here in the states who have very similar opinions.
Actually, I wrote a whole post in my head while trying to sleep last night that I shall attempt to put to my electronic notepad for Thursday, if I can remember any of what I was thinking.
One of the most common misconceptions about home education is that mom is going to sit at the kitchen with Jr. and teach him everything from calculus to frog dissecting. Home education is parent determined and directed education, whether it is boxed curriculum or unschooling. There are resources for every subject and skill, so the idea of the parent(s) being ‘qualified’ in every subject is irrelevant. And home educators are not limited to certain subjects and electives- my kids already know ASL, and that is not offered in any of the schools around here. My oldest apprenticed with an HVAC company at 16, and by 18 was doing installs by himself. Certified shmertified.:p
Just as many of us graduated from college and ended up in a completely different career than the one we pursued (I have a degree in Religious Education and ended up in the legal dept. of a mortgage bank!), most of had to find a knowledgeable person or informative resource in order to gain the information we needed. Alot of home education is not teaching kids a bunch of facts but giving them the guidance they need to find information and process it on their own. Sort of like academic backseat driving.
The bottom line is still that we are either going to support gov’t intrusion with the idea of preventing every possible avenue of misconduct, or we are going to assume innocence until there is evidence to the contrary.
BTW, my dh and I have been married for 20+ years, and we have yet to call anyone for repairs on any home in which we have lived. I even consider my doctor more of an adviser than an authority in spite of all their credentials, because I still know more about my health and lifestyle than they do, as well as about my children.
I agree completely, Sunniemom. We direct our children’s education, much like a manager.
Elementary is pretty easy. I think anyone who graduated high school (assuming they actually achieved the graduation requirements and weren’t just passed along), as well as many who have not for whatever reason, should be able to impart these most basic of skills if it is truly their desire to do so and they are willing to do some learning themselves. Beyond that gets difficult, but I certainly will not be teaching any of my children high school math. Or likely science beyond middle school, simply because I lack access to the basic materials necessary.
As with the doctor, plumber, or any other position normally requiring some sort of certification, we seek them out when we are at the end of our skills. We do not force every parent to operate under the authority of a licensed medical professional or themselves become licensed in order to determine at what point to take their child to the doctor and when to just have them lie in bed with a cup of Sprite. Even though there are parents who make bad decisions in such matters…medical neglect must be proven first, as it should be.
There are a few stories on schoolteachernews.com concerning accreditation and homeschooling. The stories are direct links to news stories about teachers, homeschooling and other schooling issues found in newspapers around the country and the world.
I’d love to join this discussion, but we’re too busy having fun on vacation! Can you believe I turned off Fox News and let the kids out of the closet for a whole week?
No way! Did you have a certified travel agent determine your course for you?
We just got back from a little trip which I’ll share on my personal blog later…maybe tonight, but somehow I doubt I’ll get to it.
Actually, when you are trying to sleep it works way better if you turn off your brain! I think this is a sign of bloggers addiction.
)
My brain doesn’t turn off at night…and I’d agree with your diagnosis, except that this has been a long-standing problem. It seems to be rather conducive to blogging, however.
I confess I (GASP!) used a map. Shh! Don’t tell the travel agent police. I’m not ceritified to use a map, you see. I realize that I have no Constitutional Right to use a map. Maybe I should just leave reading a map to those credentialed few who have been trained in such matters.
Actually, a friend and I are halfway through leading a group of high school aged homeschoolers through a dissections class. We’ve already done worm and crayfish and have frog and perch coming up. These kids have ALREADY dissected as much as I did in honors track in high school. And they’re only halfway done. Do I have all the parts of a crayfish memorized? No. But I do know how to read the chapter in Handbook of Nature Study before class. And my friend knows how to find cool dissections websites that point out all the parts. All without a certification.
I find it very interesting that the media portrays this issue as parents who homeschool vs. parents who do not homeschool. I have no intention homeschooling, but I do think that the certification for parents who homeschool is ridiculous as well as an invasion of personal liberties. The media is polarizing this issue when in fact a lot of parents who don’t homeschool have the same view point. I like that I can choose whether or not to homeschool. I always keep homeschooling as a good option in the back of my mind because I could change my mind.
Quite true. But everything has to be black and white, with the highest degree of contrast as possible. They are highly formatted and quite predictable.
Alex – Bingo! This ruling doesn’t simply affect homeschoolers. It affects all parents…and how we view them. Are parents capable of raising (educating them being a part of that)their kids or not?
I linked to this (again) on my blog Dana.
There’s a link in the post to a radio show you might be interested in that may relate to this.
Thanks for letting me know! I’ll take a listen tonight. There is another radio show I want to blog about…maybe they will fit together.