In education at least…perhaps. So says Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute, anyway, and I think he may make a good point.
So why the headline above? Because while president-elect Obama has been very clear that he wants to increase federal education spending yet again, he has also hinted that he would decrease NCLB’s rigidly bureaucratic requirements. In addition, while the teachers unions are a big threat if given federal power, they tend to like money without accountability, meaning that, yes, they’ll push the Dems to set the cash spigot on “deluge,” but they’ll also resist federal rules. Put simplistically, instead of Washington doing two terrible things, it will do only one. Cato@Liberty
That is one thing I have never understood about the NEA. They understand that the accountability measures in No Child Left Behind take away the flexibility of the teacher to do what is needed in the classroom by focusing too heavily on narrow definitions of success and without taking into account the individual needs and backgrounds of each student. But when it comes to homeschools?
The double talk was made painfully obvious in the homeschool testing bill here in Nebraska. Right after testifying on behalf of requiring standardized testing for homeschools, the NEA insisted that statewide standardized testing of schools was detrimental to education.
I have a friend who’s husband is a principal. We got to discussing homeschooling once, early on in our homeschooling time. In general I would summarize his feelings as “If we have to be hobbled by these intrusive tests then everyone should.”
However, I think that many education professionals would still argue for strict oversight of homeschoolers long after NCLB was repealed. For this group it is an issue of homeschooling reducing the professionalism of teachers.
I was a school principal once myself and I think Sebastien’s husband is right about the feelings of education professionals re: regulation of homeschooling.
Here’s the thing though. One cannot refute this argument effectively, while at the same time inserting marriage regulations in the state constitutions of CA and FL e.g. (sigh) as an issue of gay marriage reducing godly marriages. As justified public policy, it is the SAME THING. Until we face that and think beyond our own self-righteousness, we are stuck.
I think they are two very separate issues. Don’t know, but guessing that a good majority for the defense of marriage stuff support homeschooling more strongly than those opposed.
It would be nice to be able to separate the issues a little more for the rest of the US. Many are beginning to understand that not all homeschoolers are cut with the same cookie cutter, but we still seem to be the dark hairy monster under the bed to a lot of people.
I think the NEA’s primary motivation is to limit homeschooling. The more difficult it is to do it, the more children in public schools, the more teachers needed and the more members for the union.
Incidentally, part of me wonders if that isn’t HSLDA’s problem with the public school/homeschool hybridization. What need have you of HSLDA if you are working through the district?
So long as the option remains to homeschool independently, I think other parents can figure out all by themselves whether or not they want the oversight that comes with a public school at home program.
That is neither here nor there
During our testing legislation, we had a Democratic ally in the state senate. He just lost his seat to a Republican who is also a strong homeschool supporter, but I wonder if on this issue at least Kopplin wouldn’t have been better for us. He was already on the education committee, and I have a certain suspicion that his colleagues would listen to him before they’d listen to a Republican.
Unions are no longer about protecting the laborer, but to garner power and influence on the backs of the workers that have no choice but to pay dues if they want to pursue that particular profession. Watch while the Dems push through The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), stripping the rights of workers to vote by secret ballot, benefiting the unions instead of the workers they claim to represent.
The NEA has more double standards than Georgia has peanuts. They see homeschooling as a threat to their power base. It matters not what the results have been, that children have benefited. If the NEA doesn’t get a slice, they want to throw out the whole pie. Let’s face it- the last thing the NEA is interested in is the quality of education in this country.
Did the NEA really do that? That’s almost unbelievable.
Logic, friends… use it. [shakes head]
Wow.
~Luke
I totally agree with you on all this. The nation as a whole needs to stop lumping all homeschoolers into the same group. We are extremely varied and growing in numbers. Homeschooling was started by fundamentalist christian families, but that is no longer the “average” homeschooler.
And yes, the big reason that the teachers unions and school districts do not like homeschooling is because they lose money for those children. Same goes for HSLDA and the charter/public schools with homeschooling options. I’ve never really liked the HSLDA because they like to make people afraid, at least in my opinion it seems that way.
Yes, they are separate issues but the activist intention of one group controlling the choices of another, in the name of protecting their own integrity and identity, is indeed the same rationale. So the problem is the disconncet between arguing everyone’s private freedom in one case, and simultaneously claiming government must trump the individual, in the other case.
I disagree that it’s just about money with professional educators, a group I respect and know very well both politically and philosophically. To the extent that this is believed and repeated among homeschoolers, we do ourselves harm in being able to overcome their concerns effectively.
I don’t think it is about money for educators. I just don’t think that the NEA adequately represents the needs of teachers as much as we would like to think. The union and the teachers are two very separate groups in my mind.
And I do understand what you are saying, JJRoss. I favor limited government all the way around, but I don’t think it is fair to blame problems on one group of people. The fact is, opinion polls show more favor for independent homeschooling among conservatives.
I think it is time to bridge the gap but not by alienating any group, whether or not you or I necessarily agree with them.
The same mindset that says certain social values have to be taught to all children in order to counteract parental teachings is a pretty strong group opposed to independent homeschooling.
From the Cato Institute quote:
“they’ll also resist federal rules”
Well, who doesn’t??
Money or no, accountability to whom and for what is complicated and it’s a moral issue first and foremost, about what’s right rather than what’s bought and paid for. Money is generally part of the story, but never the whole story. You’d think homeschool families especially would know that, because nobody’s doing this to make money!
Oh, now I see the point you’re emphasizing, Dana. Absolutely, it’s not about blame — of any group, nor taking sides between groups.
In that context, we help our own group most when we can argue our principles, for small government that respects individual liberty in this case, without undercutting our own case on the next issue. Doesn’t mean we should change our position or principle, just that we need a better thought-out rationale to support that belief effectively!
One of my concerns with Obama’s education talk (and even Hillary’s) was his push for early childhood education… sounded too much like a foot in the door towards mandating preschool to me. My only real comfort here is that kindergarten is not mandated, and therefore preschool more than likely would be in the same category.
Maybe it shouldn’t be a concern since my children are all through high school, save my two senior and one 3rd grader… it’s just the idea of our children as a whole.
I read and blogged about Obama’s Zero to Five Plan- it gave me the creeps, I kid you not.
I absolutely agree, Shawna. If the talk focused on ways to help single moms, etc. have real options for their children, it wouldn’t bother me. I still don’t see government as the solution, but that is far different than pretending like young children are better off in a school environment.
This zero to five stuff seems to bring NCLB type goals down to young children.
The comments in #6 & #7 above are illuminating:
Stereotyping and demonizing the other group to support one’s own ideology is a constant temptation. In this situation, we’d do well to remember the Proverb that says,”A gentle answer turns away wrath,” and to figure out how to answer our opponents’ concerns with integrity.
Regarding testing, I think the basic issue is one of communication and trust between people who are in the same boat. The quality of my children’s future will depend in part on how well the public and private schools have done their job in preparing students for future citizenship. Likewise, those schoolchildren will share their society with my homeschooled kids. How do we reassure one another that we are not screwing it up?
Currently, we hold our government responsible for monitoring this, and we have relied on some sort of monitoring authority in this country since its beginning, at least in the north. (It might be interesting to ask what sort of cultural mechanisms provided “quality assurance” for the private, aristocratic, family-based education of the Colonial South.) It is still a challenge. How do we answer the question of educational quality, which is essential to civic participation and trust, without being tyrannically intrusive or educationally narrow? Test scores are an efficient way of communicating data, but perhaps cannot capture the right sort of data, or cannot be used properly on the scale that we are tempted to use them. That is a conversation that our society needs to have, and in which the NEA is trying to participate. We need to make sure that the double standards of that participation are challenged and the conversation moves forward with integrity, rather than being held captive to this or that ideology.
Nice job, Circle Reader!
If you allow results of a test to determine whether or not a person is adequately educated, you have given whoever controls the administration of the test the power to define education. It becomes less of a concern for me the older a child is, but should an eight year old who isn’t reading automatically be forced into a public school? Many homeschoolers do wait longer to teach some things based on their philosophies, and do we want the nation dominated by a single educational philosophy or do we want true diversity in thought and individuality allowed among our children?
I don’t want selectmen asking my children the catechism, nor do I want the theocratic ideals of the Massachusetts Puritans to serve as a basis for how we monitor families today. But they had an advantage that we do not in this strict oversight…most of the population agreed with it. They were preserving their strict religious ideals. And those who didn’t were persecuted. That is not a foundation I think we should be building on.
I believe there is a distinct difference between testing in schools and testing in homeschools because I believe that the government is accountable to its citizenry. The testing is problematic in schools for its own reasons, but not so much for general accountability. And it isn’t so much that I need to know that my neighbor’s children are educated, but that parents whose children are in public schools deserve to know something about those schools in order to make decisions affecting the education of their own children.
I agree with you completely (and, incidentally, with the NEA & its teachers) regarding the dangers of these unintended consequences of using test scores as the primary measure of educational quality. There are plenty of people trying to experiment with non-test methods of educational assessment that allow for diversity of educational philosophy and individual achievements. I would argue that that discussion needs to be more public, and that homeschoolers have some significant contributions to make. (Just look at how we have been able to advocate for more flexible assessments in college admissions!) We know enough to realize that test scores are a poor tool for the job–we just have not figured out what to use instead.
What we cannot do is avoid the job of quality assurance altogether. To do so would be to leave our respect for one another’s “diversity in thought and individuality” without a secure foundation. This is not market accountability that is at issue here, with the parents who have children in public or private schools have the right to influence the decisions made with regard to those schools. While such narrow market accountability is to be respected, what is at issue here is our accountability to civic trust, to the common good of the society we share with non-homeschoolers.
We do not get to bail out on this accountability because we don’t participate in a particular social service, or because we value freedom and independence. If we try to respond to demands for “accountability” with “It’s none of your business,” if we resist every sort of accountability, we will create the impression that we intend to betray the common good that our questioners have in mind. We will then find ourselves the target of mistrust, fear, prejudice, and regulation. If, on the other hand, we give a good account of ourselves, and make the case for the benefits of our way(s) of doing things (like Daniel did in Babylon), then we will find ourselves (much to the NEA’s surprise) becoming trusted partners in an educational revolution.
The government is accountable to it’s citizenry, but in this country, the citizenry is the government. It’s not so much that you need to know that your neighbor’s children are getting what the system promised them, but that your own freedom of conscience to define the common good and pursue the education you deem best for your children is strengthened, not destroyed, by your neighbor’s understanding and defense of your educational choices. To gain this, we need to work out the right kind of accountability. Test scores, I think, will play a very small part in it.
What sort of foundations would this kind of accountability be built on? What do we have to work with besides the scary vision of Puritan theocracy? For that, I’d look first to the description of the different sorts of ideas of liberty in Colonial America described in David Hackett Fischer’s cultural history, Albion’s Seed.
Puritain notions of freedom as a sort of Godly, communal set of “ordered liberties” are only one American cultural resource upon which we can draw in thinking about how we are accountable to one another. The Puritans’ liberties included some that we would be loath to give up today (e.g., the right to legal counsel in court, or to be exempt from cruel & unusual punishment). They would have seen the selectmen as preserving the liberty, not of individuals, but of the community as a whole to pursue the right and the good, and in that sense I think we would want to make space for such liberty in our culture today.
I agree that the narrow, intolerant definitions of which “right & good” we should have liberty to pursue, and the theocratic indoctrination that the Puritans practiced makes their ways of doing things a flawed foundation for us today. (Both the Left & the Right, IMHO, have areas in which they have failed to avoid this temptation to ideological tyranny.)
But our society as a whole will make moral commitments (whether or not we agree as individuals with the particular commitments it makes), and I think that is a good thing.
There are also problems with the foundations left to us by the ideas of aristocratic liberty practiced by Southern Cavalier Gentlemen of Virginia, which closely linked liberty as personal self-determination, protection of property & the rule of law, and strong personal character (a la George Washington or Robert E. Lee) with high status (in terms of gender, class, and race) in a social hierarchy and dominion over others. As you quoted in your earlier post to which I linked above, it was a system that, “helped to perpetuate the sharply defined social-class structure which existed in the South. There were planters (plantation owners) and there were slaves…” Reading the rest of that page on the Notre Dame site make it clear that the resistance of the South to Northern ideas of public education stemmed in part from a desire to avoid a prophetic challenge to the racism of their society:
As much as I admire some of the ideals of this tradition, the idolatry of status and power (which goes to those who can pay for it) has left it, even in today’s more egalitarian world, with a blindness or even a haughty disregard toward the reality and power of oppressive social structures. This also is not a foundation upon which I want to build. (Some in both the Left & the Right, IMHO, have recognized the need to overcome this sort of injustice in society, while others continue to preserve and protect their particular favored elites.)
For a better foundation, we could probably look to Pennsylvania Quaker ideals of “reciprocal liberty” rooted in the Golden Rule and Christian faith in God’s leading us toward truth, but extending to people of every faith and status, even to the extent of protecting minority values and beliefs that are not common to all and actively working to redress past and current injustices through actions based on common conviction and consent.
I’d suspect that this tradition of American liberty is weakened when secularized in an ethically neutral “naked public square,” and that it needs instead a “civil public square” to thrive. (This last phrase taken from Os Guinness.) Both the Puritan tradition of binding moral commitments on the part of society as a whole, and the Cavalier tradition of respect for strong personal independence and character (as well as Backcountry values of the right to one’s own free & independent elbow room), can help strengthen this basic Pennsylvannian foundation.
Just resisting oversight is not enough to secure our freedom. We need to use every good thing we can find in our history and culture to build a strong foundation for education in our society today and into the future.
Ach — sorry for the length. You pack so much into just a few paragraphs, Dana, and it is all worth discussing and thinking about.
Dana said:
“And it isn’t so much that I need to know that my neighbor’s children are educated. . .”
I used to think I believed that too, but now I feel we’re seeing the real dangers of a population near the tipping point of dangerous-to-democracy ignorance. Michele Bachmann, Congresswoman able to get reelected by openly calling for McCarthyite investigations into “antiAmerican” tendencies of her fellow elected officials. This TX school board member calling the president-elect a terrorist sympathizer plotting to overthrow our government. Etc. In the last 10 years we nearly tipped into the depths more than once imo. So I do now see education however obtained (not mere schooling and testing) for my neighbors’ children as essential to our justice system, economy, common defense and my own continued liberty.
And yet I would bet most of them and their supporters are publicly educated. So how is submitting to the public education system going to change that? I’ve listened to people call Bush a terrorist for four years at least, know from experience that you don’t put a bumper sticker for a Republican on your car in the Lawrence, KS or your property will be vandalized and was dismissed as “stupid” along with 62 million other Americans who voted for Bush last election. Even got to have a book published in our honor “What’s the Matter with Kansas.”
And we have teachers harassing students for supporting McCain? Vice Presidential candidates hanged in effigy?
But the last thing I’d ever do is block speech or attempt to control what other parents are teaching their children. You are worried about “McCarthyite investigations” of elected officials, but what will the investigation look like when it enters private homes?
If we give that much power to the state, we will see the same thing we are seeing now amplified. But I think a lot of it has been there since the beginning…you just don’t see it as much when you don’t have it coming across your TV or computer.
What we give up to get our way, we can lose in one election cycle. I don’t want to invite the government into that role.
Circle Reader, this is where we disagree:
…what is at issue here is our accountability to civic trust, to the common good of the society we share with non-homeschoolers.
I don’t get to bail out of accountability because I don’t use certain services. I still believe that our government is there to serve us, not the other way around. The common good of society is the protection of the individual, not the assimilation of all of us into a single mode of thought, action or education.
And I know that you are not saying that we all need to assimilate in such a way. I just believe strongly that when individuals are forced to sacrifice for the good of society, society itself suffers. When individuals are allowed to become all they can be, and are not forced into definitions or roles, society benefits.
Dana, all those examples fit into the argument against ignorance too! But you misunderstand if you think I said anything about forcing submission to the public school system. I tried to be explicit in saying that was NOT what I meant:
“I do now see education however obtained (not mere schooling and testing) for my neighbors’ children as essential to our justice system, economy, common defense and my own continued liberty.”
Ok, then maybe I need to clarify. Yes, I think my neighbor’s children need to be educated. And while you will find hefty public school criticism around here, you will never find me calling for its abolition. I am a strong advocate of public education.
I would love to see more private initiatives, but they need to appear before I would even consider changing the public system. Decent alternatives are not going to sprout up by suddenly pulling all the money out of the system and leaving it to fail. Actually, the more I hear ranting about unconstitutional public schools, the more I want to ask how many private schools they have started for low-income students. I know of one in the entire United States. I would hope there are more, but I’m still a bit upset that private Christian schools in particular are cost prohibitive. Most of the people I know who homeschool do so because they can’t afford the tuition.
My interest in education extends to being committed to making sure there is education available. I pay my taxes and do not grumble about it. We buy the little nuts and candies and whatever else kids in our district come around selling. And I do my best to try to figure out who is running for school board because I do have an interest and I think our schools deserve the best people available.
I love it when they also support homeschooling, but I was 100% behind our previous commissioner of education despite the fact I had heard he was anti-homeschooling. Publicly and policy-wise he took a neutral stance. And he fought for what he believed was best for our public schools…I could never ask for anything more from someone whose job description centers on the public system, not private and home education.
There are excellent programs out there. I used to work for one. They come under heavy criticism in my circles because people feel that “parent training” is not the role of the state and many see even more insidious goals beyond just questioning the roles.
But the parent training program I worked for in my district was outstanding and I would love to see it in every district. We held seminars and went to parents’ homes teaching them that they were their children’s first teachers and showing them that even if they couldn’t speak English and even if they couldn’t read, they could still play an important role in the education of their children.
My superviser taught one illiterate, non-English speaking mother how to “read” to her child using only picture books. As mom started to get involved, her child’s interest in school began to increase, his behavior improved and he began reading because he had a positive model at home.
If I ever go back to the classroom, it will be to work with parents, not the children. It was amazing how much a child’s education advanced when their parents took even a little extra notice in the home.
“If I ever go back to the classroom, it will be to work with parents, not the children.”
Amen! When FL passed a constitutional amendment for “high quality” fulltime universal pre-k programs, I wrote an op-ed column for the capital newspaper arguing as an education policy professional that the highest best use of the funds would be for parents, and let the kids nap or play outside. Or at least for the parent and child to come together, maybe for a half-day only but funded as one whole day equivalent(two half FTEs) — to read stories in rocking chairs together, to dance and play with words and puppets and blocks and water tables and clay, to paint and color side by side all while early education teachers modeled and engaged both as a couple.
Our district did that, except the kids came along. They came to play with their kids once a week and were shown how to make toys out of common everyday items, taken to get library cards and shown how much they could do for and with their children without money.
I thought it was a good program and the direction we should be going instead of this focus on schools. I understand the need for daycare opportunities for those who have to work and don’t mind it so long as we continue to recognize that this is the best second choice, not the ideal.
“…[NEA] understand the accountability measures in NCLB take away the flexibility of the teacher to do what is needed in the classroom by focusing too heavily on narrow definitions of success and without taking into account the individual needs and backgrounds of each student.”
This is a myth. I believe it was edweek that recently noted the study showing teachers are still in charge of what they do in the classroom more so than their principal or district administration, regardless of local, state, or federal passed laws or curriculum. I believe this is why so many teachers don’t speak up collectively regarding eduction reform. The “teacher” mystique holds everyone at bay with admiration, but testing is meant not to control what method is used but to determine if it is effective. Simple. To argue it replaces or changes what is taught in the classroom is to use the talking point of unions.
Furthermore, one must realize standardized testing does not measure a child’s success to advance from grade to grade, that is the purpose of report cards and teachers. The focus of standardized testing or NCLB is to measure how effective schools, districts, and states are in remediating students. That’s it. How else can a parent effectively advocate for services or methods to allow their student to catch up to their peers if they don’t know how far behind they are? This data is obtained from NCLB and state standardized tests. The NEA, et all, object to accountability efforts without saying or recognizing the true identity and shame of not meeting student’s needs for remediation. These students would require more funding so they never go there. Instead, they enlist the typical parents to voice descent based on bias. Shameful.
As for how this relates to homeschoolers, we don’t operate in a vacuum. Accountability is important. Parents who transfer their responsibility to educate their children over to the state, have accountability in a high school diploma (or for those at risk or special needs, NCLB testing to show remediation to achieve a high school diploma). Parents who retain this education responsibility, have accountability in GEDs (or minimally prepared for life and work). Wait? Don’t school drop outs get GEDs? Yes. In essence, those students who leave the system, are homeschooled too. The student has taken accountability for their own education.
If there should be any testing required for homeschoolers, it should be the passing of a GED. No standardized testing throughout the years as school systems do this for data used for curriculum, method, etc. to measure remediation not the end goal of a high school diploma. My homeschooled student will gladly test for a GED when ready, but states are still out of compliance with NCLB 6 years after it was enacted. True. Go check out your state compliance pages at the U.S. Dept. of Ed. website. While many states now have the proper plans written up now, they have yet to put them into practice. One can only surmise this has been a systemic delay in adopting NCLB while waiting for a change in federal party power. Unions hard at work in parent resistance.
What the Obama ed spokesperson was pushing in the sponsored education debate, was allowing portfolio review vs standardized testing. A bad idea. This is where students were long ago. A return to lowered standards and less data for accountability. Disturbing. As Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) co-authored NCLB, we can only hope there will be little tweaking from the Democrats in power with education data that affords parents and communities accountability. Because regardless if I homeschool, I am a member of my community and I should be valued. As such, I lend my support to parents and employers who need a way to measure just what that high school diploma means so I support NCLB (that “narrow definition of success”). Furthermore, I lend my support to parents who need accountability data to measure remediation for those not on diploma track so I support IDEA (that “taking into account individual needs and backgrounds of students”).
As for a win for smaller government? It matters not if what we get is ineffective and biased. Good luck to us all – go USA.