Cost of homeschooling (was Re: CATO, Friedman and the Privatisation of Public Schools)
Beth Clarkson
> In article <36B785F1...@feist.com>, Beth Clarkson <be...@feist.com> wrote:
>
> (big snip because I'm developing a different point)
>
> > Education need not be expensive. As many on this newsgroup have pointed out
> before,
> > much of the money that goes towards public schools is eaten up by mandates and
> > requirements that are not directly associated with education.
>
> A number may have "pointed this out," but none have yet to prove it. To
> be clear here, I'm not contending that their are neither any mandates nor
> any costs associated with them, I am merely questioning the assertion
> above about "much of the money..."
Whether you count as educational costs the fact that schools are providing
non-educational services or not, it doesn't change the fact that schools are
expensive and education need not be. Homeschoolers are able to provide a good
education at a much lower cost.
> Better yet, what of the mandate to educate special needs children? These
> are far more expensive children to educate and while the state and federal
> government may pick up most of the tab, the overall per pupil expense for
> the local school district rises.
Certainly, it costs more money to school special needs children. I'm not so certain
of how much more it costs to educate them. Obviously, different types of needs
would have different costs and the expenses involved in educating a physically
handicapped child would be different from the expenses involved in educating one who
is developmentally delayed or one who suffers from severe ADD.
My suspicion would be that home-schooling parents are able to provide an education
to special needs children at a much lower cost than public schools do, again
providing support to MK's contention that school is expensive, but education is
potentially cheap.
Further, I would suspect that for certain types of special needs such as
developmentally delayed, ADD, and ADHD, the cost of homeschooling them is very
comparable to the cost of homeschooling 'normal' children. I would suspect that
the main additional expense to the school is the fact that these children have to be
dealt with as individuals. When individualized education is the norm, as in
home-schooling, the additional cost for some special needs children may be minimal.
In another thread the benefits of standardized curriculum are being debated, so I
shan't belabor the point here, but one cost of such standardization is that
educating 'non-standard' or special needs children become more expensive.
I don't have any direct knowledge of the education costs of special needs children
though, so I'll cross-post this to home-schooling newsgroups in the hopes of getting
some anecdotal evidence on that point. I would appreciate it if those who respond
indicate what kind of special needs their child has.
1) - Are special needs children more expensive to home-educate than 'normal'
children?
2) - Is the cost of home-educating a special needs child greater than, less than, or
about the same as the amount allocated by the public school system to educate a
child with similar special needs?
Beth Clarkson
Elaine Harvey
welcome the conversation. Perhaps you could join us here in
misc.education.home-school.christian to continue? More below...
Beth Clarkson wrote:
I have 2 boys homeschooling at the moment. A 14 year old with profound ADD, LD in writen
language arts, gifted in math and science, IEP maintained with the ps system, medicated
and doing better in homeschooling. A 9 year old with moderate ADD, on grade level
academically, medicated and doing very well at home.
The only added expense I see in my home from the 'average' homeschooler (whoever that
might be) is that I do maintain a greater variety of materials, workbooks, manipulatives
and museum memberships. I do this to provide as much variety as possible to keep such
busy, adaptable minds focused. Rather than just reading about a subject, we exhaust it.
Do I feel this is absolutely necessary to their homeschooling? No, I could do as well
with much less, but it does make life so much more fun and exciting and I think we do
learn more than we would with a minimum of materials. But ultimately I could have all
the materials in the world but if I don't invest MY TIME to use them, they might as well
be in public school.
> 2) - Is the cost of home-educating a special needs child greater than, less than, or
> about the same as the amount allocated by the public school system to educate a
> child with similar special needs?
When my boys were in public school, special ed classrooms, they had 1 regular teacher, 1
spec ed teacher and 1 teaching assistant. This was the ONLY difference between their
classroom and any other. In fact, the teachers tended to travel to other classrooms
rather than the students. The classrooms did not have even basic accomodation materials
such as computer, manipulatives, graphic materials, quiet places, tape recorders,
NOTHING! despite the extra money recieved for spec ed kids. This is ultimately the
reason why I brought my son home. I have all of these things and they have none. Do I
think that schools should recieve more money to provide these things? Not until I see
where the money goes now, NO. If I can provide these simple things on my measly income,
then where is the money going in public schools?
Elaine Harvey
>
>
> Beth Clarkson
Kangamaroo
and it is either not possible to crosspost with AOL, or I just am not motivated
enough to figure it out.
You have my permission to forward this to the proper ng.
I also am not sure who wrote what, so I apologize for any confusion.
[]>> My suspicion would be that home-schooling parents are able to provide an
>education
>> to special needs children at a much lower cost than public schools do,
Yes, we do. The money we spend homeschooling Angel is actually somewhat less
than what we spend educating the other other children, as she doesn't use
textbooks, science kits, computer programs, take outside lessons, etc.
Her educational program consists almost entirely of learning real life skills,
dressing herself, sorting laundry, setting the table, doing puzzles, enjoying
music, brushing her own hair, spreading peanut butter on crackers, learning new
signs and ways to communicate. Most of the things we use and that she enjoys
are already in our home.
[]
> I would suspect that
>> the main additional expense to the school is the fact that these children
>have to be
>> dealt with as individuals.
[]
Very astute. That is it exactly. Or most of it. Another expense is that
'school' things for special needs children cost more than they should. Before
we adopted our daughter I looked through several catalogs of school supplies
for special needs classrooms. A set of cards for matching games was thirty
dollars or so. Those cards had pictures of things like a washer and a dryer, a
pair of socks and a pair of shoes, a comb and a brush. At home we can use the
real thing, or if we need to help our daughter learn to connect pictures with
real objects, we can cut them out of a catalog or magazine, or take the
pictures our selves, or print them up on the computer.
That's just one example, but I can think of dozens of others indicating that
the things which contribute to expenses in the public schools are just not
necessary in the home school.>> I don't have any direct knowledge of the
education costs of special needs
>children
>> though, so I'll cross-post this to home-schooling newsgroups in the hopes
>of getting
>> some anecdotal evidence on that point. I would appreciate it if those who
>respond
>> indicate what kind of special
>needs their child has.
>> 1) - Are special needs children more expensive to home-educate than
>'normal'
>> children?
AGain, no. Our daughter is 11 years old. She has been diagnosed with Cerebral
Palsy and Mental Retardation. She doesn't speak, does sign. According to the
last assessment test (required by the state of Washington), she functions at
about the level of a one year old. I disagree with that assessment, but she
does have special needs that the public school would have trouble meeting.
If she were in school, her IEP would consist largely of 'teaching real life
skills.' Since those skills would be taught in an artificial environment, it
would be both less effective and more expensive. We have found that the most
effective teaching materials with her are those around our home.
In school, for occupational therapy, Angel played with expensive play dough (a
special sort of putty), strung expensive beads, and used special tongs to move
beads from one bowl to another. At home, we make the playdough, bought cheap
beads at the craftstore, and she uses our regular tongs to put ice in drinks,
to pick up nuts and put them in a salad, and she tears the lettuce for the
salad, and practices other skills with real things.
>> 2) - Is the cost of home-educating a special needs child greater than, less
>than, or
>> about the same as the amount allocated by the public school system to
>educate a
>> child with similar special needs?
>
>
It is substantially less. I am able to do my own speech, occupational, and
physical therapy. The school would have to maintain three separate people to
provide this, in addition to the special needs teacher. I have been told
repeatedly by the therapists, the special ed teachers, and the psychologist of
our local school district that I am working wonders with our daughter, that the
school could not manage to accomplish what we have.
I visited the classroom Angel would attend if she were in school. In the
classroom they had nothing we can't duplicate easily, and cheaply, at home,
except for extra adults.
Out of the classroom there was a therapy pool, which Angel would have fun with,
but it isn't really a necessary part of her life. The therapy pool we can't
duplicate cheaply. But we don't need to.
Kanga
The highest form of bliss is living with a certain degree of folly.- Erasmus
Which may explain why we enjoy our seven children so much, particularly the
toddler right now.- Kanga
Beth Clarkson
> I am cross posting (against my normal preference) because I like the topic and would
> welcome the conversation. Perhaps you could join us here in
> misc.education.home-school.christian to continue? More below...
>
Thanks for responding with your additional information. I've eliminated most of the groups
from this follow-up.
There's a bit of a debate going on in misc.education regarding the cost of education vs. the
cost of schooling. One poster even went so far as to respond "Only if you want monkeys" in
regard to the idea that education need not be expensive. As a homeschooler, I found the
comment offensive and expressed disagreement. Of course, the subject of 'special needs'
kids and their commensurate additional cost to the public education system comes up. Since
I have no actual experience with educating a special needs child, I don't really know the
facts though your post does support my suspicions.
Thanks for sharing some real world experiences regarding educating your kids.
Beth Clarkson
Beth Clarkson
otherwise you will receive very many responses regarding the subject and questions
you have. Hopefully, some of the home-schoolers there will be kind enough to
provide more information.
tho...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <791rb8$sl6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> tho...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Could you please tell me the ACTUAL cost of homeschooling? How much do you
> > spend on computers, materials, books, etc.? Please make sure that you include
> > the cost of your time. I know that they are your children, but what is the
> > cost of your labor (how much time do you spend, total, on homeschooling)? Do
> > you consult with other adults? What is the cost of their time? I am curious
> > as to just how much homeschooling actually costs.
> >
> > James Powell
>
> 1. Sorry for not getting back sooner, work is a pain this week!
>
> 2. I know it is bad form to reply to your own post, but I am not sure this
> reply applies to any of the posted replies.
>
> Let me clarify the reasons for making the above request.
>
> 1. There have been many posts concerning the cost of education.
>
> 2. There have been many posts stating that it is cheaper to homeschool.
>
> 3. Herman insists that individualized instruction is the only way for good
> educational quality.
>
> 4. There is much debate over vouchers, tax credits, etc.
>
> Being of a scientific mind, I wanted to collect data. Let's put some numbers
> where we can. Hence: What is the ACTUAL cost of homeschooling? We need to
> quantify the labor costs as well as the materials.
I'm still not sure how you expect to go about doing this? As I stated earlier, how
do you quantify labor costs - or even time spent homeschooling? Do you view it as
the time spent actively working with the children? Per day, per week, per month?
Do you calculate it per child (and do you include children under school age who are
also being educated), per adult, or per family? Do you include the time spent
giving your children proper supervision during traditional school hours? Even if
you could compute an accurate average for the time spent home-schooling, it would
still have enormous variation, so I'm not sure how much help an average will be
without a corresponding understanding of the distribution of the time spent.
And how will you compute the cost of that time/labor? Do you price it at minimum
wage? Free? The going rate for a certified teacher? A teacher's aide? Is it
based on the parent's educational background and credentials? On what the parent
could be making if they were working instead? Or do you arbitrarily choose a value
that will be applied across the board.
> how much voucher/tax credit you should receive?
Believe it or not, not all homeschoolers are anxious to recieve vouchers or tax
credits for doing so. On the other hand, such a proposal could provide the
economic means for many who like to homeschool, but feel that they cannot afford to
do so in our current system.
> Is homeschooling really cheaper than the present educational system? How much of
> that is perceived
> savings from overlooking the hidden costs (like labor)? Is Herman's idea
> economically easible at all?
Is it truly a hidden cost to provide one's labor freely to one's children without
consideration of the economic payback? In addition, what about the hidden labor
cost of teachers who work many more hours than they are paid for to the benefit of
their students? Should we not also take that into consideration as well in
computing the cost of education? How could we measure that?
There are numerous additional costs in addition to labor that home-schoolers must
supply, and they do so without consideration of the cost as being part of the cost
of education.
Do you want to consider one-time expenditures such as furniture - desks, tables,
etc?
Do you want to include the cost of providing a space to study - a schoolroom so to
speak?
Do you want to include the costs of 'field trips' which can be anything from a day
at the park to a trip to the grocery store?
What about the costs of heating/air-conditioning the home-school? What about
maintence on the building we teach in? Facilities for preparing meals?
All of these things are costs that are born by schools, and must also be provided
by homeschoolers, but are not typically included in an estimate of a home-schoolers
costs. Nor should they be in my opinion. Most are expenses that would be incurred
by parents whether their children are home-schooled or not.
> Let's leave political rhetoric behind and try to understand and state the true
> cost of education in America. Are we really paying too much, or are we not
> paying enough? Once we have figures for homeschooling (data for public and
> private school expenditures can be taken from public databases), we might be
> able to see if costs can be cut.
I don't think the important question really revolves around are we paying too much
or too little, but rather are we providing a sufficiently high quality education
for the children in our society? And I don't think more money is the solution to
improving the quality of education.
There is an inverse relationship between cost and quality. If you concentrate on
cutting costs, quality will go down. On the other hand, if you concentrate on
improving quality, costs will go down. Homeschoolers concentrate on providing a
high-quality education; they end up with low costs.
Beth Clarkson
Elaine Harvey
Beth Clarkson wrote:
> Elaine Harvey wrote:
>
> > I am cross posting (against my normal preference) because I like the topic and would
> > welcome the conversation. Perhaps you could join us here in
> > misc.education.home-school.christian to continue? More below...
> >
>
> Thanks for responding with your additional information. I've eliminated most of the groups
> from this follow-up.
>
> There's a bit of a debate going on in misc.education regarding the cost of education vs. the
> cost of schooling. One poster even went so far as to respond "Only if you want monkeys" in
> regard to the idea that education need not be expensive. As a homeschooler, I found the
> comment offensive and expressed disagreement.
My first inclination is to defend my old buddies on MEHS.M and say that we all have very
different goals for our children's educations. Some of us set goals that are quite high such as
a minimum of Calculus and Calc/Physics, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, and read all the classics.
Seriously, that's a legitimate goal for some of the kids who are homeschooling! Then again,
others of us are just looking for a good framework of solid math, communication and cultural
studies. But honestly, I have no idea what the person making that comment was reffering to, so
what business do I have offering a defense? Oh, well. Different group, different personalities,
different goals... you'd almost think we homeschoolers are just like 'real' people, eh?
> Of course, the subject of 'special needs'
> kids and their commensurate additional cost to the public education system comes up. Since
> I have no actual experience with educating a special needs child, I don't really know the
> facts though your post does support my suspicions.
Well Kanga offered a wonderfull perspective from an entirely different environment. Just goes to
prove, we really can all be right!
Elaine
Neil Tupper
Beth Clarkson wrote in message
>
>There is an inverse relationship between cost and quality. If you
concentrate on
>cutting costs, quality will go down. On the other hand, if you concentrate
on
>improving quality, costs will go down. Homeschoolers concentrate on
providing a
>high-quality education; they end up with low costs.
>
This is a peculiar leap in logic. While I will concede that increased
expenditure on education will not necessarily improve the quality, to claim
an inverse relation is patently ludicrous. Following this logic, if no money
at all were spent on education, the highest possible quality would result. I
don't think so.
Neil
Elaine Harvey
Beth Clarkson wrote:
> I am cross-posting this to the home-school newsgroups because I don't think that
> otherwise you will receive very many responses regarding the subject and questions
> you have. Hopefully, some of the home-schoolers there will be kind enough to
> provide more information.
As much as I hate cross-posting, this seems to be going OK, but if anyone gets bothered
by the cross posting PLEASE let me know and it stops right here! OK?
> tho...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> I'm still not sure how you expect to go about doing this? As I stated earlier, how
> do you quantify labor costs - or even time spent homeschooling?
I won't even try. I can't imagine how one would do this. As my children's mother, I
can't quantify my time with them, and since homeschooling is a 24/7 proposition, I
can't even imagine trying. Besides, even when my kids were in public schools, I still
spent the rest of the time 'homeschooling' of a sort. I think you would have to settle
with eliminating labor costs from the equation and assuming that they were equal. This
is not truly the case, but what else can you do?
> > how much voucher/tax credit you should receive?
>
> Believe it or not, not all homeschoolers are anxious to recieve vouchers or tax
> credits for doing so. On the other hand, such a proposal could provide the
> economic means for many who like to homeschool, but feel that they cannot afford to
> do so in our current system.
IME ONLY! It's been my observation that the homeschoolers who are in it for more
religious or idealistic reasons abhore the idea of any intrusion into their
homeschooling environment by the government. If one recieves any money from the
government, one can expect some intrusion, be it additional testing, inspections,
reporting, required curriculum. Then again, those who homeschool for more secular
reasons tend to be a little more forgiving of gov't assistance. I think the choice
should still be offered to accept assistance and the increased interferance, or not to
accept. My personal opinion is that the religious exemption that we have here in VA is
a good answer, but it should not be so subject to denial by the school board.
>
> Do you want to consider one-time expenditures such as furniture - desks, tables,
> etc?
> Do you want to include the cost of providing a space to study - a schoolroom so to
> speak?
> Do you want to include the costs of 'field trips' which can be anything from a day
> at the park to a trip to the grocery store?
> What about the costs of heating/air-conditioning the home-school? What about
> maintence on the building we teach in? Facilities for preparing meals?
The vast majority of homeschoolers that I know don't spend any more on furniture,
school rooms, or utilities in order to school. Most work from the kitchen table (or
EVERYWHERE else in the house :-) and consider the cost of utilities and food as part
of parenting. When the kids were in public school I still heated the house and fixed
their breakfast and lunch. I happen to have a school room with some 'school' furniture.
I am blessed to be able to do that. But please don't make me add up those costs, denial
is much easier ;-).
> > Let's leave political rhetoric behind and try to understand and state the true
> > cost of education in America. Are we really paying too much, or are we not
> > paying enough? Once we have figures for homeschooling (data for public and
> > private school expenditures can be taken from public databases), we might be
> > able to see if costs can be cut.
>
> I don't think the important question really revolves around are we paying too much
> or too little, but rather are we providing a sufficiently high quality education
> for the children in our society? And I don't think more money is the solution to
> improving the quality of education.
I agree. You can keep throwing money at the schools and still see no improvement in the
quality of education. I see the changes needed from two parties; the teachers and the
parents. Teachers need to be commited to the success of every child in the room and
parents need to be commited to the success of every child in their homes. Sounds easy
eh? Not by a long shot! As long as parents thrive on an entitlement mentality and
consider the kids 'taken care of' by the government schools then they will 1. send kids
to school whom teachers can't reach with a 10 foot pole and 2. will raise adults who
will grow up into teachers who expect no better than what they themselves recieved.
>
> There is an inverse relationship between cost and quality. If you concentrate on
> cutting costs, quality will go down. On the other hand, if you concentrate on
> improving quality, costs will go down. Homeschoolers concentrate on providing a
> high-quality education; they end up with low costs.
I would say that my experience bears that out also.
Elaine
>
>
> Beth Clarkson
Beth Clarkson
> Beth Clarkson wrote in message
> >
> >There is an inverse relationship between cost and quality. If you
> concentrate on
> >cutting costs, quality will go down. On the other hand, if you concentrate
> on
> >improving quality, costs will go down. Homeschoolers concentrate on
> providing a
> >high-quality education; they end up with low costs.
> >
>
> This is a peculiar leap in logic. While I will concede that increased
> expenditure on education will not necessarily improve the quality, to claim
> an inverse relation is patently ludicrous. Following this logic, if no money
> at all were spent on education, the highest possible quality would result. I
> don't think so.
No, that's not the logical conclusion, although the concept does seem
counter-intuitive to many people at first. It is, however, an accepted truism in
the Quality Improvement profession.
If you concentrate on improving quality, your costs will be lower as a result.
It doesn't imply that the costs will go to zero, just that high quality ends up
costing less than poor quality. Think of it this way: when you produce poor
quality, you end up having to spend a lot of money to correct the problem. It
costs more to fix something that wasn't done right in the first place than it
does to do the thing right to begin with.
Beth Clarkson
Neil Tupper
Beth Clarkson wrote in message <36B9CF2C...@feist.com>...
>
>
>If you concentrate on improving quality, your costs will be lower as a
result.
>It doesn't imply that the costs will go to zero, just that high quality
ends up
>costing less than poor quality. Think of it this way: when you produce
poor
>quality, you end up having to spend a lot of money to correct the problem.
It
>costs more to fix something that wasn't done right in the first place than
it
>does to do the thing right to begin with.
>
relation between cost and quality" means. I don't want to sound pedantic,
but claiming an inverse relation from the above paragraph does not follow.
Neil
Bob LeChevalier
>When my boys were in public school, special ed classrooms, they had 1 regular teacher, 1
>spec ed teacher and 1 teaching assistant. This was the ONLY difference between their
>classroom and any other. In fact, the teachers tended to travel to other classrooms
>rather than the students. The classrooms did not have even basic accomodation materials
>such as computer, manipulatives, graphic materials, quiet places, tape recorders,
>NOTHING! despite the extra money recieved for spec ed kids. This is ultimately the
>reason why I brought my son home. I have all of these things and they have none. Do I
>think that schools should recieve more money to provide these things? Not until I see
>where the money goes now, NO. If I can provide these simple things on my measly income,
>then where is the money going in public schools?
For those teachers and assistants and the support structure to back
them up.
Look at some rough numbers. If you figure that regular kids have one
teacher for 24 kids, special ed kids have one teacher and an assistant
for, say 8 kids to make the numbers even, then 24 special ed kids
require 6 times the personnel of 24 regular kids (although maybe only
5 times the cost since assistants are cheaper employees). Now given
that labor costs are 70% of school budgets, multiply that 70% times 5,
and you get the special ed kids costing 380% of the cost for regular
kids only.
lojbab
----
lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.
Bob LeChevalier
has little to do with non-US politics.
Beth Clarkson <be...@feist.com> wrote:
>"C. Smith" wrote:
>> > Education need not be expensive. As many on this newsgroup have pointed out
>> before,
>> > much of the money that goes towards public schools is eaten up by mandates and
>> > requirements that are not directly associated with education.
>>
>> A number may have "pointed this out," but none have yet to prove it. To
>> be clear here, I'm not contending that their are neither any mandates nor
>> any costs associated with them, I am merely questioning the assertion
>> above about "much of the money..."
>Whether you count as educational costs the fact that schools are providing
>non-educational services or not, it doesn't change the fact that schools are
>expensive and education need not be.
The question is as to what services are "educational", which is not
identical in meaning to "academic". To a kid in public schools,
physical education is considered by many to be part of "education"
whereas the closest hs school equivalent I presume would be membership
in a gym club, which costs would be part of the "cost of hsing"
whereas the same costs would be an extra non-education expense for a
public schooler. We have already discussed the accounting of music
lesson costs, which may or may not be "education expenses".
>Homeschoolers are able to provide a good
>education at a much lower cost.
We can agree that the out of pocket costs are lower, and maybe for
people who would not be working anyway, you can pretend to ignore
oppiortunity costs (but even though I was not working, I got a heck of
a lot more done in the years before we had kids than I do now).
>> Better yet, what of the mandate to educate special needs children? These
>> are far more expensive children to educate and while the state and federal
>> government may pick up most of the tab, the overall per pupil expense for
>> the local school district rises.
>Certainly, it costs more money to school special needs children. I'm not so certain
>of how much more it costs to educate them. Obviously, different types of needs
>would have different costs and the expenses involved in educating a physically
>handicapped child would be different from the expenses involved in educating one who
>is developmentally delayed or one who suffers from severe ADD.
>My suspicion would be that home-schooling parents are able to provide an education
>to special needs children at a much lower cost than public schools do, again
>providing support to MK's contention that school is expensive, but education is
>potentially cheap.
>Further, I would suspect that for certain types of special needs such as
>developmentally delayed, ADD, and ADHD, the cost of homeschooling them is very
>comparable to the cost of homeschooling 'normal' children. I would suspect that
>the main additional expense to the school is the fact that these children have to be
>dealt with as individuals. When individualized education is the norm, as in
>home-schooling, the additional cost for some special needs children may be minimal.
I think SOME may be able to educate their special needs children more
cheaply. But while I could probably do pretty good with my son who
fits in this category (ADHD and developmentally delayed) I am not sure
that I could do as good a job, and I am quite sure that I would go
stark raving mad, since my son is almost totally dependent on constant
attention from others when attempting to do work. If the public
schools have been unable to wean him if the need for massive
one-on-one time, I certainly would not be able to teaching him myself.
And this doesn't account for my daughter, who often needs hours of
attention on top of public schooling in order to keep up with the
educational pace.
From what I gather, homeschooling might work and be easier/cheaper if
you have the ability to teach your kids early on to work
independently, so that you can indeed keep the hschooling to a couple
hours a day. But I think few parents, even if they have the time,
have the parenting and the teaching skill. I don't - I would need 4
hours time with each kid and someone extra to keep tabs on the other
kid while I was helping one (or else the kid would end up parked in
front of the TV or on the phone).
>In another thread the benefits of standardized curriculum are being debated, so I
>shan't belabor the point here, but one cost of such standardization is that
>educating 'non-standard' or special needs children become more expensive.
I disagree. It would be easier because if the curriculum were
completely standardized then there would be less penalty if one gets
out-of-sync, changes schools, or is pulled out for extra work. You
always know what is being missed. An IEP could be a real PLAN and not
merely an adhoc coping method as too many seem to be, because even in
3rd grade, you could see where the child needs to get to by the
equivalent of 12th grade or age 18.
The cost of special needs kids is mostly the student teacher ratio, so
I agree that if parents have the knowledge and coping power to home
educate, then the 1 on 1 that theoretically can be provided is a real
benefit. There is nothing about nonstandardization that would make
this get more or less expensive. Standardization allows some measure
of accomodation in the classroom for some activities.
>1) - Are special needs children more expensive to home-educate than 'normal'
>children?
>2) - Is the cost of home-educating a special needs child greater than, less than, or
>about the same as the amount allocated by the public school system to educate a
>child with similar special needs?
Again, the true costs cannot be measured. If I were hschooling my
kids, I would properly have to add in the cost of therapy for myself
as an extra cost.
Becky Jaxon
>
> It's been my observation that the homeschoolers who are in it for more
> religious or idealistic reasons abhore the idea of any intrusion into their
> homeschooling environment by the government. If one recieves any money from the
> government, one can expect some intrusion, be it additional testing, inspections,
> reporting, required curriculum. Then again, those who homeschool for more secular
> reasons tend to be a little more forgiving of gov't assistance.
Please don't make such generalizations. I am part of a non-sectarian organization in a
state with almost no restrictions (IL). We are extremely happy with our independence and
are vehemently opposed to giving up any of it. To my mind, religion is not at all
relevant when evaluating the value of our freedom from governmental interference. In fact
many of us oppose vouchers for that exact reason. We do not wish to give the government a
reason to think they should regulate us.
Becky Jaxon
Beth Clarkson
Neil Tupper wrote:
Your correct. It is not an 'inverse relationship' in a strict linear sense. I
apologize for not being clearer in my first post.
Aaron Kuperman
incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents are fairly
well educated and fairly creative, and would probably be earning at least
$50000 or more. Even if they live in a big city with many opportunities to
spend money on special resources, the labor cost is the big item. Assuming
four children, that means a budget of probably $13,000 per child, which is
more than even the most affluent school districts, equal to elite prive
schools, and several times what poorer public schools spend per child.
[posted from home, not on company time]
Michael Oberle
Aaron Kuperman wrote in message <79j57k$7a9a$2...@rs7.loc.gov>...
No body here takes that into consideration except to make lifestyle changes
to permit Hsing. Hsing is still a far more economical way to educate our
children than either Gs or private schools. Also when you consider all of
the expenses that are associated with two incomes. It becomes a downright
bargain.
>
>[posted from home, not on company time]
I own the company. :-)
Thanks
Michael Oberle
NT...@ix.netcom.com
Minnesota The state where absolutely nothing is allowed
Jeff & Traci De
Man, I wanna know who you think would hire me at $50 thou...
Before I had my baby I was teaching Pre-school. I didn't make 20 thousand a
year. I'm not all that sure I made 15 thousand a year. Okay, I just checked on
it. I was the Head Teacher and assistant director of a pre-school and daycare
center. As such, I was one of the highest paid pre-school teachers in the area,
which averages minimum wage. Assuming a 40 hour work week, which was usual, I
grossed just over 13 thousand dollars. Lovely pay for all my education, don't
you think? LOL
Traci
--
From who I was to who I'll be
His love and grace has delivered me
C. Smith
> "C. Smith" wrote:
>
> > In article <36B785F1...@feist.com>, Beth Clarkson
<be...@feist.com> wrote:
> >
> > (big snip because I'm developing a different point)
> >
> > > Education need not be expensive. As many on this newsgroup have
pointed out
> > before,
> > > much of the money that goes towards public schools is eaten up by
mandates and
> > > requirements that are not directly associated with education.
> >
> > A number may have "pointed this out," but none have yet to prove it. To
> > be clear here, I'm not contending that their are neither any mandates nor
> > any costs associated with them, I am merely questioning the assertion
> > above about "much of the money..."
>
> Whether you count as educational costs the fact that schools are providing
> non-educational services or not, it doesn't change the fact that schools are
> expensive and education need not be.
This is not a fact, but an opinion. Merely stating that schools are
expensive without qualify it, much less quantify it, does not produce a
factual statement. Given that widespread education (mind you, I said
education, not schooling) did not occure until the rise of the industrial
revolution, it is pretty much a historical fact that education has been
expensive for most of human history.
> Homeschoolers are able to provide a good education at a much lower cost.
Pretty much the point of this thread was to debate whether in fact this is
true. Yet, you take it as a given.
Folks here have been having an earnest give and take about opportunity
cost and the like. I think we've got a long way to go before your claim
becomes fact.
> > Better yet, what of the mandate to educate special needs children? These
> > are far more expensive children to educate and while the state and federal
> > government may pick up most of the tab, the overall per pupil expense for
> > the local school district rises.
>
> Certainly, it costs more money to school special needs children. I'm
not so certain
> of how much more it costs to educate them. Obviously, different types
of needs
> would have different costs and the expenses involved in educating a physically
> handicapped child would be different from the expenses involved in
educating one who
> is developmentally delayed or one who suffers from severe ADD.
>
> My suspicion would be that home-schooling parents are able to provide an
education
> to special needs children at a much lower cost than public schools do, again
> providing support to MK's contention that school is expensive, but
education is
> potentially cheap.
Alas, your suspicion is not a sufficent basis for determining public
policy. So far all you have is a slogan ("school is expensive, but
education is potentially cheap") and nothing more.
Let's look at it another way. While most children have been attending
public schools for about 150 years, most disabled/special education
children have been attending public schools for only 20-30 years. Once
federal and state laws opened up public schools to these children in the
70's, why did most parents elect to send their children to public schools
and no longer keep them at home? Opportunity cost, perceived better
education, whatever the reasons, these parents voted with their feet, if
you will.
> Further, I would suspect that for certain types of special needs such as
> developmentally delayed, ADD, and ADHD, the cost of homeschooling them is very
> comparable to the cost of homeschooling 'normal' children. I would
suspect that
> the main additional expense to the school is the fact that these
children have to be
> dealt with as individuals. When individualized education is the norm, as in
> home-schooling, the additional cost for some special needs children may
be minimal.
I think you've missed the target by a wide margin. Whether in a school or
at home, an ADD or ADHD child is going to require more time and energy
than an average child. The average child can have much longer period of
self directed study/activity than the ADD/ADHD child. While the average
child can have half an hour or even an hour of self directed reading, the
ADD child is going to require constant attention. While both are
receiving "individualized education," in their home schooling, the
similarity ends there.
The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
experience or money required.
> In another thread the benefits of standardized curriculum are being
debated, so I
> shan't belabor the point here, but one cost of such standardization is that
> educating 'non-standard' or special needs children become more expensive.
>
> I don't have any direct knowledge of the education costs of special
needs children
> though, so I'll cross-post this to home-schooling newsgroups in the
hopes of getting
> some anecdotal evidence on that point. I would appreciate it if those
who respond
> indicate what kind of special needs their child has.
>
> 1) - Are special needs children more expensive to home-educate than 'normal'
> children?
See above.
> 2) - Is the cost of home-educating a special needs child greater than,
less than, or
> about the same as the amount allocated by the public school system to
educate a
> child with similar special needs?
Good, this at least quatifies part of the question and gets us away from
what we may or may not suspect is the case.
C. Smith
> Beth Clarkson
Michael Moy
> > My suspicion would be that home-schooling parents are able to provide an
> education
> > to special needs children at a much lower cost than public schools do, again
> > providing support to MK's contention that school is expensive, but
> education is
> > potentially cheap.
>
> Alas, your suspicion is not a sufficent basis for determining public
> policy. So far all you have is a slogan ("school is expensive, but
> education is potentially cheap") and nothing more.
>
> Let's look at it another way. While most children have been attending
> public schools for about 150 years, most disabled/special education
> children have been attending public schools for only 20-30 years. Once
> federal and state laws opened up public schools to these children in the
> 70's, why did most parents elect to send their children to public schools
> and no longer keep them at home? Opportunity cost, perceived better
> education, whatever the reasons, these parents voted with their feet, if
> you will.
Do a DejaNews lookup on home schooling and childhood disabilities and
you'll see a lot of matches. Home schooling is certainly discussed a
lot in the disabilities forums. I know that there are lots of home
schoolers with kids with disabilities from the hsing forums that I'm
on. The usual trigger, though, is that the school system isn't providing
something for their kids.
> > Further, I would suspect that for certain types of special needs such as
> > developmentally delayed, ADD, and ADHD, the cost of homeschooling them is very
> > comparable to the cost of homeschooling 'normal' children. I would
> suspect that
> > the main additional expense to the school is the fact that these
> children have to be
> > dealt with as individuals. When individualized education is the norm, as in
> > home-schooling, the additional cost for some special needs children may
> be minimal.
>
> I think you've missed the target by a wide margin. Whether in a school or
> at home, an ADD or ADHD child is going to require more time and energy
> than an average child. The average child can have much longer period of
> self directed study/activity than the ADD/ADHD child. While the average
> child can have half an hour or even an hour of self directed reading, the
> ADD child is going to require constant attention. While both are
> receiving "individualized education," in their home schooling, the
> similarity ends there.
The ADD child doesn't require constant attention. Neither does the ADHD
child. When you find something that the ADD/ADHD child is intensely
interested
in, you'll find it hard to tear them away from it. You just have to do a
good
selling job as to making things interesting. It also helps to have an
environment
where the child can work without distractions.
> The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
> effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
> parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
> experience or money required.
This depends on the disability. But electronic forums are providing a
lot of
ways for parents and specialists to collaborate on finding ways to solve
problems.
Elaine Harvey
Becky Jaxon wrote:
> Elaine Harvey wrote:
> >
> > It's been my observation that the homeschoolers who are in it for more
> > religious or idealistic reasons abhore the idea of any intrusion into their
> > homeschooling environment by the government. If one recieves any money from the
> > government, one can expect some intrusion, be it additional testing, inspections,
> > reporting, required curriculum. Then again, those who homeschool for more secular
> > reasons tend to be a little more forgiving of gov't assistance.
>
> Please don't make such generalizations. I am part of a non-sectarian organization in a
> state with almost no restrictions (IL). We are extremely happy with our independence and
> are vehemently opposed to giving up any of it. To my mind, religion is not at all
> relevant when evaluating the value of our freedom from governmental interference. In fact
> many of us oppose vouchers for that exact reason. We do not wish to give the government a
> reason to think they should regulate us.
I'm sorry if that came across as a sweeping generalization Becky. I truly didn't mean it that
way. It's just the way I've seen the groups in this area respond. I am also a 'secular'
homeschooler and oppose ANY govt interferance. Another reason I tend to hang out with the
Christian hs'rs rather than secular.
For further info, I would suggest consulting HSLDA. What I found in talking with them is that
1. they will not accept anyone who accepts money or assistance from the ps system AT ALL for
any reason including SSI benefits for a disabled child, and 2. it's mostly religious hs'rs who
rely on them the most. That is not to say that secular hs'rs are not there, but it's a
Christian based legal association folks, that's very clear. OK, but clear.
Elaine
>
>
> Becky Jaxon
Beth Clarkson
> The largest cost of home schooling is the opportunity cost (lost income)
> incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents are fairly
> well educated and fairly creative, and would probably be earning at least
> $50000 or more. Even if they live in a big city with many opportunities to
> spend money on special resources, the labor cost is the big item.
You are making a lot of assumptions here that do not correlate well with
reality. Yes, some homeschoolers give up a second income in order to do so,
but I am not convinced that it is a majority, or even a plurality. Many who
homeschool also work to generate income, whether in single parent families or
dual-income families. Further, many family who send their children to school
have one parent who does not work. I haven't seen any statistics on the
difference in % of two-income vs. one-income families between the two groups.
Further, I think that presuming that most homeschoolers would be earning at
least $50,000 or more if they choose to work instead of homeschooling (which
presumes that they aren't already working) is ludicrous. What data do you
have to support such a contention?
Glen Appleby
Kuperman) wrote:
>The largest cost of home schooling is the opportunity cost (lost income)
>incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents are fairly
>well educated and fairly creative, and would probably be earning at least
>$50000 or more. Even if they live in a big city with many opportunities to
>spend money on special resources, the labor cost is the big item. Assuming
>four children, that means a budget of probably $13,000 per child, which is
>more than even the most affluent school districts, equal to elite prive
>schools, and several times what poorer public schools spend per child.
From where do you draw this information?
See, I know hundreds of homeschoolers. Now there *are* some who
make good money. The majority, though, seem to be just middle
class folks (I'm guessing in the range of $20k - $30k per year
for the combined household income) and there is one heck of a lot
of them who are at the poverty line who are doing an amazing job.
Now, if what you are attempting to do is to associate a cost with
a parent trying to do the best that they can for their children,
in order to say that costs more than a publik skool education,
then you might be missing something *pretty* important.
--
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@got.net <http://www.armory.com/~glena/>
Glen Appleby
On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 01:54:24 -0800, in
misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>Let's look at it another way. While most children have been attending
>public schools for about 150 years, most disabled/special education
>children have been attending public schools for only 20-30 years. Once
>federal and state laws opened up public schools to these children in the
>70's, why did most parents elect to send their children to public schools
>and no longer keep them at home? Opportunity cost, perceived better
>education, whatever the reasons, these parents voted with their feet, if
>you will.
<snip>
>I think you've missed the target by a wide margin. Whether in a school or
>at home, an ADD or ADHD child is going to require more time and energy
>than an average child. The average child can have much longer period of
>self directed study/activity than the ADD/ADHD child. While the average
>child can have half an hour or even an hour of self directed reading, the
>ADD child is going to require constant attention. While both are
>receiving "individualized education," in their home schooling, the
>similarity ends there.
>
>The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
>effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
>parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
>experience or money required.
Is the "ADD/ADHD" your "special needs" argument?
Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
took off like rockets!
The problem was that they were *bored* by skool. They wanted to
do everything at once and the skool system was holding them back
from doing that.
Once they were put in charge of their own learning, they were
able to organize their lives so that they *could* learn all of
the tings that they wanted to learn. Heck, there is one of these
kids that, every time that I am around him, he both fires me up
and exhausts me with all that he has learned and all that he
wants to learn.
Donna Metler
Michael Moy wrote:
> C. Smith wrote:
>
> > > My suspicion would be that home-schooling parents are able to provide an
> > education
> > > to special needs children at a much lower cost than public schools do, again
> > > providing support to MK's contention that school is expensive, but
> > education is
> > > potentially cheap.
> >
> > Alas, your suspicion is not a sufficent basis for determining public
> > policy. So far all you have is a slogan ("school is expensive, but
> > education is potentially cheap") and nothing more.
> >
> > Let's look at it another way. While most children have been attending
> > public schools for about 150 years, most disabled/special education
> > children have been attending public schools for only 20-30 years. Once
> > federal and state laws opened up public schools to these children in the
> > 70's, why did most parents elect to send their children to public schools
> > and no longer keep them at home? Opportunity cost, perceived better
> > education, whatever the reasons, these parents voted with their feet, if
> > you will.
>
> Do a DejaNews lookup on home schooling and childhood disabilities and
> you'll see a lot of matches. Home schooling is certainly discussed a
> lot in the disabilities forums. I know that there are lots of home
> schoolers with kids with disabilities from the hsing forums that I'm
> on. The usual trigger, though, is that the school system isn't providing
> something for their kids.
>
However, often children who are in alternative school settings, including
home-schooled who have special needs, at least in the US, are still recieving
therapies and services from the local school district and/or other governmentally
funded services. The only children I have seen mentioned who are not doing so are
those whose disabilities require compensation only in learning environment, such as
children with ADHD, LD, and some forms of mental retardation. Since generally he only
accomodation these children need is additional, one-on-one or small group instruction,
and since homeschooling provides this innately, naturally these children can be well
served in the homeschooling setting PROVIDED:
1)The parent has the patience needed to educate a child with these needs. Not all
parents have this. My parents raised two children with special needs-I have cerebral
palsy, and my brother is ADHD. My mother, who is a homeschooling advocate, has made
the comment repeatedly that while she probably could have homeschooled me, she
probably would have ended up abusing my brother if she hadn't had that break-she
needed all the patience she had just for the afternoon and evening hours.
>
For children with other disabilities, the difference in progress which can be made
with appropriate therapies can't be overstated. It is much more efficent for a speech
therapist to see children at school, where many brief sessions can be done, throughout
the week (which is often what is needed) then for the therapist to go to the children
or for the children to come to the therapist, necessitating transportation. It's
simply not a cost-effective solution for parents to drive a child to therapy for, say
15 minute sessions daily, and it's not as good in many forms of therapy for the child
to have only one longer session a week. While parents can do a great deal of teaching
themselves, and often have to learn a great deal with a special needs child, they
cannot and should not try to be the speech therapist, physical therapist, occupational
therapist etc. Until the early '70's, the only children who got these services were
those who had parents who put out the money, out of pocket, for them. Look at the
employment rates now for those with disabilites compared to previous generations. Look
at the kid of jobs held. The reason why the ADA wasn't passed until 1990 is that until
then, there weren't enough persons with disabilites in the general population for
discrimination to be noticable.
>
>
> > > Further, I would suspect that for certain types of special needs such as
> > > developmentally delayed, ADD, and ADHD, the cost of homeschooling them is very
> > > comparable to the cost of homeschooling 'normal' children. I would
> > suspect that
> > > the main additional expense to the school is the fact that these
> > children have to be
> > > dealt with as individuals. When individualized education is the norm, as in
> > > home-schooling, the additional cost for some special needs children may
> > be minimal.
> >
> > I think you've missed the target by a wide margin. Whether in a school or
> > at home, an ADD or ADHD child is going to require more time and energy
> > than an average child. The average child can have much longer period of
> > self directed study/activity than the ADD/ADHD child. While the average
> > child can have half an hour or even an hour of self directed reading, the
> > ADD child is going to require constant attention. While both are
> > receiving "individualized education," in their home schooling, the
> > similarity ends there.
>
> The ADD child doesn't require constant attention. Neither does the ADHD
> child. When you find something that the ADD/ADHD child is intensely
> interested
> in, you'll find it hard to tear them away from it. You just have to do a
> good
> selling job as to making things interesting. It also helps to have an
> environment
> where the child can work without distractions.
>
Again, it depends on the parent. The big advantage a classroom teacher has is
respite-there are other adults around to call on, immediately, if the stress level is
too high. There is a really interesting book called _When children invite child abuse_
(I don't have a copy here, and don't recall the author) which looked at statistics and
found that children with mild disabilities are the most likely to get abused, once
socio-economic factors are controlled for, and the most typical situation was the
parent who was really trying to work with and help this child, and got frustrated.
These were children who were generally out of the house for at least part of the day.
Parents who home-school have to have some form of respite as well, and that is a even
greater need for the parent of the high-need child.
>
> > The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
> > effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
> > parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
> > experience or money required.
>
> This depends on the disability. But electronic forums are providing a
> lot of
> ways for parents and specialists to collaborate on finding ways to solve
> problems.
Agreed-however, I can tell you that I have had cerebral palsy my entire life, and have
read and studied more about it then many professionals. I do not, however, have the
specific knowledge needed to set up the type of comprehensive therapy/education plan
needed to help a child reach their full potential. This takes more than occasional
collaboration-it takes a group of knowledgable adults working with the child.
I had the opportunity (which I was unable to take, due to outside reasons) to be
involved with a charter school focused on inclusion, which was attempting to create a
completely individualized program for all of their students, while still providing
needed support services. So far, the experiment appears to be a success, and I hope
that other schools are able to follow this example, because it seems to create the
best of both worlds.
Donna Metler
Jeff & Traci De wrote:
> Aaron Kuperman wrote:
> >
> > The largest cost of home schooling is the opportunity cost (lost income)
> > incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents are fairly
> > well educated and fairly creative, and would probably be earning at least
> > $50000 or more. Even if they live in a big city with many opportunities to
> > spend money on special resources, the labor cost is the big item. Assuming
> > four children, that means a budget of probably $13,000 per child, which is
> > more than even the most affluent school districts, equal to elite prive
> > schools, and several times what poorer public schools spend per child.
> >
> > [posted from home, not on company time]
>
> Man, I wanna know who you think would hire me at $50 thou...
>
> Before I had my baby I was teaching Pre-school. I didn't make 20 thousand a
> year. I'm not all that sure I made 15 thousand a year. Okay, I just checked on
> it. I was the Head Teacher and assistant director of a pre-school and daycare
> center. As such, I was one of the highest paid pre-school teachers in the area,
> which averages minimum wage. Assuming a 40 hour work week, which was usual, I
> grossed just over 13 thousand dollars. Lovely pay for all my education, don't
> you think? LOL
>
> Traci
>
And this just shows how poorly education is regarded in this society. Given all the
studies which show that the first years are the most important in a child's life,
you'd think that those who choose to work with young children would make a living
wage!
(I used to teach Head Start, and literally doubled my salary by moving to a public
school system-which still is considerably less than I could make with my level of
education in just about any other field. The company my husband works for employs
several former school teachers, who could make more money answering tech-support
phone calls (company trains, only basic computer knowledge required) than teaching.
Sad, isn't it!)
C. Smith
> C. Smith wrote:
>
> > > My suspicion would be that home-schooling parents are able to provide an
> > education
> > > to special needs children at a much lower cost than public schools
do, again
> > > providing support to MK's contention that school is expensive, but
> > education is
> > > potentially cheap.
> >
> > Alas, your suspicion is not a sufficent basis for determining public
> > policy. So far all you have is a slogan ("school is expensive, but
> > education is potentially cheap") and nothing more.
> >
> > Let's look at it another way. While most children have been attending
> > public schools for about 150 years, most disabled/special education
> > children have been attending public schools for only 20-30 years. Once
> > federal and state laws opened up public schools to these children in the
> > 70's, why did most parents elect to send their children to public schools
> > and no longer keep them at home? Opportunity cost, perceived better
> > education, whatever the reasons, these parents voted with their feet, if
> > you will.
>
> Do a DejaNews lookup on home schooling and childhood disabilities and
> you'll see a lot of matches. Home schooling is certainly discussed a
> lot in the disabilities forums. I know that there are lots of home
> schoolers with kids with disabilities from the hsing forums that I'm
> on. The usual trigger, though, is that the school system isn't providing
> something for their kids.
I don't doubt for a moment that there are many disabled children being
home schooled. That wasn't my point. Would you agree with me that there
are many more disabled children in public school now than there were 20-30
years ago (which was my point). When finally given a real choice in the
70's, the parents of disabled children elected to put their children in a
public school setting. For whatever reasons, they found this to be a
better answer than home schooling.
> > > Further, I would suspect that for certain types of special needs such as
> > > developmentally delayed, ADD, and ADHD, the cost of homeschooling
them is very
> > > comparable to the cost of homeschooling 'normal' children. I would
suspect that
> > > the main additional expense to the school is the fact that these
children have to be
> > > dealt with as individuals. When individualized education is the
norm, as in
> > > home-schooling, the additional cost for some special needs children may
> > be minimal.
> >
> > I think you've missed the target by a wide margin. Whether in a school or
> > at home, an ADD or ADHD child is going to require more time and energy
> > than an average child. The average child can have much longer period of
> > self directed study/activity than the ADD/ADHD child. While the average
> > child can have half an hour or even an hour of self directed reading, the
> > ADD child is going to require constant attention. While both are
> > receiving "individualized education," in their home schooling, the
> > similarity ends there.
>
> The ADD child doesn't require constant attention. Neither does the ADHD
> child. When you find something that the ADD/ADHD child is intensely interested
> in, you'll find it hard to tear them away from it. You just have to do a good
> selling job as to making things interesting. It also helps to have an
environment
> where the child can work without distractions.
The amount of supervision/attention obviously depends on the severity of
the condition and the activity being attempted. Even if you find
something the child is intensely interested in, that's doesn't get the job
of education done. If the child is interested in math, he/she still needs
to learn English, science, history, etc. Will you agree that there are
going to be days when you're trying to teach something he/she is not
particularly interested in? Again, depending upon the severity of the
condition, there can be plenty of distractions no matter where the child
is. Please note that I never said that these children require "constant
attention." Those are your words, not mine. Do you agree that a child
with this condition is going to take more effort than a normal child?
> > The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
> > effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
> > parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
> > experience or money required.
>
> This depends on the disability. But electronic forums are providing a lot of
> ways for parents and specialists to collaborate on finding ways to solve
> problems.
Which in turn requires some skills.
For whatever reasons, many parents come to the conclusion that they don't
feel capable of taking on this challenge. I would assume that you respect
their decision in this regard.
C. Smith
C. Smith
> [removed can.politics,nz.politics]
>
> On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 01:54:24 -0800, in
> misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>
> >Let's look at it another way. While most children have been attending
> >public schools for about 150 years, most disabled/special education
> >children have been attending public schools for only 20-30 years. Once
> >federal and state laws opened up public schools to these children in the
> >70's, why did most parents elect to send their children to public schools
> >and no longer keep them at home? Opportunity cost, perceived better
> >education, whatever the reasons, these parents voted with their feet, if
> >you will.
> <snip>
> >I think you've missed the target by a wide margin. Whether in a school or
> >at home, an ADD or ADHD child is going to require more time and energy
> >than an average child. The average child can have much longer period of
> >self directed study/activity than the ADD/ADHD child. While the average
> >child can have half an hour or even an hour of self directed reading, the
> >ADD child is going to require constant attention. While both are
> >receiving "individualized education," in their home schooling, the
> >similarity ends there.
> >
> >The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
> >effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
> >parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
> >experience or money required.
>
> Is the "ADD/ADHD" your "special needs" argument?
No. Given the widespread attention to this condition at present, it
seemed to be an appropriate example to use.
> Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
> were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
> solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
> in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
> unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
> took off like rockets!
Let's come back down to Earth here. Schools do not perscribe
medications. A teacher/principal/counselor/etc. may recommend/encourage
the parents to have their child see a doctor with a view towards
perscribing an ADD medication, but the parents have to take that child to
the doctor, the doctor has to make the perscription, the parents have to
make sure that the child is taking the medication. Furthermore, there
have been articles in the papers about teachers who are very unhappy about
supervising/administering medication to children during the school day.
> The problem was that they were *bored* by skool. They wanted to
> do everything at once and the skool system was holding them back
> from doing that.
I'm sure that there are children for which that is more than true, but
that doesn't really address the larger issue here. There many children
with other conditions/disabilities that parents have concluded would be
better served by being in a school than at home.
> Once they were put in charge of their own learning, they were
> able to organize their lives so that they *could* learn all of
> the tings that they wanted to learn. Heck, there is one of these
> kids that, every time that I am around him, he both fires me up
> and exhausts me with all that he has learned and all that he
> wants to learn.
Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
C. Smith
jcamp
>Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
>children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>
I suppose you should ask the parents who do so, rather than asking a
homeschooling newsgroup. I suspect you'd find as many reasons why they made
the decision to send their children to be taught by others as there are
people. The reasons why we in our own family HOMESCHOOL my children are
quite broad. We think we can do a better job, for one reason. We don't like
the "peer group mentality". We believe that it is our responsibility as
their parents to ensure they get a good education, rather than foisting that
responsibility on others. We like our children and want to be the ones who
see that light go on when a child grasps a new concept, rather than have a
stranger enjoy that moment. We can't afford private school and have yet to
find one that mirrors our philosophy enough to want to entrust our
children's future to it, even if we did have the money. We have a very close
family and would like to keep it that way. We don't agree with the values
that are being taught in schools. We want our children to be independent and
know their own minds. We want them to have the private time needed to
fashion their own personalities in their own time. We looked at the options
out there and homeschooling our children has the most benefits to our
children and family in our opinion.
I think that perhaps some parents who send their children elsewhere for
their education simply aren't aware that they have any other choice. After
all the vast majority of them have also been educated away from home and
many people don't learn to think for themselves, ever. Some of them are
aware of the option but it seems too overwhelming for them to actually be
able to accomplish. (If I had a dollar for every time someone said to me,
"I've considered homeschooling, but it seems like so much work...I couldn't
do it!", I'd be a wealthy woman) Some take the path of least resistance.
Some must work and their children are too young to be home alone. Some don't
care as long as the kids are out of the house and out of their hair. A few
actually think that its the best option for their children, but not as many
as your statement would imply.
--
Joyce
Please check out my homepage
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ridge/1543
Need a carpet or tile floor cleaned?
http://www.freeyellow.com/members6/campco
PS: Beware of Geeks bearing .gifs!
Michael Moy
The default system is the public school system and that's what most
people
are familiar with. Information about home schooling is now widely
available
though you have to go out and look for it; we don't actively market it
like
some other organizations do. That more people are considering home
schooling
for special needs children is remarkable; given that it is little known
and
that it runs against the grain of our society of expertise.
As I said, it comes down to a selling job and perhaps some work in the
packaging. There are a lot of other things that help that are quite
difficult
to do in the classroom situation. If the child isn't interested in
something,
then present it in another way or put it down and come back to it later.
Or
let them get some vigorous exercise for a while and then try again. It
doesn't
have to be a battle if you have a lot of flexibility in the learning
environment.
> > > The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
> > > effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
> > > parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
> > > experience or money required.
> >
> > This depends on the disability. But electronic forums are providing a lot of
> > ways for parents and specialists to collaborate on finding ways to solve
> > problems.
>
> Which in turn requires some skills.
It can require skill and will require effort.
> For whatever reasons, many parents come to the conclusion that they don't
> feel capable of taking on this challenge. I would assume that you respect
> their decision in this regard.
There are some cases where I would and some where I wouldn't. It depends
on
the case. I'm sure you could think of some where you wouldn't respect a
parent's
decision.
Michael Moy
> However, often children who are in alternative school settings, including
> home-schooled who have special needs, at least in the US, are still recieving
> therapies and services from the local school district and/or other governmentally
> funded services. The only children I have seen mentioned who are not doing so are
> those whose disabilities require compensation only in learning environment, such as
> children with ADHD, LD, and some forms of mental retardation. Since generally he only
> accomodation these children need is additional, one-on-one or small group instruction,
> and since homeschooling provides this innately, naturally these children can be well
> served in the homeschooling setting PROVIDED:
The services available to home schoolers can be quite limited based on
district and
state.
> 1)The parent has the patience needed to educate a child with these needs. Not all
> parents have this. My parents raised two children with special needs-I have cerebral
> palsy, and my brother is ADHD. My mother, who is a homeschooling advocate, has made
> the comment repeatedly that while she probably could have homeschooled me, she
> probably would have ended up abusing my brother if she hadn't had that break-she
> needed all the patience she had just for the afternoon and evening hours.
I would have thought that the ADHD kid would have been easier.
> For children with other disabilities, the difference in progress which can be made
> with appropriate therapies can't be overstated. It is much more efficent for a speech
> therapist to see children at school, where many brief sessions can be done, throughout
> the week (which is often what is needed) then for the therapist to go to the children
> or for the children to come to the therapist, necessitating transportation. It's
> simply not a cost-effective solution for parents to drive a child to therapy for, say
> 15 minute sessions daily, and it's not as good in many forms of therapy for the child
> to have only one longer session a week. While parents can do a great deal of teaching
> themselves, and often have to learn a great deal with a special needs child, they
> cannot and should not try to be the speech therapist, physical therapist, occupational
> therapist etc. Until the early '70's, the only children who got these services were
> those who had parents who put out the money, out of pocket, for them. Look at the
> employment rates now for those with disabilites compared to previous generations. Look
> at the kid of jobs held. The reason why the ADA wasn't passed until 1990 is that until
> then, there weren't enough persons with disabilites in the general population for
> discrimination to be noticable.
I don't claim expertise in the special ed are except for experience with
ADHD kids.
What about the abuse that this type of kid gets in school? I would think
that this
would be a greater problem. These kids have a lot of energy but can
accomplish
a lot in a good environment. But I don't see how to provide a good
environment
for them in a classroom.
> > > The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
> > > effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
> > > parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
> > > experience or money required.
> >
> > This depends on the disability. But electronic forums are providing a
> > lot of
> > ways for parents and specialists to collaborate on finding ways to solve
> > problems.
>
> Agreed-however, I can tell you that I have had cerebral palsy my entire life, and have
> read and studied more about it then many professionals. I do not, however, have the
> specific knowledge needed to set up the type of comprehensive therapy/education plan
> needed to help a child reach their full potential. This takes more than occasional
> collaboration-it takes a group of knowledgable adults working with the child.
It is not clear to me that schools put in a good amount of effort to
help a child
reach their full potential. Especially in the ADHD area but also for the
general
population.
> I had the opportunity (which I was unable to take, due to outside reasons) to be
> involved with a charter school focused on inclusion, which was attempting to create a
> completely individualized program for all of their students, while still providing
> needed support services. So far, the experiment appears to be a success, and I hope
> that other schools are able to follow this example, because it seems to create the
> best of both worlds.
Is this special ed or general ed?
Internet Real Estate
> Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
>
Primarily economics. Unless a family is willing to sacrifice many of the
"extras" that some would call necessities, they will be two income
families.
While we had ours in private Christian school before we started
homeschooling, I had an aquaintance of mine actually stand in his driveway
in between his bass boat and Seadoo, with the Four Runner in his garage
... and he told me how he could not afford to send his kids to private
school.
Most homeschoolers and private schoolers believe their responsibilities
toward their kids greatly outshadow their needs for the extras. TOO MANY
baby boomers were part of the "me" generation ... and haven't grown out of
it.
Edward
------------------------------------
Internet Real Estate
"Sell Your Home Yourself - And Save Thousands!"
http://www.internet-real-estate.com/
C. Smith
<jc...@tpk.net> wrote:
> C. Smith wrote in message ...
>
> >Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
> >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>
> I suppose you should ask the parents who do so, rather than asking a
> homeschooling newsgroup.
One, this thread was originally just in misc.education and not the
homeschooling groups. Someone added the homeschooling groups to get
reaction to several issues that at least I've lost track of.
Two, my question was a response to the assertion by Beth that home
schooling produces better results at much less cost. It was not intended
to be inflamatory or provocative towards home schoolers.
> I suspect you'd find as many reasons why they made
> the decision to send their children to be taught by others as there are
> people. The reasons why we in our own family HOMESCHOOL my children are
> quite broad. We think we can do a better job, for one reason. We don't like
> the "peer group mentality". We believe that it is our responsibility as
> their parents to ensure they get a good education, rather than foisting that
> responsibility on others. We like our children and want to be the ones who
> see that light go on when a child grasps a new concept, rather than have a
> stranger enjoy that moment. We can't afford private school and have yet to
> find one that mirrors our philosophy enough to want to entrust our
> children's future to it, even if we did have the money. We have a very close
> family and would like to keep it that way. We don't agree with the values
> that are being taught in schools. We want our children to be independent and
> know their own minds. We want them to have the private time needed to
> fashion their own personalities in their own time. We looked at the options
> out there and homeschooling our children has the most benefits to our
> children and family in our opinion.
You have given a very, very good answer for why your family decided to go
this route. But in of itself, this doesn't respond to the question I
asked above.
> I think that perhaps some parents who send their children elsewhere for
> their education simply aren't aware that they have any other choice. After
> all the vast majority of them have also been educated away from home and
> many people don't learn to think for themselves, ever. Some of them are
> aware of the option but it seems too overwhelming for them to actually be
> able to accomplish. (If I had a dollar for every time someone said to me,
> "I've considered homeschooling, but it seems like so much work...I couldn't
> do it!", I'd be a wealthy woman) Some take the path of least resistance.
> Some must work and their children are too young to be home alone. Some don't
> care as long as the kids are out of the house and out of their hair. A few
> actually think that its the best option for their children, but not as many
> as your statement would imply.
>
> Joyce
While I'm sure there are at least some people who fit the various
descriptions/ situations you enumerate above, I don't find this to be a
very compelling reason for why 99% (give or take) do not home school.
Particularly unsatisfying for me was your assertion- "many people don't
learn to think for themselves." Beyond all the obvious words I could
bring to bear (insulting, condescending, etc.), the statement most
critically lacks any substance to it. Glen has just suggested the same
notion by lamenting the "mooo crowd." Any argument that depends
(especially so heavily) on such glib, unsupported claims is going to have
a tough go of it.
C. Smith
C. Smith
> On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:10:56 -0800, in
> misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>
> >In article <36bdc7c1...@news.got.net>, gl...@got.net (Glen
Appleby) wrote:
> >
> >> Is the "ADD/ADHD" your "special needs" argument?
> >
> >No. Given the widespread attention to this condition at present, it
> >seemed to be an appropriate example to use.
>
> OK, I went with it.
>
> >> Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
> >> were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
> >> solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
> >> in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
> >> unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
> >> took off like rockets!
> >
> >Let's come back down to Earth here. Schools do not perscribe
> >medications.
>
> Given that I never even suggested that they did and if you are
> suggesting that I did say that, it would be dishonest. We *know*
> that you aren't dishonest because you are concerned with MK's
> honesty, so I must assume that you are pulling this particularly
> stinky morsel out of some nasty orifice for some reason.
While I phrased it in the most dramatic way, the point remains implicit to
your statement- "...the skools' solution was to drug them into
mediocracy..."
No school has this "solution" available to them. No child is on
medication at the direction of a school. The teacher/principal might
suggest that the child see a doctor, the parents might agree, the doctor
might perscribe and so on... The reality is a far distance from what you
stated above.
> >A teacher/principal/counselor/etc. may recommend/encourage
> >the parents to have their child see a doctor with a view towards
> >perscribing an ADD medication, but the parents have to take that child to
> >the doctor, the doctor has to make the perscription, the parents have to
> >make sure that the child is taking the medication. Furthermore, there
> >have been articles in the papers about teachers who are very unhappy about
> >supervising/administering medication to children during the school day.
>
> However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
> either federal or state funds for every student that they have
> enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
To use my favorite answer, yes and no. Schools only receive extra $ for
students placed in special education. There have been stories in the
media of schools/ school districts that go out of their way to get kids
into special ed to pick up the extra dough. These stories are in the
media precisely because they are so exceptional.
Many, if not most, ADD/ADHD students do not qualify for special
education. They remain entirely in a regular classroom and the school
doesn't get an extra dime. Getting kids into special ed. isn't easy.
There are plenty of hoops you have to go through (including the parents'
permission).
> Seems to me that if the teachers want to play the game, payment
> should be in there somewhere.
If you do take a student into special education, you then have to provide
the extra services mandated by state and federal law in return for getting
the extra money. The extra cost is more or less the extra income, so
there's no real economic incentive to do so.
> >> The problem was that they were *bored* by skool. They wanted to
> >> do everything at once and the skool system was holding them back
> >> from doing that.
> >
> >I'm sure that there are children for which that is more than true, but
> >that doesn't really address the larger issue here. There many children
> >with other conditions/disabilities that parents have concluded would be
> >better served by being in a school than at home.
>
> You are the one who brought in ADD/ADHD. I'm just running with
> the ball that you gave me. If you want to change the game to
> basketball after you handed me a football, fine, but it was your
> ball.
Since, as you concurred above, I'm only using ADD/ADHD as an example, I'm
afraid that it is more than reasonable that I might vary from one to
another field of play from time to time.
But if you insist on focusing on ADD/ADHD, could you please tell me what
percentage of ADD/ADHD students meet the description you suggested above
(bored, the school was holding them back)?
> Some of the reasons that parents may want to send chindren who
> are differently abled to publik skool might include the desire
> for forced socalization. After all, any time that homeschooling
> is mentioned, this is one of the first cries that is heard from
> the publik skool proponents -- even though the socalization that
> one gets in publik skool has little to do with what they will
> experience for the rest of their lives after they leave skool.
Let's just be clear that this is a statement of opinion, not fact (though
I agree the concern about socialization is one of the first heard).
> >> Once they were put in charge of their own learning, they were
> >> able to organize their lives so that they *could* learn all of
> >> the tings that they wanted to learn. Heck, there is one of these
> >> kids that, every time that I am around him, he both fires me up
> >> and exhausts me with all that he has learned and all that he
> >> wants to learn.
> >
> >Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
> >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>
> Again, my first thought is the "mooooo" factor. Most people
> simply don't think.
You see this is where your argument really sucks for me. When anybody in
any debate relies on "most people simply don't think," I can't help but
take that as an admission of failure to make the case. It is essentially
unprovable and in my experience at least, is always based on the circular
logic that "most people don't agree with our philosophy/ideas/whatever,
ergo most people can not be thinking."
C. Smith
Marty Carts
Beth Clarkson wrote:
> Aaron Kuperman wrote:
Hi Beth, just wanted to reemphasize what you said about many
hsers not being in the position of "loosing" a second income. Before
we married my wife forwarned me that mechanical engineering was
simply a pastime, something to prove that she could (Boy oh boy,
could she ever!), and that m.e. wasn't in the long term forcast.
Opportunity cost for us is/was zero.
Also, $50K sounds a bit (a lot) much. _______________Marty
> > The largest cost of home schooling is the opportunity cost (lost income)
> > incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents [...]
> > would probably be earning at least $50000 or more. [...]
Gene Royer
C. Smith wrote:
> >
> > >Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
> > >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
I would think there are more than one reasons, none of which should be very
difficult to ferret out.
(1) Many parents do not feel capable enough to teach the core subjects.
(2) Many parents simply do not want to make the effort. The *lazy* factor.
(3) Many parents cannot devote the time (both spouses work, multiple-child
households, etc.)
(4) Many parents feel that if they have to pay school taxes, then they should
let the school do it.
(5) Many parents are relieved to get the kids out of the house for someone else
to babysit.
(6) Many parents cannot afford for one parent to stay home (closely tied to
numbers 3 and 4).
(7) Some parents do not know that the homeschool option is open to them.
(8) Some parents lack basic intelligence necessary to properly educate a child.
(9) Some parents mistakenly believe that homeschooled kids are not as well
educated as in pub.
(10) Some parents mistakenly believe that socialization is prerequisite to good
moral development.
(11) Some parents simply don't care one way or the other what kind of things are
being taught to their kids and prefer to take the easy way out.
There are probably others, but these are the answers I get when I consult
one-on-one with folks.
Gene Royer <http://www.lutzbooks.com/governance> Consultant to governing boards
of nonprofit and public organizations. Author: SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP 2000, The
Things Staff Didn't Tell You At Orientation. (Brockton 1996) Now in Second
Printing. Fax: 281-495-1323
Michael Moy
> Until the IDEA, home schooling, with limited if any support provided by the local
> school system, was the default for children with disabilities. It is still often the
> default for severe disabilities, except in large districts, under the guise "homebound
> insruction" (which, given the limited time alloted, amounts to homeschooling). The
> fact that parents of children with moderate to severe disabilities have regularly
> pushed for their child to be placed in as near a regular setting as possible and to
> not be isolated at home implies that for this group, homeschooling is often not a
> desired alternative.
Home schooling today is a lot different than it was even a few years
ago.
> ADHD and most Learning disabilities were not well known pre-IDEA, or at least not by
> current names, and certainly didn't affect as much of the school population.
I thought that ADD/ADHD were about 5% of the population. I've heard that
the numbers
are a lot higher but tend not to believe them.
Michael Moy
> > The default system is the public school system and that's what most people
> > are familiar with. Information about home schooling is now widely available
> > though you have to go out and look for it; we don't actively market it like
> > some other organizations do. That more people are considering home schooling
> > for special needs children is remarkable; given that it is little known and
> > that it runs against the grain of our society of expertise.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "more people are considering home
> schooling for special needs children..." More relative to whom or what?
More than would have considered it before the recent rise in hsing.
> > As I said, it comes down to a selling job and perhaps some work in the
> > packaging. There are a lot of other things that help that are quite difficult
> > to do in the classroom situation. If the child isn't interested in something,
> > then present it in another way or put it down and come back to it later. Or
> > let them get some vigorous exercise for a while and then try again. It doesn't
> > have to be a battle if you have a lot of flexibility in the learning
> > environment.
>
> I never said it was going to be a battle, just require more effort, a
> point you have re-enforced by your examples. You appear to agree that
> such a child is going to take more effort than a normal child to educate,
> public, private or home school.
Yes. But that the environment at home is better suited to this type of
child.
Glen Appleby
misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>In article <36be463b...@news.got.net>, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>No school has this "solution" available to them. No child is on
>medication at the direction of a school. The teacher/principal might
>suggest that the child see a doctor, the parents might agree, the doctor
>might perscribe and so on... The reality is a far distance from what you
>stated above.
Then please explain the alarmingly high number of kids in US
publik skools who are on Ritilin or other "dumbing down" drugs as
compared to, say, the UK.
>> However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
>> either federal or state funds for every student that they have
>> enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
>
>To use my favorite answer, yes and no.
Will you wash my back while you are at it?
>Schools only receive extra $ for
>students placed in special education. There have been stories in the
>media of schools/ school districts that go out of their way to get kids
>into special ed to pick up the extra dough. These stories are in the
>media precisely because they are so exceptional.
That's one assumption. Another might be because it is so
alarming.
>Many, if not most, ADD/ADHD students do not qualify for special
>education. They remain entirely in a regular classroom and the school
>doesn't get an extra dime. Getting kids into special ed. isn't easy.
>There are plenty of hoops you have to go through (including the parents'
>permission).
Once a parent is convinced that Johnnie has a problem and might
be "broken" (something that is often all too easy), it is pretty
simple for the skools to help them step easily through the hoops.
>> Seems to me that if the teachers want to play the game, payment
>> should be in there somewhere.
>
>If you do take a student into special education, you then have to provide
>the extra services mandated by state and federal law in return for getting
>the extra money. The extra cost is more or less the extra income, so
>there's no real economic incentive to do so.
Interesting. So the "special ed" teachers woulda been there
anyway? There is no incentive for administrators to build a
larger empire? Power doesn't corrupt?
>> You are the one who brought in ADD/ADHD. I'm just running with
>> the ball that you gave me. If you want to change the game to
>> basketball after you handed me a football, fine, but it was your
>> ball.
>
>Since, as you concurred above, I'm only using ADD/ADHD as an example, I'm
>afraid that it is more than reasonable that I might vary from one to
>another field of play from time to time.
OK, but trying to dribble a football is more difficult. Just
want to say that going in.
>But if you insist on focusing on ADD/ADHD, could you please tell me what
>percentage of ADD/ADHD students meet the description you suggested above
>(bored, the school was holding them back)?
Not right off (although I'll bet that somebody can -- this is a
pretty intense topic on various newsgroups). What I can do is
suggest that you look at the number of kids who are doing
"poorly" in skool. I would suggest that this number represents,
to a large degree, those not being served by the system. Then
look at the number of these who are described as ADD/ADHD.
(Hint: they tend not to bother with kids who are doing well)
Then (oh, this is a biggie!) look at the number who don't
graduate or who *just* squeek by. I believe that the number that
don't graduate is something along the lines of 25%.
*If* that number is valid, then we are saying that it is OK to
throw away 25% percent or more of our population, based on what
we are doing, now.
>> Some of the reasons that parents may want to send chindren who
>> are differently abled to publik skool might include the desire
>> for forced socalization. After all, any time that homeschooling
>> is mentioned, this is one of the first cries that is heard from
>> the publik skool proponents -- even though the socalization that
>> one gets in publik skool has little to do with what they will
>> experience for the rest of their lives after they leave skool.
>
>Let's just be clear that this is a statement of opinion, not fact (though
>I agree the concern about socialization is one of the first heard).
Well, having been long subscribed to various lists and newsgroups
involving homeschooling and unschooling and interacting
personally with hundreds of these people in real life, I'm not
sure what it takes to move if from opinion to fact in your mind.
Should I call Bekins?
>> >Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
>> >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>>
>> Again, my first thought is the "mooooo" factor. Most people
>> simply don't think.
>
>You see this is where your argument really sucks for me.
Whoa!
<unzipping my pants>
<realizing that this is a publik forum and sheepishly zipping up>
Sorry -- hormones.
>When anybody in
>any debate relies on "most people simply don't think," I can't help but
>take that as an admission of failure to make the case. It is essentially
>unprovable and in my experience at least, is always based on the circular
>logic that "most people don't agree with our philosophy/ideas/whatever,
>ergo most people can not be thinking."
Well, it may be a conversation stopper, but I can't help but look
around and see exactly that.
Look, it's not as if not thinking is a heinous crime. Heck, when
I get into something, I often strive for the ability to do it
without thinking. It serves me well when I am doing something
that I simply want to get done and it serves me well when I want
things to just flow.
The problem comes when we make pretty important decisions (like
sending kids to skool) without thinking about it as most people
simply do.
I'm not saying that everybody who sends their kids to skool does
it without thought. I *am* saying that most people who send
their kids to skool do so simply because "that is what is done."
C. Smith
I don't understand what you mean by "more people are considering home
schooling for special needs children..." More relative to whom or what?
> > > > > Further, I would suspect that for certain types of special needs
I never said it was going to be a battle, just require more effort, a
point you have re-enforced by your examples. You appear to agree that
such a child is going to take more effort than a normal child to educate,
public, private or home school.
> > > > The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
> > > > effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
> > > > parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
> > > > experience or money required.
> > >
> > > This depends on the disability. But electronic forums are providing
a lot of
> > > ways for parents and specialists to collaborate on finding ways to solve
> > > problems.
> >
> > Which in turn requires some skills.
>
> It can require skill and will require effort.
And that's all I'm saying.
> > For whatever reasons, many parents come to the conclusion that they don't
> > feel capable of taking on this challenge. I would assume that you respect
> > their decision in this regard.
>
> There are some cases where I would and some where I wouldn't. It depends on
> the case. I'm sure you could think of some where you wouldn't respect a
parent's
> decision.
Very, very rarely.
C. Smith
Donna Metler
Michael Moy wrote:
Until the IDEA, home schooling, with limited if any support provided by the local
school system, was the default for children with disabilities. It is still often the
default for severe disabilities, except in large districts, under the guise "homebound
insruction" (which, given the limited time alloted, amounts to homeschooling). The
fact that parents of children with moderate to severe disabilities have regularly
pushed for their child to be placed in as near a regular setting as possible and to
not be isolated at home implies that for this group, homeschooling is often not a
desired alternative.
ADHD and most Learning disabilities were not well known pre-IDEA, or at least not by
Glen Appleby
misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>In article <36bdc7c1...@news.got.net>, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>> Is the "ADD/ADHD" your "special needs" argument?
>
>No. Given the widespread attention to this condition at present, it
>seemed to be an appropriate example to use.
OK, I went with it.
>> Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
>> were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
>> solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
>> in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
>> unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
>> took off like rockets!
>
>Let's come back down to Earth here. Schools do not perscribe
>medications.
Given that I never even suggested that they did and if you are
suggesting that I did say that, it would be dishonest. We *know*
that you aren't dishonest because you are concerned with MK's
honesty, so I must assume that you are pulling this particularly
stinky morsel out of some nasty orifice for some reason.
>A teacher/principal/counselor/etc. may recommend/encourage
>the parents to have their child see a doctor with a view towards
>perscribing an ADD medication, but the parents have to take that child to
>the doctor, the doctor has to make the perscription, the parents have to
>make sure that the child is taking the medication. Furthermore, there
>have been articles in the papers about teachers who are very unhappy about
>supervising/administering medication to children during the school day.
However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
either federal or state funds for every student that they have
enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
Seems to me that if the teachers want to play the game, payment
should be in there somewhere.
>> The problem was that they were *bored* by skool. They wanted to
>> do everything at once and the skool system was holding them back
>> from doing that.
>
>I'm sure that there are children for which that is more than true, but
>that doesn't really address the larger issue here. There many children
>with other conditions/disabilities that parents have concluded would be
>better served by being in a school than at home.
You are the one who brought in ADD/ADHD. I'm just running with
the ball that you gave me. If you want to change the game to
basketball after you handed me a football, fine, but it was your
ball.
Some of the reasons that parents may want to send chindren who
are differently abled to publik skool might include the desire
for forced socalization. After all, any time that homeschooling
is mentioned, this is one of the first cries that is heard from
the publik skool proponents -- even though the socalization that
one gets in publik skool has little to do with what they will
experience for the rest of their lives after they leave skool.
>> Once they were put in charge of their own learning, they were
>> able to organize their lives so that they *could* learn all of
>> the tings that they wanted to learn. Heck, there is one of these
>> kids that, every time that I am around him, he both fires me up
>> and exhausts me with all that he has learned and all that he
>> wants to learn.
>
>Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
>children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
Again, my first thought is the "mooooo" factor. Most people
simply don't think.
--
Glen Appleby
<jc...@tpk.net> wrote:
>C. Smith wrote in message ...
>
>>Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
>>children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>
>Some must work and their children are too young to be home alone. Some don't
>care as long as the kids are out of the house and out of their hair.
This is something that I hear surprisingly often. "I couldn't
*stand* to have my kids around all day every day." I am not
suffecently cynical at the moment to have mentioned that.
Glen (there *are* days, though) Appleby
Jon Houts
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, C. Smith wrote:
> Let's look at it another way. While most children have been attending
> public schools for about 150 years...
Most children in public schools aren't even that old (I could be wring,
but I don't think *any* are) 8-)
> ...most disabled/special education
> children have been attending public schools for only 20-30 years. Once
> federal and state laws opened up public schools to these children in the
> 70's, why did most parents elect to send their children to public schools
> and no longer keep them at home?
Because it was the default method of educating children. If public
schooling were a minor player in the game, and most people homeschooled,
would these parents have all rushed to put their children in ps?
Herman Rubin
Donna Metler <dmme...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Michael Moy wrote:
>> C. Smith wrote:
.................
>> > The second part of the equation is that special needs child require more
>> > effort, in both training and materials, than an average child. Many
>> > parents may reasonablly conclude that they don't possess the training or
>> > experience or money required.
>> This depends on the disability. But electronic forums are providing a
>> lot of
>> ways for parents and specialists to collaborate on finding ways to solve
>> problems.
>Agreed-however, I can tell you that I have had cerebral palsy my entire life, and have
>read and studied more about it then many professionals. I do not, however, have the
>specific knowledge needed to set up the type of comprehensive therapy/education plan
>needed to help a child reach their full potential. This takes more than occasional
>collaboration-it takes a group of knowledgable adults working with the child.
It takes knowledgeable adults. But it does not take the type of
educational plan you seem to feel is necessary. We do not know
enough to be that rigid; it is especially in the direction of order
of progress that it is necessary to be very flexible. The rate
needs individual attention as well.
This is in direct opposition to the idea that certain goals should
be achieved by certain ages, and that if these are achieved earlier,
further progress in those areas is unimportant.
Education is NOT training. Some training, such as being able to
decode written language, is necessary to be able to handle
educational tools, although even this needs modification for some.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Dorothy Sacks
Donna Metler wrote in message <36BDCD09...@bellsouth.net>...
>
>
>Jeff & Traci De wrote:
>
>> Aaron Kuperman wrote:
>> >
income)
least
Absolutely, sad as those of us who choose to work in the field know. I was
making
considerably more even in teaching because I taught HS in the public schools
here.
Had I gone after the PHD when I first got out of college and ended up
tenured at
the college level, it would have even been more. But I choose to work with
preschoolers
now parttime, so make around $10,000/year. Could not do it if I had to
support
my family and would not contribute significantly to family income so why not
Hschool instead. No real opportunity cost at all for those of us who choose
not
to work in higher paid jobs anyway. (Admitedly, I could have been making
over
$50,000 had I stayed with IBM in computers).
Dorothy
Dorothy Sacks
HMSCLMom
In article <clayton-0702...@oak-alg-gw8-38.ncal.verio.com>,
cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) writes:
>
>I think you've missed the target by a wide margin. Whether in a school or
>at home, an ADD or ADHD child is going to require more time and energy
>than an average child. The average child can have much longer period of
>self directed study/activity than the ADD/ADHD child. While the average
>child can have half an hour or even an hour of self directed reading, the
>ADD child is going to require constant attention. While both are
>receiving "individualized education," in their home schooling, the
>similarity ends there.
True, to some extent, but it doesn't cost any more, and, as a former public
school teacher, I am well aware that it was unlikely that my cerebral palsied
ADHD epileptic son would be better served outside of my home by those who could
not take the time with him that I could. And since my income merely served to
kick us into a higher tax bracket, while increasing expenses, it was actually
cheaper and better on the stress side of things, if I stayed home with the
children and taught my sons myself. We put pen a paper to it years ago and
determined I was working for about $350 per year when you figured in expenses
tied to working, child care, more eating out, etc.
Since one son is independent and self-directed, this allows me more one-on-one
with my youngest, who needs it. And, since I know him better than any teacher
ever could, I am more capable of choosing materials that work for him, rather
than being stuck with what is approved by some organization that doesn't even
know him at all.
Also, without the constant distractions in a classroom, an ADHD child is easier
to handle in the home, and is capable of longer reading and independent work
times than that same child would be capable of in an environment where there
are other children and adults to distract.
Paula
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a
sound mind.
HMSCLMom
In article <clayton-0702...@oak-alg-gw12-41.ncal.verio.com>,
cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) writes:
>I don't find this to be a
>very compelling reason for why 99% (give or take) do not home school.
>Particularly unsatisfying for me was your assertion- "many people don't
>learn to think for themselves." Beyond all the obvious words I could
>bring to bear (insulting, condescending, etc.), the statement most
>critically lacks any substance to it. Glen has just suggested the same
>notion by lamenting the "mooo crowd." Any argument that depends
>(especially so heavily) on such glib, unsupported claims is going to have
>a tough go of it.
>
As a home schooler in my 9th year of home schooling, I can say that I have
heard nearly every question there is. And one of the biggest, when someone
finds out you are home schooling is, "Is that legal?" The reason is that they
simply do not know that there is another option to public education outside of
expensive private schools.
The other comment I get a lot is the "I could never do that. My kids would
drive me crazy" comment. I hear all kinds of comments, but virtually none in 9
years consisted of the following:
"I have weighed all the options, and have decided that public education is what
works best for our family."
Most people send their children off to public schools because that is just what
they are supposed to do. They do not weigh the options, investigate them all,
and come to decision. For some, they may say to themselves, "I can't afford
private school." Therefore public schools become the default system. But it's
not because they have thought it out and weighed all the options, as evidenced
by the comments I've gotten. They didn't know there was an option to public
schools outside of private ones, and many shudder to think of having their kids
home all the time. (These are the same parents who lament about mid-summer
that they can't wait for school to start because the kids are driving them
nuts.)
Dorothy Sacks
Glen Appleby wrote in message <36be463b...@news.got.net>...
>On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:10:56 -0800, in
>misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>
>>In article <36bdc7c1...@news.got.net>, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby)
wrote:
>>
>>> Is the "ADD/ADHD" your "special needs" argument?
>>
>>No. Given the widespread attention to this condition at present, it
>>seemed to be an appropriate example to use.
>
>OK, I went with it.
>
>>> Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
>>> were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
>>> solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
>>> in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
>>> unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
>>> took off like rockets!
>>
>>Let's come back down to Earth here. Schools do not perscribe
>>medications.
>
>Given that I never even suggested that they did and if you are
>suggesting that I did say that, it would be dishonest. We *know*
>that you aren't dishonest because you are concerned with MK's
>honesty, so I must assume that you are pulling this particularly
>stinky morsel out of some nasty orifice for some reason.
Glen, you did say "the skool's solution" YOUR words above.
You are a cool guy, but I intend to keep you honest on this thread.
>
>>A teacher/principal/counselor/etc. may recommend/encourage
>>the parents to have their child see a doctor with a view towards
>>perscribing an ADD medication, but the parents have to take that child to
>>the doctor, the doctor has to make the perscription, the parents have to
>>make sure that the child is taking the medication. Furthermore, there
>>have been articles in the papers about teachers who are very unhappy about
>>supervising/administering medication to children during the school day.
>
>However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
>either federal or state funds for every student that they have
>enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
Not medicated, diagnosed.
>
>Seems to me that if the teachers want to play the game, payment
>should be in there somewhere.
And the teachers don't get the money believe me!
>
>>> The problem was that they were *bored* by skool. They wanted to
>>> do everything at once and the skool system was holding them back
>>> from doing that.
>>
>>I'm sure that there are children for which that is more than true, but
>>that doesn't really address the larger issue here. There many children
>>with other conditions/disabilities that parents have concluded would be
>>better served by being in a school than at home.
>
>You are the one who brought in ADD/ADHD. I'm just running with
>the ball that you gave me. If you want to change the game to
>basketball after you handed me a football, fine, but it was your
>ball.
>
>Some of the reasons that parents may want to send chindren who
>are differently abled to publik skool might include the desire
>for forced socalization. After all, any time that homeschooling
>is mentioned, this is one of the first cries that is heard from
>the publik skool proponents -- even though the socalization that
>one gets in publik skool has little to do with what they will
>experience for the rest of their lives after they leave skool.
>
>>> Once they were put in charge of their own learning, they were
>>> able to organize their lives so that they *could* learn all of
>>> the tings that they wanted to learn. Heck, there is one of these
>>> kids that, every time that I am around him, he both fires me up
>>> and exhausts me with all that he has learned and all that he
>>> wants to learn.
>>
>>Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
>>children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>
>Again, my first thought is the "mooooo" factor. Most people
>simply don't think.
And the point is to produce children who become adults who
do think in the next generations. Productive thought would help
here, Glen. Someone else did post some possible reasons.
See Gene Royer's post if you can't think of something more
helpful.
Dorothy
Dorothy
Dorothy Sacks
jlc wrote in message ...
>cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>
>>
>>You see this is where your argument really sucks for me. When anybody in
>>any debate relies on "most people simply don't think," I can't help but
>>take that as an admission of failure to make the case. It is essentially
>>unprovable and in my experience at least, is always based on the circular
>>logic that "most people don't agree with our philosophy/ideas/whatever,
>>ergo most people can not be thinking."
>>
>>C. Smith
>
>school, but with most things in life. Most people work "normal" jobs,
>even though the option of working for yourself exists. The way society
>is currently structured public school is the default. Which means that
>is what most people will do. Because it is easier. There is nothing
>wrong with this. People have to make a lot of decisions in their lives.
>When they come across an issue where they don't need to make a decision,
>because there is a clear well traveled road, they usually take easy way.
>Even if this is not necessarily the best way.
Most (more that 1/2) Give me a study that show that 51% of the population
does not think in this case. Another poor view of human nature, IMO.
Even taking the easy way does not mean that they haven't thought about
the options.
>
>Saying that "most people simply don't think" is perhaps unkind, but with
>a little qualification, it is true. When presented with a widely
>accepted default option most people do not consider other options
>seriously.
>
>Homeschooling, even finding out about HS takes extra effort. Sending a
>child to PS takes no extra effort, no one gives you funny looks, you
>don't get any questions about "socialization", don't get any visits from
>state officials wanting to evaluate your child. In short, sending a
>child to school is *easier*. That is why most people do it.
Being a good parent takes extra effort. And you do not HAVE to
be a homeschooler to be one. Your opinion of those who do choose
public or private schools is not what we are discussing on this thread.
Now, there may be some % who have not thought about options,
but you want to say most - back it up with some stats.
Dorothy
>
>--jorge
>===================================================
>Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
>Teddy Roosevelt | Jorge Codina, jo...@codina.org
Michele and Jim
Beth Clarkson wrote in message <36BDC453...@feist.com>...
>Aaron Kuperman wrote:
>
>> The largest cost of home schooling is the opportunity cost (lost income)
>> incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents are fairly
>> well educated and fairly creative, and would probably be earning at least
>> $50000 or more. Even if they live in a big city with many opportunities
to
>> spend money on special resources, the labor cost is the big item.
>
>reality. Yes, some homeschoolers give up a second income in order to do
so,
>but I am not convinced that it is a majority, or even a plurality. Many
who
>homeschool also work to generate income, whether in single parent families
or
>dual-income families. Further, many family who send their children to
school
>have one parent who does not work. I haven't seen any statistics on the
>difference in % of two-income vs. one-income families between the two
groups.
This is from this months (March 1999) Good Houskeeping:
The article was on women with families working, it states 80% of mothers
return to work when their youngest child enters school. Statistics: Bureau
of Labor Statistics; Families and Work Institute.
Michael Moy
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 16:11:06, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
> > Then please explain the alarmingly high number of kids in US
> > publik skools who are on Ritilin or other "dumbing down" drugs as
> > compared to, say, the UK.
>
> by "dumbing down" here, but the idea that Ritilin is some kind
> of tranquilizer (a belief many seem to have) is untrue. Most
> medications for ADD are stimulants, and their purpose is to
> allow the student to concentrate on what is before him or
> her. A true ADD child is kind of on a sensory overload and
> is unable to concentrate for long on a single thing while other
> things are going on at the same time. Stimulants seem to
> help bring things "into focus" (this is the way ADD kids
> describe the effect).
I've heard that it has other effects such as the reduction in
creativity. I have heard of a musician that used it only when he
needed it but stayed off of it when working with music.
Dorothy Sacks
Glen Appleby wrote in message <36bf86a2...@news.got.net>...
>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:23:34 -0600, in misc.education,"Dorothy
>Sacks" <tot...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
>>Glen Appleby wrote in message <36be463b...@news.got.net>...
>>>On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:10:56 -0800, in
>>>misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
>>>>> were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
>>>>> solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
>>>>> in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
>>>>> unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
>>>>> took off like rockets!
>>>>
>>>>Let's come back down to Earth here. Schools do not perscribe
>>>>medications.
>>>
>>>Given that I never even suggested that they did and if you are
>>>suggesting that I did say that, it would be dishonest. We *know*
>>>that you aren't dishonest because you are concerned with MK's
>>>honesty, so I must assume that you are pulling this particularly
>>>stinky morsel out of some nasty orifice for some reason.
>>
>>Glen, you did say "the skool's solution" YOUR words above.
>>You are a cool guy, but I intend to keep you honest on this thread.
>
>at it again.
You still implied that the school was recommending the prescription
which is not true. The school will recommend that the child be screened
and not necessarily with the intent of medicating him/her but with the
intent of finding a diagnosis and workable strategies for the student.
If you ever hang out with teachers, you will not find support for medicating
students unless there is measurable help for the student from the
medication the doctor prescribes. But diagnosing the problem helps
the teacher figure out what strategies he can use to overcome the
problems. I'm not sure that it is productive in all cases, but with some
learning disabilities, there are specific strategies teachers can use to
help the student. With ADD or ADHD, I am not sure what these are.
Others more familiar with that can answer.
>
>I make the basic assumption that most people recognize that most
>skools don't have any MDs in house so they *can't* perscribe much
>of anything.
>
>>>>A teacher/principal/counselor/etc. may recommend/encourage
>>>>the parents to have their child see a doctor with a view towards
>>>>perscribing an ADD medication, but the parents have to take that child
to
>>>>the doctor, the doctor has to make the perscription, the parents have to
>>>>make sure that the child is taking the medication. Furthermore, there
>>>>have been articles in the papers about teachers who are very unhappy
about
>>>>supervising/administering medication to children during the school day.
>>>
>>>However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
>>>either federal or state funds for every student that they have
>>>enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
>>
>>Not medicated, diagnosed.
>
>... and this is different from what I said .... how?
Of course, it is different although someone else in the thread has
said that ADD is not included even in the extra funding. If, however,
a diagnosed LD is included, that pays for the special ed services
It has nothing to do with medicating or not medicating the student.
It pays for pullouts, special classroom aids, perhaps special materials
needed for the special ed student. And it is often expensive
>
>>>Seems to me that if the teachers want to play the game, payment
>>>should be in there somewhere.
>>
>>And the teachers don't get the money believe me!
>
>I'm trying to understand this apparent collection of
>non-sequitors.
Since they answer your own little non-sequiturs, you ought to
be able to figure it out.
>
>The teachers agree to comply with the wishes/demands of the
>administration. As such, it makes perfect sense to me that they
>should pay for breaking the trust with their charges.
>
>>>>Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
>>>>children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>>>
>>>Again, my first thought is the "mooooo" factor. Most people
>>>simply don't think.
>>
>>And the point is to produce children who become adults who
>>do think in the next generations.
>
>Again with the non-sequitors. I'm really trying to see how this
>relates to what was written by either me or by Claton, here.
>
>>Productive thought would help
>>here, Glen. Someone else did post some possible reasons.
>>See Gene Royer's post if you can't think of something more
>>helpful.
>
>Actually I saw it and it is one of the posts in this group that I
>have saved.
>
>I'm glad that he had the time to go through all of that.
>
>I'm sorry, though -- could you suggest a way in which I could
>spend more time out of my schedule to respond to some of these
>posts? Heck, already I am not even reading many of the threads.
>I'm specifically not reading anything to do with math.
>
>OK, tell ya what -- you just tell me the specific posts that you
>think that I should spend the majority of my time on. Then I'll
>just give yer email address to Kathy cuz she's gonna want to have
>some kind of a clue as to why I am not spending as much time on
>my programs.
>
>Don't worry -- she yells lots, but she seldom bites.
Sorry, Glen, I just don't think you're helping much on this.
Something is getting lost in the translation. The only reason
this was cross-posted was to get some input on the actual
cost of homeschooling to compare with the cost of public,
private, voucher schools. Homeschooling wasn't the original
point of the discussion. It had to do with reforming the
present public school system for the future. Now homeschooling
may be the way to go for some percentage of the population.
that your contempt for the people who choose not to home
school contributes to an analysis of the costs. I'm not arguing
for or against homeschooling.
Dorothy
Dorothy
>
>Glen "Luring them in" Appleby
Daniel Carbajal
Glen Appleby
Sacks" <tot...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>Glen Appleby wrote in message <36be463b...@news.got.net>...
>>On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:10:56 -0800, in
>>misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
>>>> were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
>>>> solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
>>>> in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
>>>> unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
>>>> took off like rockets!
>>>
>>>Let's come back down to Earth here. Schools do not perscribe
>>>medications.
>>
>>Given that I never even suggested that they did and if you are
>>suggesting that I did say that, it would be dishonest. We *know*
>>that you aren't dishonest because you are concerned with MK's
>>honesty, so I must assume that you are pulling this particularly
>>stinky morsel out of some nasty orifice for some reason.
>
>Glen, you did say "the skool's solution" YOUR words above.
>You are a cool guy, but I intend to keep you honest on this thread.
Actually, I didn't say that the skools perscribe anything. Look
at it again.
I make the basic assumption that most people recognize that most
skools don't have any MDs in house so they *can't* perscribe much
of anything.
>>>A teacher/principal/counselor/etc. may recommend/encourage
>>>the parents to have their child see a doctor with a view towards
>>>perscribing an ADD medication, but the parents have to take that child to
>>>the doctor, the doctor has to make the perscription, the parents have to
>>>make sure that the child is taking the medication. Furthermore, there
>>>have been articles in the papers about teachers who are very unhappy about
>>>supervising/administering medication to children during the school day.
>>
>>However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
>>either federal or state funds for every student that they have
>>enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
>
>Not medicated, diagnosed.
... and this is different from what I said .... how?
>>Seems to me that if the teachers want to play the game, payment
>>should be in there somewhere.
>
>And the teachers don't get the money believe me!
I'm trying to understand this apparent collection of
non-sequitors.
The teachers agree to comply with the wishes/demands of the
Glen "Luring them in" Appleby
Ron McDermott
> Then please explain the alarmingly high number of kids in US
> publik skools who are on Ritilin or other "dumbing down" drugs as
> compared to, say, the UK.
Just a quick comment, Glen. I'm not sure what you mean
Donna Metler
Herman Rubin wrote:
Sorry, Herman, but in this case, I've been there, lived it, and am still doing it. It does
take a very specialized team to allow a child with multiple disabilities, even on the
relatively mild level which I live with, to reach full potential. It's more than just
individualized instruction, because there is a great deal of other support which needs to
be provided as well. The question isn't whether skills are mastered earlier or later-it is
that they may not be mastered at all. It increases a child's mobility incredibly to be able
to walk, even with crutches or a walker, over using a wheelchair, but many children with
neuro-muscular disabilites will not develop this skill at all without direct, systematic
training and therapy. I would never have been able to write even halfway legibly without
assistance, teaching and therapy-this isn't something which would have happened later.
Believe me, there are hundreds of places where typing just doesn't cut it!
A blind child will not learn braille without assistance-a sighted child has the advantage
of seeing print constantly, often matched with pictures, and hearing it spelled out, which
a blind child doesn't have. Without this reading skill, a child with a visual disability is
limited only to recorded materials. Unless a child is exposed to sign language, they will
not learn to sign, closing off many worlds for a child with profound hearing loss. It is
even more difficult for a hearing impaired child to learn to speak.
There is a reason why special education is so expensive-to do it right requires a great
deal of time, effort, energy, and often equiptment. For a child with special needs to NOT
get this sort of plan holds the child back to even greater of a degree than you accuse
schools of doing.
Ron McDermott
> Ron McDermott wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 16:11:06, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
> >
> > > Then please explain the alarmingly high number of kids in US
> > > publik skools who are on Ritilin or other "dumbing down" drugs as
> > > compared to, say, the UK.
> >
> > Just a quick comment, Glen. I'm not sure what you mean
> > by "dumbing down" here, but the idea that Ritilin is some kind
> > of tranquilizer (a belief many seem to have) is untrue. Most
> > medications for ADD are stimulants, and their purpose is to
> > allow the student to concentrate on what is before him or
> > her. A true ADD child is kind of on a sensory overload and
> > is unable to concentrate for long on a single thing while other
> > things are going on at the same time. Stimulants seem to
> > help bring things "into focus" (this is the way ADD kids
> > describe the effect).
>
> I've heard that it has other effects such as the reduction in
> creativity. I have heard of a musician that used it only when he
> needed it but stayed off of it when working with music.
I wouldn't find that surprising, though I don't know that it is
the case. Creativity often involves rapid transitions from idea
to idea. The kind of overload which ADD kids have might
very well make them more creative than the norm. On the
other hand, it makes it more difficult for them to focus and
complete a given task. Pluses and minuses on both sides,
perhaps.
Gene Royer
>>Productive thought would help
>>here, Glen. Someone else did post some possible reasons.
>>See Gene Royer's post if you can't think of something more
>>helpful.
>
>Actually I saw it and it is one of the posts in this group that I
>have saved.
>
>I'm glad that he had the time to go through all of that.
>
Gene Writes:
I'm glad someone saw it and took it to heart.
While I feel qualified to have opinions in this discussion, I am not very well
qualified to post those opinions. The reason is, that I only get about a tenth
of the messages posted here due to my newsreader's lame service. Therefore, I
run the risk of being misinterpreted and not being able to inform the wisdom of
whomever misunderstands what I mean.
I have the greatest respect for the concept of public education. However, as
with a large portion of American society, I am dissatisfied with the product
being generated. Several options are open to folks who want a better product
for their kids, and one of those options is homeshooling. Another option, of
course, is private schooling--which fares better (but not much better) than the
pubs, IMHO. I have clients in both arenas.
Homeschooling has its drawbacks for some parents--not the least of which is
personal sacrifice. For some parents (who want to) it may not be an option--at
this time or at any time.
My own expertise is not in *education*, but in re-alligning the process that
drives it. So, when I post my opinions about education, they are solely
parentally based. In other words, I may not know any more about education than
the rest of the parents on this newsgroup, but like them, I certainly know what
I don't like.
--Gene Royer <http://www.lutzbooks.com/governance> Consultant to governing
boards of nonprofit and public organizations. Author: SCHOOL BOARD LEADERSHIP
Glen Appleby
Sacks" <tot...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>Glen Appleby wrote in message <36bf86a2...@news.got.net>...
>>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:23:34 -0600, in misc.education,"Dorothy
>>Sacks" <tot...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Glen, you did say "the skool's solution" YOUR words above.
>>>You are a cool guy, but I intend to keep you honest on this thread.
>>
>>Actually, I didn't say that the skools perscribe anything. Look
>>at it again.
>
>You still implied that the school was recommending the prescription
>which is not true.
I did no such thing. The skools have less interest in drugging
kids than they do in getting more money (although I know of some
cases where the teachers felt that they couldn't handle the kids
and drugging them was a happy solution to the teacher).
This is a leap that you made all by yerself.
>>>>However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
>>>>either federal or state funds for every student that they have
>>>>enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
>>>
>>>Not medicated, diagnosed.
>>
>>... and this is different from what I said .... how?
>
>Of course, it is different although someone else in the thread has
>said that ADD is not included even in the extra funding. If, however,
>a diagnosed LD is included, that pays for the special ed services
>It has nothing to do with medicating or not medicating the student.
>It pays for pullouts, special classroom aids, perhaps special materials
>needed for the special ed student. And it is often expensive
I'm wondering what you are going on about, here. Since I never
said anything about the skools pushing for medication, but for
the diagnosis, it was again you who made that leap.
Would it be easier for you if I were to just step back and let
you ramble?
Herman Rubin
Ron McDermott <rmc...@nospam.banet.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 04:19:41, Michael Moy <m_...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Ron McDermott wrote:
>> > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 16:11:06, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
................
>> I've heard that it has other effects such as the reduction in
>> creativity. I have heard of a musician that used it only when he
>> needed it but stayed off of it when working with music.
>I wouldn't find that surprising, though I don't know that it is
>the case. Creativity often involves rapid transitions from idea
>to idea. The kind of overload which ADD kids have might
>very well make them more creative than the norm. On the
>other hand, it makes it more difficult for them to focus and
>complete a given task. Pluses and minuses on both sides,
>perhaps.
Is it important that the task be completed in the manner
prescribed?
Is the task relevant for the purpose of acquiring knowledge and
ability?
In many cases, is the task worthwhile for this particular child
at all?
One task which is not is sitting through a class or lecture in
which what one already knows is being presented.
Michael Moy
> I wouldn't find that surprising, though I don't know that it is
> the case. Creativity often involves rapid transitions from idea
> to idea. The kind of overload which ADD kids have might
> very well make them more creative than the norm. On the
> other hand, it makes it more difficult for them to focus and
> complete a given task. Pluses and minuses on both sides,
> perhaps.
Definitely. There are discussions on the newsgroup and the mailing list
which talk about the best and worst jobs for those with this problem. Of
course, you may not necessarily consider it a problem. Jobs that require
multitaksing but not long detail work are pretty good.
Glen Appleby
misc.education,rmc...@nospam.banet.net (Ron McDermott) wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 16:11:06, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>> Then please explain the alarmingly high number of kids in US
>> publik skools who are on Ritilin or other "dumbing down" drugs as
>> compared to, say, the UK.
>
>Just a quick comment, Glen. I'm not sure what you mean
>by "dumbing down" here, but the idea that Ritilin is some kind
>of tranquilizer (a belief many seem to have) is untrue. Most
>medications for ADD are stimulants, and their purpose is to
>allow the student to concentrate on what is before him or
>her. A true ADD child is kind of on a sensory overload and
>is unable to concentrate for long on a single thing while other
>things are going on at the same time. Stimulants seem to
>help bring things "into focus" (this is the way ADD kids
>describe the effect).
Actually, I am pretty well aware of this class of drug. My
youngest brother (adopted) was on them for years, back in the
60s.
Sometimes it seems to have the desired effect. Sometimes it
doesn't. Talk to the kids that are taking the drugs. It is
*them* who say that they feel dumbed down by them -- yet their
parents insist on them taking the drugs.
Bruce D. Ray
> The largest cost of home schooling is the opportunity cost (lost income)
> incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents are fairly
> well educated and fairly creative, and would probably be earning at least
> $50000 or more. Even if they live in a big city with many opportunities to
> spend money on special resources, the labor cost is the big item. Assuming
> four children, that means a budget of probably $13,000 per child, which is
> more than even the most affluent school districts, equal to elite prive
> schools, and several times what poorer public schools spend per child.
I have no idea where you came up with that $50,000 figure
for a second income, but your analysis leaves out a number
of the major costs related to that second income.
Now, the first cost you've ignored is child care.
Around here, children return home from school between
3 PM and 3:30 PM. Most members of the professional
work force won't return home until 5:30 PM. This
means that there is a 2 hr. period where child care
is needed. At the modest rate of $5/hr/child {which
is a very modest rate since child care facilities
around here [and Indianapolis has a relatively low
cost of living] claim that care for school aged children
is much more difficult and much more costly than care
for pre-schoolers} child care for four children for 2 hr.
per day, for 5 days per week, for 32 weeks when school
is in session will cost $6,400. In addition, there
are, on average and taking into account days out during
the school year, 16 weeks where one will need approximately
9 hr. per day of child care {allowing 0.5 hr. before
and after one's professional 8 hr. day for commute,
child delivery, and child pick-up}. This runs up the
child care bill for these four children another $14,400.
Teh grand total just for child care because of this
second income is $20,800.
The second cost you've ignored is taxes. Let us assume
about $4,000 for FICA. {That's actually one's FICA at
a lower salary than $50,000, but we can use it for this
discussion.} Second, let's assume a 20% tax rate on the
$50,000 for $10,000 in taxes. {Actually, for a married
couple, each earning $50,000 for family earnings of
$100,000, the tax rate will be higher.} Given these
lower tax rate figures rather than the current higher
figures, one has $14,000 in federal taxes alone. If
we then add in a 3.5% overall state taxation, one has
an additional $1750 in state taxes for a grand total
of $15,750 in taxes from this second income.
The third cost you've ignored is transportation. Let
us assume the lowest cost alternative, bus transportation
for $1.25 each way or $2.50 round trip. {The alternative
is a second car with associated insurance, maintenance,
and fuel costs.} Assuming 48 weeks of work at 5 days
per week, transportation costs come to a mere $600 per
year.
Without even figuring in lunch at work {You did plan on
eating, didn't you?}, job related cloting budget, etc.
{and these side items can really nickel and dime one to
death}, we have the following costs associated with this
second income:
child care $20,800
taxes on second income 15,750
transportation 600
total $37,150
This leaves only $12,850 from the $50,000 you originally
proposed. Thus, lost opportunity costs per child are
now reduced to only $3,212.50 which is below what private
schools around here charge per child. The point, here,
is that this second income isn't all it is advertised to
be in the first place, and certainly does not add up to
a lost opportunity cost of $13,000 per child for four
children once one takes into account simple basic costs
related to the second income. {Not to mention the
human costs that often result from such second incomes.}
The so called lost opportunity costs really do turn out
to be illusory even with what around here would be an
inflated second incomes for home educating families.
--
Warning to commercial e-mailers {spammers}: The e-mail
address provided above is for information purposes only
and is subjected to extensive e-mail filtering. Do not
send unsolicited commercial e-mail to this address.
Jon Houts
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Bruce D. Ray wrote:
> I have no idea where you came up with that $50,000 figure
> for a second income, but your analysis leaves out a number
> of the major costs related to that second income.
<rest of excellant post snipped>
Thanks for writing this, Bruce. I had been saving the message to which
you responded, with the intent of posting nearly the same response that
you just did. I feel I can now safely delete the message.
gsmith
Bruce D. Ray <br...@iupui.edu> wrote in article
<bray-09029...@physics.nmr.iupui.edu>...
> In article <79j57k$7a9a$2...@rs7.loc.gov>, ak...@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman)
wrote:
>
> > The largest cost of home schooling is the opportunity cost (lost
income)
> > incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents are fairly
> > well educated and fairly creative, and would probably be earning at
least
> > $50000 or more.
Most home school parents probably have no more than average education, but
that's really beside the point. The largest cost of home schooling is lost
opportunities incurred by the children. From what I've heard (and contary
to what the home schooling crowd wants people to believe) most
home-schooled children lag behind their peers significantly by high school.
Jon Houts
On 9 Feb 1999, gsmith wrote:
> Most home school parents probably have no more than average education, but
> that's really beside the point. The largest cost of home schooling is lost
> opportunities incurred by the children. From what I've heard (and contary
> to what the home schooling crowd wants people to believe) most
> home-schooled children lag behind their peers significantly by high school.
Bring on the hearsay! What, specifically, have you heard?
Michael Moy
And where did you hear it?
Marty Carts
Can.politics, nz.politics axed. Sorry mates, eh?
gsmith wrote:
> Bruce D. Ray <br...@iupui.edu> wrote...
> > ak...@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) wrote:
>
> > > The largest cost of home schooling is the opportunity cost (lost income)
> > > incurred by at least one parent. Most home schooling parents are fairly
> > > well educated and fairly creative, and would probably be earning at least
>
> > > $50000 or more.
> Most home school parents probably have no more than average education,
> but that's really beside the point.
Not at all, especially since given a handful of valid generalizations such as
the above which would nominally be considered challenges to successful
hsing, hsers *still* come out smelling like roses compared to public schoolers.
> The largest cost of home schooling is lost opportunities incurred by
> the children.
You could say so, but certainly not on the basis of academic or social
considerations. And, you'ld have to consider the oppportunity cost of
public schoolers who miss out on the huge variety of life that's mostly
closed to them as the put in their time.
> From what I've heard (and contary
> to what the home schooling crowd wants people to believe) most
> home-schooled children lag behind their peers significantly by high school.
You might consider the source of your annecdotes (I doubt that there's
any hard or even lukewarm data on what you relate here, because I
haven't heard of *any* study which reports less than favorably on the
academic and social status or hsers), gsmith. Your source is probably
self-selected. That is, if your source is teachers and administrators of
schools, the only hsers likely to come into close view are the one's for
whom hsing is a failure. Successful hsers generally don't have much
reason to associate with the school system.
Gsmith, I'ld like to ask a favor of you, which would *greatly* benefit
hsers: If you hear of *any* reports, studies, etc. which do not
out-and-out sing the praises of hsing, could you *please* bring them
to the attention of these ngs (m.e.h-s.m, and m.e.h-s.Christian)?
And, I'ld like an email too, if it suits you to do so._________Marty
David Gossman
gsmith wrote:
>
> Most home school parents probably have no more than average education, but
> that's really beside the point. The largest cost of home schooling is lost
> opportunities incurred by the children. From what I've heard (and contary
> to what the home schooling crowd wants people to believe) most
> home-schooled children lag behind their peers significantly by high school.
Guess that is why my 8 year old tested from one level above grade level
all the way to 12th grade depending on the subject in tests provided by
the local public school. Care to show us how the public school could
have done better? As far as the snide comment about parent education try
this out http://gci.cncoffice.com/dgg/courses.htm. Care to compare? As
for the "lost opportunities" I'll bet you can't name one that someone
here won't shoot full of holes. Please try though. I always enjoy a good
laugh.
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
C. Smith
<BF9113B5C296A453.07204410...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
ne...@mariana.net (jlc) wrote:
> cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>
> >
> >You see this is where your argument really sucks for me. When anybody in
> >any debate relies on "most people simply don't think," I can't help but
> >take that as an admission of failure to make the case. It is essentially
> >unprovable and in my experience at least, is always based on the circular
> >logic that "most people don't agree with our philosophy/ideas/whatever,
> >ergo most people can not be thinking."
> >
> >C. Smith
>
> Well, most people take the default option. Not just when it comes to
> school, but with most things in life. Most people work "normal" jobs,
> even though the option of working for yourself exists. The way society
> is currently structured public school is the default. Which means that
> is what most people will do. Because it is easier. There is nothing
> wrong with this. People have to make a lot of decisions in their lives.
> When they come across an issue where they don't need to make a decision,
> because there is a clear well traveled road, they usually take easy way.
> Even if this is not necessarily the best way.
Unfortunately, your examples are weighed down by your values. You
implictiedly state that self employment is better than a "normal" job.
Who says? Just because one person values a "normal" job or a public
school for their child doesn't mean that the decision involved was any bit
less well considered than perhaps your decision to home school or be self
employed.
> Saying that "most people simply don't think" is perhaps unkind, but with
> a little qualification, it is true.
How so? How can such a phrase ever be qualified? Much less quantified??
(which is what is required here and most everywhere else) Saying that
most people don't think like you (in regards to home schooling) is both
qualifiable and quantifiable. I am troubled by the implict (and quite
possibly unconsciencous) notion that 'those who don't think like me must
not be thinking.'
NOTE: Please be clear here that I am advancing a general line of
reasoning and in no way mean my remarks to be taken personally. I don't
know you (or any of the other posters, for that matter) and therefore
can't say that I know your inner thoughts/motivation/etc.
> When presented with a widely
> accepted default option most people do not consider other options
> seriously.
>
> Homeschooling, even finding out about HS takes extra effort.
Getting a driver's license takes effort. People could take the default
option and ride public transit (or have mom drive them until they're 50
;-) ). Most go to the effort of passing the driver's ed. class when they
are teenagers, then passing the written and driving tests. This involves
at least as much effort as finding out about home schooling, so I find
your "it takes more effort" argument not very compelling.
> Sending a child to PS takes no extra effort,
This indeed takes effort as well and I would suggest about the same amount
as even finding out about home schooling.
> no one gives you funny looks, you
> don't get any questions about "socialization", don't get any visits from
> state officials wanting to evaluate your child. In short, sending a
> child to school is *easier*. That is why most people do it.
By virture of home schooling you've reduced the opportunities at which
social stigmitization is possible (that seems to be the major concern of
the above paragraph).
Having said all the above, I'm sure there is some finite number of people
who do opt for public education because it is "easier," to use your term.
But this leaves us with a gap the size of the Grand Canyon between that
notion and the one percent plus who home school. What makes up the
difference?
C. Smith
C. Smith
> C. Smith wrote:
>
> > > The default system is the public school system and that's what most people
> > > are familiar with. Information about home schooling is now widely
available
> > > though you have to go out and look for it; we don't actively market
it like
> > > some other organizations do. That more people are considering home
schooling
> > > for special needs children is remarkable; given that it is little
known and
> > > that it runs against the grain of our society of expertise.
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean by "more people are considering home
> > schooling for special needs children..." More relative to whom or what?
>
> More than would have considered it before the recent rise in hsing.
While home schooling has received a lot more media attention in recent
years, is there really a measurable recent rise in home schooling? I will
duly note that this is almost an impossible question to answer by the
nature of the actitivty.
Further, is there some data to establish the idea that more special
education children are being home schooled?
> > > As I said, it comes down to a selling job and perhaps some work in the
> > > packaging. There are a lot of other things that help that are quite
difficult
> > > to do in the classroom situation. If the child isn't interested in
something,
> > > then present it in another way or put it down and come back to it
later. Or
> > > let them get some vigorous exercise for a while and then try again.
It doesn't
> > > have to be a battle if you have a lot of flexibility in the learning
> > > environment.
> >
> > I never said it was going to be a battle, just require more effort, a
> > point you have re-enforced by your examples. You appear to agree that
> > such a child is going to take more effort than a normal child to educate,
> > public, private or home school.
>
> Yes. But that the environment at home is better suited to this type of child.
Maybe for some, maybe not for others. While I will willing grant that for
some this is likely the best answer, I remain exceptionally skeptical that
it is the best answer for all as you suggest.
C. Smith
C. Smith
> C. Smith wrote:
>
> > >
> > > >Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
> > > >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>
> I would think there are more than one reasons, none of which should be very
> difficult to ferret out.
>
> (1) Many parents do not feel capable enough to teach the core subjects.
> (2) Many parents simply do not want to make the effort. The *lazy* factor.
> (3) Many parents cannot devote the time (both spouses work, multiple-child
> households, etc.)
> (4) Many parents feel that if they have to pay school taxes, then
they should
> let the school do it.
> (5) Many parents are relieved to get the kids out of the house for
someone else
> to babysit.
> (6) Many parents cannot afford for one parent to stay home (closely tied to
> numbers 3 and 4).
>
> (7) Some parents do not know that the homeschool option is open to them.
> (8) Some parents lack basic intelligence necessary to properly
educate a child.
>
> (9) Some parents mistakenly believe that homeschooled kids are not as well
> educated as in pub.
> (10) Some parents mistakenly believe that socialization is prerequisite
to good
> moral development.
> (11) Some parents simply don't care one way or the other what kind of
things are
> being taught to their kids and prefer to take the easy way out.
>
> There are probably others, but these are the answers I get when I consult
> one-on-one with folks.
I thank you for your list. For me, it stands in stark contrast to what I
will call the "it is because it is" line of reasoning, represented by the
"most people don't think" or "moo factor" arguments. Those remain
unsatisfying and unconvincing because at the end of the day those
arguments have no substance.
I don't doubt for a moment that all 11 of your reasons apply in some
fashion to some finite number of people. But I can't see any way how they
can all add up to the 99% or so who choose public or private school for
their children. Heck, even you point out how some of these reasons
overlap, making it even harder to explain the difference.
C. Smith
BTW: Your use of the "mistakenly believe" in numbers 9 and 10 undercuts
your credibility. Both of those points are, at a minimum, quite
debatable. I would hope that you would grant that some finite number of
home schooled children are not being as well educated or properly
socialized (in the context of your criteria) as they would be in a public
school.
Michael Moy
> > Homeschooling, even finding out about HS takes extra effort.
>
> Getting a driver's license takes effort. People could take the default
> option and ride public transit (or have mom drive them until they're 50
> ;-) ). Most go to the effort of passing the driver's ed. class when they
> are teenagers, then passing the written and driving tests. This involves
> at least as much effort as finding out about home schooling, so I find
> your "it takes more effort" argument not very compelling.
What percentage of people drive? What percentage of people home school?
I like the Windows 95 example better because there is a near monopoly
in both cases.
C. Smith
> On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 19:57:12 -0800, in
> misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>
> >In article <36be463b...@news.got.net>, gl...@got.net (Glen
Appleby) wrote:
> >
> >No school has this "solution" available to them. No child is on
> >medication at the direction of a school. The teacher/principal might
> >suggest that the child see a doctor, the parents might agree, the doctor
> >might perscribe and so on... The reality is a far distance from what you
> >stated above.
>
> Then please explain the alarmingly high number of kids in US
> publik skools who are on Ritilin or other "dumbing down" drugs as
> compared to, say, the UK.
Humm...
Perhaps I should "explain" this by pointing out the near total disconnect
between what I said and what you are suggesting. About 88% of children
attend public school. There is a growing use of Ritilin and other drugs
on the part of children. Where or where is there necessarily a connection
between the two?
> >> However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
> >> either federal or state funds for every student that they have
> >> enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
> >
> >To use my favorite answer, yes and no.
>
> Will you wash my back while you are at it?
Ewwww!!
> >Schools only receive extra $ for
> >students placed in special education. There have been stories in the
> >media of schools/ school districts that go out of their way to get kids
> >into special ed to pick up the extra dough. These stories are in the
> >media precisely because they are so exceptional.
>
> That's one assumption. Another might be because it is so alarming.
No doubt that they make good copy. But perhaps they are alarming in part
because they are so rare? And 'round and 'round we could go...
> >Many, if not most, ADD/ADHD students do not qualify for special
> >education. They remain entirely in a regular classroom and the school
> >doesn't get an extra dime. Getting kids into special ed. isn't easy.
> >There are plenty of hoops you have to go through (including the parents'
> >permission).
>
> Once a parent is convinced that Johnnie has a problem and might
> be "broken" (something that is often all too easy), it is pretty
> simple for the skools to help them step easily through the hoops.
Actually, under current law, it isn't (see Donna Metler's posts for more
on this). <-- a.k.a. I know how to pass the buck! :-)
> >> Seems to me that if the teachers want to play the game, payment
> >> should be in there somewhere.
> >
> >If you do take a student into special education, you then have to provide
> >the extra services mandated by state and federal law in return for getting
> >the extra money. The extra cost is more or less the extra income, so
> >there's no real economic incentive to do so.
>
> Interesting. So the "special ed" teachers woulda been there
> anyway? There is no incentive for administrators to build a
> larger empire? Power doesn't corrupt?
The principal gets the same salary whether there's 25 or 28 teachers at
the school. Or put another way, he or she still a principal of that
school. There's no real increase in power here than can corrupt.
Perhaps when principals get togther they say "I have two more teachers
than you do- nanner, nanner!", but I doubt it... :-)
> >> You are the one who brought in ADD/ADHD. I'm just running with
> >> the ball that you gave me. If you want to change the game to
> >> basketball after you handed me a football, fine, but it was your
> >> ball.
> >
> >Since, as you concurred above, I'm only using ADD/ADHD as an example, I'm
> >afraid that it is more than reasonable that I might vary from one to
> >another field of play from time to time.
>
> OK, but trying to dribble a football is more difficult. Just
> want to say that going in.
Dribbling in any sport is hard for me... :-)
> >But if you insist on focusing on ADD/ADHD, could you please tell me what
> >percentage of ADD/ADHD students meet the description you suggested above
> >(bored, the school was holding them back)?
>
> Not right off (although I'll bet that somebody can -- this is a
> pretty intense topic on various newsgroups). What I can do is
> suggest that you look at the number of kids who are doing
> "poorly" in skool. I would suggest that this number represents,
> to a large degree, those not being served by the system. Then
> look at the number of these who are described as ADD/ADHD.
> (Hint: they tend not to bother with kids who are doing well)
> Then (oh, this is a biggie!) look at the number who don't
> graduate or who *just* squeek by. I believe that the number that
> don't graduate is something along the lines of 25%.
But as others have noted, much of this may have little to do with
ADD/ADHD. Being bored in school is not being ADD/ADHD. Because these
conditions are so hard to diagnose (indeed, there's a lot of contraversey
on this aspect alone), it is presently extremely hard to make even an
educated guess.
> *If* that number is valid, then we are saying that it is OK to
> throw away 25% percent or more of our population, based on what
> we are doing, now.
Now where in the world did that come from?! How does that follow from
anything you or I said?
> >> Some of the reasons that parents may want to send chindren who
> >> are differently abled to publik skool might include the desire
> >> for forced socalization. After all, any time that homeschooling
> >> is mentioned, this is one of the first cries that is heard from
> >> the publik skool proponents -- even though the socalization that
> >> one gets in publik skool has little to do with what they will
> >> experience for the rest of their lives after they leave skool.
> >
> >Let's just be clear that this is a statement of opinion, not fact (though
> >I agree the concern about socialization is one of the first heard).
>
> Well, having been long subscribed to various lists and newsgroups
> involving homeschooling and unschooling and interacting
> personally with hundreds of these people in real life, I'm not
> sure what it takes to move if from opinion to fact in your mind.
>
> Should I call Bekins?
No, it's much to costly to move all my books...
Until then, it remains a point of great professional debate as to the
causes and effects (and just about everything else) of socialization.
Your conclusion might be found to be right some day, but the science isn't
there yet, not by a longshot.
> >> >Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
> >> >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
> >>
> >> Again, my first thought is the "mooooo" factor. Most people
> >> simply don't think.
> >
> >You see this is where your argument really sucks for me.
>
> Whoa!
>
> <unzipping my pants>
>
> <realizing that this is a publik forum and sheepishly zipping up>
>
> Sorry -- hormones.
Aside: I thought "sucks," being fairly colloquial, was pretty tame...
> >When anybody in
> >any debate relies on "most people simply don't think," I can't help but
> >take that as an admission of failure to make the case. It is essentially
> >unprovable and in my experience at least, is always based on the circular
> >logic that "most people don't agree with our philosophy/ideas/whatever,
> >ergo most people can not be thinking."
>
> Well, it may be a conversation stopper, but I can't help but look
> around and see exactly that.
Then I humbly suggest that you look harder. If for no other reason than
there is a paucity of evidence that "most people don't think."
Do you see where I might regard this, at least somewhat, as "people don't
think like I do, therefore they must not be thinking."? I'm left with
this because no other reason is given than what I called in another post
"it is because it is."
> Look, it's not as if not thinking is a heinous crime. Heck, when
> I get into something, I often strive for the ability to do it
> without thinking. It serves me well when I am doing something
> that I simply want to get done and it serves me well when I want
> things to just flow.
Alas, this is a different use of the phrase than employed above (IMHO).
"Look officer, I just wasn't thinking when I made that U-turn" is a far
cry from "most people simply don't think" when deciding where to send
their child to school.
> The problem comes when we make pretty important decisions (like
> sending kids to skool) without thinking about it as most people
> simply do.
>
> I'm not saying that everybody who sends their kids to skool does
> it without thought. I *am* saying that most people who send
> their kids to skool do so simply because "that is what is done."
But that is thinking about it, even if you don't agree with the result.
C. Smith
Michael Moy
>
> In article <36BEF4...@juno.com>, m_...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > C. Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > The default system is the public school system and that's what most people
> > > > are familiar with. Information about home schooling is now widely
> available
> > > > though you have to go out and look for it; we don't actively market
> it like
> > > > some other organizations do. That more people are considering home
> schooling
> > > > for special needs children is remarkable; given that it is little
> known and
> > > > that it runs against the grain of our society of expertise.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you mean by "more people are considering home
> > > schooling for special needs children..." More relative to whom or what?
> >
> > More than would have considered it before the recent rise in hsing.
>
> While home schooling has received a lot more media attention in recent
> years, is there really a measurable recent rise in home schooling? I will
> duly note that this is almost an impossible question to answer by the
> nature of the actitivty.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8208/home_ed.html#misc
See Karl Bunday's page for stats on other states. I don't think that
NH psers has grown by 500% in the last 10 years.
> Further, is there some data to establish the idea that more special
> education children are being home schooled?
I note that there is more activity in the disability newgroups. Our
state
doesn't do a breakdown on types of home schoolers. I don't believe that
our state even maintains records; just counts from the districts.
Michael Moy
>
> In article <36BF005B...@getus.com>, ge...@getus.com wrote:
>
> > C. Smith wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
> >
Problem is that we have to repeat the lists over and over again for
everyone
that asks. I understood what was meant by the "moo factor" argument
though
could easily see that the uninitiated wouldn't.
C. Smith
In spite of figuring that I more or less count as "uninitiated" in this
context, I seemed to get it, just not appreciate it. Or perhaps I
appreciate the "moo factor" argument all too well. Resting a substantial
part of your case on the claim that "most people don't think" I would
suggest explains in large part why so far 99% (more or less) have not
elected to go to home school route.
C. Smith
C. Smith
> C. Smith wrote:
> >
> > In article <36BEF4...@juno.com>, m_...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > > C. Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The default system is the public school system and that's what
most people
> > > > > are familiar with. Information about home schooling is now widely
> > available
> > > > > though you have to go out and look for it; we don't actively market
> > it like
> > > > > some other organizations do. That more people are considering home
> > schooling
> > > > > for special needs children is remarkable; given that it is little
> > known and
> > > > > that it runs against the grain of our society of expertise.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what you mean by "more people are considering home
> > > > schooling for special needs children..." More relative to whom or what?
> > >
> > > More than would have considered it before the recent rise in hsing.
> >
> > While home schooling has received a lot more media attention in recent
> > years, is there really a measurable recent rise in home schooling? I will
> > duly note that this is almost an impossible question to answer by the
> > nature of the actitivty.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8208/home_ed.html#misc
>
> See Karl Bunday's page for stats on other states. I don't think that
> NH psers has grown by 500% in the last 10 years.
My point remains that by the very nature of the endeavor, it is hard, if
not impossible, no accurately measure this statistic. I would suspect
that there are many folks that were already home schooling in New
Hampshire and are only now being counted. So while the reported number
may be rising, the actual number may be closer to constant. But again, I
don't know, because there's really no accurate way for me to know.
In any case, comparing growth rates between home schooling and the public
schools is a little nonsensical. I could say that my personal computer
consulting business grew by 100% last year (that is, if I had such a
business) while IBM only grew by 5% last year. It could all be true, but
it will still be fairly meaningless.
> > Further, is there some data to establish the idea that more special
> > education children are being home schooled?
>
> I note that there is more activity in the disability newgroups. Our state
> doesn't do a breakdown on types of home schoolers. I don't believe that
> our state even maintains records; just counts from the districts.
Activity is newsgroups is not a meaningful measurement for the data we are
talking about.
C. Smith
BTW: Can I drop can.politics, nz.politics from the cross postings?
(snip of remainder)
C. Smith
And another option is improving the public schools. Admittedly, deciding
upon what is improvement is no small task. But if anything, that should
only asd to the urgency to the task.
C. Smith
C. Smith
I think perhaps you missed my point. It takes more effort to get your
driver's license or to home school than it does to "take the default" as
you called it on either.
Pretty much everybody takes the effort to get the driver's license, very
few home school. Accordingly, the "takes more effort" argument isn't very
compelling for me.
C. Smith
BTW: Se my other posting for a reaction on the Windows 95 analogy.
C. Smith
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:21:28 -0600, in misc.education,"Dorothy
> Sacks" <tot...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
> >Glen Appleby wrote in message <36bf86a2...@news.got.net>...
> >>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:23:34 -0600, in misc.education,"Dorothy
> >>Sacks" <tot...@megsinet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Glen, you did say "the skool's solution" YOUR words above.
> >>>You are a cool guy, but I intend to keep you honest on this thread.
> >>
> >>Actually, I didn't say that the skools perscribe anything. Look
> >>at it again.
> >
> >You still implied that the school was recommending the prescription
> >which is not true.
>
> I did no such thing. The skools have less interest in drugging
> kids than they do in getting more money (although I know of some
> cases where the teachers felt that they couldn't handle the kids
> and drugging them was a happy solution to the teacher).
>
> This is a leap that you made all by yerself.
Here, in its entirity, is your original statement:
> >> Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
> >> were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
> >> solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
> >> in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
> >> unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
> >> took off like rockets!
End repost
I think the key phrase that at least I'm zeroing in on is "...the skools'
solution was to drug them into mediocracy..." It is not at all
unreasonable for me to understand that as the schools' proactively seeking
to have students drugged as a matter of policy. If you wish to quibble
that this is different than perscribing, I doesn't change the fact that
your original statement is most certainly false.
> >>>>However, it is my understanding that the skools get additional
> >>>>either federal or state funds for every student that they have
> >>>>enrolled who had been diagnosed as ADD/ADHD.
> >>>
> >>>Not medicated, diagnosed.
> >>
> >>... and this is different from what I said .... how?
> >
> >Of course, it is different although someone else in the thread has
> >said that ADD is not included even in the extra funding. If, however,
> >a diagnosed LD is included, that pays for the special ed services
> >It has nothing to do with medicating or not medicating the student.
> >It pays for pullouts, special classroom aids, perhaps special materials
> >needed for the special ed student. And it is often expensive
>
> I'm wondering what you are going on about, here. Since I never
> said anything about the skools pushing for medication, but for
> the diagnosis, it was again you who made that leap.
>
> Would it be easier for you if I were to just step back and let
> you ramble?
Perhaps instead you may wish to re-read what you originally said.
C. Smith
C. Smith
cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
> In article <36BD97...@juno.com>, m_...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > C. Smith wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think you've missed the target by a wide margin. Whether in a school or
> > > at home, an ADD or ADHD child is going to require more time and energy
> > > than an average child. The average child can have much longer period of
> > > self directed study/activity than the ADD/ADHD child. While the average
> > > child can have half an hour or even an hour of self directed reading, the
> > > ADD child is going to require constant attention. While both are
> > > receiving "individualized education," in their home schooling, the
> > > similarity ends there.
> >
> > The ADD child doesn't require constant attention. Neither does the ADHD
> > child. When you find something that the ADD/ADHD child is intensely
interested
> > in, you'll find it hard to tear them away from it. You just have to do
a good
> > selling job as to making things interesting. It also helps to have an
environment
> > where the child can work without distractions.
>
> The amount of supervision/attention obviously depends on the severity of
> the condition and the activity being attempted. Even if you find
> something the child is intensely interested in, that's doesn't get the job
> of education done. If the child is interested in math, he/she still needs
> to learn English, science, history, etc. Will you agree that there are
> going to be days when you're trying to teach something he/she is not
> particularly interested in? Again, depending upon the severity of the
> condition, there can be plenty of distractions no matter where the child
> is. Please note that I never said that these children require "constant
attention."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Those are your words, not mine. Do you agree that a child
> with this condition is going to take more effort than a normal child?
It's bad form to reply to your own post, but I need to fess up. I told M.
Moy that "constant attention" were his words, not mine. Actually, while
he did say this, he was only repeating what I had *originally* said. My
apologies to M. Moy and everyone else.
C. Smith
Kangamaroo
C. Smith wrote: (and I double checked, and it was C. Smith)
>
>
>I think perhaps you missed my point. It takes more effort to get your
>driver's license or to home school than it does to "take the default" as
>you called it on either.
>
However 'everybody' gets the driver's licence, so in getting the license you
are still doing what everybody else is doing. I don't think you're taking into
account the effort it takes to do something different.
>Pretty much everybody takes the effort to get the driver's license, very
>few home school. Accordingly, the "takes more effort" argument isn't very
>compelling for me.
>
>C. Smith
>
And of course, getting a driver's licence is not an ongoing, day to day effort,
like homeschooling is. Getting a driver's licence makes you more like
everybody else, hsing makes you different.
And getting a driver's license is not really more effort than not getting it.
Very few moms are willing to chauffer until jr. is 50. Not getting a license
means trouble with jobs, socializing, and limited freedom.
Public transit is often not an option at all. For the first time in sixteen
years and seven duty stations, we live in an area where there is a public
transportation system other than a taxi available. And it takes more effort to
use that system than it does to get a license. You have to walk to and from
the bus stop, in rain, cold, snow, hail, wind, and hot, muggy days. You have
to pay each time you ride, or make the effort to buy a bus pass each year.
When he rides the bus, my dh has to leave our house an hour earlier than usual
because of the bus schedule. That's a lot more effort.
I can't see that getting a driver's license isn't still the easier, more
common, and therefore, default decision.
Kanga
The highest form of bliss is living with a certain degree of folly.- Erasmus
Which may explain why we enjoy our seven children so much, particularly the
toddler right now.- Kanga
Elaine Harvey
"C. Smith" wrote:
> In article <36C101...@juno.com>, m_...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > C. Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <36BEF4...@juno.com>, m_...@juno.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > C. Smith wrote:
> > > >
Are you assuming that the people who were homeschooling were 'underground' and are
only now being counted? I suspect that this might have been the case for the first
few years after the current regulations were put into effect, but now, most people
who are still 'underground' are even unknown to other homeschoolers (at least that's
the case in VA). Homeschoolers just don't need to be so secretive anymore, so the
old stereotype of closed drapes and secretive messages to hide one's children is
just outdated.
> So while the reported number
> may be rising, the actual number may be closer to constant. But again, I
> don't know, because there's really no accurate way for me to know.
Sure there is. Homeschoolers register. Any child with a 'profound' disability is
probably registered as such, not that it's noted on the Intent to Homeschool form,
but they've probably been evaluated for services at one time or another. No all of
course, and not those who the parent 'suspects' might have ADD/ADHD or some other
less profound LD.
> In any case, comparing growth rates between home schooling and the public
> schools is a little nonsensical. I could say that my personal computer
> consulting business grew by 100% last year (that is, if I had such a
> business) while IBM only grew by 5% last year. It could all be true, but
> it will still be fairly meaningless.
>
> > > Further, is there some data to establish the idea that more special
> > > education children are being home schooled?
> >
> > I note that there is more activity in the disability newgroups. Our state
> > doesn't do a breakdown on types of home schoolers. I don't believe that
> > our state even maintains records; just counts from the districts.
>
> Activity is newsgroups is not a meaningful measurement for the data we are
> talking about.
My impression comes from the Parent Resource Centers that I speak with in our city.
These are established by the Public School to be run independantly (yeah, right) by
the parents for parents of PS'd children especially LD and Spec Ed kids. The people
manning the Centers have also noted an incredible interest in homeschooling for Spec
Ed kids. Here in Suffolk, VA (sorry, it's the area that I know and I don't want to
speak in generalities for other places, make what analagies you will.) I can
confidently say that there are 8 children homeschooling who have previously had
IEP's with the PS. How do I know that? The Director of that Dept told me and I truly
believe her. I am the only parent who is homeschooling and maintaining the IEP with
the school however. I believe that Suffolk has 80 - 100 registered homeschoolers
total.
You know this just occured to me. On the ng's and at the support group meetings, I
meet LOTS of parents who identify themselves as 'homeschoolers' and their child is
2, 3, or 4 years old. These are not 'registered' homeschoolers. This discrepancy
could cause some of the confusion noted above. (personally, I don't consider them
'homeschoolers' either, I consider them excellent parents, but not 'homeschoolers')
> C. Smith
>
> BTW: Can I drop can.politics, nz.politics from the cross postings?
I did, are you posting from misc.education?
Elaine
>
>
> (snip of remainder)
Ron McDermott
> C. Smith wrote:
>
> > > Homeschooling, even finding out about HS takes extra effort.
> >
> > Getting a driver's license takes effort. People could take the default
> > option and ride public transit (or have mom drive them until they're 50
> > ;-) ). Most go to the effort of passing the driver's ed. class when they
> > are teenagers, then passing the written and driving tests. This involves
> > at least as much effort as finding out about home schooling, so I find
> > your "it takes more effort" argument not very compelling.
>
> What percentage of people drive? What percentage of people home school?
> I like the Windows 95 example better because there is a near monopoly
> in both cases.
Yes, but there are also some differences as well. Windows
has advanced its market share (in significant part) by making
it difficult for alternative operating systems to interact (by
setting up proprietary protocols, for example). Through its
creators, it has actively sabotoged its competitors products.
It has made exclusivity deals with vendors to exclude any
participation by competitors.
Alternative schooling of science, for example, is not hindered
by some type of proprietary science education which makes
it impossible for alternatively-taught students to interact with
"regular" students on the job. Alternatively-schooled students
have not been undermined by regular schools in the sense
that content of both is compatable. Regular schools have
not arranged with business and industry to exclude non-
traditional students' employment.
So yes, each has a large majority, but they have come to
that majority in different ways. In education, the "monopoly"
has not significantly reduced the viability of alternatives in
any way. In a very real sense, traditional education does
not operate as a "monopoly" in the way that a business
monopoly operates.
Glen Appleby
misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>Getting a driver's license takes effort. People could take the default
>option and ride public transit (or have mom drive them until they're 50
>;-) ). Most go to the effort of passing the driver's ed. class when they
>are teenagers, then passing the written and driving tests. This involves
>at least as much effort as finding out about home schooling, so I find
>your "it takes more effort" argument not very compelling.
But, since drivers ed is the default in publik skools, then
getting a license is the default as well.
>> Sending a child to PS takes no extra effort,
>
>This indeed takes effort as well and I would suggest about the same amount
>as even finding out about home schooling.
What is the effort that is required to send a kid to publik skool
that is not the default effort?
>Having said all the above, I'm sure there is some finite number of people
>who do opt for public education because it is "easier," to use your term.
Not because they consciounsly find that it is easier. It is
because it is the default and requires no thought to simply go
along with it because there will be few if any questions about
that "decision".
Glen Appleby
misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>My point remains that by the very nature of the endeavor, it is hard, if
>not impossible, no accurately measure this statistic.
I would suggest that the difficulty comes from the paranoia
generated by the skool systems making homeschooling so difficult
in many areas and from the fact that homeschooling of any sort is
considered to be outside of the norm by many people. Very often,
homeschoolers simply go underground.
IOW, educators have made it difficult to look at homeschooling,
so the result is that they are in a poorer position to actually
see the merits.
I'm not saying that it is intentional, but those are the results.
Glen (*another* fairly short post) Appleby
Michael Moy
>
> In article <36C101...@juno.com>, m_...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > C. Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <36BEF4...@juno.com>, m_...@juno.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > C. Smith wrote:
> > > >
> most people
> > > > > > are familiar with. Information about home schooling is now widely
> > > available
> > > > > > though you have to go out and look for it; we don't actively market
> > > it like
> > > > > > some other organizations do. That more people are considering home
> > > schooling
> > > > > > for special needs children is remarkable; given that it is little
> > > known and
> > > > > > that it runs against the grain of our society of expertise.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand what you mean by "more people are considering home
> > > > > schooling for special needs children..." More relative to whom or what?
> > > >
> > > > More than would have considered it before the recent rise in hsing.
> > >
> > > While home schooling has received a lot more media attention in recent
> > > years, is there really a measurable recent rise in home schooling? I will
> > > duly note that this is almost an impossible question to answer by the
> > > nature of the actitivty.
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8208/home_ed.html#misc
> >
> > See Karl Bunday's page for stats on other states. I don't think that
> > NH psers has grown by 500% in the last 10 years.
>
> that there are many folks that were already home schooling in New
> may be rising, the actual number may be closer to constant. But again, I
> don't know, because there's really no accurate way for me to know.
I guess that you can doubt anything if you try hard enough. Take a look
at
the availability of home school vendors. Call Abeka and ask for their
enrollment figures. Take a look at the statistics for states which
require
minimal reporting requirements. Take a look at the estimated numbers
from
the Federal Department of Education. Everything that I've seen shows
strong
consistent growth.
> In any case, comparing growth rates between home schooling and the public
> schools is a little nonsensical. I could say that my personal computer
> consulting business grew by 100% last year (that is, if I had such a
> business) while IBM only grew by 5% last year. It could all be true, but
> it will still be fairly meaningless.
What's useful, and germaine to the point that I was responding to was
that
we have a measurable recent rise in home schooling. My guess is that it
was
.1 or .2 percent ten to fifteen years ago.
> > > Further, is there some data to establish the idea that more special
> > > education children are being home schooled?
> >
> > I note that there is more activity in the disability newgroups. Our state
> > doesn't do a breakdown on types of home schoolers. I don't believe that
> > our state even maintains records; just counts from the districts.
>
> Activity is newsgroups is not a meaningful measurement for the data we are
> talking about.
Then we're limited to pure guesswork. The type of records about home
schoolers
is limited. The data on public schools is limited too. If you don't take
advantage of some measurement, then you might as well not discuss the
matter.
Michael Moy
> > Problem is that we have to repeat the lists over and over again for everyone
> > that asks. I understood what was meant by the "moo factor" argument though
> > could easily see that the uninitiated wouldn't.
>
> In spite of figuring that I more or less count as "uninitiated" in this
> context, I seemed to get it, just not appreciate it. Or perhaps I
> appreciate the "moo factor" argument all too well. Resting a substantial
> part of your case on the claim that "most people don't think" I would
> suggest explains in large part why so far 99% (more or less) have not
> elected to go to home school route.
I took these as being distinct. The moo-factor is following the crowd.
I specifically left out the other component.
Michael Moy
>
> In article <36bf07cb...@news.got.net>, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 19:57:12 -0800, in
> > misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <36be463b...@news.got.net>, gl...@got.net (Glen
> Appleby) wrote:
> > >
> > >No school has this "solution" available to them. No child is on
> > >medication at the direction of a school. The teacher/principal might
> > >suggest that the child see a doctor, the parents might agree, the doctor
> > >might perscribe and so on... The reality is a far distance from what you
> > >stated above.
> >
> > Then please explain the alarmingly high number of kids in US
> > publik skools who are on Ritilin or other "dumbing down" drugs as
> > compared to, say, the UK.
>
> Humm...
>
> Perhaps I should "explain" this by pointing out the near total disconnect
> between what I said and what you are suggesting. About 88% of children
> attend public school. There is a growing use of Ritilin and other drugs
> on the part of children. Where or where is there necessarily a connection
> between the two?
The behaviour of the kids becomes a problem when they hit school. The
parents
seek professional advice; perhaps on the recommendation of the teacher
or
other school staff or perhaps due to the reports of behavioural problems
with their child.
Michael Moy
> > >
> > > option and ride public transit (or have mom drive them until they're 50
> > > ;-) ). Most go to the effort of passing the driver's ed. class when they
> > > are teenagers, then passing the written and driving tests. This involves
> > > at least as much effort as finding out about home schooling, so I find
> > > your "it takes more effort" argument not very compelling.
> >
> > I like the Windows 95 example better because there is a near monopoly
> > in both cases.
>
> driver's license or to home school than it does to "take the default" as
> you called it on either.
>
> few home school. Accordingly, the "takes more effort" argument isn't very
> compelling for me.
It is for me. Lots of people drive. This provides lots of examples for
others.
You may not like the description but this is the moo-factor.
Michael Moy
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:42:29, Michael Moy <m_...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > C. Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > Homeschooling, even finding out about HS takes extra effort.
> > >
> > > Getting a driver's license takes effort. People could take the default
> > > option and ride public transit (or have mom drive them until they're 50
> > > ;-) ). Most go to the effort of passing the driver's ed. class when they
> > > are teenagers, then passing the written and driving tests. This involves
> > > at least as much effort as finding out about home schooling, so I find
> > > your "it takes more effort" argument not very compelling.
> >
> > What percentage of people drive? What percentage of people home school?
> > I like the Windows 95 example better because there is a near monopoly
> > in both cases.
>
> has advanced its market share (in significant part) by making
> it difficult for alternative operating systems to interact (by
> setting up proprietary protocols, for example). Through its
> creators, it has actively sabotoged its competitors products.
> It has made exclusivity deals with vendors to exclude any
> participation by competitors.
>
> Alternative schooling of science, for example, is not hindered
> by some type of proprietary science education which makes
> it impossible for alternatively-taught students to interact with
> "regular" students on the job. Alternatively-schooled students
> have not been undermined by regular schools in the sense
> that content of both is compatable. Regular schools have
> not arranged with business and industry to exclude non-
> traditional students' employment.
>
> So yes, each has a large majority, but they have come to
> that majority in different ways. In education, the "monopoly"
> has not significantly reduced the viability of alternatives in
> any way. In a very real sense, traditional education does
> not operate as a "monopoly" in the way that a business
> monopoly operates.
Of course, all analogies break down. But those of us in the hsing
community do have to be aware of public schools in the form of
administrators, school boards, and state legislators attempting
to remove our ability to do so.
Glen Appleby
misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>In article <36bf07cb...@news.got.net>, gl...@got.net (Glen Appleby) wrote:
>
>> Then please explain the alarmingly high number of kids in US
>> publik skools who are on Ritilin or other "dumbing down" drugs as
>> compared to, say, the UK.
>
>Humm...
>
>Perhaps I should "explain" this by pointing out the near total disconnect
>between what I said and what you are suggesting. About 88% of children
>attend public school. There is a growing use of Ritilin and other drugs
>on the part of children. Where or where is there necessarily a connection
>between the two?
Please don't assume that I am trying to make the case that
Ritalin is the cause of the failure of publik skools. I'm not.
I am only adding this bit of evidence to the pot.
>> >To use my favorite answer, yes and no.
>>
>> Will you wash my back while you are at it?
>
>Ewwww!!
Well, it's not like I asked you to wash my *front*!
>> Once a parent is convinced that Johnnie has a problem and might
>> be "broken" (something that is often all too easy), it is pretty
>> simple for the skools to help them step easily through the hoops.
>
>Actually, under current law, it isn't (see Donna Metler's posts for more
>on this). <-- a.k.a. I know how to pass the buck! :-)
Saw the post and didn't disagree with the LD part. However, is
it pretty easy to go from ADD/ADHD to LD? Come on -- you can
tell me. I won't tell *anybody* else. It'll be our little
secret.
>> Interesting. So the "special ed" teachers woulda been there
>> anyway? There is no incentive for administrators to build a
>> larger empire? Power doesn't corrupt?
>
>The principal gets the same salary whether there's 25 or 28 teachers at
>the school. Or put another way, he or she still a principal of that
>school. There's no real increase in power here than can corrupt.
Given that teachers and administrators are infamous for sniveling
about how little they are paid, I'm guessing that for
administrators, there is something else that keeps many of them
doing the job. Sure, control of others is often a biggie. But
the more they control, the more powerful they will feel.
>Perhaps when principals get togther they say "I have two more teachers
>than you do- nanner, nanner!", but I doubt it... :-)
Oh, I doubt it, too. Do most parents brag about how they control
their kids? I doubt it. It seems that the dark stuff is seldom
left out in the open.
>> Not right off (although I'll bet that somebody can -- this is a
>> pretty intense topic on various newsgroups). What I can do is
>> suggest that you look at the number of kids who are doing
>> "poorly" in skool. I would suggest that this number represents,
>> to a large degree, those not being served by the system. Then
>> look at the number of these who are described as ADD/ADHD.
>> (Hint: they tend not to bother with kids who are doing well)
>> Then (oh, this is a biggie!) look at the number who don't
>> graduate or who *just* squeek by. I believe that the number that
>> don't graduate is something along the lines of 25%.
>
>But as others have noted, much of this may have little to do with
>ADD/ADHD.
As I said, I'm not making ADD/ADHD my foundation of argument
against publik skools. It is but a single brick in the wall.
>Being bored in school is not being ADD/ADHD. Because these
>conditions are so hard to diagnose (indeed, there's a lot of contraversey
>on this aspect alone), it is presently extremely hard to make even an
>educated guess.
Might it be because ADD/ADHD is not a concrete disease but simply
a nebuluous group of symptoms that can be used as a method to
control?
I worked with a guy, some years ago. He used to work at Seagate
as a supervisor. After many years, there, he was fired for
taking bribes and for sexual harassment. He was well known for
doing that sort of thing all along, but it was difficult to
prove.
When I worked with him, I found him to be a pleasent and bright
person. I asked him about this questionable past. He said,
"Where there is confusion, there is money to be made."
I think that this applies, as well to power. Where there is
confusion, it is most easy to take power. With power comes
control.
>> *If* that number is valid, then we are saying that it is OK to
>> throw away 25% percent or more of our population, based on what
>> we are doing, now.
>
>Now where in the world did that come from?! How does that follow from
>anything you or I said?
What is says is that the publik skool system (I assume trying to
do its best) is simply discarding 25% of the population and they
seem quite proud of their system, saying that it is one of the
best in the world. This is a number that comes from the very
system.
What is says is that the cost of publik education is actually 25%
higher that even they claim, and that is ignoring all of the
costs of those who the system failed, to society in the following
years.
>Until then, it remains a point of great professional debate as to the
>causes and effects (and just about everything else) of socialization.
>Your conclusion might be found to be right some day, but the science isn't
>there yet, not by a longshot.
I'll suggest only one thing, for the time being: perspective.
I got my information from neurophysiology -- from an
understanding of how we learn. Now, neither I nor any
neurophysiologist will claim to know everything about learning;
but the fundimentals seem awfully clear.
That the very people who teach future neurophysiologists are not
grasping (or even looking at, in most cases) the fruits of their
past labors is somewhat amazing to me.
>> >You see this is where your argument really sucks for me.
>>
>> Whoa!
>>
>> <unzipping my pants>
>>
>> <realizing that this is a publik forum and sheepishly zipping up>
>>
>> Sorry -- hormones.
>
>Aside: I thought "sucks," being fairly colloquial, was pretty tame...
It is, but my humor knows almost no depts. I take it where I can
get it.
>Then I humbly suggest that you look harder. If for no other reason than
>there is a paucity of evidence that "most people don't think."
>
>Do you see where I might regard this, at least somewhat, as "people don't
>think like I do, therefore they must not be thinking."? I'm left with
>this because no other reason is given than what I called in another post
>"it is because it is."
<sigh> This is one of the things that I was refering to in an
early post where I was talking about how difficult it is to get a
different perspective across. It's not that I am saying that
"you are all stupid" (much as I might like to sometimes). As I
said, those with a different perspective may have thought about
it quite a bit and for a long time -- as you have thought about
your perspectives for a long time. Both of us are used to
thinking about it in certain terms that, to us, are often well
defined.
It is quite difficult to know how to say something from our
perspectives so that it is understood without coming across as
being condecending.
I have been told that I am a pretty good writer (aside from my
spelling -- bite me) so that may be true. I find that
communicating ideas that are outside of the mainstream is
incredibly frustrating, *because* they are outside of the
mainstream. Well, if they were mainstream ideas, why discuss
them at all? That's boreing.
I have long drempt of a way to connect our thoughts directly --
without speech or writen word. It would simplify so much.
Infortunately, we ain't there, yet.
So, I'm forced to take my chances and give it my best shot this
way.
>> Look, it's not as if not thinking is a heinous crime. Heck, when
>> I get into something, I often strive for the ability to do it
>> without thinking. It serves me well when I am doing something
>> that I simply want to get done and it serves me well when I want
>> things to just flow.
>
>Alas, this is a different use of the phrase than employed above (IMHO).
>"Look officer, I just wasn't thinking when I made that U-turn" is a far
>cry from "most people simply don't think" when deciding where to send
>their child to school.
Actually, I see it as being pretty close to the same.
>> The problem comes when we make pretty important decisions (like
>> sending kids to skool) without thinking about it as most people
>> simply do.
>>
>> I'm not saying that everybody who sends their kids to skool does
>> it without thought. I *am* saying that most people who send
>> their kids to skool do so simply because "that is what is done."
>
>But that is thinking about it, even if you don't agree with the result.
Well, I'll agree that there are neurons firing. But there are
also neurons firing while I sleep.
Marty Carts
"C. Smith" wrote:
> m_...@juno.com wrote:
> > C. Smith wrote:
>
> > > > Homeschooling, even finding out about HS takes extra effort.
>
> > > Getting a driver's license takes effort. People could take the default
> > > option and ride public transit (or have mom drive them until they're 50
> > > ;-) ). Most go to the effort of passing the driver's ed. class when they
> > > are teenagers, then passing the written and driving tests. This involves
> > > at least as much effort as finding out about home schooling, so I find
> > > your "it takes more effort" argument not very compelling.
>
> > What percentage of people drive? What percentage of people home school?
> > I like the Windows 95 example better because there is a near monopoly
> > in both cases.
>
> I think perhaps you missed my point. It takes more effort to get your
> driver's license or to home school than it does to "take the default" as
> you called it on either.
>
> Pretty much everybody takes the effort to get the driver's license, very
> few home school. Accordingly, the "takes more effort" argument isn't very
> compelling for me. C. Smith [...]
I think you probably missed Moy's point--he was obviously speaking to the
characteristic of humans to rely on what others appear to be doing, to not
"buck the trend". There's good reason to do so in some circumstances--many
birds, for example, survive better by living in a flock and reacting to what
the rest of the flock does without question--When the rest of the ducks
squalk and take off, an independent thinker duck is a sitting duck, a dead
duck, or at least a lame duck.
An example, whether it be Win95 or not, to analogize this properly, should
be as Moy said, a case where the large majority behave in some default
manner. __________________________________________Marty
Marty Carts
"C. Smith" wrote:
> ge...@getus.com wrote:
> > C. Smith wrote:
>
> > > > >Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
> > > > >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
>
> > I would think there are more than one reasons, none of which should be very
> > difficult to ferret out.
>
> > (1) Many parents do not feel capable enough to teach the core subjects.
> > (2) Many parents simply do not want to make the effort. The *lazy* factor.
> > (3) Many parents cannot devote the time (both spouses work, multiple-child
> > households, etc.)
> > (4) Many parents feel that if they have to pay school taxes, then
> > they should let the school do it.
> > (5) Many parents are relieved to get the kids out of the house for
> someone else to babysit.
> > (6) Many parents cannot afford for one parent to stay home (closely tied to
> > numbers 3 and 4).
> > (7) Some parents do not know that the homeschool option is open to them.
> > (8) Some parents lack basic intelligence necessary to properly
> > educate a child.
> > (9) Some parents mistakenly believe that homeschooled kids are not as well
> > educated as in pub.
> > (10) Some parents mistakenly believe that socialization is prerequisite
> > to good moral development.
> > (11) Some parents simply don't care one way or the other what kind of
> > things are being taught to their kids and prefer to take the easy way
> out.
> > There are probably others, but these are the answers I get when I consult
> > one-on-one with folks.
>
> I thank you for your list. For me, it stands in stark contrast to what I
> will call the "it is because it is" line of reasoning, represented by the
> "most people don't think" or "moo factor" arguments. Those remain
> unsatisfying and unconvincing because at the end of the day those
> arguments have no substance.
Not at all. Inertia (or momentum, if you will) is an important factor in
many (most?) disciplines, from dynamics, to electricity, to financial
market modelling, to public acceptance of alternatives for banking,
education, nutrition, etc. I really can't understand why you don't
understand that this "moo factor" (aka the "most people don't think"
factor, or inertia) is by nature of the fact that we live in a temporal
world, applicable to almost all areas of human existence.
You might correctly argue the *extent* of the influence of inertia on
the size of the hsing population, but to deny that it *is* a factor seems
really silly to me.
> I don't doubt for a moment that all 11 of your reasons apply in some
> fashion to some finite number of people. But I can't see any way how they
> can all add up to the 99% or so who choose public or private school for
> their children. Heck, even you point out how some of these reasons
> overlap, making it even harder to explain the difference. C. Smith
I do. Of course, I'ld add another reason:
(12) Most parents are unwilling to investigate the mechanics of hsing to
the extent that they could make a wise decision to engage in hsing if other
factors warranted it.
I consider this the biggest factor, supported, admittedly by my own
experience with non-hsers. The vast majority of these (not large
absolute numbers, but basically *everyone* with whom I speak on
the topic) who end up commenting express (either intentionally or
not) an ignorance of what hsing is about (e.g. "but how can they
*graduate*?!") and how it can be pursued.
> BTW: Your use of the "mistakenly believe" in numbers 9 and 10
> undercuts your credibility. Both of those points are, at a minimum,
> quite debatable.
geno: (9) Some parents mistakenly believe that homeschooled kids
geno: are not as well educated as in pub.
(9) is *only* debatable in the context of some individual cases, and not
in general. As I mentioned in another post in this thread (I think in
response to you) I have never heard of an assessment (report or study)
that concludes any negative general corrolation between hsing and
academics.
geno: (10) Some parents mistakenly believe that socialization
geno: is prerequisite to good moral development.
Perhaps Geno was using "socialization" to mean the aspects
of training that are associated with large groups of age-peers.
If so, then I agree--it is grand folly to think that there is any
positive corrolation between the thus-defined "socialization"
and the development of morality.
I'm curious how you (C. Smith) could take issue with this.
> I would hope that you would grant that some finite number of
> home schooled children are not being as well educated or properly
> socialized (in the context of your criteria) as they would be in a public
> school.
Sure, I'll bet that most hsers would grant this. But most hsers
would still take issue with your above statement if it wasn't
phrased to clearly indicate that it in no way applies to the
general population of hsers and the general population of
psers. ____________________________________Marty
Glen Appleby
misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>And another option is improving the public schools. Admittedly, deciding
>upon what is improvement is no small task. But if anything, that should
>only asd to the urgency to the task.
Somebody (Dorthy?) mentioned that publik skools were starting to
incorporate student-led learning. A move in the right direction?
I don't think so -- not yet. Not as long as there are compulsory
education laws in effect. See, those laws make a total sham of
"student-led learning" in the skools. They say "You must learn
when we say that you will learn."
The result is that, like so many other new methods of teaching
that have failed over the years, educators will point at the
experiment and proudly proclaim "See! We *told* you that we were
doing it the right way and that student-led learning just doesn't
work."
However, if there is some improvement in outcomes with compulsory
education (and I totally expect that there would be *some*
improvement), they will say "Ah, so this is an improvement. We
can use this with much or all of education as long as the
students learn all of the things that we want them to learn."
Again, that would miss the point of student-led learning -- that
it is a life-long process where the student is never turned off
to learning and, since everything is connected to everything
else, will be confident to learn all that she needs to know in
her life, no matter what comes up.
Glen Appleby
misc.education,cla...@nospamccnet.com (C. Smith) wrote:
>Here, in its entirity, is your original statement:
>
>> >> Oh, *please*! Many of the kids that I know that are homeschooled
>> >> were classified by the skools as "ADD/ADHD" and the skools'
>> >> solution was to drug them into mediocracy so that they would "fit
>> >> in". The homeschooling parent pulled them out of skool and began
>> >> unschooling. After between a few months and a year, these kids
>> >> took off like rockets!
>
>End repost
>
>I think the key phrase that at least I'm zeroing in on is "...the skools'
>solution was to drug them into mediocracy..." It is not at all
>unreasonable for me to understand that as the schools' proactively seeking
>to have students drugged as a matter of policy. If you wish to quibble
>that this is different than perscribing, I doesn't change the fact that
>your original statement is most certainly false.
But the evidence of numbers does suggest that this is the case.
As I said, compare the numbers in the US to the numbers of other
industrtialized nations and tell me that there is no difference.
If you can suggest some other reason why our skools are "finding"
a rediculously higher rate of ADD/ADHD kids than anyplace else in
the world, I'd sure like to hear it.
Now, it would make more sense to me if you zeroed in on "Many of
the kids that I know that are homeschooled were classified by the
skools as "ADD/ADHD" " -- specifically the "diagnosed" part. I
admit that the words should have been in quotes in my post, since
it is seldom that the skool would have anybody on staff that can.
legally, diagnose. However, they *have* been known to pull that
smelly morsel out and offer it to the parent, knowing that the
parent usually wants to do the Right Thing (tm).
When a parent sees the skool administrators and/or teachers as
some sort of authority AND the parent is into control, there is
an awfully compelling answer ... although to the (again) wrong
question.
Glen Appleby
Harvey <meha...@exis.net> wrote:
>Are you assuming that the people who were homeschooling were 'underground' and are
>only now being counted? I suspect that this might have been the case for the first
>few years after the current regulations were put into effect, but now, most people
>who are still 'underground' are even unknown to other homeschoolers (at least that's
>the case in VA). Homeschoolers just don't need to be so secretive anymore, so the
>old stereotype of closed drapes and secretive messages to hide one's children is
>just outdated.
I don't know what state you live in. Some are *great* for
homeschoolers. Others, like California, are pretty moderate (if
you ignore the threatening letters that are sent out from the
Office of Education, here). But there are some states that
require some pretty nasty things, still. Some states require a
teaching credential. Other states require a religious reason.
Sadly, there are still many who homeschool underground.
Bruce D. Ray
> C. Smith wrote:
>
> > >
> > > >Why does the vast, vast majority of parents (regular or special needs
> > > >children) elect to send their children to public or private schools?
{some deleted here}
> (1) Many parents do not feel capable enough to teach the core subjects.
How to instruct in core subjects, including what resources
to use, is a quite common inquiry by those investigating
home education.
> (2) Many parents simply do not want to make the effort. The *lazy* factor.
This is an ironic statement since legislators in several
states {most recently MO state legislator Skaggs as quoted
in the Wednesday, Feb. 10, 1999 __St. Louis Post Dsipatch}
claim that many home educators are home educators only
because they are too lazy to get their children up and into
school. I really think we would all do better without
the "your too lazy" accusations being flung around, but
I deeply fear that the bitter characterizations flung
around by some state legislators and their supporters
and organizational contributors across this nation have
too polarized this debate. I would really hope that
home educators would have the decency to refrain from
making this same accusation of laziness.
> (3) Many parents cannot devote the time (both spouses work, multiple-child
> households, etc.)
Actually, many home educators around Indianapolis {indeed,
most of the home educators I know of in Indianapolis} are
mostly moderate sized {by which I mean 6 to 8 children}
multiple-child households.
> (4) Many parents feel that if they have to pay school taxes,
> then they should let the school do it.
This can be augmented by the idea that if one pays taxes for
something, one *must* use it.
> (5) Many parents are relieved to get the kids out of the house
> for someone else to babysit.
One of the comments many home educators report from non-home
educators is to the effect that they couldn't stand to be
around their children all day.
> (6) Many parents cannot afford for one parent to stay home (closely
> tied to numbers 3 and 4).
Over the past two decades, several have attempted to add up
the marginal costs of a second income. The first such attempt
to compute these marginal costs that I am aware of was done
by the president of a Texas real estate development firm.
I have yet to see any such attempt to compute these marginal
costs that indicates that the real contribution to family
finances of a second income, after all costs of the second
income are factored in, is all that great. Some of these
computations I've seen actually suggest that the marginal
tax created through the second income, combined with the
other costs related to the second income, may make the
second income a negative contributor to family finances.
> (7) Some parents do not know that the homeschool option is open to them.
Even after many years, home educators still get questioned
about the legality of home education, even by some who by
reason of governmental position {e.g., judges} ought to know
the law. This hints at the possibility that this may well
be a prominent reason.
> (8) Some parents lack basic intelligence necessary to properly
> educate a child.
>
> (9) Some parents mistakenly believe that homeschooled kids are not as well
> educated as in pub.
I would say that the belief on their part is an honest belief
despite the number published accounts of award winning home
educated students. {Home educated National Merit Semi-finalists
haven't even rated news blurbs in Indianapolis since about
5 years ago when Shelby County had a home educated National
Merit Finalist. Perhaps somebody [Karl?] should make a FAQ
of home educated National Merit Semi-finalists, Finalists,
and Scholars?} One faculty member connected with freshman
engineering here {We grant Purdue degrees in both elecrical
and mechanical engineering here.} has been known to complain
about how the admissions office people here do not realize
that home educated students are some of their best students.
This belief is probably quite widespread.
> (10) Some parents mistakenly believe that socialization is
> prerequisite to good moral development.
This is the most poorly worded reason of all. I would replace
it by:
(10) Some parents honestly believe that children will not
receive good social development unless they are in some
form of age segregated institutional education.
> (11) Some parents simply don't care one way or the other what
> kind of things are being taught to their kids and prefer to take
> the easy way out.
I've often read comments by parents and teachers about how
few parents attend parent-teacher conferences. If the
number of such comments were reflective of the actual state
of parental involvment in the institutional education of
their children, then this would be a major factor in parental
choice of public education in particular. I simply do not
believe that their are that many uninvolved parents connected
with public education for this reason to be more than an
extremely minor factor. {At least, I hope that this is not
a major reason.}
The following are some other reasons for the choice of some
form of institutional education:
(12) Some honestly believe that it is their duty to have their
children educated by the civil government so that their children
will be proper citizens of the state. Of course, these will
seek out public education. {This belief is closely related to
the accusation sometimes expressed that home educators are
how "Balkanizing" the US, and to the belief that civil
governments have some inherent or semi-divine right to
indoctrinate all children in their region of geographic
influence.}
(13) Equally, some honestly believe that it is their duty to
have their children educated by a religious institution so
that their children will be proper followers of a religion.
Of course, these will seek out private, religious education.
(14) Some honestly believe that it is their duty to their
children to have their children educated by an elite private
institution so that their children will have the "right"
connections {e.g., social, political, academic, etc.
connections}. Of course, these will seek out private
education from elite institutions. These institutionally
forged connections do exist, and those so institutionally
connected do assist one another quite effectively.
--
Warning to commercial e-mailers {spammers}: The e-mail
address provided above is for information purposes only
and is subjected to extensive e-mail filtering. Do not
send unsolicited commercial e-mail to this address.