Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A good experiment would be to sign the kids up for the failing schools, and see how well they do! After all, demographics are on your kids' side, right? I'm going to guess that you're not willing to experiment on your children, though, to see if this is the case. And neither am I. Homeschooling works for my kids, and I'm not going to send them to what I consider a sub-par school to "see what happens." Homeschooling works for homeschoolers. Public schooling works for public schoolers (well, some of them). I still don't understand why you care about what homeschoolers do or don't do? How does it affect what your kids are doing in their schools?
We're kind of doing that. The schools they will be attending are not the best the city has to offer. If I thought school quality was the end al be all, I'd move. I trust they'll do fine anyway because they have demographics on their side. Things like maternal education at birth are stronger predictors of how well children will do in school than the ranking of the school. Now peer influences do matter and school ranking reflects demographics so you don't want to be off too much either way really. If the demographics of the school are too much higher than your kids, they don't fit in. If they're lower, they could pull your child down. In the end, peers matter more than parents.
I see the effects of demographics every day in my classroom. Successful students, dispropotionately, come from two parent households and have involved parents. We joke that it's the parents we don't need to see who show up for conferences. I can't comment on parental education as the norm for our school is low and I haven't polled the parents to see which are educated.
As a parent, I'm not automatically qualified to teach all subjects. If being a parent did qualify one to teach all subjects, all I would need is my children's birth certificates to teach. I wouldn't need my degree, my test scores or my license. Unfortunately, there was nothing in the parenting test I took to have kids on teaching all subjects . All being a parent means is the plumbing works. It doesn't make me qualified to teach my children everything. Which is why I prefer me AND the school. Me as their parent and what I do plus what the school has to offer is way more than my kids would have with me alone.
And don't take this data to mean homeschooled children are doing fine. What it really says is homeschooled children whose parents choose to have them tested are doing fine. That would be a subset of the exclusive school. I'll bet I could come up with the same numbers too if I picked which students would test. Apples to oranges here.
It's difficult to compare test scores even between schools and you have some demographic information. When I go on line to compare schools, they include things like percentage of children on free and reduced lunch and percent of parents with college educations because they matter. Increase the first and/or lower the second and you'd expect test scores to drop. My kids don't score where they do because of their school so much as because of the family they were born into. Acorns don't fall far from the tree. Fortunately, neither of my kids inherited the learning disabilities that run in dh's family. There is no reason to expect them to be any less successful at education than their parents were and every reason to expect more since I came from a family that does not value education and was openly discouraged from continuing mine.
My kids will do fine if I send them to this school, back to their old school or over to the better high school. I would predict the worse case scenario for them would be homeschool because I am not qualified to teach all subjects. They would, definitely, lose something if they lost the school and that's before you consider the value of spending so much time with peers in a setting away from your parents.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 08-12-2009 at 10:23 AM..
Oh well, whatever, only time will tell I guess. *shrug* Ivory, good luck to your kids in the new school! Since I know you're an involved parent, I'm sure they'll do fine either way.
On another note, I'm so excited to start this year! We're starting KONOS, which is made up of character-based unit studies, and it looks like so much fun! When we're done hosting our second exchange student of the summer in a couple of weeks, I'll be able to take some time to more closely plan out the first part of the year. Yay!
Oh well, whatever, only time will tell I guess. *shrug* Ivory, good luck to your kids in the new school! Since I know you're an involved parent, I'm sure they'll do fine either way.
On another note, I'm so excited to start this year! We're starting KONOS, which is made up of character-based unit studies, and it looks like so much fun! When we're done hosting our second exchange student of the summer in a couple of weeks, I'll be able to take some time to more closely plan out the first part of the year. Yay!
My kids will have more opportunities at their new schools than they did at their old school. There are more resources to choose from. Plus with the schools being larger, they should have no trouble finding groups they fit with and things to get involved in.
I know my kids will do fine because they have done fine. I have one scoring in the upper 10 percent an one who likes to bump the top. That isn't going to change because their school changed. I'd have to do something stupid like start limiting their educational resources to accomplish that.
I am a little worried about dd#1 but I'm hoping it turns out to be unfounded. She doesn't make friends easily. I would have preferred she stayed at her old school with her old friends but only one was going on to the high school so, either way, she's faced with developing a new peer group. In the larger school, she has more to choose from and more things to get involved in. This school ranks higher than their old one but that's because of demographic differences between the schools.
I don't expect I'll change any homeschooler's minds but I'm not going to sit back and let someone claim that something has been proved that hasn't been. Correlation does not equal causation. Yes, they've correlated higher reading levels, for one, to homeschooling but did homeschooling cause that or did demographics? Would this same group of children have read on the same level regardless of where they were schooled?
Nothing has been proven here. And yes, I'll keep pointing that out because some people don't get that. After the recent discussion on just this type of "study" (It's just a correlation not a study that shows causal relationships.), the fact this was posted shows people don't get that you have to look at the whole picture.
The issue is that when data like this is touted to mean more than it does, it might convince people who don't have the things going for them that the original group in the data set did. So it's worth reminding people that until you compare apples to apples, all you have is a correlation that may or may not mean anything. As a parent, I have no doubt that I'm not as qualified to teach all subjects as the pool of teachers my kids have in school. If I took this data and ran with it, I'd do my kids a disservice. I'm simply not a subject matter expert across the board. There are some areas where I'd be offering my kids a much poorer teacher than they will have in school.
It would be interesting to compare the same demographic from public schools that homeschools. Unfortunately, they're not breaking the data out this way. It would be expected to reduce the difference. How much is anyone's guess. They need a controlled study if they really want to prove something here but all they have is raw data from two different groups.
This is like comparing schools where one more exclusive than another. Does that the more exclusive school has higher scores mean it's a better school or they have better students? You'll never know until you compare students with the same things going for them from both camps which is difficult to do.
I just signed my daugher up for what is considered one of the lesser schools in our district. It does not compare to the city's gem on the other side of town (no school of choice). However, demographics don't compare either. They offer the same classes, use the same texts and teach to the same objectives. My kids fit better with the demographic on the other side of town. Based on demographics alone, I'd expect them to do well in their school. Will they do as well as if they were on the other side of town? I don't know. There's no way to compare but I know they have demographics on their side. To quote the principal when we enrolled our kids "With parents like you, your kids can't help but suceed.". He has a very valid point there. The question, which no one can answer, is whether or not they'd do better in the school on the other side of town. Given that peers matter, they very well could but we really can't know.
Sweetheart..have you actually read the article? Just to point out, in the kindest of ways, the test results were broken up by demographis. Some of what you speaks is true, the poorest of the homeschoolers did indeed provide the lowest of test scores while the richest provided the highest. $35,000 or less income only scored in the 85th percentile while those with household incomes over $70,000 scored at the 89th percentile. If neither parent had a college degree they only scored at the 83rd percentile yet when both did, they scored at the 90th percentile.
But you said with ACT/SAT tests score, a 7% increase must not speak for itself as you don't feel that it is that much of a difference.
So the conclusion is that you are right, demographics does speak for something. Its just less pronounced with homeschoolers.
Since almost 25% of home school students are enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools, you could say that 25% of these testing students would test even higher, in the 90-100 percentile for their same age peers.
Don't believe everything you read. The lowest performing segment of the population isn't known to homeschool. Anyone can achieve higher numbers if they lob off the poorest performing students. I wonder how high my school's average would go if we could lob off the bottom. We really struggle with the bottom 30%.
In order to compare homeschooling to traditional schooling you'd have to compare the same demographic. Elminate the poor who can't afford to stay at home and homeschool, elminate most single parent households because usually it takes two parents, one to pay the bills and one to homeschool, to pull off homeschooling, increase the percentage of parents with educations, and test only kids who have involved parents. The latter alone is probably worth 25 percentage points compared to an average that includes everyone including the local drug dealers kids.
Sorry, this doesn't prove anything because homeschooling demographics alone would predict higher scores. I would hope, for the sake of their kids, that homeschoolers are smart enough to know you can't compare apples to oranges, find a difference and think you proved something.
The best you can say is homeschooled kids are doing well. However, you can't say they are doing better than they would have had they attended public school without controlling demographics. It's just not an apples to apples comparison.
But IT, I don't know if you saw this data from that study. It's exactly what you're asking for.
Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.
$34,999 or less—85th percentile
$35,000–$49,999—86th percentile
$50,000–$69,999—86th percentile
$70,000 or more—89th percentile
The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
Neither parent has a college degree—83rd percentile
One parent has a college degree—86th percentile
Both parents have a college degree—90th percentile
But IT, I don't know if you saw this data from that study. It's exactly what you're asking for.
Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.
$34,999 or less—85th percentile
$35,000–$49,999—86th percentile
$50,000–$69,999—86th percentile
$70,000 or more—89th percentile
The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
Neither parent has a college degree—83rd percentile
One parent has a college degree—86th percentile
Both parents have a college degree—90th percentile
I meant poorest performing. While the poorest segment of the population is less likely to homeschool, they are still represented among homeschoolers just in lesser numbers than in traditional schooling. Family income, however does make a difference as is shown by your own data. What do the scores look like for families living in poverty and homeschooling? Or are they even represented?
It's not the kids who are failing in our schools whose parents pull them to homeschool. The kids who are failing, mostly, have parents who don't care. Being a charter school, we have more than our share of kids who are failing but I can count on both hands the number of parents who tried to work with us. Quite likely many of the kids who are failing are failing because their parents don't care. You lob off those kids and the kids of homeschoolers who choose, for whatever reason, not to test their kids. So, really, you're comparing the kids homeschooling parents chose to have tested to everyone in public schools. I would hope homschooling would be well above average with the deck stacked like that.
Reading is one area homeschooling has to be better. Since the parents aren't teachers and aren't subject matter experts, the knowledge base has to come from somewhere and, most likely, it will be books. I loaned a set of chemistry books to a homeschooling mom (who never returned them ) because they were good books for someone to read their way through chemistry and she knew little chemistry. That's really the only way I can see to even start to make up for the lack of subject matter experts for kids. Kids have to find the answers to all of their chemistry questions in the book as it's doubtful the parents will know how to explain things like Red-Ox reactions.
The study, or at least the part that I could see, didn't pull out the statistics for parents without a high school degree, though.
I don't agree with everything Ivory says, but she has some good points; the fact is that kids who are homeschooled ARE the children of parents who are actively involved and who demonstrate an interest in their children's education. Many of these kids would probably also do well in any school. The fact that their parents are involved and care is often what makes the difference between a student who thrives and a student who fails.
The study does show that homeschooling does work for many children, that parents don't have to be wealthy to be good teacher or to value education, and that a parent having a college degree isn't essential for success, but it's not useful as a tool to compare homeschooling against other educational options. And really, that's fine. This competition to say that one form of education is "better" than another is rather pointless. Far better to concentrate on making sure that every kid has the best opportunities available, whether at home or in a formal classroom.
The study, or at least the part that I could see, didn't pull out the statistics for parents without a high school degree, though.
I don't agree with everything Ivory says, but she has some good points; the fact is that kids who are homeschooled ARE the children of parents who are actively involved and who demonstrate an interest in their children's education. Many of these kids would probably also do well in any school. The fact that their parents are involved and care is often what makes the difference between a student who thrives and a student who fails.
The study does show that homeschooling does work for many children, that parents don't have to be wealthy to be good teacher or to value education, and that a parent having a college degree isn't essential for success, but it's not useful as a tool to compare homeschooling against other educational options. And really, that's fine. This competition to say that one form of education is "better" than another is rather pointless. Far better to concentrate on making sure that every kid has the best opportunities available, whether at home or in a formal classroom.
As I said, the study shows they are doing well but it doesn't say they are doing better/worse than they would have in public school. Parental involvement is a big factor. Unfortunately, it appears to be parents who choose to be involved that make a difference. Recent research where they worked to get parents who weren't involved more involved didn't seem to result in higher performance in school. My guess is that's probably because involved parents are working off of a multi year foundation of involvement not just, suddenly, becomming involved in the 4th grade and those parents choice to be involved reflects that they value education.
I wish those studies said that just increasing parental involvement of uninvolved parents worked. There'd be some hope for the kids who are falling through the cracks if there were. It would be nice if just getting the parents on board meant the kids would be ok. It appears the parents need to be on board long before kids get to us. I guess that's not surprising as you'd expect a child's attitude about education to mirror that of their parents. If the parents care so little they have to be coaxed into being involved should we expect any more from the kids?
What do the scores look like for families living in poverty and homeschooling? Or are they even represented?
I'm not sure where you live, but where most people in the U.S. live, $35,000 or less a year is by no means a princely salary, particularly since the data included people making below $35,000.
I'm not sure where you live, but where most people in the U.S. live, $35,000 or less a year is by no means a princely salary, particularly since the data included people making below $35,000.
It's well above poverty. I would guess few welfare recipients are homeschooling their kids. I looked at some research not too long ago that compared income levels for public vs. homeschooling. The lower income bracket was much lower than the for public schooling. Educated mothers were quite a bit higher for homeschooling and that's a big one for predicting success of children. Unfortunately, they were still the minority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. All being a parent means is the plumbing works. It doesn't make me qualified to teach my children everything. Which is why I prefer me AND the school. Me as their parent and what I do plus what the school has to offer is way more than my kids would have with me alone. 
) because they were good books for someone to read their way through chemistry and she knew little chemistry. That's really the only way I can see to even start to make up for the lack of subject matter experts for kids. Kids have to find the answers to all of their chemistry questions in the book as it's doubtful the parents will know how to explain things like Red-Ox reactions.
