What if you decide to home school your children (score, bachelor's, requirement)

[Katarina Witt]

Actually, if you look over all my posts, I'm trying to be balanced. tony23 is the one arguing that homeschooled students are superior. He said he had statistics to prove it. I'm saying it doesn't look that way.

Statistics are helpful, and if they showed a way greater advantage to one or the other, I'd definitely say that's the way to go. However, these stats are equivocal at best. More college admissions people in Ohio think that homeschooled kids are about the same, or they simply don't know if they are better or worse (~2/3) than think homeschooled students are better prepared. The sample size in this grop was small, too; 34 admissions officers. A group of different admissions officers might see it entirely differently. Not to mention this was based on the admissions people's perceptions, not any hard data. Homeschooled students score slightly higher on critical thinking (this is all based on stats provided by tony23, BTW), but the difference is not statistically significant.

As far as statistics not lying, when I took stats in college one of our assinged readings was a book called "How to Lie with Statistics". And yes, statistical significance does matter. Some differences are due simply to chance, e.g. which students were chosen to be in each group. Statistically significant results mean the differences are not due to chance.

[TouchOfWhimsy]

You said that parents who are unqualified to teach, are teaching their children, and that is not good for the kids.

tony23 said that statistics prove otherwise (I took this to mean that "unqualified" parents teaching their children is NOT harmful to the kids).

You said that you had not seen such statistics.

tony23 showed you statistics that showed that since homeschooled kids are doing as well as publicly schooled kids, the unqualified parents are not harming their chances at success.

You said that homeschoolers are not significantly better prepared than public schoolers, so therefore his stats are being misread/misinterpreted/are lying.

Of course it depends on which students the schools are looking at. THey're not looking at a whole class of inner city students who don't speak English at home and have no desire/chance of higher education, and they're not looking at a group of homeschool students who were not interested in going to college. They're looking at the students from both groups (homeschools and public schools) who were interested in applying to their school. It would stand to reason that those kids are reasonably well prepared, no matter what type of schooling they come from. That does NOT support your statement that parents who are unqualified to teach in a school are doing their own kids an injustice by teaching them at home.

More college admissions people in Ohio think that homeschooled kids are about the same, or they simply don't know if they are better or worse (~2/3) than think homeschooled students are better prepared. The sample size in this grop was small, too; 34 admissions officers.

Another way to look at this is that 2/3 of college admissions people in Ohio think that homeschooled kids are about the same or better than public schooled students, and 1/3 don't know. You can read the statistics however you want to, I guess. None of the admissions officers said that they were worse off than public school students. Do you think that they were lying, or were biased towards homeschool students?

Why do people (not necessarily you in particular) feel so threatened by homeschooling? Are they afraid that homeschoolers really are doing a better job than the public schools? With dropout rates being what they are, and parents complaining about standardized testing, and all of the problems that I hear from parents whose kids go to school, can they really think that parents can do a WORSE job educating their own kids??

[925mine]

Academically
[SIZE=2][/SIZE][SIZE=2]Home school students scored significantly higher than their public and private school counterparts. The studies below prove homeschool students do exceptionally well when compared with the nationwide average. In every subject and at every grade level of the ITBS and TAP batteries.[/SIZE]

Socially[SIZE=2]
Studies also show homeschoolers mature and better socialized than are those sent to school. Dr. John Wesley Taylor's nationwide study revealed that the self-concept of home school students was significantly higher than that of public school students for the global and all six subscales of the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale. The Galloway-Sutton Study (performed in 1997), showed that from five success indicators [/SIZE][SIZE=2](academic, cognitive, spiritual, affective-social and pyschomotor), comparing with public and private schooled students, "in every success category except pyschomotor, the home school graduates excelled above the other students."[/SIZE]

www.homeschoolinformation.com

Homeschoolers continue to exhibit academic excellence on national averages for college admissions tests when compared to public school students.

The ACT college admission exam scores show homeschoolers consistently performing above the national average. In both 2002 and 2003, the national homeschool average was 22.5, while the national average was 20.8.

The College Board, which administers the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) also notes the above-average performance of homeschoolers. In 2002, homeschoolers averaged 1092, 72 points higher than the national average of 1020. In 2001, homeschoolers scored 1100 on the SAT, compared to the national average of 1019. (2003 homeschool statistics not yet available.)

HSLDA | Homeschooling Maintains Academic Success

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin

You said that parents who are unqualified to teach, are teaching their children, and that is not good for the kids.

tony23 said that statistics prove otherwise (I took this to mean that "unqualified" parents teaching their children is NOT harmful to the kids).

You said that you had not seen such statistics.

tony23 showed you statistics that showed that since homeschooled kids are doing as well as publicly schooled kids, the unqualified parents are not harming their chances at success.

You said that homeschoolers are not significantly better prepared than public schoolers, so therefore his stats are being misread/misinterpreted/are lying.

Oh, no, I didn't say this. I said it is possible to lie with statistics. I am taking his statistics at face value. They do not show any superiority to homeschooling. Here is a link to "statistical significance" http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm

Of course it depends on which students the schools are looking at. THey're not looking at a whole class of inner city students who don't speak English at home and have no desire/chance of higher education, and they're not looking at a group of homeschool students who were not interested in going to college. They're looking at the students from both groups (homeschools and public schools) who were interested in applying to their school. It would stand to reason that those kids are reasonably well prepared, no matter what type of schooling they come from. That does NOT support your statement that parents who are unqualified to teach in a school are doing their own kids an injustice by teaching them at home.


How do you know this? Did you read the study design?

Another way to look at this is that 2/3 of college admissions people in Ohio think that homeschooled kids are about the same or better than public schooled students, and 1/3 don't know. You can read the statistics however you want to, I guess. None of the admissions officers said that they were worse off than public school students. Do you think that they were lying, or were biased towards homeschool students?

No, I don't think they were lying. They were talking off the top of their heads, it seems. They did not provide any data to support their statements. There were 34 of them. That is not a large sample size, in any experiment.

Why do people (not necessarily you in particular) feel so threatened by homeschooling? Are they afraid that homeschoolers really are doing a better job than the public schools? With dropout rates being what they are, and parents complaining about standardized testing, and all of the problems that I hear from parents whose kids go to school, can they really think that parents can do a WORSE job educating their own kids??

I guess you have answered that for your kids.

[TouchOfWhimsy]

Of course it depends on which students the schools are looking at. THey're not looking at a whole class of inner city students who don't speak English at home and have no desire/chance of higher education, and they're not looking at a group of homeschool students who were not interested in going to college. They're looking at the students from both groups (homeschools and public schools) who were interested in applying to their school. It would stand to reason that those kids are reasonably well prepared, no matter what type of schooling they come from. That does NOT support your statement that parents who are unqualified to teach in a school are doing their own kids an injustice by teaching them at home.

How do you know this? Did you read the study design?

Well, I'm assuming that the public schooled kids applying to the college were actually interested in attending. I suppose they all could have applied with absolutely no intention of going there, and with no college preparation, but to me, that sounds like a stretch.

[tony23]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I guess I missed that. Here is a relevant quote from your previous post in re: college admissions officials in Ohio concerning homeschooled kids:

Here, let me help you out a bit

About nine percent said "far more academically successful," 22 percent reported "somewhat more academically successful," 38 percent said "academically about average," zero percent reported "somewhat less academically successful," zero percent said "far less academically successful," and 31 percent said "don't know."

Let's do some basic math. I'm sure everyone can follow along, it's easier than what my 6-year-old son does:

9 + 22 = 31% of homeschooled students are more successful than traditionally schooled students.

38% are average

and, here's the real kicker: 0+0 = 0% are less successful.

In the statement above, homeschooled students are being compared to the average, in terms of academic success. Based on this, it is very clear that the average homeschooled student is more successful than the average non-homeschooled student. Not only that, but it would appear that the least successful homeschooled student is no worse than the average non-homeschooled student.

Let me help you with the other one, too:

Oliveira, Watson and Sutton (1994) found that home-educated college students had a slightly higher overall mean critical thinking score than did students from public schools, Christian schools, and ACE [private] schools but the differences were not statistically significant.

Homeschooled students apparently did a little bit better at critical thinking. "Not statistically significant" means that the difference in scores was smaller than the margin of error for the study. It certainly does not mean that they didn't do as well.

Here is another relevant quote that you didn't use:

Both the SAT and ACT publishers have reported for several years that the scores of the homeschooled are higher, on average, than those from public schools.

If you had actually read the article, you would have seen the sentence preceeding that statement:

ACTs and SATs are the best-known test predictors of success in university or college in America.

And you might also have seen the sentence following:

For example, for the 1999-2000 school year, the home-educated scored an average of 568 in verbal while the state-school (i.e., public-school) average was 501, and 532 in math while the state-school average was 510 (Barber, 2001).

Those are some rather significant differences. That's an average composite of 1100 for homeschooled students, versus an average composite of 1011 for public school students.

I'm curious: if the parents are so unqualified to teach their own children, then exactly how is it that homeschooled children are statistically more academically successful?

Originally Posted by Katiana

Actually, if you look over all my posts, I'm trying to be balanced. tony23 is the one arguing that homeschooled students are superior. He said he had statistics to prove it. I'm saying it doesn't look that way.

Umm, looking over your posts, that is NOT what you are saying, and it isn't what I'm saying either.

You previously stated:

Originally Posted by Katiana

homeschooling well into high school, trying to teach subjects one is not qualified to teach, is not helping the child.

I replied

And yet, all the statistics would seem to argue against your position.

Are you somehow suggesting that taking a course that statistically has a better chance, even if only a slightly better chance, for success is somehow not helpful, or is being done for selfish reasons on the part of the parent?

[Katarina Witt]

Let me help you out a bit.

Of 34 college admissions officers, "about 9 % said that home schoolers were far more academically successful". In other words, three admissions officers. 22%, or 7.48 officers (?) said homeschoolers were "somewhat more academically successful". 38%, 12.92 officers said "academically about average", 0 said "somewhat less. . . ", 0 said "far less", and 31%, 10.54 officers said they didn't know. That is hardly an overwhelming endorsement of home schooling. Only 10 1/2 people (roughly) thought, off the tops of their heads, that homeschoolers were better prepared.

Homeschooled students apparently did a little bit better at critical thinking. "Not statistically significant" means that the difference in scores was smaller than the margin of error for the study. It certainly does not mean that they didn't do as well.

Which I did not say. I said the difference could have happened by chance, which is what "not statistically significant" means.

ACTs and SATs are the best-known test predictors of success in university or college in America.

Not everyone agrees with that.

You quote me as saying:

Originally Posted by Katiana
homeschooling well into high school, trying to teach subjects one is not qualified to teach, is not helping the child.

But you bolded the wrong part. My point was "subjects one is not qualified to teach". I could not teach calculus; I never took it. I never took much art, or played a muscial instrument. I could not teach those courses.

Are you somehow suggesting that taking a course that statistically has a better chance, even if only a slightly better chance, for success is somehow not helpful, or is being done for selfish reasons on the part of the parent?

The differences were not statistically significant. They could have happened by chance! They do not prove that statisically the home schooler do better! Perhaps you should look at the link I provided about statistical significance.

[stepka]

I don't know how the statistics play out for homeschool vs. public school, b/c I haven't really been interested enough to look them up for a while now, so everything I have to say here is anecdotal.

Right now I am in a unique position--we used to homeschool, but now my kids are back in school, and I've gone back to work as a sub teacher for a special school district, which means I work for 7 different school districts. This gives me a very interesting perspective, b/c I get to go into the classes and watch the teachers teach. One of my districts is in a very wealthy part of the city and one is an inner city district. The others are in between.

The infrastructure at the inner city school is really bad but the quality of the teachers is about equal with that of the other districts. In fact, there are very good and very bad teachers in about all of them. What is most interesting to me though, is the dis-information that I've seen the teachers teach at all of them, including the wealthiest school. In one classroom (the wealthy school), the teacher's spelling was so poor that I wanted to go up and fix her errors on the board, and did correct her at one point as it was one of their spelling words! The math program at the wealthy school was a horror--they had math for an hour and 15 minutes, yet the problems they were assigned to do in class and for homework were exactly four problems. Four basic addition problems. It was all I could do to keep my eyeballs from rolling around in my head, b/c the program was so--lite. My kids did abeka math--math was never my best subject--but they went into school well ahead of their peers.

There was a science teacher at one who was so bad that I had to go home and tell my husband all about it and it took 45 minutes to tell the story. She hadn't even prepared a lesson. She spent the first 20 min of class asking them what they're happy about and then forced all of them to answer. I see a lot of time being wasted in the schools.

I have nothing against public schools per se--after all, I'm planning to become a teacher--but the quality of education has fallen off so sharply in recent years that some of the teachers are coming out of college unqualified to teach, and then getting a job in some of the best schools in the country. If you are a fourth grade teacher, you need to be able to spell the words that you're requiring the kids to learn, don't you think?

Also, as for the advanced math and science: my older daughter had a great algebra teacher last year, and I'm so grateful for that. Her science teacher was another story though--he knew his subject very well, but he could not communicate that to the kids and all of them were extremely confused. My daughter got most of her learning in that class by reading the textbook. The labs for that class could have been done with simple materials at home. These are not horror stories--this is terribly common in our schools.

There was an argument presented earlier that said that if you drop your kids at high school classes or college classes, then you're sending them to school. The difference is that one or two classes won't become their world like full days of school with the same kids every day. They don't get so emotionally invested in their peers, and that makes a big difference.

[pennquaker09]

SAT and ACT scores are not good indicators of how a student will do once they go off to college. And because they are standardized, certain groups are predisposed to scoring higher, which is why many people don't pay close attention to them.

And the federal law is No Child Left Behind. Here is the short and sweet version. No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[925mine]

Originally Posted by stepka

I don't know how the statistics play out for homeschool vs. public school, b/c I haven't really been interested enough to look them up for a while now, so everything I have to say here is anecdotal.

Right now I am in a unique position--we used to homeschool, but now my kids are back in school, and I've gone back to work as a sub teacher for a special school district, which means I work for 7 different school districts. This gives me a very interesting perspective, b/c I get to go into the classes and watch the teachers teach. One of my districts is in a very wealthy part of the city and one is an inner city district. The others are in between.

The infrastructure at the inner city school is really bad but the quality of the teachers is about equal with that of the other districts. In fact, there are very good and very bad teachers in about all of them. What is most interesting to me though, is the dis-information that I've seen the teachers teach at all of them, including the wealthiest school. In one classroom (the wealthy school), the teacher's spelling was so poor that I wanted to go up and fix her errors on the board, and did correct her at one point as it was one of their spelling words! The math program at the wealthy school was a horror--

There was a science teacher at one who was so bad that I had to go home and tell my husband all about it and it took 45 minutes to tell the story. She hadn't even prepared a lesson. She spent the first 20 min of class asking them what they're happy about and then forced all of them to answer. I see a lot of time being wasted in the schools.

--but the quality of education has fallen off so sharply in recent years that some of the teachers are coming out of college unqualified to teach, and then getting a job in some of the best schools in the country. If you are a fourth grade teacher, you need to be able to spell the words that you're requiring the kids to learn, don't you think?

Her science teacher was another story though--he knew his subject very well, but he could not communicate that to the kids and all of them were extremely confused. My daughter got most of her learning in that class by reading the textbook. The labs for that class could have been done with simple materials at home. These are not horror stories--this is terribly common in our schools.

The No Child Left Behind act requires that, in order for states to receive federal funding, all teachers must be "highly qualified" as defined in the law by the end of the 2006-07 school year.[9] A highly qualified teacher is one who has (1) fulfilled the state's certification and licensing requirements, (2) obtained at least a bachelor's degree, and (3) demonstrated subject matter expertise.

Widipedia (not a reliable source)

As you can see, the ideal theory and actual application are very far apart. That's why there are so many schools manipulating testing and their statistics; because they don't make the grade.