Advertisement
The Edutopia Poll
by Sara Ring
Do parents need professional credentials to homeschool their children? The answer is a resounding yes, according to a recent California appeals-court decision. The controversial verdict, upholding an unenforced ruling from 1953, requires California parents to receive teacher certification in order to homeschool their kids. The homeschooling community has reacted to this decision with outrage: These parents insist they are both entitled and equipped to educate their own children. But many educators applaud the decision, believing that certified teachers should always be the ones who educate students, whether at school or at home. Was the California decision the right one? Tell us what you think.
Should the state require teacher certification for parents who homeschool their children?
Yes. Regardless of the setting, students should always have professional, certified teachers educating them.
40% (87 votes)
No. Parents have the right to educate their own children without the unnecessary burden of earning teacher certification.
54% (117 votes)
None of the above. (Comment below.)
6% (13 votes)
Total votes: 217
homeschooling parents
Submitted by Patricia Courtney (not verified) on July 1, 2008 - 05:15.
I plan on homeschooling my son - we actually have been homeschooling him the past year - he's three. He can do kindergarten work , with the exception of writing skills.
One of the main reasons homeschooled children excel is because they have one-on-one attention from their teacher.
A teacher with 12-18 students at one time is not capable of taking the time to better explain to one student the concept they are trying to teach; and take the time necessary until that particular student fully understands it.
Likewise, a student who excels in a specific subject in a school setting - the teacher cannot simply skip ahead with one student and leave the rest at the current pace.
That is one of the blessings with homeschooling - my son is doing kindergarten work; because he is young I am going to repeat kindergarten this year and maybe the next. However after this year, I may not need to repeat kindergarten. He might be ready to go ahead with 1rst grade work. Or, he may do 1rst grade and certain subjects and kindergarten in the rest.
With homeschooling, you can customize it to whatever suits your childs needs the best.
You cannot put every single student in the same mold for the next 13 years and expect them all to succeed at the same rate.
As far as the certification thing goes, well I have a few "certified teachers" that didn't know how to teach! I have seen several students in school do poorly under the instruction of a college graduate teacher.
I had a teacher when I was in high school - algebra teacher; she would rush through the concepts on the blackboard as fast as she could and expected us to get it. The whole class was failing. So she would rush through it again. After the second time, if the class still didn't get it, she decided to just skip that section. Now, everybody knows that with math especially, you cannot skip a section..
You cannot subtract until you know how to add.
You cannot divide until you know how to multiply. Everything in math - well other subjects too - is a pyramid - you can't go to the next level until you understand and can apply the first level. that's why homeschooling is great! I can take whatever time I need with him until he fully gets it and I can mix and match if I need to!
If it comes down to it, I will do whatever I have to get my certification - if that is the only way I can homeschool my son.
It's not just the education that I am concerned about... there are many other things (immorality) that I don't want him surrounded by in an environment that teaches it's okay.
The last time I checked, I haven't heard of any shootings at a homeschool!
There are certain things that the state has taken upon themselves to teach in school that has no place in the school system.
I believe it is the parents' responsibility to teach their child "sex education" by whatever method they feel is right. Not sending their child to school to have them watch a video and being handed condoms and birth control.
If more parents taught their kids to keep their pants up, skirts down and keep their legs closed, we wouldn't need condoms or birth control at their age.
By homeschooling, I can teach my children moral values and God-like principles without someone breathing down my shoulder saying "that's not politically correct" we don't want to offend anyone.
Okay, sermon over.
Patty
I do think that parents
Submitted by Jennifer (not verified) on June 11, 2008 - 13:36.
I do think that parents should be able to home school their children.No situation (public, private, or home school) is able to provide for every single child, nor should they be expected to. There are many children who may excel in one environment and not another. However, I have read many of the comments from both sides of the issue, and I think that one problem on both sides is that they are talking about the best case scenario. Yes, there are good and bad teachers. Yes, there are good and bad homeschool situations. I think the main problem with taking one position or the other is that it does not provide for all children, which is what both sides seek to do. The state has huge issues with money. They cannot, and should not, have to pay to hire teachers to review portfolios of home schoolers. If parents want to home school, and don't want to take advantage of the free public schools, then they should have to pay for assessment and monitoring to ensure that the child is learning. This will allow them to exercise their rights as parents to educate their child the way they see fit, while ensuring that no child is a slave, abused, or neglected. This will also allow the state to spend their money on the public schools, so that the rights of the majority are not affected by the rights of the few. By paying for the assessment and monitoring, the parents who send their children to the public schools will not have to get by with less money because someone chooses to homeschool. It is not like the money for one child is only spent on that child. The state has to use money from many children to provide gym, art, etc. Thus, if just a few children leave, this may disporportionately affect the children left behind. The public school children, many of whom come from poor or abusive homes, should not get less than others just because their parents don't care. While many parents do care, it is our job to protect all children, even the ones who have parents who won't protect or educate them.
Homeschooling
Submitted by JMR (not verified) on May 28, 2008 - 17:41.
Any parent who wants to homeschool their children should go ahead and do it. I am a classroom teacher and there is no one size fits all for our kids. Some students just do not flourish in a regular school setting and that is ok. Our resources are changing and students can get a degree online and never set foot in a physical building. I just think we need to be in this together and do what works for our students.
However, the comment from dian, adds to the problem. Teaching is a profession just like designing houses or performing surgery. In some way a teacher has had a hand in developing the doctor and architect.
Do parents need to have a teacher's certificate to home school?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 13, 2008 - 19:18.
I am just completing my first year of home schooling for my six year old in Kindergarten. I thought it would be easy since I already know my colors, shapes, ABCs and 1, 2, 3s. It is quite a challenge to keep the child motivated and focused as well as keeping up with all the county and state requirements. I do not have a teaching certificate but I am thinking of getting it in order to ensure that I know all that I need to teach my children most efficiently. I will do whatever it takes to make learning at home work for my children. The rest will be up to them.
Should parents be allowed to educate their children at home?
Submitted by Kaya (not verified) on May 26, 2008 - 10:35.
Should parents be allowed to educate their children at home?
The most important thing in this debate is ensuring children receive the decent
education which they have a right to - something that, with its resources,
experience and expertise, the state is best placed to do. High minded
arguments about ‘parental rights’ are all well and good, but if things
go wrong, it’s impossible to make up for lost time and bad practice in a child’s
education. What if a parent is deficient in providing the educational process,
but the state fail to spot it? What if they are satisfactory upon inspection, and
then take the year off with the child to watch sports? What if the child does
school work the day the state comes knocking, and house chores the rest of the
year?
A system can try to cater for these problems but it will frequently fail, not
least because those it tries to monitor will often wilfully mislead it. This is therefore
not about a right, and not about a choice - there is no right to choose to fail
your child’s education. This is true not just as a precautionary principle, but as a
practical problem the proposition simply can’t answer - there is no feasible
mechanism which can ensure that the standards held to be appropriate are
carried out in practice.
We firmly believe that education provided by the state is by its very nature far less likely to
make mistakes than parents or home tutors. Furthermore, the opportunity to keep children at
home will be seized upon in large numbers by parents who resent the costs of schooling (e.g.
uniform, trips ,and transport) who simply can’t be bothered with the hassle of ensuring their child
receives schooling. That attitude obviously points to the standard of teaching they would provide
in the home .Given that it is the state’s duty in liberal democracies to ensure children receive a
decent education, the state is entitled to take positive steps to reach that end - much safer to
have children educated by the state or established, tested bodies (such as private schools) large
enough to bear corporate responsibility where observation and review can frequently occur, than in
the home where review is necessarily infrequent and unrepresentative. Teachers in both state and
private schools are within an environment we can subject to quality control, and are employed to
do their jobs and therefore have a driving interest in ensuring it’s done properly. No doubt some
parents who want to educate at home have good intentions but others do not, and we don’t have
the same kind of immediate control over them.
Hundreds of researchers and experts within the educational profession labour to ensure that the
best methods are deployed in schools. How presumptuous to think one might know better than
that accumulated wisdom how to teach a child - as if that child being the product of an individual
suddenly enhanced that individual’s knowledge of their educational needs beyond that of those
that have given their lives to building an understanding of these complex matters, and are qualified
through years of training to carry out the tasks we set them. State schools may not be perfect -
but they will only get worse as those who can afford to opt out in order to educate at home.
It’s a pretty good bet that parents won’t be as good as a teacher, unless they are one - in
which case their home schooling of their own children deprives the state (and a whole class) of their
services. The same applies to private tutors. Furthermore, even if a parent or tutor excels in one
area, will they cover all the things a school does? The point of the curriculum is that these are
things we have decided as a society that children need to learn. Even if strong in one or two
fields, it seems tremendously unlikely that home schooling can cover all the required
ground. These support groups can’t make a parent into a teacher, any more than a book on
engineering makes one an engineer - the vocation of teaching is a much more challenging one
than the proposition suggests.
Schools beat homes on two significant fronts – facilities and an atmosphere that encourages
learning. Homes are very unlikely to have extensive science laboratories, sports facilities. By
pooling the resources of all to provide common facilities, the state is able to cater for everyone’s
needs without needless duplication. In the unlikely circumstance that an extremely wealthy parent
were able to provide the plethora of things required for a rounded education, it would be a
massively selfish thing to do, and remarkably pointless: why not send their child to a private
school, where at least the power of review exists, and the pooling of facilities occurs?It must be
terribly confusing for a young child to be asked to ‘switch’ to ‘learning mode’ and then back to
:play mode’ in the same environment by the same people. For the older child, it represents ample
opportunities for abuse - for pushing activities the parent enjoys instead of a lesson, or
manipulating the parent into slacking off ‘just this once’. Schools are for learning - that’s their
essence, their function. The home is an altogether more complex environment, ill-suited to the
purpose of instruction.
Interaction with other pupils is a crucial element of a child’s development, and mere social
interaction isn’t good enough - team building, working towards goals, being forced to confront
problems with and live alongside individuals one might not like, or come from different
backgrounds, is clearly done best in a school environment. Being able to integrate depends on
exposure to other people - obviously there’s more diversity in a class than in the home! The
proposition is right to identify wider needs: education is about more than just academic tutoring -
it’s about educating the whole person, and that is best achieved by educating them within a school
with their peers, in a microcosm of the society they will soon enter.Indeed, parents and children
spending day after day at home are sometimes subject to a phenomenon sociologists call the
‘hothouse’ relationship - the closeness between them becomes exclusive, with reaction to
outsiders almost aggressive by instinct. Such a relationship makes it even more difficult for the
child to adapt to life in the wider community. Those that seek to cocoon their offspring from the
outside world merely delay the time when their children have to deal with it - and strengthen the
impact of the shock that will be received upon seeing the element of society they find so
unpleasant. Furthermore, what is the guarantee that the moral structure parents might be instilling
in their children, year after year, away from any kind of effective monitoring, is beneficial?
The benefits of education in a wider context more than counterbalance to this objection. Of
course, the state doesn’t just leave high achievers and strugglers to rot! Whilst admittedly,
attention for individuals in either group isn’t one on one, it’s not awful - and the experience of
growing up alongside less and more able students produces individuals with greater understanding
of their society. Furthermore, students with special needs are those that most need the state’s
enormous resources to focus on their requirements. Once a student has needs of such a magnitude
that demands it, they are educated in special schools specifically intended to help them.
Those that wish their children to be educated in a religious environment have the chance to send
them to a religious school, the quality of which can be monitored by the state. However, that
‘exclusivity’ of belief is remarkably unhealthy - we believe that the adherents of all religions
shouldn’t shut themselves away, but rather engage in society as a whole, and understand other
people’s beliefs and points of view. Meanwhile, it is the duty of the state to teach the thinking of
all religions, and the dispassionate conclusions of science. It should indeed be pointed out when
theories are theories - but that should never stop schools teaching our best understanding of how
we came to be, and how we developed. If that jars with theology, that’s a pity - but it shouldn’t
stop teachers teaching.
The argument presented by the proposition is a charter for every extremist and oddball to haul
their child out of the state structure and give them years of indoctrination in their own beliefs.
State schools teach history and social interaction within a framework agreed upon by a wide
variety of bodies within the social spectrum. If a parent’s world view is so far detached from that
perspective that he wishes to remove his child from school, it’s a fair bet that the opinions he
wants to substitute in place of it are questionable at best.
parents taught them to talk
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 22, 2008 - 09:24.
parents taught them to talk and walk i think they should be able to teach them the rest if they want to
State certification for parents who homeschool?
Submitted by tw (not verified) on May 19, 2008 - 14:56.
Yes, of course parents taught their children to walk and talk, but can these parents necessarily teach correct grammar?
Accountability & certification
Submitted by Michelle (not verified) on April 20, 2008 - 05:21.
I am a single mother who works full-time, has a home-based business, and I homeschool 4 teenagers. It took me about a year to get on track and figure out which lessons and learning styles worked for each child. I pulled them out of school because they were NOT learning. They were bogged down with homework, trying to study for "standardized" tests and hadn't learned anything. They were getting bullied in school, hit on by "bi-sexual" girls, and having trouble keeping up with the workload. One of my daughters (in the 9th grade)had forgotten how to write in cursive! My kids also could not write a decent report and had terrible grammar, spelling, comprehension, etc. And they were getting A's and B's in school! My son was failing because he was bored to death in 7th grade and is now learning at a level as high as the older kids. He is actually at a higher level of reading and grammar. He is taking 8 subjects, writing a book and learning html and how to design a computer game. He is 13 years old.
That is what homeschooling is for. Some parents abuse it and don't take it seriously. But even more parents do NOT abuse it and are doing what we are supposed to do. Raising and educating our children.
Homeschooling vs. certified teachers
Submitted by Maridee Stanley (not verified) on April 12, 2008 - 15:11.
Frankly, it takes both certified teachers and parents to optimally educate a child. The school day is not always long enough to fit in all the hands-on activities, critical thinking discussions, and independant practice needed to master today's demanding curriculum. Certified teachers understand the benifit to students provided by parents who listen to their children read every night, practice math facts in the car, make sure the homework gets done and so forth. Homeschooling parents need to understand that certified teachers have techniques to instruct effectivly. I know of few parents who could add a kinesthetic component to blending and segmenting to help a kindergartener to read. When educating a child, it takes a village, or at least both certified teachers and parents, to assure a successful outcome
I am a speech-language
Submitted by dina (not verified) on April 28, 2008 - 12:12.
I am a speech-language pathologist with over 25 years experience, have taught many to read using techniques far more effective and unknown to the average grade school teacher, and yet, the fact that I do not have a teacher's certificate makes me "unqualified", as deemed by the education gestapo, to teach reading. I have homeschooled my three children from birth. My children are all different and learn in different ways. This "kinesthetic" modality you speak of is nothing new. It is simply using motoric involvement, but really, when it comes to reading, most teachers haven't been trained to understand that reading is not about using pudding to write letters in to form words, it's about using the sound patterns formed by one's mouth to understand what the letters (visual modality) mean. And, reading continues to be a skill which is not being taught well for many in the schools. Homeschooling has more than proven itself to be a viable and efficient education alternative. Frankly, if higher learning establishments, such as Harvard, Yale, Standford, MIT, etc. make concerted efforts to recruit homeschoolers; if the man who established the mapping of the human genome was homeschooled; or, the everyday scientists, lawyers, even teachers who've been homeschooled, managed to do so, without the direct instruction of certified teachers, then why should you or the courts challenge it?
Post new comment