Speaking before the education committee during in defense of LB 1141 which would place heavy restrictions on homeschooling in Nebraska, Senator Schimek said a number of things we have heard before. Nothing new to those of us who have been homeschooling and have had the opportunity to discuss it with those who disagree, but it takes on a new dimension coming from a legislator as opposed to my neighbor. This is the foundation set for this bill:

There is anecdotal evidence of homeschoolers running around during school hours with little to identify truancy.

For which she cites a meter reader who emailed her to tell her about homeschoolers running around unsupervised in his community while he is reading meters.

In discussing the bill, she also noted that the original floor debate was intended to apply to unaccredited schools, not homeschools. From the discussion, there seemed to be a desire to define homeschools as something separate from “unaccredited private schools.”

In closing, she reemphasized that she thought the state did have a prerogative and responsibility to oversee the education of all children. And she asked some questions:

How do we get empirical evidence if there is no oversight?

Do we know what is going on in parochial schools?

And some more justification:

I just want to make sure there aren’t some homeschooled students out there who can’t live in the real world.

And criticizing current law, which many of the testimonies suggested were adequate for pursuing those who truly were not educating their children:

Anybody can be a monitor, unless they are illiterate.

Nevermind that the parent determines who the monitor should be. The state, with its emphasis on certification, is certainly a better judge of a person’s ability to monitor education than the parent who may take into consideration things like character and experience, right?

Tom Vickers, a proponent of the bill and author of the original bill that has become current law had an interesting thought.

The cream rises to the top no matter the container.

So that explains all the homeschool successes which were cited, including the statistical evidence.

This seriously is the basis for this bill: anecdotal evidence and fear of what might be going on in some homeschools for the simple fact that we do not have the oversight to guarantee that it is not. My question is, how do we as homeschoolers defend ourselves not from reasoned arguments, but from this fear? It is the hypothetical few, these “weird” or uneducated homeschoolers someone in discussion always brings up, that is driving this legislation as well as public debate.

Is it possible to re-frame this debate? While we as homeschoolers tend to speak about educational liberties, most respondents say,

Yeah, but if homeschooling is so superior, why couldn’t your kid pass a math test?

Which was actually asked a few times by the senators on the education committee. This question says a lot about our assumptions regarding education and testing, but how can we answer it? Especially in a debate where anecdotal evidence is allowed to stand as researched evidence?

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.
[tags]homeschool, homeschooling, LB 1141, Schimek[/tags]

I have several pages of notes, and to the many people coming here right now searching for information about LB 1141′s hearing in the education committee, feel free to ask any questions about what happened and I will try my best to answer. I may post a summary of quotes later (tomorrow?), because there really were a lot of interesting statements.

Over 1,000 homeschoolers attended today’s hearing, in a state which is estimated to have just less than 6,000 homeschoolers. Among the many who stood up for homeschool liberties today, I would like to take a moment to thank someone who likely will not receive a great deal of praise among homeschoolers today. But amidst all the statements made that I would seriously like to have Senator Schimek rethink, something stood out to me that should not go without notice.

As a senator left over from the great debate regarding school accreditation which tore the legislature apart in the wake of the state’s crackdown on unaccredited schools, she shared interesting insights into what has become Nebraska’s homeschooling law. First, was the expectation that “something” would be done to monitor the education as a result of these laws, which actually can be seen in the current law which I will address later. Second, was the fact that the legislators did not envision homeschooling in these laws. They were specifically addressing unaccredited, primarily parochial, schools operating in the state. This is the part that stood out to me: over the last 20+ years, Senator Schimek has gone from being completely opposed to homeschooling to recognizing that homeschooling is a viable educational option for “many” families, and that “many, if not most” homeschoolers do a fine job.

Although she is leading the charge against homeschool liberties, I wanted to take that brief moment to point out what effect experience with homeschool families can have on public opinion, including on the opinion of a legislator with years of experience with the public school system, years of experience as a legislator, and years of supporting the goals of the National Education Association.

And now for what likely will happen from here:

As the Omaha World-Herald reported, the bill really does not have legs at this point. It is effectively dead and this was it’s “last hurrah” as an NCHEA representative described it after the hearing.

For all the debate spawned by the bill, it stands little chance of becoming law. By Tuesday, the Legislature will be halfway into its short session. The bill also lacks the priority tag that gives bills the best chance of being debated by the full Legislature.

If it does pass, Gov. Dave Heineman has said he will veto the measure. Omaha World-Herald (via HE&OS)

Several important points to remember:

1. The bill has the general support of the education committee, although it will likely be amended before it leaves the committee. The one component that will definitely be included is having the state pay for the oversight, rather than homeschoolers, and there may be more of a “plan for remediation” rather than directly removing identified students from homeschools.

2. The bill lacks priority status, so something drastic would have to happen for this bill to see the floor this session.

3. Bills cannot carry over from this session to the fall session. This bill is effectively dead.

4. This bill does, however, possess rather broad support. Twenty senators have indicated opposition to the bill. Fifteen have indicated they oppose the bill as it is currently written.

5. There is little doubt that similar legislation will be introduced next session when procedural limitations will not interfere with the debate. We do not know how many senators who have indicated opposition will choose to support an amended version of the bill.

6. The governor told an assembly of homeschoolers that he would veto this bill if it crossed his desk. He did not, however, discuss where his boundaries lie and what amendments he may consider. We do not know how strong of an advocate we have in the governor’s mansion.

7. Regardless of his stance, this legislature has overridden two vetoes already this session, one of which was one of Schimek’s other bills. Vetoes are relatively easy in Nebraska given the fact we have a unicameral legislature.

Nothing was really gained today but time. And I am wondering how to most effectively use that time. I have a lot more thoughts to share later, but please feel free to continue leaving links to research and quotes (with citations please!) which support the independence of homeschool families. Quite a few legislators will be replaced in the upcoming election due to term limits, and I am guessing that given the general complacency of Republicans in this elections, that could favor Democratic legislators rather strongly. I do not know how much of a difference that will make, if any, but there will likely be a shift in the balance of power.

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

Photo source: Nebraska Capitol

[tags]homeschool, homeschooling, LB 1141, Schimek[/tags]

Here is my testimony as it is currently written. Many interesting thoughts for future posts, I think. I had some difficulty with this, as I was writing this more with my “teacher hat,” relying on my preparation by the public system to work in the public system, noting problems which even those who are responsible for the current state acknowledge. I chose not to go into issues more deeply or more passionately simply because I am speaking to a group of legislators who have expressed concerns with homeschool families remaining outside of state oversight. At any rate, here is what I wrote thus far:

I graduated from the University of Kansas with a degree in education and began teaching in Texas through Teach for America, an organization which places top college graduates in high needs school districts. I taught for two years, receiving over forty hours of professional development training through the district and through Teach for America. I left the classroom to work with foster children in Nebraska and eventually left this field in order to homeschool my own children.

I am opposed to Legislative Bill 1141 because it is based on several faulty assumptions.

1. Senator Schimek herself has noted to reporters that she does not know if there is a problem among Nebraska’s homeschool families, thus the legislation addresses a hypothetical concern rather than a known problem. [source]
2. It violates the proper relationship between the state and individual families who have done nothing to arouse suspicion. In a properly functioning republic, it is the citizenry which oversees the state, not the state which oversees the citizenry. The accountability measures currently used in schools serve to keep Nebraska’s public schools accountable to parents and taxpayers, and thus are a necessary part of public education. This does not extend to homeschooling families who receive no state or federal funding and are capable of assessing their own children.
3. It assumes that standardized testing is valid and reliable enough to make life-altering decisions for every homescholed child in Nebraska. (The other two options are not as troubling in this regard, but the insistence upon proving that a child is “on grade level” as defined by the state is similarly problematic.

Even the National Education Association, a nationally recognized professional association and lobbying group, has raised concerns with the use of standardized tests used to evaluate teachers in public school classrooms where the state has a justifiable interest in monitoring quality and adherence to specific standards.

Standardized tests should be used to guide instruction by helping identify gaps in learning and groups of students who need the most help. But test scores alone should never be used to punish students, teachers or schools by cutting funding, closing schools or firing teachers. [source]

Parents provide regular assessment in their homes to guide instruction. What this looks like varies, from formal tests taken at the end of each chapter, purchased standardized tests, portfolio assessments, or ongoing dialogs with children. Assessment can be much more individualized in the family setting because the student-teacher ratio is smaller and parents know their children better than anyone else.

As sixth grade teacher Debby Dundas is quoted as saying on the NEA’s website,

Local teachers, not policy mandates, should be able to determine what is best for each child. We are sensitive to their individual situations, and we can determine the best way for them to learn. This involves a combination of teacher intuition, creativity, and patience. Sometimes I have to sneak education through the back door.

Mandates are often unrealistic–and unfunded–goals set for all children, regardless of their truly special needs. [source]

This is even more true when the parent is the child’s educator, for no one has a greater interest in a child’s educational success than the parent.

I have little doubt that this legislation would have forced my daughter into an accredited program had it been law last year. My daughter was significantly below grade level in reading. While we were using a sequential program of instruction, I drew on my early elementary education experience, my coursework in child development and the philosophies of prominent leaders in the homeschool movement, including Dr. Raymond Moore, the author of “Better Late Than Early.” The result was that we waited. She continued on target in her other subject areas, I read to her extensively and she continued to enjoy listening to literature and talking about literature. Her reading gradually developed, but at a very slow pace. Rather than pushing her, I waited for her.

This approach is defended by the research summarized in Dr. Moore’s book, Better Late Than Early and is supported by many homeschool advocates.

The Moore Foundation analyses [1] concludes that, where possible, children should be withheld from formal schooling until at least ages eight – ten. Elkind [3] warned against student burnout which has become pervasive in American schools. Rohwer [4] agreed, basing his conslusions in part on investigations in 12 countries by Sweden‘s Torsten Husen. Husen subsequently confirmed Rohwer’s perceptions, according to a letter from Husen, Nov. 23, 1972. Rohwer, with deep concern for conceptual demands of reading and arithmetic, offered a solution:

“All of the learning necessary for success in high school can be accomplished in only two or three years of formal skill study. Delaying mandatory instruction in the basic skills until the junior high school years could mean academic success for millions of schoolchildren who are doomed to failure under the traditional school system.” [source]

All children develop at their own pace. Forcing a child too young to accomplish tasks for which he or she is not ready produces only frustration, not learning. One of the advantages of homeschooling is the ability to pay close attention to the individual needs of each child, adapting teaching strategies and curricula accordingly. Research demonstrates that this approach works.

More recent research includes a review by Cambridge University, released this month, which was summarized by a Reuters article,

Starting school at the age of four is “stressful” to children and does not help their education, according to a major review of English primary schools which also concluded kids take too many tests too early. [source]

Near the end of second grade, my daughter suddenly became interested in reading and began doing so voraciously. In less than a semester, she has caught up with and passed her peers according to the testing I have done with her. What would have been gained by forcing her into a traditional classroom, simply because she was a little behind her peers, and I chose to follow an educational philosophy different from the state in how to bring a child to proficiency in basic skills?

Education is important to us all. This is a large part of why we have chosen to homeschool. But education cannot be so easily reduced to a subset of skills to be obtained by a particular age or grade. The insistence on this sort of narrow view of education fails to take into account the individuality of each child, places undue pressure on parents to conform to the state’s model, and does not allow for parents to direct the education of their children as guaranteed by the US Constitution, and consistently upheld by the US Supreme Court. In Troxel v. Granville, the court provides a summary of related cases:

The liberty interest at issue in this case–the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.” Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534—535 (1925), we again held that the “liberty of parents and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” We explained in Pierce that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Id., at 166. [source]

This bill would violate this fundamental liberty in order to address a concern that has not yet been proven to be an actual problem. It also fails to address the real learning differences between children, forcing all those who learn at a slower pace or in different ways to leave their homeschools where they receive far more individualized attention than is possible in any public or private school.

I’ll post later this afternoon or tonight regarding how the session actually goes. So stay tuned…

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

[tags]homeschooling, homeschool, LB 1141[/tags]

I know there is a great deal of research out there supporting the “better late than early” philosophy, but I am coming up with almost nothing on searches.

This is, of course, inevitable since I am away from home on a different computer and trying to prepare a written testimony for tomorrow’s hearing.

I have found a couple of things, but not the thing I’m looking for. Dr. Moore’s site is just teasing me and inviting me buy the book.

Surely someone out there has this kind of thing handy and doesn’t mind leaving links in my comment box?

Thanks in advance for the wealth of information I know you have and the frustration it will save me!

And although it would be better early than late in this case, you are welcome to continue posting any and all relevant thoughts, links and quotes even after my testimony is prepared and submitted. Who knows what will find its way into future correspondence?

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

Tuesday, February 26, the Nebraska legislature’s education committee will be considering four bills, among them LB 1141, the anti-homeschool legislation we are working against. Senator Schimek has already begun talking about compromise, and I am not sure exactly what to think of that:

1) Does she recognize the bill was a misstep? Is she trying to salvage what she can?

2) Or was this the plan from the beginning? Introduce something that could not possibly be accepted to make the resulting “compromise” more palatable?

Am I too suspicious? I must say I do not have great confidence in Senator Schimek at the moment. After all, her justification for the bill rests not in any known problem with homeschooling in Nebraska, nor even any sensationalized cases to be reported recently. As Channel 10 reports:

“Do you think there are kids falling through the cracks? I don’t know. Is that what you’re worried about? Yes,” said the bill’s author Sen. DiAnna Schimek.

By her own words, this bill solves no verifiable problem. It only presents a drastic solution to a hypothetical concern over one aspect of Nebraskan’s lives which has thus far escaped governmental intervention.

“Maybe with oversight we’ll find out there are no problems out there and it’s fine and dandy. I hope that’s the way it is, but it’s our responsibility. Those kids should get an education in this state,” she said.

Again the emphasis that the bill is in response to no actual, real problem in the state of Nebraska. But it is “our” responsibility? Who are “we?” And who are “those kids?” What should happen before “we” decide that “they” are not up to “our” standards? Which, by the way, nearly 20% of school districts are already failing to meet. (I am no friend of No Child Left Behind, but it is the standard our schools are striving toward).

Schimek said she just wants quality control checks, she doesn’t care how they’re done.

Focus on the system that is paid for by taxpayer money and to which most Nebraskans have entrusted the education of their children: the public school system. Find some ways to increase the involvement of the one thing proven to actually increase education quality, regardless of the measure: parents. Instead, we are seeking to increase state involvement in the one area of education not actually proven to be faulty.

Because Senator Schimek thinks that maybe somewhere, there might possibly be a homeschooled child who isn’t getting an adequate education as compared to the standard of the public school. What is this I find on the NE Department of Education website?

Your involvement and that of all families is key to improving the educational opportunities our children receive. Research shows that parental involvement is most critical to the success of individual students.

The family? Not the state? And what is the point of all that data that the NE Department of Education puts out, anyway? So that parents may assess the public school system? Or dare I say it more clearly…so that the public school system remains accountable to parents?

Because education is our responsibility and we want to make sure our kids are getting one.

Why should we be willing to compromise on that?

______

Hearings begin at 1:30 and LB 1141 is currently first on the agenda, although this may be changed even the day of the hearings. The public is welcome to attend, and you may submit written or oral testimony. There is a little more information on NCHEA’s website, including a listing of senators who have committed to voting against LB 1141 withouth reservation.

Twenty names are on the list (including my senator’s!), which is a little less than half of our 49 senators. Assuming everyone else is for the bill, with or without amendments, it may have enough votes to pass the legislature, but not quite enough to override a veto.

If you are planning on attending, let me know!

Karen Edmisten shares her thoughts, as well. Some interesting comments, too.

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

[tags]homeschool, homeschooling, Nebraska, LB 1141, Schimek[/tags]

Or so claims the Lincoln Journal Star, anyway. I was going to step through the argument one point at a time to see if I could address them, but I never really found an argument to address. In fact, of all the statements made, I found more against testing than I did for it. A summary of quotes taken directly from the entry:

Arguments Against Testing:

• Approval of the bill would mean a huge change in home schooling laws in Nebraska.
• It sets up a system of state intervention.
• The dramatic change in the status quo seems unnecessarily onerous.
• The bill would even require that parents pay for the state testing.

Arguments For Testing:

• As Schimek says, there is little evidence on how well children are being educated in home schools.

Am I wrong in saying that once you take out the filler information and focus solely on the case being built, that there really is nothing persuasive about the need for testing? One statement supports testing. One made by the author of the bill, who also happens to be the wife of the Nebraska State Education Association’s government relations person. After twenty years serving in the Nebraska legislature, I do not think it is inconsequential that this bill comes up in her final year of office before term limits force her retirement.

After 315 words which serve only to provide a summary of the LB 1141, a brief history of Nebraska’s negative history regarding homeschool liberties and offering no convincing evidence of the need for testing, the LJS offers a compromise.

A more reasonable approach would be to establish a simple requirement of annual testing and leave it at that. The test results could provide some benefit to students and parents by identifying problems that need to be addressed. The tests could offer some assurance to the rest of society that no home school students are slipping through the cracks.

I’m sorry, but I remain unconvinced. No need for annual testing has been established. Schimek’s assertion is not much of an argument. And what evidence does exist points to homeschooling as an excellent educational alternative. The test results are not going to provide me with any information I do not already know. I assess my children regularly. Sometimes even formally. I do not need the state’s assistance to identify my children’s strengths and weakness.

And why do I need to assure “society” of anything if I have done nothing to arouse suspicion? Schimek has the “distinct impression” that there is “nothing about her bill that [we] are willing to accept.” At least she has that much right.

This bill represents a drastic overstepping of the state’s boundaries, with no promise of real benefit to anyone while it infringes upon the rights of families who have done nothing to even arouse suspicion. I feel no need to compromise on this one. Current law is satisfactory to serve the purposes intended.

Testing homeschool students does not have merit.

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

[tags]homeschool, home school, LB 1141, Schimek[/tags]

Governor Heinemann had positive words to say to Nebraska homeschoolers at NCHEA’s annual legislative day:

If this bill crosses my desk, I will veto it.

But he doesn’t think it will make it that far. I may write more later, but for now, you can read Lisa’s thoughts over at Me And My House.

For those who asked, my husband’s eye surgery went well yesterday, and he already sees better.

And now back to today’s regularly scheduled programming.

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

[tags]homeschooling, homeschool, Nebraska, LB 1141[/tags]

Commenter John left an excellent response to my entry on Nebraska’s proposed anti-homeschool legislation:

LB1141 is condescending and contemptuous to all parents; homeschool, private, parochial, and public. These limitations upon the educational choices proposed by LB1141 usurp a parent’s primary obligation, authority, and responsibility for the education of their children. This constitutes an attempt to redefine the State’s current level of parens patriae. The mere consideration and introduction of this bill is nothing short of an all out infringement and assault upon the liberties of the citizens of Nebraska. The State does not posses a higher authority than the parent.

The legislature should focus instead upon repairing the disastrous mess the State has created within the current public school system. The members of the State of Nebraska Legislature instead should be considering ways to understand why private schooling, including homeschooling, has proven overwhelmingly to be a more successful method by which parents have chosen to educate their children. Consider the real possibility that the answer to this success lies within the parents and not the State?

The burden of responsibility to show accountability of results is not that of the parents. Contrary to Senator Schimek’s assumption that parents owe some burden of proof to the State, the actual burden of responsibility falls upon the State to convince parents that the public school system is a viable option for their children. When parents believe that the system provided by the State does not meet their standards, needs, and expectations; current and effective alternatives exist. The results that the State has continuously shown through the public school system is the reason that the families of nearly 50,000 children in Nebraska exercise their liberty to choose a private school (parochial, private, or home school) for their children. These families do this with no additional tax burden upon the State, all the while continuing to contribute their portion of taxes to the public system.

Perhaps now is the time to focus upon a few real pressing issues such as to the failure of public school system to provide a decent education to rather large segment of children enrolled and even consider vouchers to relieve the burden the State places upon the families who have opted out of the State’s public education system.

The legislature here does seem to have a general disdain for public education and has made a “disastrous mess” of things. Nebraska has a long history of local control, a tradition of which I am very proud. In fact, we must be doing something right, for while we rank 34th in per pupil spending on education, we rank at the top when it comes to measurements of academic success. A few years ago, however, a bill was introduced to force the consolidation of Class I schools. This was hotly opposed. It passed. The governor vetoed it. The legislature overrode his veto. It was put on the 2006 ballot and the people voted to repeal it. But it was too late. The schools had already been consolidated.

And LB1141 is not the only bill currently being considered by the education committee that deserves to be challenged.

A bill (LB987) introduced by Lincoln Sen. Ron Raikes would create the Quality Education Accountability Commission to ensure statewide testing, reporting, upgrading of standards and tracking of student achievement, which were put into law last year. It also would create a quality education accountability office that would be under the auspices of the governor. American Society for Quality

This Commission will be responsible for some of the most important decisions the state can make regarding education, and it will be completely outside of voter control. Even our elected State Board of Education which is currently charged with this task, will only be allowed to send three representatives to the Commission.

Members of our legislature are certainly condescending and contemptuous of parents, and it doesn’t matter where your children are educated.

For more on what is going on with the homeschooling legislation in NE, please check the links in my sidebar.

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

[tags]homeschooling, homeschool, Nebraska, LB 1141, LB 987[/tags]

The following is a letter from another Nebraska homeschooler to Senator Tony Fulton of the 29th district (South Lincoln). I have been asked by a few people for ideas on how to address senators, which I take as a compliment, but it isn’t something I am exactly well-versed on. I think Jessica does a nice job of making a personal connection with her senator, opening and closing with a clear position regarding the bill, pointing to some specific concerns and closing with an offer to help.

Make sure to read the senator’s response at the end…pure poetry to my conservative ears!

January 25, 2008

Dear Senator Fulton,

Thank you again for meeting with my friend Autumn and I in November to discuss how our legislative system works and the status of midwifery and homebirth in Nebraska. As you may have heard, the organization that we are working with (Nebraska Friends of Midwives) has decided not to pursue legislation this session, due mainly to the lack of time we had to set up a sponsor for a bill. But we are hopeful to take action next year and are working hard to lay the ground work for future actions this year.

I’m actually writing about another matter. This week, Senator Schimek introduced a disastrous bill (LB1141) that would severely impact the rights and responsibilities of parents who choose to homeschool their children. As I understand it, this bill would require either an extensive yearly portfolio review or yearly testing of homeschooled students with standardized tests to ensure that the students are making sufficient progress. If sufficient progress is not demonstrated by either method, the homeschooled students would be forced to enroll in an accredited school the following year. Here are some of the reasons why I think this bill is a disaster:

a. One of the reasons I want to homeschool my children is because I don’t want them wasting time in school learning how to prepare for a standardized test. The only thing that standardized tests prove is how good a student is at guessing what the testmaker is looking for. One of the problems I see in public schools today is the enormous waste of time that teachers are forced to spend “teaching to the test” in order that their students pass. Standardized tests cannot test how well a student uses his/her mind or how well the student comprehends and retains material.

b. I also want to homeschool my children because I don’t want them to be pigeon-holed. The whole point of homeschooling is that a parent, who knows their child best, guides their child in his/her studies as they learn at their own pace. If my daughter is super smart and is reading 4th grade level books at age 4, then I want her to be sufficiently challenged in her studies and to have a chance to explore the subjects that she is interested in at the time she is interested in them. She would be bored to tears in a typical grade school classroom and putting her in a classroom with kids at her level intellectually would severely impact her social skills. Of course, someone like this would have no trouble passing standardized tests. But what about the child who is a slow learner? What about the kids who have trouble reading and do not really gain reading skills until they are 8 or 9? By this time in a public school, they would be labeled as stupid, learning disabled, or another similar label that would detrimentally impact the rest of their academic career. I challenge any child to meet their full potential who is labeled as “learning disabled” from a young age. Should these homeschooled kids be forced into public schools because they are taking their time learning their needed skills and therefore cannot yet pass the standardized tests? And what about the autistic kids, the hyperactive kinetic learners, and other special needs kids? With the individualized attention that homeschool parents can give these children, they have a chance to far exceed all expectations. No such luck at public schools.

c. This bill would create headaches for everyone involved. Who pays for all these standardized tests? Do the school districts cover them? Or will parents, who are already paying but not using their school tax dollars, have to cover the financial costs of testing in addition to the costs of time and energy? And what about the school officials who have to review all this extra paperwork? Don’t they have enough problems in their schools to worry about without adding unnecessary supervision of parents who care so much about their children that they are spending their time ensuring that their students get the education they deserve through homeschooling?

d. Why should homeschooling parents have to work so hard to prove that their children are learning? Why do people automatically assume that all homeschoolers need intensive supervision in order to teach their children what their children need to know? Every study I’ve read about homeschooling shows that homeschooled graduates exceed in all measures of success in life. Some finish high school and college requirements early. Some become free-thinking entrepreneurs at early ages. All are better adapted socially because they were not isolated in a classroom full of peers where they were forced to sit and listen to a teacher talk and never speak unless spoken to. There are studies that show that students who learn what they want to learn when they want to learn it always learn the material more thoroughly and retain more of the material longer than students who are fed by rote a pre-ordained curriculum by a school system that doesn’t care about individual learning styles. (For great inspiration on what is wrong with standardized testing, grades, rewards, punishments, and many other typical school techniques, check out any book on education by Alfie Kohn.)

e. Finally, where is the school that children must attend if they fail the standardized tests in public school? Are they then forced to be homeschooled? I know, based on our meeting in November, that you are a very reasonable person and will consider this matter thoughtfully before supporting or rejecting this bill. If there is anything else I can do (track down studies to disprove the usefulness of standardized testing, refer you to articles on the benefits of homeschooling, etc.), please let me know. I am very interested in seeing this bill defeated.

Thank you so much for your time,

Sincerely,

Jessica S Freeman

I wish Senator Fulton were chairing the education committee. His response, short sweet and and to the point:

Ms Freeman,

Thank you for your email.

Indeed, I am familiar with Senator Schimek’s bill. I appreciate your calling me a reasonable person, but I must say it shouldn’t take much reason to recognize this as an ill-conceived bill. Parents have the primary obligation and responsibility for the education of their children – NOT the State. This bill smacks of arrogance and makes an erroneous presumption that the State is of higher authority than the parent. My experience with homeschooled children makes me wonder whether the State ought not take a page from the homeschooling community…not vice versa.

If this bill comes before the full legislature, I will not allow it to pass.

I thank you for a well-written, thoughtfully composed email. If I am in need of reference to oppose this bill, I know I can contact you. In the meantime, please pass this note along to your homeschooling friends. You do a good job of explicating concerns with the bill.

Kindly,

Tony Fulton

I try not to get too excited just because I agree with a politician on a single issue. But the content of this email seems to indicate that our agreement may go a little beyond this one issue.

Parents have the primary obligation and responsibility for the education of their children – NOT the State.

Music to my ears.

For what it’s worth, District 29, I appreciate your senator.

And for fellow Nebraskans, I hope to see you at the Legislative Day, February 6!

More posts on the homeschool legislation coming before the unicameral:

Intro and summary
Contact Information
Why object to testing?

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

[tags]homeschool, home school, homeschooling, LB 1141, Nebraska[/tags]

Position: Homeschools should not be forced to adopt state standards or submit to state testing.

Objection: Raised by “reality check” in the comment section of the Lincoln Journal Star blog.

” If parents are properly homeschooling their children, then a test should not be a problem. “

This argument is appealing on the surface. Many have the same reaction when certain surveillance activities are suggested to protect us from crime. If you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about? It is tempting to respond with snarky quips like, “If you aren’t pushing drugs, police searching your home should not be a problem.” While this does illustrate a flaw in the reasoning, ie., people should only be subjected to searches, intellectual or physical, if they are suspected of wrongdoing, I would like to look at some of the underlying assumptions of the objection.

Why is testing objectionable to homeschoolers?

1) It assumes that the state’s measurements are valid and reliable enough to make a life-altering decision for each and every homeschooled child.

Interestingly, the National Education Association (NEA) objects to several key components of the No Child Left Behind Act, and is working to reform the bill as it is being discussed in the nation’s capital. Priority area number one:

Use more than test scores to measure student learning and school performance.
• Include multiple measures of student learning and school effectiveness instead of the current one-day snapshot based solely on standardized tests.
• Reward progress over time to improve student achievement at all levels.
• Recognize individual needs of students (Special Education; English Language Learners.)

But if the teachers are teaching appropriately, why are they worried about the test? Because even the NEA recognizes that it is ridiculous to judge a child’s entire school year by a single test taken at the end of the year and then hold the teacher accountable for the results.

And specifically regarding the notion of “life altering decisions,” the companies behind this testing say that their tests should not be used this way. Their tests were designed to be one assessment of many, a sort of objective check against the real assessment done by a teacher in the classroom. They were not intended to be the sole determiner of whether little Johnny passes to the fourth grade…or is allowed to stay in his homeschool.

Because these tests are subject to error and subjective scoring, the testing industry’s code of conduct specifies that they not be the basis for life-altering decisions about students. Yet many states continue to use them for that purpose, and the industry has done little to stop it. The New York Times

For more on the negative effects of standardized testing, check my previous entry on No Child Left Behind, especially the comment thread.

A single test score should never be used to determine a child’s promotion or placement. (An aside, but I wonder whether Senator Schimek might at all be swayed by the NEA’s position on the use of standardized testing as an accountability measure given her strong alliance with the NEA?)

2) It assumes that the state rightfully oversees the education of the child.

That this is even entertained is telling in how far we have drifted from our founding principles. The fact that it is so widely accepted is disconcerting. July 4, 1776 America drafted a document that was a declaration to the world on what we thought just government was and where it came from. Children are still required to memorize it in school today. We just do not seem to apply it very often. An excerpt and some commentary:

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

Meaning that they shouldn’t have to be explained.

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Unalienable, meaning they cannot be taken from you. In fact, according to the dictionary, if something is unalienable you cannot even give it away.

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Liberty:

Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled.

If liberty applies to the mind, and is unalienable, the state cannot direct education. Parents can certainly choose among all of the educational opportunities available to them, but the education system remains accountable to the parent. The parent is not accountable to the state.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

Good government exists to secure these rights. And again, we look over the state. The state does not look over us. Tie this to the fourth amendment (the one about being secure in your person, houses, papers and effects and not being subject to searches without probable cause), and you can see why it is that homeschoolers so heartily object to state oversight and testing requirements.

It isn’t because we have something to hide. It is because in a free and just society, the state needs reason to believe we are hiding something before they come looking for it. The label of “homeschooler” is not probable cause.

This entry is the product of some of my thinking in regards to recent legislation which would limit the independence of homeschools in Nebraska. I wrote more on LB 1141 last week, and have also collected some contact information for those interested in writing their senators. Also note: I have started a section in my sidebar to track the bill’s progress in the senate and link to discussion on it. It has its first hearing date: February 26, 2008.

______

For more information on LB 1141, you can click on the category LB 1141 and find everything I have written so far.

[tags]homeschool, homeschooling, LB 1141, testing[/tags]