from Hirsch's take:
The choice movement is a structural approach. It relies on markets to improve outcomes, not venturing to offer guidance on precisely what the schools should be teaching. Such guidance would go against the “genius of the market” approach, which is to refrain from top-down interference with curriculum. Stern shows—rightly, I believe—that this is a fundamental failing of the choice movement.But market-based “choice” is not the only structural reform of the recent past that has ignored substance. The government-funded “whole-school-reform” project was another metastructure that essentially said, “Let a thousand flowers bloom,” not concerning itself with what kinds of flowers. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law uses carrots and sticks to induce gains in reading and math. But it, too, is a structural approach, grandly leaving to states the details about what is taught and learned. The one area where the law does opine on substance—regarding the teaching of phonics—is the one area where genuine improvement has taken place in the earliest grades.
Let’s not forget the structural approach of the state-standards movement, either. Though state standards are, in my view, potentially the most promising reform project, they decline to offer guidance on the substance of what is taught and learned in the language arts, the most important area of early schooling.
[snip]And then there’s the structural orientation of the dominant theories within the educational establishment—that activities, rather than “mere facts” or a “rote-learned” academic curriculum, will induce academic progress, and that children’s natural development will allow them to gain or “construct” the needed knowledge.
All of these ideas leave the grade-by-grade specifics of the curriculum to be determined by some quasi-divine agency—the magic of the market, the wisdom of the locality, the nature of the child—in short, not mere policy makers, but somebody or something else.
Yet the grade-by-grade core substance of the curriculum is what schooling is.
I alternate between the Sol Stern camp and the wild-eyed radical John Taylor Gatto give the money to the homeschoolers and let's be done with the whole thing camp.
Let a thousand homeschools bloom.
That's what I say.
Depending on the day and the hour, of course.
10 comments:
"Yet the grade-by-grade core substance of the curriculum is what schooling is."
That's what this is all about. What is a proper education? Even if you agree with Hirsch (and I do), there is still the question of what content when. It almost sounds like Hirsch doesn't dislike the process, just that he's not in control. Choice won't guarantee his desired result, but he can't have it both ways.
My opinion is that real school choice does not yet exist. On top ot that, I don't like the idea that choice is somehow pigeonholed as something that has to exist all by itself. There is nothing stopping states, or "some quasi-divine agency", or Hirsch (he's done that already!) from defining a proper education. The real question is why I can't find a Core Knowledge school within 100 miles of where I live. This is not due to a lack of demand.
There is also nothing stopping the state or federal government from pushing or requiring each school to test students and publish raw results on their web sites. Select from a list of tests and go for it. Choice is not all or nothing. But choice means letting parents decide (not Hirsch or anyone else) what constitutes a proper education. There also has to be choice in the marketplace of ideas.
"Let a thousand homeschools bloom."
Only then will you know that choice really exists. What we have now is not choice.
Even our state public education hierarchy is playing the game. They allow some charter schools (they get to approve them), then they get a moratorium on new charter schools, especially in the affluent towns, and then they declare that choice doesn't work. They want to prevent kids from going to charter schools if they come from districts that meet the state's pathetically low cutoff standards. I call it choice for kids who are unwanted by the public schools.
"...give the money to the homeschoolers and let's be done with the whole thing ..."
No, please, let's *not* do that. Once "they" start funding my child's education, "they" will think that they should have a say in how it is run. Them's that pays the piper calls the tune and all that.
Just keep the homeschooling laws from dictating very much, and those of us who homeschool will be fine.
-Mark Roulo
"But choice means letting parents decide (not Hirsch or anyone else) what constitutes a proper education."
This is exactly what homeschoolers do: they empower themselves to make this decision. If you look at the homeschooling "community," though, what you'll find is true diversity, to the degree that there is no consensus on *anything* - especially on how to provide a proper education (methods of instruction, etc.) or what a proper education is (content). If all American parents suddenly actually believed that *their* idea of a proper education should be implemented in their local schools (or at least one school), you'd probably have chaos.
Or a lot of new homeschoolers, who decided that once they believed they could have a Mercedes, they didn't want to drive a Honda anymore. Hondas are great, but school choice, when touted as parental empowerment, is a Mercedes. Some lucky folks will indeed end up with a Mercedes, but I think they'll be few and far between. Most people will still have to settle for something that's not quite right, and worse, they'll be told that this is what they chose.
That said, true school/parental choice is better than no choice, which is what everyone has now (in their public schools). I'm also an advocate of real choice. I just don't think it will function as smoothly as most people imagine it will. I think it will be contentious, and lots of people will still be unhappy.
Oh, and I second what Mark said: let's not give any money to homeschoolers. Money comes with strings and regulation and oversight and ....
If all American parents suddenly actually believed that *their* idea of a proper education should be implemented in their local schools (or at least one school), you'd probably have chaos.
They might even turn out for school board elections.
"Oh, and I second what Mark said: let's not give any money to homeschoolers. Money comes with strings and regulation and oversight and ...."
Homeschoolers could choose not to accept money. But, don't homeschoolers have requirements anyway? Don't homeschooled kids have to take tests? Don't homeschoolers try to cross all t's and dot all i's and try to keep a low profile?
Then again, even if homeschoolers get government money (oops, your own money) how can homeschool requirements ever be higher than public school requirements? How could a state force a curriculum on homeschoolers when most states have just a vague framework? My son's school doesn't have a curriculum. They just do stuff and take the standardized state tests.
I would imagine that most homeschoolers laugh at state tests. If they have to submit an education plan, they could submit the state's vague framework, which would give them lots of leeway.
Choice is no guarantee. It's a process, and it doesn't mean that public schools will go away. There are many things I like about our public high school. (K-8 is a whole other issue.) But what we have now is not choice. With real choice, and with the demand I know exists in our area, I should be able to find a Core Knowledge school in our area.
"But, don't homeschoolers have requirements anyway? Don't homeschooled kids have to take tests?"
The requirements vary by state. In some states, homeschooled kids do have to take tests. In others, not. For example, California does not have any homeschooling laws per-se. Instead, homeschoolers are treated as if they are running a very small private school. This means that we must meet the same requirements that private schools meet (but the private schooling laws have some simplifications if everyone is related!). So ...
1) We must keep attendance records, and school must be in session for the state mandated minimum number of days.
2) We must have proof of vaccination for our students.
3) We must teach the required state subjects (but note that California requires nothing beyond "must teach." How, when, how much are left up to the individual private school).
4) The students must get at least 100 minutes of PE every 10 school days.
That's it. No tests. No district oversite (for example, the district can't just show up and demand to see the attendance records. They would first need to get a court order).
Other states are different and some do require testing ... which leads to ...
"Then again, even if homeschoolers get government money (oops, your own money) how can homeschool requirements ever be higher than public school requirements?"
Easy. In at least one state (don't ask me which one), homeschooled kids who score below the 25th percentile have to go to either a "real" private school or back to their local public school. There is no similar rule for students in the local public school who score below the 25th percentile. This leads to the possibility that a child could score at, say the 20th percentile while being homeschooled, then be forced to to to the local public school and score at the 10th percentile, but still not be able to go back to homeschooling.
"How could a state force a curriculum on homeschoolers when most states have just a vague framework?"
Clearly, you are not paranoid enough :-). It is easy for me to imagine that the state would reason as follows ... "*Our* schools are full of highly trained professionals, so we can give them lots of leeway. Homeschoolers, however, are amateurs, so we need to have very tight control and monitoring." This argument, properly presented, would probably sound pretty good to a lot of legislators and voters.
" Don't homeschoolers try to cross all t's and dot all i's and try to keep a low profile?"
Some do. I don't worry too much about it. I don't feel much need to keep a low profile as the local schools haven't behaved nastily towards us (and I haven't heard of any nasty behavior towards other homeschoolers, either). In fact, the local teachers are usually fairly supportive of homeschoolers who seem non-hostile towards the teachers.
-Mark Roulo
As a homeschooler in Virgina, I find it ironic that we must test our children on a annual basis using a "nationally normed" test. Meanwhile, all the public school kids have to worry about is passing a test designed by the Va DOE. Whose math and language art standards are higher, the nationally normed test or the state standards of learning?
A summary of state level testing requirements for homeschoolers is here:
http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/articles/030802.htm
I can't find my "25th percentile or back to public school with you" case, but there are a number of states that are close enough that I don't feel too bad going from memory :-)
Notice that California isn't on the list.
-Mark Roulo
"Homeschoolers could choose not to accept money."
True, but I doubt laws/regulations would have exceptions for people who did not accept the money. My guess is that once the money was available, the regulations would be rewritten for all homeschoolers in a given state. I could be wrong, but I don't really want to find out the hard way.
"Then again, even if homeschoolers get government money (oops, your own money) how can homeschool requirements ever be higher than public school requirements?"
First, who said anything about homeschool requirements being higher than public school? I'm simply talking about more regulation, oversight, and control of homeschoolers than there is now. As Mark has eloquently stated, regulation and requirements vary from state to state. In some states, like Texas, Delaware, and NJ, homeschoolers have little to no reporting requirements. In NJ, for example, parents don't even have to let the school district know they're going to homeschool their kids (unless they're removing them from school during the school year).
But if homeschoolers started to receive money from the state or federal government, you can bet regulations will increase in each state. They won't necessarily regulate homeschoolers as tightly as they do public schools, but I can't see, for example, NJ not adding reporting requirements of some kind.
So now I'd like to amend my earlier comment. Homeschoolers do tend to agree on one thing no matter which state they live in: they don't want any increased regulation of what they do.
"How could a state force a curriculum on homeschoolers when most states have just a vague framework?"
Again, I said nothing about forced curriculum, just increased regulation and oversight. But really, states can do anything that they want. You're implying that there's some sort of logic at work in the way states regulate things. That hasn't been my experience. 8-)
Mark, I think it might be PA that has the 25th percentile rule, but I'm also working from memory here, so it could be another state.
Post a Comment