Homeschoolers and ACT scores

1.4 points isn't that big of a difference. i changed my score by more than that just by taking the test a second time.

if a future study is going to account for parental involvement, it should probably also account for economic status. not that homeschoolers are generally wealthy or anything, but homeschooling is not a choice for low-income or single-parent families.

We homeschooled our children from grades K-12, and they did above average on tests.

But we homeschooled primarily for moral and spiritual reasons. Homeschooled children tend to be more peer resistant, as they find security in their families rather than peer groups. They also tend to be more inter-generational (the adults are not the enemy).

Our kids are both walking with the Lord, both very outgoing and have lots of friends and interests. And we have a good relationship with them. Our son is a student at Moody and our daughter works in D.C. and participates in an excellent Bible church -- which has also provided her with a source of good friends.

Although it is tempting to defend homeschooling on the basis of academic standards, what you aim for is primary -- because it determines how you direct your children. I think we want our kids to do at least as well educated as they would in a public school (which, I guess, is the point of this post), but younger generations of homeschooling parents, in my view, are not as PARTICIPATORY in group activities and events. One goal of homeschooling should be to develop children who participate in their churches and communities.

We took our kids to the library programs, our son played soccer in the Police Athletic League, our kids participated in art classes, gym classes, and homeschooling social events. The newer generation seems mostly concerned about academics and are not developing the team players that many in the past generation did. Many of our friends participated in the Scouts; our son was in Civil Air Patrol. We've always had some isolationists, but it seems like more parents are less concerned about producing well-rounded adults.

But, when all is said and done, we are mighty glad we homeschooled.

This is interesting. I hope I have been clear over the time at SI that I am not anit-homeschool. We did do it until we could no longer b/c of our special needs child. This is my wife's 3rd year back to teaching 3rd grade. She has a student who is in her first year in a traditional school after stopping homeschooling. She is VERY far behind. Her older sister is in the same boat. The teachers and the school are working with the parents to help the children. But I think this is the case of a family that probably should not have home schooled, IMHO. The kids are great spiritually, but to say they are struggling acedemically would be the understatement of the year.

My point is that my theory seems to ring true again. Depending on the situation, all three options (home, private/christian, public) are available and may be necessary at different stages of education. Each parent must prayerfully consider, and must each be approached by informed parents. The vast majority of HS parents are excellent and do a great job. Many Christian schools do a great job, but it takes high parental involvment. The same can be said of public schools. I say this as a parent that has homeschooled, have children in Christian schools, and public schools at the present time.

Susan,
I didnt meant to frustrate you. I will pm about the student in question.

Two thoughts come from this.
1. I wonder how, and if, this has changed over time. How did homeschoolers fare on the ACT throughout the years. The reason I ask would be that this might be a result of the growth of homeschooling as an education option as opposed to just homeschooling in general. One does not have to dig too deep to understand that the educational materials avaialable to homeschoolers has matured well past what used to be. Many more courses are available as well as a the opportunity for COOP arrangements.
2. I would still contend that most parent are not qualified to educate their children and these results do not disprove that. What they prove is what I stated in my first point. I would contend that the materails available provide that education and the parents provide them the opportunity. I know very few homeschool parents who were able to educate their children in upper math or sciences. What I have witnessed is that the parents are able to purchase the appropriate video teaching (or other materials) that would enable their kids to learn the subject matter. Or, they may even send them to a Jr. College for the advanced classes (which seems to me to be somewhat contradictory to the whole homeschool philosophy). So, while the kids may have their classroom at home, thereby qualifying as a homeschooler, their parent is acting more in an advisory capacity than a teacher.
*****Please understand that these are generalizations and may not reflect the experiences of everyone involved. Also, I am not necessarily anti-homeschool. With that being said, I do believe the definition of what homeschool was and what homeschool has become at this moment in time, is vastly different and should probably be judged as such.

i guess we have a different idea of what is low income. my idea of low income is more like the last sentence in your first post and not like the folks who think they're low income, but find money for a computer and internet.

Chris,

Here in the states it is not uncommon for truly low income families to have these things (hey, I am in that category...LOL). I minister to very low income people all the time that have these things and more. It is what it is - people generally "afford" what is a priority.

How is this contradictory? Nobody ever said we shouldn't be concerned for our kids and direct them. I send my kids to our public school and still do what you are advocating to make sure they have all the information needed to continue to grow.

Do you have teenage, or "high school" level kids at home. (I am sincerely asking because I do not know) How are they getting their information for Trigonometry, Calculus, Chemistry, Biology or other such classes? There are some subjects that most people will not have the knowledge to impart to their kids. Directing them to a resource that can is the right thing, it doesn't necessarily make them able to educate that subject.There are some things that are first ingested through the Chalk&Talk or Sit&Git method. For goodness sakes, that is what pretty much everyone of us on this board do on Sunday mornings.

Susan,

Again, I think we agree in principle. But you seem to imply that homeschooling is the only real option. For many, it is. For others, it is not. Yet the example I gave, clearly shows a family that cannot homeschool. They are doing a wonderful job exucating their kids spiritually. But they kids are sub par on reading. You said your own kids read at small ages. In the example I gave, she could not read three letter words. Something is wrong with this family's approach to homeschool. They recognize it and put them in a Christian school. I would argrue that if a child is that far behind, especially by jr h (as the older one) HS is not for them. Again, tell me where I am wrong.

As far as your example as directing children and the downplaying the classroom method. I don't disagree that what you are advocating is legit. But you seem to be arguing to the point where you are about to box yourself in to imply preaching isn't good because it is a "classroom" method to a point. When I preach, I exhort to self study, I still take 45 min several times a week to "teach/preach."

Congratulations and please tell your son (I am assuming) thank you for his service. I am able to help my kids as well. I have a degree in Mathematics and Education, but haven't really used the advanced math for some time. While I am "qualified" to assist my son with Calculus, I do not remember all of the things needed to be of real value to him. I would not equate providing him with the tools and resources to learn the same as educating him in calculus. I have taught him how to be self-sufficient, but that doesn't show him how to do a derivative.

Just because my daughter can play the piano does not prove that I am able to teach her how to play the piano. It proves that I am able to find someone who does know how to teach the piano. I have a friend who was homeschooled, went to college, got his degreee in engineering, and is now going back to get his doctorate from MIT. My contention is that his acedemic prowess is not a result of his mom's homeschooling (he did videos through high school), but rather his ability to learn in multiple settings as well as understanding the materials delivered by those who DID know the content. His mom did not educate him in engineering, she provided him the opportunity to be educated.

Eh, I don't think your on track in this. Most home schooling parents don't think they are as prepared as a professional educator. But that's not the question. The question is this: can the average parent do a better job of educating his child as one of two or three students than can a public school teacher as 1 of 25?

As far as Jr. College, we did that with our son for advanced math. But that does not defeat the purpose of homeschooling, at least not ours. In a public or Christian school, the student becomes peer-dependent. Taking a class at a Jr. college with young and even middle aged adults does not breed peer dependency.

The parents who used videos seemed pleased. Again, most home schoolers value the moral and spiritual outcome of their children above academics. So the argument is thus:

IF home schooling tends to produce children more prone to embrace Christian beliefs, values, and character, and if they are at least at par with public school children, then it is a good thing. If you read Barna's book, Revolutionary Parenting, Barna avoids the homeschooling issues when talking about parenting that produces Spiritual Champions. But I do think it is fair to say that parents who are as pro-active (and willing to be counter-cultural) as Barna suggests are more likely to be home schooling parents than not.

But there are NO guarantees. I know children reared in homeschooling families that are agnostics, shacking up, etc. And I know kids raised in public schools that are doing great as adults. But I do think the norm is that home schooled kids seem to do better spiritually and morally than Christian kids educated in both public and Christian schools. Perhaps someone does not agree with this?

Pastor Vasicek, I very much have respected your writings and opinions here on SI. However, I would disagree with your statements here. I think that a public school or Christian school a student may have an opportunity to become peer-dependent, but I would argue that your generalization is just that, a generalization. No less than one saying a home schooler is socially inept.

Most academics agree that the homeschooling movement as a whole was a response to three stimuli (though they may weight them differently): 1) secularization of public schools, 2) decline in educational quality in public schools, 3) desegregation and busing.

Our public school system is a relatively monolithic entity that discourages educational innovation, competition, and diversity, all of which are vital to a healthy school system. Thankfully, parents have an out; they can pull their children out of the schools and educate them themselves (or pay double and send them to financially handicapped Christian schools). It is a testament to how poorly run our public schools are that so many parents are willing to overcome financial and social disincentives to homeschool their children.

But homeschooling is a temporary, nonideal solution. First, homeschooling is temporary because ultimately either homeschoolers will be effectively forced back into the public system (as noted by Susan R.) or school choice reforms will create a serious alternative to either public education or homeschooling. A nationalized school voucher system would revitalize our educational system providing parents with educational options tailored to their preferences. Christian schools would have more money to hire better trained and longer retained teachers. Schools could diversify and big controversies over issues like evolution/creation and sex education would be forgotten as different schools were allowed to adopt different positions in order to compete for students. The marketplace would transform our educational system and mitigate the need for both public schools and homeschooling.

To my second (and probably more controversial) point: homeschooling is suboptimal. Is educating our children a few at a time really the optimal way to do education? Not from a business perspective. Think of the other goods and services that we consume from the marketplace. Why do the overwhelming majority of us no longer grow our own food, spin our own thread, or build our own cars? Because we can't do it as well or as efficiently as someone else (or a group of someone elses). We purchase rather than self-provide goods and services because, in a free market, it is to our mutual benefit to do so. So the optimal educational system allows individuals to pool their resources to hire specialists in a given field to instruct our kids whether that be science, English, or history. These teachers are able to instruct multiple children at once thus creating an economy of scale.

Let me note that homeschoolers already do both of these things within a constrained market. Homeschooling associations and cooperatives provide specialization and some economy of scale. For the same reasons, many homeschoolers choose virtual options such as those provided by BJ LINC and Homesat. In fact, homeschooling is something of a misnomer these days. The mythic homeschooler is a single parent instructing their own children in their living room. Rarely is that an accurate depiction of homeschooling. Homeschoolers have taken advantage of the relative educational freedom that they enjoy to innovate, foster competition, and diversify. The success of homeschooling spells the death knell for public primary education and, ironically, for homeschooling itself.

I've posted on homeschooling at my personal blog some as well:
http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/12/17/the-obamas-go-to-school/

In America, there have only been public schools for 100 years. Luther instituted them in Germany in the 1500s. America was a relative latecomer. Also, I think your view of historical practice is skewed. "Homeschooling" was not, to my knowledge, practiced until recent times. Rich (or at least bergher class) people brought tutors into their homes to work with their children. Then around the age of 12-14 they went to "Academies" or "Universities," which were church schools, and later national schools. The common people weren't homeschooling their children; they weren't educating them at all, except in the family trade. The idea of an educated common class stems, I believe, from the Reformation, with the rejection of the Catholic doctrine of "implicit faith." The Reformation fostered public schools for the common people. So, it seems to me that for the average person, public schooling predates homeschooling.

Most of these "geniuses" and "inventors" were not homeschooled, per se. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, went to a private school from an early age and then to William & Mary at 16. Isaac Newton went to a private school. Ben Franklin was an autodidact (which I suppose is similar to homeschooling, but not really). Also, there have been plenty of innovators and geniuses in the last 100 years. I think of Thomas Nash (the mathematician who sparked game theory), Einstein, etc. I think the difference lies in the curriculum used and the rigor of instruction, not group vs. home education.

You know your own motivations far better than I of course (-; , but I don't think that this is the root reason why most families choose to homeschool. After all, homeschooled children are more likely to attend college than their publically-educated counterparts. Universities are in the express business of warehousing and manufacturing graduates. This doesn't bother us though because we have significantly broader choices concerning higher education than we do primary and secondary education. We can pick and choose which college to attend. Indeed, higher education diversified to compete for students. We have colleges of all kinds appealing to a huge variety of interests. So, the fundamental problem in primary and secondary education is our lack of choice. The educational market is almost monopolized by the public school system. This is the root flaw in our public educational model.

And that is why people homeschool in spite of the additional cost and effort.

Charlie is right to note that tutoring was the preserve of the elite. Only the very wealthiest could afford a private tutor. A few of the bourgeois might be able to send their oldest son to a little school run by a well-respected tutor along with other from the middling sort. But the overwhelming majority of people prior to the industrialization of education were illiterate and uneducated. Self-direction requires literacy; we owe our Puritan predecessors a debt of gratitude for laying the foundation for our modern belief in universal education.

Let me put it this way, homeschooling is undermining the current public educational edifice. This is a good thing and I hope that it tumbles in on itself sooner rather than later. The problem with homeschooling as an alternative is that it cannot replace what it is destroying. Homeschooling works well for ideologically motivated, well educated, relatively wealthy families. A disproportionate number of homeschooling parents have college degrees or better, come from the middle class, and have strong religious/ideological convictions. For these folks homeschooling is a good option. For parents who don't fit that profile it is not nearly as appealing.

So, to sum it up vulgarly, public education is the least optimal option. Homeschooling is a better one. A true free educational market is best. In that idealized market there would be plenty of room for homeschoolers, but most Americans are still likely to opt for a (privately administered, diversified) school system instead.

I did look at the stats you provided. I still think that they support my contention, that homeschooling is most viable for well-educated, middle-class parents. After looking at your stats I can add, "who are white, from a 2 parent household, and who are well enough of so that only one parent of two has to work." [Note: all following states reference proportions] white parents are twice as likely to homeschool (%2.7) as black parents (%1.3) and four times more likely to do so than Latino parents (%.7). Kids in two parent homes are significantly more likely to be homeschooled (%2.5) than those with one parent (%1.5) or no parents (%.9). Kids with two parents who are rich enough to allow one to stay home and not work are five times more likely to be homeschooled (%5.6 to %1.1). Parents with only high school diplomas (%1.7) are significantly less likely to homeschool than those with college degrees (%2.8). I will also note that the income stats are inconclusive because the survey data doesn't go low enough or high enough; it doesn't differentiate below poverty from slightly above poverty nor does it separate out the upper class. Even with a flawed data table you can tell that the middle income bracket is more likely to homeschool than either the lower or upper income brackets.

So, homeschooling appeals most to parents of middle-class, white, well-educated 2 parent homes with a single breadwinner. I don't think that accurately describes your typical American family (unless we are examining television shows from the 1950s!). (-:

I don't believe so. My point is that the underlying problem is not some sort of "souless mechanization" of education, but is instead a question of choice. I was attempting to prove this point by noting that homeschooling parents, who you suggested disliked a "manufactured/warehoused" education, send their kids to colleges which do precisely that. This should prove that an aversion to "manufactured/warehoused" education is not the true, underlying motivation of homeschooling parents. It is instead their understandable desire that those who provide educational services would respond to their demands and tailor their products to suit. They have that choice when it comes to colleges so they are happy. When in primary/secondary school they are denied true freedom of choice and so they are not happy and thus they homeschool.

I won't derail this thread, but we need a thread on standardized testing. Through the process of teaching standardized test prep courses, I have gone from believing that they are nearly arbitrary assessments to realizing that they are indeed the a phenomenal resource for assessing learning, second only to a personal interview with a tutor.

I mean MODERN examples. I think years ago, this was right on. Back then, Christians were not called upon to be as counter-cultural as they now are. At least I think it's harder.

50 years ago, it was a no-brainer -- public schools were the way to go. But it is not wise to rear children in 2009 as though it were 1959. Society has changed vastly, and if we do not adjust, we will follow its decay. Which is exactly what is happening. Home schooling, however, only improves the odds. I think the trend is downward across the board, but home schoolers fare better, as a rule.

Ed,

I think we agree. But it is possible to still have your kids in public school and them do well acedemically and spiritually. My oldest and youngest are in public school. It was not my initial choice, but it is what God wanted.

Thanks for further explanation, Dave. What you describe is my understanding of things.

Although I have problems with forbidding homeschooling, I understand Germany's position; if we had National Socialism and the Holocaust in our history, I think we would also be extremely paranoid of letting people do their own thing.

That said, one of the things I favor about the German system, and the European systems in general, is precisely the assumption that not everyone should go to college. That's what is so idiotic about American education; everyone is not fit for college, period, and that is no mark against them. Everyone is not fit for do a host of things, and the education system should, ideally, recognize that.

Admittedly, my interraction with homeschooled kids is limited. But so far I have found them mostly under educated and maladjusted to their peer groups. I dont mean to offend but that has been my experience

Yeah, some people have poor experiences with homeschoolers although, as Susan says, it would be helpful to clarify what one's criteria of evaluation are (public schoolers?). Because they are such an minority group, they stick out in people's minds such that people attribute every trait of a person who happens to be homeschooled to their education, which is as bizarre as it is foolish. If I did that with the vast majority of all school children I've met from public school, my assumption would be that most public schoolers are functionally illiterate, anti-intellectual, superficial, and generally stupid.

Now, that that would be a really foolish inference on my part because that simply describes our youth culture, and it has hardly anything necessarily to do with our education system, although that's a significant factor in the youth culture.

I say all this because I know people really do have a hard time, despite what they say, of separating their limited experience from the inferences they draw about groups, and I would hate for Mr. York to have only bad experiences with homeschoolers and therefore to inadvertently generalize about the group - although he obviously did not do that in his post, for which I am grateful.