A few months ago, I took up my friend Blake Boles’ recommendation to read the 2019 book, Homeschooling: The History and Philosophy of a Controversial Practice, in which Shawn Peters and James Dwyer offer a detailed history of the modern homeschooling movement and then explore some philosophical questions of whether the option should be legal and to what extent it might be regulated by the state. While I found their historical analysis interesting and helpful, I felt their philosophical musings about whether and how to regulate homeschooling to be frustrating and naïve, and I felt challenged to respond. I’m now on part four of that response.
Meanwhile, this week, Blake has released a podcast interview with Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Bartholet (author of a recent article calling for stricter regulation of homeschooling) and Dr. Rachel Coleman, Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Home Education. These women, like Peters and Dwyer, propose what sounds to them to be the “gentle” or “mild” regulation that homeschoolers take standardized tests annually. All of these well-intentioned people express concern for children, and worry that abusive and neglectful parents are harming children under the guise of homeschooling. They conclude that requiring all homeschoolers to take standardized tests is the best way to protect these victimized children. In this installment, I will argue that their “gentle” proposal is misguided. I appreciate that I am disagreeing with four thoughtful professionals.
This group (Peters, Dwyer, Bartholet, Coleman) express deep concern about the lack of oversight and regulation for homeschooling children. They are alarmed that some children’s rights to receive a sufficient education to enter adult society are being violated by dysfunctional homeschooling. They see schooling as the mechanism for cognitive development (think “the basics: reading, writing, math”) and assert the state’s interest in ensuring all children receive proper training in these skills. While they differ slightly among themselves, (read the book and listen to the podcast for details!) their solutions fall into two categories: 1) Demanding that homeschooling parents have a GED or proper skills to homeschool and that they (and everyone in the household) pass a background criminal check; and 2) Requiring assessment by standardized testing of each homeschooling student at least annually.
Why do their conclusions bother me so much? Requirements that homeschooling parents must show themselves to be competent and safe people and must allow the state to conduct regular check-ins on students seem pretty mild, right?
I am putting their first proposal on hold for another time. The need to confirm that homeschooling parents are of average academic competence and provide average parental love and attention is simply not on my radar. All four of the academics I’m responding to seem to have very different life experiences from me, in which they are very aware of widespread abuse of children in the name of homeschooling. I’m very sorry to learn of their knowledge, and I am open to learning more. I don’t believe the state should neglect or abandon children to abusive parents. I am not sure that there is any simple fix to this problem, or that I subscribe to their proposals, but I am open to learning more that somehow the national homeschooling community is covering up for hurtful parents. Aside from some occasional egregious examples in the media, my work over the past twenty-five years leaves me ignorant of these claims. I would love to speak with Dr. Coleman and others to be brought up to speed here. At that point I will be happy to consider proposals to regulate parents to protect the safety of homeschooling children.
What about periodic reviews of the academic progress of homeschoolers? That certainly sounds reasonable on its face. I have a series of questions that indicate my concerns:
• What skills and content are essential to require all kids to possess at each age in the review process?
• What about children who start with widely different abilities? Are we measuring progress or simply performance?
• If we are worried about basic literacy and numeracy, can children who have demonstrated such basic competencies be free of further testing?
• What would be the remedies for children who perform poorly on these tests?
Once I start down this path of questioning standardized testing, I end up in a maze of confusion:
Validity: Do these tests reveal what they claim – basic skills? Does doing well on a reading test indicate a student reads for enjoyment? Does doing well on a math test indicate mathematical thinking in real life? Does doing well on a writing sample reveal whether children are expressing themselves in any creative way?
Range: Should we use standardized tests to see if kids can draw? Or dance? Or sing? Or use a screwdriver? Or throw a ball? Should we use tests to find out how many friends they have and how they relate to others? My point, as I get distracted, is that standardized tests focus on an arbitrary set of skills and don’t give us the valuable information we really seek.
Passing Level: It seems to me that the “passing” requirements for these periodic assessments ought to be no higher than what a school demands from its own students that are promoted each year.
Completion: Is there any test that a student might take to once and for all confirm they possess the skills deemed essential? Some version of a GED? Can children of any age take the test and then be done with this process?
Remediation: What do those in favor of testing propose the state do with students who fail? If homeschoolers who do poorly lose the right to their chosen approach, does that logic apply to those who have been attending school? It is unlikely they would say to school students do poorly, “It looks like school isn’t working for you. You can’t attend any more.” Further, this sort of pass-fail outcome leads us to focus on teaching to the test and objective scores, instead of progress, interest, and learning.
In My World
At North Star, we have never used standardized testing to measure teens. Some teens choose to take such tests, just to see how they do. Some take these tests in cooperation with their public school systems to identify special needs. Many of our teens take the GED and SATs, or Advanced Placement tests. Community colleges often have standardized tests as part of their application process. We support our members to prepare for these tests and use them as they choose.
This month I have been part of private Family Meetings with each of our members, their parents, and as many of the Core Staff that are relevant to the teen’s experience at North Star this past year. Our process begins with asking the teen to reflect upon their year, and we invite their parents to share their experiences. Then, North Star staff members offer their observations.
Our goals are different from helping teens to improve their test scores. Some of our goals include:
- Self-Evaluation: We want to hear how teens make sense of their own learning. What are they proud of? What feels missing? What was easy or hard? What is next?
- Communication: We want teens and parents to hear each other. Our approach needs to work for everyone in the family. Parents have relevant and informed goals for their children, and teens need to hear and respond to them. Parents also need to hear how their teens assign meaning to their various activities. Having a facilitated forum can support this process.
- Honesty: We don’t need standardized tests to know who has made progress in academic subjects, or to discuss how teens are spending their time. We expect and push for directness, not delusion. When teens talk about taking the GED, starting a college course, or applying for a job, we ask them about their commitment and readiness to take on these goals.
- Feedback: Staff members offer observations about what we have seen and how we have interacted with the teen. We respond to parents’ joys and concerns. We ensure that the family does not feel alone in this process.
- Space: These meetings offer an immediate space for teens and parents to reflect and discuss. In a more abstract sense, they convey a feeling that teens have time and space to grow up, that everything is not “urgent”, and that we can face the future with some sense of control.
Conclusion
I don’t have a better way to ensure that all students learn to read and write and count. I challenge our cultural premises that isolate these skills and make them worthy of compulsory attendance and measurement as the dominant activity of childhood for twelve years.
Nor do I have a better way to make sure all kids eat healthy, play outdoors, make some art or music, and have some free time for friends. I vote for making school non- compulsory, like the rest of these activities.
As I have stated in other places, I propose that schools become more like summer camps. I wish for them to be widely available, offering a range of opportunities with at least some options for everyone regardless of their finances. They should be non-compulsory, and our concern for children who don’t attend school might be closer to our concern for children who don’t attend summer camps. Aside from serious cases of child abuse or neglect, we don’t worry about “home-summering” or “home-weekending” or “home- afterschooling.”
I choose to assume that we all share the goals of supporting children to grow up into competent, healthy young adults with some areas of interest and expertise. We hope they have educational, social, and work opportunities available to them at all ages and that they transition to young adulthood with some sense of purpose and confidence.
I don’t see any ways in which standardized testing contributes to these outcomes. I believe caring adults can work with children and their parents to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to strategize ways to address these interests and concerns. State- mandated standardized testing distracts us all from our important work without giving us the kind of information we really need.
I understand the impulse to “test everyone to save the few,” and at some earlier moment in my teaching career I surely agreed with such policies. I have chosen to move on from that time in my life to create what I see as a more valuable and urgent way to support teens and families in my community. I don’t expect our society’s current testing protocols to change any time soon, so for now I endorse people who choose to opt out of tests as they deem appropriate. I also support those who choose to use these tests as a personal tool for their own private information.
Thanks to those of you who have followed this series, and I would enjoy hearing your thoughts about the role of standardized testing in your own lives and communities.
