Homeschool statistics

[Poly]

Statistics from HSLDA. (Home School Legal Defense Assoc.)

http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray2009/2009_Ray_StudyFINAL.pdf

 

[Ktoyou]

Oh wow! How impressive. I did notice, though half the mothers had a college degree and more a mix on fathers. Can an educated parent teach their children better than a public school teacher, you bet! Teaching the basic and not all the sociological nonsense means more time to learn the foundations of education.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's interesting at first glance, but a little misleading. For instance, K-12...any idea why the whole thing is taken up like that? I suspect part of the reason is that while the early years see a significant difference/advantage for home schooled children, the high school years watch that significant advantage wither away until the average ACT scores between both college bound groups is less than two points (and neither average competing to get into Harvard).

And this rush to suggest training doesn't matter should be understood within the context of early education, where reasonably educated parents can easily handle the curriculum as opposed to the later years where it self evidently matters a great deal (hence, the near complete surrender of a two year advantage).

In other words, if you have a simple curriculum and a student teacher ration of one to one or two to one, instead of twenty to thirty to one, unsurprisingly you come out way ahead at home.

From what I see in the data to be had you're better off home schooling children until they reach high school age and then shift them into a good school with well trained teachers expert in the increasingly complicated disciplines.

So I'm something of a tweener then. :e4e:

 

[Ktoyou]

It's interesting at first glance, but a little misleading. For instance, K-12...any idea why the whole thing is taken up like that? I suspect part of the reason is that while the early years see a significant difference/advantage for home schooled children, the high school years watch that significant advantage wither away until the average ACT scores between both college bound groups is less than two points (and neither average competing to get into Harvard).

And this rush to suggest training doesn't matter should be understood within the context of early education, where reasonably educated parents can easily handle the curriculum as opposed to the later years where it self evidently matters a great deal (hence, the near complete surrender of a two year advantage).

In other words, if you have a simple curriculum and a student teacher ration of one to one or two to one, instead of twenty to thirty to one, unsurprisingly you come out way ahead at home.

From what I see in the data to be had you're better off home schooling children until they reach high school age and then shift them into a good school with well trained teachers expert in the increasingly complicated disciplines.

So I'm something of a tweener then. :e4e:

I will agree, one can not beat a good private school or prep school, at the secondary level. Yet the elementary increase is notable.

 

[ebenz47037]

You guys shouldn't paint with such a broad brush stroke. I will agree that there are people who shouldn't be teaching their children (although the one-on-one attention often makes up for the lack of knowledge). But, I've yet to meet homeschooled children who didn't do well later in life, once they decided what they wanted to do with said life.

My daughter went from second grade through twelfth grade, with two six month breaks (one for a semester after my husband passed away in 1999 and one for a semester while I taught Spanish in a local Christian school in 2001). She completed twelfth grade six months earlier than I was told she should. And, if she had been allowed, she would have completed twelfth grade when she was twelve years old. I didn't want her to be that far advanced over her age group, though (my mistake...but hindsight is 20/20). She's twenty right now and not sure what she wants to do. But, she's seriously considering taking the courses necessary to open up a stable and do physical therapy with horses. Although I think she should have a back-up plan, I can no longer tell her what to do with her life.

 

[Ktoyou]

You guys shouldn't paint with such a broad brush stroke. I will agree that there are people who shouldn't be teaching their children (although the one-on-one attention often makes up for the lack of knowledge). But, I've yet to meet homeschooled children who didn't do well later in life, once they decided what they wanted to do with said life.

My daughter went from second grade through twelfth grade, with two six month breaks (one for a semester after my husband passed away in 1999 and one for a semester while I taught Spanish in a local Christian school in 2001). She completed twelfth grade six months earlier than I was told she should. And, if she had been allowed, she would have completed twelfth grade when she was twelve years old. I didn't want her to be that far advanced over her age group, though (my mistake...but hindsight is 20/20). She's twenty right now and not sure what she wants to do. But, she's seriously considering taking the courses necessary to open up a stable and do physical therapy with horses. Although I think she should have a back-up plan, I can no longer tell her what to do with her life.

I am all for home schooling, as long as the parent has good reading skills and knowledge of grammar and math skills. Hopefully they have learned phonetics. Group home schooling would be excellent!

I have witnessed math a teacher who taught algebra who did not know anything about logarithms, the next class above basic algebra and I told her she was not properly educated to teach her class. She responded that she had completed her secondary teaching certificate, yet had trouble with math. Her position was the only opening at the school close to her home.

The advantage in private school and prep school is that you math teacher would have at least a BA in mathematics, usually a masters degree, particularly in English, history and often in science. Private school teachers set their own standards; they do not have to have a one year master M.Ed. in teaching methods.

 

[Town Heretic]

You guys shouldn't paint with such a broad brush stroke. I will agree that there are people who shouldn't be teaching their children (although the one-on-one attention often makes up for the lack of knowledge). But, I've yet to meet homeschooled children who didn't do well later in life, once they decided what they wanted to do with said life.

I suppose I'd say the nature of the discussion (including the OP) is fairly broad, but I wasn't arguing against home schooling, only noting a little context was in order. Most people with a high school education and a little patience can, by virtue of ratios and commitment (coupled with decent text materials) do rather well early on. Anyone suggesting to you with a straight face that the more complicated course of study is accomplished as well or better (a dead give away that someone can't help skewing) with instruction from someone without particular training and the knowledge that goes along with that has been sold or is attempting to pass on bad or particularly sifted information...By way of example, lumping K through 12 together to make a general statement.

 

[Stripe]

It's interesting at first glance, but a little misleading. For instance, K-12...any idea why the whole thing is taken up like that?

What K-12? What is "taken up"?

And this rush to suggest training doesn't matter should be understood within the context of early education, where reasonably educated parents can easily handle the curriculum as opposed to the later years where it self evidently matters a great deal (hence, the near complete surrender of a two year advantage).

On the contrary. This study suggests that being able to handle the curriculum is not much of an issue at all in contrast to a public education where curriculum is considered all important.

In other words, if you have a simple curriculum and a student teacher ration of one to one or two to one, instead of twenty to thirty to one, unsurprisingly you come out way ahead at home.

No doubt.

From what I see in the data to be had you're better off home schooling children until they reach high school age and then shift them into a good school with well trained teachers expert in the increasingly complicated disciplines.

Where did this study show that might be a good idea?

 

[Town Heretic]

What K-12? What is "taken up"?

In order: kindergarten through senior year (when Americans move on to the college life) and by "taken up" I mean lumped together.

On the contrary. This study suggests that being able to handle the curriculum is not much of an issue at all in contrast to a public education where curriculum is considered all important.

Not if you look inside the numbers. Keep it broad enough and it appears to be true. Begin breaking down the differences in formative education as opposed to the last four years or so when academic discipline becomes less generic and more demanding and it's another ballgame.

Re: home school hybrid.

Where did this study show that might be a good idea?

It didn't, which was part of my problem with how it was presented. I don't mean I expected a pro home school study to give a balanced accounting, but as I noted in my initial response, they're hiding facts behind broad generalizations that don't tell the whole story.

In the lower grades there has been as much as a two year edge to home schoolers. That's impressive. But the ACT (college entrance exam score of note here) averages demonstrate a marginal advantage. Still an advantage in the broad view, but giving up almost all of that once impressive edge speaks to the problem I set out regarding increasingly more demanding academics and the need for training on the part of instructors.

It's like this: if I gave you a material advantage and a ridiculous teacher to student ratio/personal advantage in terms of knowing the student's needs and being highly motivated for his or her success and by the time college entrance exams rolled around you had less than two points to differentiate your kids from that larger PS group...well, if you were being federally funded every conservative in the world would be screaming to cut your program.


:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

In order: kindergarten through senior year (when Americans move on to the college life) and by "taken up" I mean lumped together.

Ah ...

Not if you look inside the numbers.

Where are these numbers you're looking inside?

Keep it broad enough and it appears to be true. Begin breaking down the differences in formative education as opposed to the last four years or so when academic discipline becomes less generic and more demanding and it's another ballgame.

I'm sure that's probably a valid point .. for a very different report.

I don't mean I expected a pro home school study to give a balanced accounting, but as I noted in my initial response, they're hiding facts behind broad generalizations that don't tell the whole story.

I think you're over-reacting. It's a very simply presented piece of work designed to promote homeschooling. You're raising issues that simply cannot be addressed by the information we have.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Where are these numbers you're looking inside?

I'll have to find the more recent bits, but off hand look at this report by a home school advocacy group (look at #13 and you should see the 22.6 home schooled ACT compared to the national average of 20.9 figure).

I think you're over-reacting.

How in the name of carnation milk is noting a deficiency in the presented materials over reacting? :squint: Now if I'd attempted to make a case that they shouldn't be believed or that home schooling isn't worth the trouble for the return, that would have been. I didn't. I even said it's a good idea, early on.

It's a very simply presented piece of work designed to promote homeschooling.

It's a piece designed to put home schooling in the best possible light. My point was that like most PR presentations it's hiding a few things that are important and worth considering.

You're raising issues that simply cannot be addressed by the information we have.

Rather, I'm raising issues that they could have dealt with but chose not to and for understandable reasons, but it's still a partial truth in need of a more particular context.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

I'll have to find the more recent bits, but off hand look at this report by a home school advocacy group (look at #13 and you should see the 22.6 home schooled ACT compared to the national average of 20.9 figure).

OK ..

There's a lot of room to suggest this difference is still significant. It's not really a concern though. My concern here is that you're suggesting this report is trying to hide something. I think if you look at the nature of the presentation and consider the intent you'll not find any desire to mislead.

How in the name of carnation milk is noting a deficiency in the presented materials over reacting? :squint:

When it's not a deficiency.

The authors are under no obligation to present every piece of data possible.

It's a piece designed to put home schooling in the best possible light. My point was that like most PR presentations it's hiding a few things that are important and worth considering.

The things it's "hiding" clearly aren't being hidden very well. :chuckle:

Rather, I'm raising issues that they could have dealt with but chose not to and for understandable reasons, but it's still a partial truth in need of a more particular context.

You're over-reacting.

 

[Town Heretic]

OK ..

There's a lot of room to suggest this difference is still significant. It's not really a concern though. My concern here is that you're suggesting this report is trying to hide something.

If they have the numbers how they present them says something about their intent here. I don't believe they went at this thinking "Let's be less than fully disclosed here and hope no one picks the data apart" but I do think they neglected a pretty obvious problem and had the data on hand to spot it.

I think if you look at the nature of the presentation and consider the intent you'll not find any desire to mislead.

I don't agree. If you know or reasonably should know a thing and fail to note it while examining/extolling the virtues of a practice you're allowing people to be misled, at best. That's good PR but bad practice.

Re: when is noting a deficiency over reacting.

When it's not a deficiency.

Depends, I suppose, on how you approach it. If you want a clearer picture of home schooling's strengths and weaknesses, it is. If you want a rosy, misleading bit of PR, it isn't.

The authors are under no obligation to present every piece of data possible.

Of course not. I try to keep that in mind any time anyone representing a party or faction gives me information about their interest. That's also why I look into any claim independently and frequently find things like the omitted consideration now considered.

The things it's "hiding" clearly aren't being hidden very well. :chuckle:

You might be surprised at how many people run with what's handed to them if it suits their inclination.

You're over-reacting.

If that's how you define a fairer treatment of the subject, sure. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

If they have the numbers how they present them says something about their intent here. I don't believe they went at this thinking "Let's be less than fully disclosed here and hope no one picks the data apart" but I do think they neglected a pretty obvious problem and had the data on hand to spot it.

You haven't raised a problem. The statistics you pointed to still show an advantage to homeschooling. So it seems you're not trying to besmirch a report that isn't trying to deceive on an issue that homeschoolers are number one on. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

You haven't raised a problem.

So you don't go in for sins of omission then...good to know. :chuckle:

The statistics you pointed to still show an advantage to homeschooling.

They do better than that...they give the impression that k-12 it's a done deal and markedly so. It isn't. It is, as I noted, a lion that turns into a mouse by the end of the run. That is, the impression they leave one with, absent further examination, is inaccurate...or maybe they weren't home schooled in statistics. :think:

So it seems you're not trying to besmirch a report that isn't trying to deceive on an issue that homeschoolers are number one on. :idunno:

Besmirch? Wouldn't dream of it. Clarify? Absolutely. :e4e:

 

[GuySmiley]

It's like this: if I gave you a material advantage and a ridiculous teacher to student ratio/personal advantage in terms of knowing the student's needs and being highly motivated for his or her success and by the time college entrance exams rolled around you had less than two points to differentiate your kids from that larger PS group...well, if you were being federally funded every conservative in the world would be screaming to cut your program.

Without the government funding and the parent still paying taxes for other kids to go to school, Germany outlawed the practice!

And two points difference is a big deal on the ACT. I wonder how that translates in percentiles.

EDIT: http://www.actstudent.org/scores/norms1.html

Here it says from 20 composite score to 22 composite score takes you from 48th to 62nd percentile.

 

[Vaquero45]

Without the government funding and the parent still paying taxes for other kids to go to school, Germany outlawed the practice!

And two points difference is a big deal on the ACT. I wonder how that translates in percentiles.

EDIT: http://www.actstudent.org/scores/norms1.html

Here it says from 20 composite score to 22 composite score takes you from 48th to 62nd percentile.

..And vice versa.

 

[Town Heretic]

Without the government funding and the parent still paying taxes for other kids to go to school, Germany outlawed the practice!

:shocked:

And two points difference is a big deal on the ACT. I wonder how that translates in percentiles.

It might be something of a deal if the averages weren't around twenty. As it is...not so much. :nono:

EDIT: http://www.actstudent.org/scores/norms1.html

Here it says from 20 composite score to 22 composite score takes you from 48th to 62nd percentile.

And from one state school to another, which is rather my point. Now two points at the upper end has impact, but that's not what's happening.

:e4e:

 

[Memento Mori]

And two points difference is a big deal on the ACT. I wonder how that translates in percentiles.

EDIT: http://www.actstudent.org/scores/norms1.html

Here it says from 20 composite score to 22 composite score takes you from 48th to 62nd percentile.

Two points is a big deal around what I scored - 29.

20 - 22 isn't that big of a deal unless you're looking to get into a slightly better school than a community college. I go to a private Catholic University and they won't even review your portfolio without a 25, minimum.

Bright Flight is a scholarship if you manage to score a 31or above (Missouri only).

There 2 points would make a big difference with my score.

 

[GuySmiley]

:shocked:


It might be something of a deal if the averages weren't around twenty. As it is...not so much. :nono:


And from one state school to another, which is rather my point. Now two points at the upper end has impact, but that's not what's happening.

:e4e:

Oh admit it! You were thinking two points on the SAT weren't you!!!?

And yeah, as far as college entrance requirements its no big deal. But in terms of bragging about what percentage of test takers you are smarter than its great.