State has no business in home schools

Oct. 11, 2005

Spectrum\Kristen Seine

It seems like such a reasonable request. Why shouldn't the state mandate testing for all children, both public and home-schooled?

If my home-schooled children are on par with grade-level expectations, why would I possibly object to state-mandated testing? Former Mat-Su teacher Carol Lowery posed that question, if indirectly, in her column on Oct. 4 (“Testing of home-schoolers the right thing to do“), and I would like to respond.

I am, you see, part of what Ms. Lowery describes as a &#8221small but vocal“ group of home-schooling parents who want the state to mind its own business where my children are concerned. Not because my children receive a sub-standard education (they are currently doing work two to three grade levels above their age), and not because I use the anonymity of home-schooling to abuse my children. God forbid.

No, the reason I object to state-mandated testing of my children is because, quite simply, my children are mine. The state has no business, and no right, to do so.

It all comes down to your point of view. Either you believe that, as a parent, the full responsibility of raising a child falls on you alone, or, as Ms. Lowery seems to believe, it takes a village (or state) to raise a child.

I am amazed when I hear people say that parents aren't equipped to teach their children. Are we lowly parents so obtuse that we cannot realistically determine what our children should know at each age or grade level? It's a wonder, then, that we were ever able to teach them to speak, to walk, and even tie their own shoes!

Does Ms. Lowery truly believe that parents have no &#8221objective way of judging the relative progress made with that of other children“ of like age or grade? That is too ridiculous to answer. (Hint: Google &#8221curriculum standards“ on the Internet).

I am also offended when she implies that many home-schooling parents simply &#8221hand the child some books, or a computer and some software, and tell them to sit there and do the work.“ The home-schooling parents I know put in a full day's work WITH their children, doing hands-on teaching. Forgive me, Ms. Lowery, but the &#8221hand a child a book“ method is, in my experience, employed most commonly by public school teachers.

I will take Ms. Lowery's word for it when she says that &#8221many times“ previously home-schooled children are brought in to public schools to be &#8221caught up“ with their schooling, although I have never, ever heard of such a thing. On the contrary, I personally know several children who were floundering under the public school system and became &#8221caught up“ - even flourished - because their parents decided to home-school them.

The real issue here is personal freedom and the ability to educate my children as I see fit. If I &#8221flub up,“ as Ms. Lowery puts it, then that is my business. ( Of course, when the public schools flub up, and prove unable to pass even the most basic of federally mandated tests themselves, that's a different story.) You only have a right to participate in a child's education, Ms. Lowery, because that child's parents have allowed you to do so, not because you have a teaching certificate, not because of some supposed responsibility bestowed upon you by the state, and not because you are part of a &#8221global village.“

Finally, let's take Ms. Lowery's basic premise - that the state has a right and responsibility to ensure the well-being of all children - to its logical conclusion. If a proper education is vital to a child's future, then what about, say, proper nutrition? No one could argue with the need for proper health and nutrition, so why aren't we calling for mandated weigh-ins and other nutritional testing for ALL children?

What about personal safety? The Mat-Su Valley has in recent years become a hotbed of methamphetamine use. Meth labs are springing up all over the place. Perhaps most parents don't operate a meth lab out of their bedroom closet, but out of concern for our children, shouldn't we mandate periodic inspections of ALL homes? Of course, that would violate a few of the basic liberties guaranteed in our Constitution, and some people would object strenuously. &#8221But we can't afford to let the emotions of a vocal minority group of people override the need of all children“ to be safe, right? As Ms. Lowery states, &#8221we need to protect the children.“

Ms. Lowery is correct about one thing. Public education is not perfect. Neither are home-schooling parents. But while state testing of all students seems like a reasonable request to some, and those in favor of it possess the best of intentions, it is neither reasonable nor realistic. It is not right.

Kristen Seine is a Meadow Lakes resident.