12
The results of these tests weren 't anything new - J.P. is very verbal (I've noticed), and has the reasoning powers and vocabulary of an 8-year-old (more, I'd say, but I'm only his mother). He is "behind" in spelling (he's just learned to work words out phonetically - I imagine that would confuse things admirably), reading, and "visual memory" of abstract shapes, but good at inter preting meaningful pictures (why should he have any interest in remem bering something that doesn't ~ean anything? He's a practical kid). I had rromised to behave myself, but I almost forgot when they said he tends to reverse his letters because of something to do with his right hand, left eye, and brain - I told him we didn't go for all that "brain" stuff . You'd have thought I'd said we didn't believe in the law of gravity . The fact is, sometimes J.P. writes his letters backwards and sometimes he doesn 't - it depends on how inter ested r.e is in what he's doing . Anyway, they were very nice, and J.P. didn't seem to mind doing it. Now, he's decided he can read. I was wondering when he'd c'ome to that con clusion - he's been doing it for over a year. He ~as just the same with learning to walk. I don't know if that makes the testing worth $125, but after all, if we'd had to let the schools test him (they haven't asked, but we consider this a precaution), he might have decided he couldn't read, and then where would we be? One useful thing that was men tioned in going over those tests was that J.P. seemed to have a confusion about the significance of upper-case and lower-case letters, mixing them up pretty much at random. I hadn ' t spotted that. We took an hour or so to go over that area, picking out the places the capital letters came in a story, and figuring out ~ they were used, from the punctuation and the sense of the words. I think he's got that now, so that was OK, but I'm sure he would have noticed it eventu ally on his own ... SUMMARY OF EVALU ATI ON PROCEDURES [DR: 1 Several people have asked if we knew of any court rulings con cerning the way homeschoolers are evaluated, rather than simply whether homeschooling is permissible. We have just received two, both from New York State. In one, a 1982 case, the court ruled that standardized tests were not required, that other evaluation methods would be sufficient. In the other, from 1983, the judge decided that "infrequent, unobtrusive" visits to the home by school officials could reasonably be requested. We quote at length from the two rulings in the articles that follow. It is interesting to note that the two cecisions hold almost opposite ideas about the definition of "substantially equivalent" instruc tion. One, the 1982 case, says it is enough if the results of the educa tion are equivalent. The other says the methods are what count - "a sys tematic course of study . " Perhaps one of these two ideas will eventually win out as the authoritative defini tion. Meanwhile, homeschooling par ents should use whichever is to their advantage. If your children perform well above grade level even though you don't do much formal educational activity at home, stress the "re sults"; if the children are, say, reading below grade level, stress
your "methods," qualifications, text in 1980. #18, #40. books, resources, etc. It should also MD: 1984 regulations say superin be noted that the schools can't argue tendent is responsible for monitoring on behalf of the "results" definition progress. #40. very effectively, since this would NV: 1984 regulations say local call into question their own effec boardmust see evidence of "reason tiveness . -able educational progress" such as This reminds me of another impor test scores. Students in grades 1, 2, tant point . Some states have talked 4, 5, 7, and 8 Woust take same stan about setting a requirement that home dardized tests as public school stu schooled children score above the dents. #40. 40th percentile on standardized ME: 1984 regulations offer 5 tests . But what the "40th percentile" evaluation options, including test means is that the child has done as ing, review by teacher, or submitting well as or better than 40% of the a portfolio. #41. children the same age. So almost half the schoolchildren do worse than me 40th percentile every year, not be COURT CASE : TESTI NG cause they're stupid or poorly educa ted, but simply because that's the STATE OF NEW YORK way percentiles are defined. It's the FAMILY COURT, County of Chenango same as pointing out that 50% of all IN 1HE MATTER OF AMBER ANN HEALEY, A doctors in the country graduated in Child Alleged to be Neglected by the bottom half of their classes . DENNIS HEALEY AND ROBERTA HEALEY, Somebody had to be in the bottom half. Respondents Nothing particular happens to DOCKET NO . N-199-82 public school children who score below the 40th percentile . They cer FINDINGS OF FACT tain l y are not removed from the ... Amber Ann Healey was born May schools in which they are enrolled, 6, 1973, to Dennis Healey and Roberta nor are their teachers fired. Yet Healey. She completed Kindergarten closing down a home school would be and first grade in the Norwich City just as drastic a step. School. In April of 1979, she was The new year brought a flurry of classified by the Committee on Handi activity in state legislatures in capped as speech impaired and re 1983 and 1984, and this will probably ceived therapy for this handicap. In be true of 1985; we know of a number May of 1980, following reports from of states that are currently working the school psychologist and the Men on homeschool legislation . So ~e tal Health Clinic, she was further might do well to remind you what classified by the Committee as emo other states have decided recently tionally disturbed. As a result she about testing and evaluation. See the received resource room individualized back issues of GWS noted for more instruction for a portion of each deta i l s: school day. She made little progress AZ: 1982 law requires testing in school, however, scoring in the for homeschoolers. In 1983, 14 out of fourth percentile on a SRA composite 150 children in Maricopa Co . were scale in kindergarten, and the third denied r.omeschooling exemptions be percentile in the first grade. Her cause of "failing to show adequate first grade report card recommended progress" in their first year . #27, that she repeat the grade. On October 28, 36. 21, 1980, Roberta Healey withdrew MT: 1983 law, no evaluation re Amber from school and commenced her quirement . #33 . program of home instruction .. . The WV : 1983 private school law Healeys have furnished the school requires students in such programs to with copies of their home teaching take annual standardized test. If curriculum and attendance reports as test results for any single year fall required by the school. The school below the 40th percentile, the school has requested that Amber be adminis must initiate a remedial program. If tered SRA and PEP standardized tests scores are below the 40th percentile to assess the quality of home teach for two consecutive years, child may ing and the Healeys have refused. A not be permitted to remain at school . neglect petition was thereupon filed #34. and this hearing followed. The Peti MS: 1983 law, no testing require tioner has submitted expert testimony ment.~trong language denying state in support of its contention th,at any right to supervise homeschooling. such testing is the best method avail #36 . able to analyze the quality of VA: 1984 law requires either (1) Amber's instruction and ensure that score-above the 40th percentile on it is at least equivalent to that approved achievement tests or (2) "an available in the public schools. The evaluation or assessment which, in Healeys counter with testimony that the judgment of the division superin Amber performs poorly under the tendent, indicates that the child is stress of a test situation, and that achieving an adequate level of educa the proper gauge of the quality of tional growth and progress . " #38 . her instruction is through a review GA: 1984 law requires homeschool of the educational materials and sam ers to-take standardized test at ples of her work . .. least every three years, but scores "shall not be required to be submit CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ted to public educational authori The Petitioner faces a dilemma ties." #38 . imposed by the strictures of the Edu WI: 1984 law, no evaluation re cation Law. qui re men t . #39. "In each school district of the NE: 1984 private school law, no State, each minor from six to sixteen evaluation requirement. #39, 41. years of age shall attend upon full LA: 1984 law offers 4 options time instruction." (Educ. Law Sec. 3205) for year - end evaluation: (1) submit ting a "packet" of student's work, "A minor required to attend upon course outline, etc . ; (2) passing a instruction by the provisions of part competen cy-based test; (3) scoring at one of this article may attend at a public achool or elsewhere." or above grade level on standardized test; or (4) evaluation of program by " . . . Instruct i ons given to a minor elsewhere than at a public certified t eac her. Th is modifies a school shall be at least substantialmo r e liberal homeschooling law passed
GROWING WITHOUT SCHOOLING *42