Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

  1. #21

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gromovnik View Post
    Hell yeah, that's the ticket. What could possibly go wrong with homeshooling?
    Probably nothing. In the US, homeschooled kids score in the 65th to 80th percentile compared to public school kids. They tend to get better scores on the SAT and ACT as well, and are more likely to attend university. The only caveat being this may all have more to do with the characteristics of the types of parents who choose to homeschool, although it's a pretty diverse group. This PDF is accurate to my knowledge: RESEARCH FACTS ON HOMESCHOOLING
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  2. #22
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    833

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Probably nothing. In the US, homeschooled kids score in the 65th to 80th percentile compared to public school kids. They tend to get better scores on the SAT and ACT as well, and are more likely to attend university. The only caveat being this may all have more to do with the characteristics of the types of parents who choose to homeschool, although it's a pretty diverse group. This PDF is accurate to my knowledge: RESEARCH FACTS ON HOMESCHOOLING
    If you are interested to discuss the topic with data, scientific studies and statements, I should at least bring this critical review:

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...6X.2013.798516

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    EMPIRICAL LIMITATIONS TO THOSE CLAIMS

    Although homeschooling advocates and allied lawmakers push for policies aligned with the aforementioned conclusions, further investigation reveals that the empirical basis for many of the most profound claims is remarkably questionable. In fact, claims in the areas of (a) outcomes and effects of homeschooling, (b) fiscal advantages to homeschooling, and (c) the benefits of further deregulation are all, on closer inspection, quite problematic.

    Claims on Effects

    First, probably the most important claim made by and for homeschoolers is that the approach “works,” is “effective,” or “gets results” because it “likely leads to” certain desirable outcomes such as enhancing academic effectiveness, promoting greater civic engagement, increasing participation and success in higher education, and enriching later life and job satisfaction (HSLDA, 2013b; Lips & Feinberg, 2008; Ray, 2009). The focus on academic achievement in particular is a critical issue because hopes of improving the educational experiences and future life opportunities of homeschooled students depend on evidence that the treatment is more effective than other alternatives. It is thus a key argument for expanding the homeschooling movement, as proponents of homeschooling believe it will both help individual students as well as boost the educational productivity of the country in an era of international economic competitiveness. Similarly, other claims about the impact of homeschooling on success in higher education, enriched civic engagement, and future life outcomes are also useful for supporting policies that can further expand the movement.

    Any such claims about the effects of homeschooling on desirable outcomes are undercut, however, by basic empirical imperatives. Although there is little dispute that homeschooling children typically attain higher test scores on average, the question is whether homeschooling causes better achievement (or engagement, or higher education participation, etc.). Outcomes such as increased achievement and engagement may simply be a reflection of the advantages that homeschooling families typically bring to their children—advantages that would make it likely that these students would succeed academically and in life even if they were educated in schools.

    For instance, according to research results produced by proponents, homeschooled children “score above national averages on standardized achievement tests” (Ray, 2000, p. 74). However, although advocates suggest that above-average test scores demonstrate the success of homeschooling, what is known is that the most important factors influencing student performance rests on socioeconomic predispositions like family income, parental educational attainment, and so on (Coleman et al., 1966; Sacks, 2007; Wrigley, 2011). Accordingly, although there may be a correlation between the act of homeschooling and higher academic outcomes, researchers, and advocates have yet to demonstrate a causal relationship between these two factors. What is more likely is that those parents who choose to homeschool are more invested in the educational outcomes of their children, can afford supplemental materials, have the financial flexibility and benefits to forgo a secondary income, and have higher educational attainment—factors that we know are true of the homeschooling population (Ray, 2010). These factors are likely the explanation for higher test scores rather than the practice of homeschooling itself. That being said, high-achieving students who are homeschooled might very well still reap the benefits of their socioeconomic advantages if they were enrolled in a public school. It follows that the children of parents who homeschool could fare at least as well in public school as they do in the private realm of the home.

    Perhaps the best way to test for any causal relationship of homeschooling on these outcomes would be to conduct randomized trials that naturally account for the influence of confounding factors. Yet, by definition, homeschooling families are those that are motivated to self-select into the “treatment” group, making it virtually impossible to construct a useful comparison group with the same attributes and motivations, thereby undercutting the possibility of identifying homeschooling as the causal mechanism in improving outcomes. Alternatively, in trying to isolate the impact of homeschooling itself, researchers could attempt to control for all the other factors known to influence academic outcomes. However, researchers can more easily control for observable factors in comparing groups and treatments; they face significant obstacles with unobservable factors like motivation, initiative, and commitment to education—extremely important predictors of academic success that are known to be well represented in the homeschooling community. Therefore, any attempts to discern the impact of homeschooling are extremely limited, if not fatally flawed.

    Nevertheless, homeschooling proponents often point to surveys such as the report from Rudner (1999) in claiming that higher scores for homeschoolers show the effectiveness of the approach. Yet this is akin to arguing that dentists are more effective than emergency room physicians because they see lower mortality rates. The population represented in the sample in the Rudner study is qualitatively different than the larger population to which they were compared, making causal claims unsupportable, as even Rudner noted. In fact, the study drew on a sample of homeschoolers using a testing service offered by a conservative Christian university. Not only is such a sample not representative of the wider homeschooling population (as the author acknowledged), but—even if we were able to overcome the obstacles of controlling for unobservable factors with survey data—it is virtually impossible to construct a sample that is representative of the wider population. This is because basic information about the size and nature of the population that homeschools their children in the United States (an essential prerequisite for making general claims about the treatment) is unknowable due to the substantial degree of under- and nonreporting associated with the movement.

    Consequently, efforts to encourage policymakers to expand the homeschooling movement based on claims of the effectiveness of this approach are on extremely tenuous empirical ground. The research used to advocate for such an expansion does not and cannot support claims made regarding the effectiveness of homeschooling as a treatment. In fact, even some of the correlative research produced by homeschooling proponents suggests that it is not the act of homeschooling itself, but instead being the type of family that is interested in homeschooling, that is more closely associated with better outcomes. For instance, NHERI found that there were no statistically significant differences between students who spent varying years being homeschooled, nor any substantial differences in outcomes—less than .5% of the variance—based on the specific approaches used by homeschooling families (Ray, 2009). If there are no significant academic achievement differences between a student who spent his or her entire life being homeschooled and one who spent less, or between homeschooled students subjected to various pedagogical approaches, it would appear that what causes high academic achievement is not homeschooling per se, but the predispositions that most homeschooling families share. Further, it is shown that what causes the largest disparity between scores of homeschooled students are parental education levels, which is also true in the regular schooled population.

    In the realm of higher education, Saunders (2009) showed that homeschooled students displayed higher rates of persistence into their sophomore years. However, given that most homeschooled students come from homes with parents holding college degrees, a support structure within those families that aids homeschooled children as they matriculate and persist through college is more likely to be present than in the general population. It very well may be good role models—not homeschooling—that serve as an asset to these students. Thus, rather than encouraging the act of homeschooling, policymakers would be on firmer empirical ground by encouraging all families to be more like homeschooling families: to be highly interested and invested in the education of their children.

    Claims on Efficiencies

    A second, purportedly research-based claim made about homeschooling deals with the movement's potential cost-saving features and improved efficiencies. Regarding the former, advocates note that homeschooling families pay taxes for public education but do not themselves take advantages of those services, thus providing a financial boon for districts. Furthermore, on the latter issue, they make the argument that homeschooling is more effective by measuring the costs of education in public schools relative to homes, particularly in light of perceived academic outcomes (Ray, 2009). In both of these instances, public schooling is seen as an inefficient alternative to homeschooling because it takes and uses more resources than necessary. Precisely for that reason, such claims can be important in policy discussions because they position homeschooling as a more efficient and effective policy option that should be encouraged and expanded.

    As we have shown, such claims appear in the research of advocacy organizations promoting homeschooling. Although there is certainly some truth to the claim that districts are collecting money to educate students who will never set foot in their hallways (as is also true in the case of students attending private schools), the implicit and overt basis of these claims is not as strong as it may initially seem. In fact, many of these arguments break down on closer inspection. For instance, claims on expenditures often rely on inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons. Citing Ray (2009), the HSLDA indicates that public school students perform well below the level of homeschooled students, despite the fact that $9,963 is spent on the public school students compared to a median of about $400 to $599 for homeschooled students. Consistent with its insistence that government-run entities are inherently wasteful, the Heritage Foundation claims that homeschooling saves an average of $4.4 billion to $9.9 billion annually (Lips & Feinberg, 2008). These savings, according to the Heritage Foundation, can “be saved or reallocated to other uses” (Lips & Feinberg, 2008). This notion, partnered with claims of higher academic achievement, constitutes a claim of financial and academic efficiency.

    But such simplistic comparisons neglect basic social science tenets by comparing one population or process to another despite ignoring well-documented differences between the two groups and the inputs to the productive processes, including family income and education, special education costs, and so forth. Furthermore, these claims appear to ignore the substantial costs of homeschooling to the families that admirably shoulder these burdens, including overhead costs factored into the public school figure, as well as opportunity costs of adults foregoing paid employment or career advancement.

    Indeed, the basic claim of efficiency advantages is fundamentally flawed. Efficiency is a question of the ratio of inputs to outcomes, with greater efficiency being a matter of increasing outcomes while holding inputs constant and/or reducing inputs while outcomes do not decline. Yet, despite the appeal of homeschooling for its appearance of getting great academic outcomes with relatively minimal inputs, in fact, neither side of that equation is or can be appropriately specified. As we discussed in the previous section, researchers have yet to demonstrate the actual outcomes of homeschooling itself (controlling for other confounding factors). Furthermore, studies have yet to appropriately account for the inputs necessary for homeschooling, partly because so many of the factors going into any educational effort—motivation, experience, commitment, and so on—are nearly impossible to quantify. Moreover, the collective benefits typically associated with public education, such as increased social tolerance and cohesion, enhanced social capital and economic productivity, reduced fertility, and crime, are also difficult to quantify as direct outcomes of the endeavor.

    Yet, even if we accept the unsupported claim that homeschooling embodies efficiencies, it does not then follow that policies encouraging more families to homeschool will result in better circumstances for students remaining in public schools, even if fewer students are then using the resources devoted to public education. The transfer of one child from public school to homeschooling would typically have an insignificant impact on costs to a school or district, and does not really represent any savings because the school would typically still need the same number of teachers, a principal, budget for overhead, and so on.

    In fact, to effect significant cost savings for public schools, a critical mass of families—enough to merit reduction in teaching staff, for instance—would have to leave a particular school or district, and its budget would have to remain the same (i.e., the school or district's budget allocation is not determined on a per-pupil basis). Thus, even though the homeschooling movement is substantial across the country, only where it reaches this critical mass in specific localities could it potentially result in real budget savings, at least according to the logic suggested by advocates. However, if such a dramatic shift in student population were to occur, it could represent not only potential savings but also serious threats to those remaining in the schools. The loss of a substantial number of students may mean the loss of political support for local funding of public schools. Furthermore, the exit from public schools of a mass of educated, active families with an interest in education is likely to have detrimental impacts on the school community through a degraded peer effect (on the peer effect, see Epple & Romano, 1998; Hanushek, Markman, Kain, & Rivkin, 2003; Hoxby, 2000; Lubienski, 2003).

    A notable irony in all of this is that, even as advocates claim that there are cost savings to the public education system, they are advancing proposals to cut into those supposed savings to encourage the further expansion of homeschooling. For instance, the Heritage Foundation advocates for the expansion of educational tax credits and deductions for homeschooling expenses for families, as well as state tax incentives for other parties that contribute to a child's tax-free education savings account (Lips & Feinberg, 2008).

    Claims for Deregulation

    Finally, a problematic claim made regarding homeschooling is that further deregulation of the movement is necessary, presumably to improve opportunities and outcomes for more students. This claim is derived from observations about the relative performance of students taught by formally trained or untrained educators but is also situated within the context of homeschooling proponents’ general aversion on the part of leading homeschooling groups to almost any regulation or oversight. Consequently, this type of claim is used to support policies that further reduce public responsibility and involvement in education for homeschooling families. Current and recent proposals seek to accelerate and extend this trend by removing the requirement that parents educating their children at home have a teacher certification or even a college degree, and restricting state oversight of homeschooling, as with the reduction or eradication of mandatory testing for homeschooled children.

    These calls are based on a number of assertions from homeschooling advocacy research, particularly the claim that parents with teacher certification are not more effective than noncertified parents (Ray, 2009), or that certification does not have a significant benefit for education in general. This issue of rolling back state requirements that homeschooling parents need to be certified came to the fore when a court ruling in California unexpectedly (and temporarily) upheld such a requirement (Egelko & Tucker, 2008; Home School Legal Defense Association, 2008). Consequently, advocacy groups like the HSLDA point to survey data indicating that students whose parents were not certified actually scored higher on standardized tests, arguing that “critics of home-schooling have long insisted that parents who want to teach their own children should become certified teachers first,” yet their study “found that whether or not parents were teacher-certified had no impact on these high scores” (Ray, 2009; see also Ray, 2010).

    Such conclusions with regard to homeschooling are quite dubious. Again, available data and analyses are not able to support the claims made by these organizations. Survey data are not suited to making claims regarding a causal link, or lack thereof, between parents’ teacher certification status and the academic outcomes of their children. In this same vein, there has been a vigorous debate in research circles over the years about the degree to which teacher certification matters not only in homeschooling settings but in public education as well (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Moe, 2005; Walsh, 2001). Although much of the research has been mixed and contested, a recent large-scale study found that teacher certification was a significant predictor of achievement in school settings (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2013). Whether or not teacher certification is a significant predictor of achievement in home education settings has not been established in the empirical literature, and analyses of survey data simply have not examined the issue with any rigor; however, as we noted earlier, there is reason to think that the socioeconomic and unmeasurable motivational advantage of homeschool families often make up for or mask any deficiencies in pedagogical training (a secondary factor even in school settings) and that further expansion of the homeschooling movement could draw in families where these advantages are not as pronounced, thus diminishing the primacy of family background and enhancing the potential impact of formal training.

    EXPLORING THE DIVIDE BETWEEN RESEARCH EVIDENCE AND POLICY ADVOCACY

    In an era of school reform characterized by demands for scientifically based interventions, the curious case of homeschooling stands out for its lack of grounding in any sound empirical evidence. Facilitated by policymakers’ efforts to lessen restrictions on its growth, and despite a notable dearth of empirical evidence on its effectiveness, the homeschooling movement has grown by leaps and bounds, even as policymakers require research-based practices, and private funders pursue “effective philanthropy” that shows evidence of the impact of the programs they support. We do not intend to take a stand at this point regarding the overall desirability of homeschooling, nor on specific issues such as the requirement for parents to have a teaching degree. Instead, we simply want to point out the tenuous empirical basis for many claims made to advance the homeschooling movement.

    Considering the state of the data available, it is simply not possible to claim that homeschooling “works” and “leads to” desirable outcomes. Those claims might be true but cannot be supported by analyses of extant empirical evidence. Indeed, homeschooling advocates are on much firmer footing simply arguing for greater deregulation and expansion based on other grounds, such as the demonstrable satisfaction of many of those engaging in the practice, or the moral or legal argument that parents have a substantial right to control the education of their children. Still, leading proponents persist in trying to prove the academic impacts of this approach. We contend that this is because evidence of impact is quite persuasive in policymaking arenas that have been so focused on academic effectiveness as evidenced by standardized test scores and that advocates see this as a key element of their efforts to expand and further deregulate the practice.

    Despite advocacy organizations clamoring for more change, homeschooling has already been substantially deregulated over the last few decades in the United States, with fewer barriers, restrictions, and points of public accountability. However, we are not aware of any compelling evidence that deregulation to this point has improved the effectiveness of the practice. Indeed, in lieu of any firm evidence that the homeschooling “treatment”—as opposed to home factors—is at all effective, it is far from clear that expanding the movement will increase its impact. In fact, as the practice is likely further expanded due to deregulation, it could be that results will diminish as families with characteristics that are more marginally associated with academic success join the movement.

    Although they are often dressed up in a scientific rhetoric of performative measures and results, it appears that calls for further deregulation of homeschooling may be ideological rather than empirical imperative. Rather than showing a strong empirical basis to justify the expansion of homeschooling, the evidence indicates that the movement is growing for other reasons and that empirical claims of its effectiveness are just a very useful marketing mechanism.

    The Advocacy Agenda

    Of course, calls for further deregulation of homeschooling are taking place in an atmosphere of antigovernment advocacy. Although there are often good justifications for limiting state intrusions in the private sphere, proponents of many efforts to roll back the reach of the government frequently see this as an end in itself, regardless of the actual evidence on the effectiveness of public institutions or their proposed alternatives. Of interest, even as some proponents seek to reduce the government role in education by further deregulating and encouraging homeschooling, they also seek state subsidies to entice families into joining their anti-state agenda (e.g., Lips & Feinberg, 2008).

    There has probably been no organization with more success in advocating for homeschooling than the HSLDA. The group has been pushing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as for state legislation that would affirm parents’ basic legal right to control and direct the education of their children. HSDLA contends that

    the Parental Rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution would ensure that parents have a fundamental right to raise, educate, and care for their children. The amendment would also prevent treaties from overruling U.S. law regarding parents and children, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (see HSLDA, 2012a, 2012d)
    HSLDA actively monitors state and federal legislative proposals and is very effective in mobilizing opposition to any bills it believes could even remotely represent the possibility of impacting the rights of homeschooling parents. For instance, it was famously instrumental in defeating the ratification of an international treaty—based on U.S. law—designed to secure the rights of disabled children because the proposed legal standard of the “best interests of the child” could, according to HSLDA's interpretation, “override the traditional fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their child with special needs” (Estrada, 2012b). HSLDA (2011, 2012b) has also opposed numerous legislative actions that proposed to change child abuse reporting standards. Such actions would require all adults to report child abuse. Among the concerns raised by HSLDA are that such moves will allow for an increase in baseless child abuse reports, and some of the proposals allow investigations without evidence of abuse.

    In addition, the HSLDA (2012c, 2013a) has been very active in opposing legislation to increase the compulsory school age because that would expand government control over education. The group responded to President Obama's 2012 declaration that states should require all children to stay in school until they graduate or turn 18 by noting that

    if there were a federal mandate (either passed by Congress or through regulations) that required the states to keep students in school until they graduate or turn age 18, this could lead to a federal definition of what constitutes “graduation from high school.” Once the federal government creates federal guidelines or definitions in this area, additional and harmful federal regulations on homeschoolers could easily follow. (Estrada, 2012a)
    Such strident and preemptive advocacy for this agenda bears similarities to the successful strategies of the National Rifle Association in promoting its interpretation of the Second Amendment in response to any perceived threat to those rights. In these cases, an abstract principle is elevated to a pure, if extreme, interpretation of rights regardless of the real-world consequences.

    CONCLUSION

    In this analysis we have offered a critique of the empirical arguments made by and for the homeschooling movement. Rather than a critique of homeschooling per se, we have demonstrated that there is essentially no scientific evidence on the effectiveness of homeschooling. This is not to say that the practice is not effective, particularly in every case, but only that multiple research attempts have not yet proven its effectiveness. Despite massive increases in the scale of the practice, moves to further expand and deregulate homeschooling are not supported by empirical evidence.

    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  3. #23

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    If you are interested to discuss the topic with data, scientific studies and statements, I should at least bring this critical review:

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...6X.2013.798516

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    EMPIRICAL LIMITATIONS TO THOSE CLAIMS

    Although homeschooling advocates and allied lawmakers push for policies aligned with the aforementioned conclusions, further investigation reveals that the empirical basis for many of the most profound claims is remarkably questionable. In fact, claims in the areas of (a) outcomes and effects of homeschooling, (b) fiscal advantages to homeschooling, and (c) the benefits of further deregulation are all, on closer inspection, quite problematic.

    Claims on Effects

    First, probably the most important claim made by and for homeschoolers is that the approach “works,” is “effective,” or “gets results” because it “likely leads to” certain desirable outcomes such as enhancing academic effectiveness, promoting greater civic engagement, increasing participation and success in higher education, and enriching later life and job satisfaction (HSLDA, 2013b; Lips & Feinberg, 2008; Ray, 2009). The focus on academic achievement in particular is a critical issue because hopes of improving the educational experiences and future life opportunities of homeschooled students depend on evidence that the treatment is more effective than other alternatives. It is thus a key argument for expanding the homeschooling movement, as proponents of homeschooling believe it will both help individual students as well as boost the educational productivity of the country in an era of international economic competitiveness. Similarly, other claims about the impact of homeschooling on success in higher education, enriched civic engagement, and future life outcomes are also useful for supporting policies that can further expand the movement.

    Any such claims about the effects of homeschooling on desirable outcomes are undercut, however, by basic empirical imperatives. Although there is little dispute that homeschooling children typically attain higher test scores on average, the question is whether homeschooling causes better achievement (or engagement, or higher education participation, etc.). Outcomes such as increased achievement and engagement may simply be a reflection of the advantages that homeschooling families typically bring to their children—advantages that would make it likely that these students would succeed academically and in life even if they were educated in schools.

    For instance, according to research results produced by proponents, homeschooled children “score above national averages on standardized achievement tests” (Ray, 2000, p. 74). However, although advocates suggest that above-average test scores demonstrate the success of homeschooling, what is known is that the most important factors influencing student performance rests on socioeconomic predispositions like family income, parental educational attainment, and so on (Coleman et al., 1966; Sacks, 2007; Wrigley, 2011). Accordingly, although there may be a correlation between the act of homeschooling and higher academic outcomes, researchers, and advocates have yet to demonstrate a causal relationship between these two factors. What is more likely is that those parents who choose to homeschool are more invested in the educational outcomes of their children, can afford supplemental materials, have the financial flexibility and benefits to forgo a secondary income, and have higher educational attainment—factors that we know are true of the homeschooling population (Ray, 2010). These factors are likely the explanation for higher test scores rather than the practice of homeschooling itself. That being said, high-achieving students who are homeschooled might very well still reap the benefits of their socioeconomic advantages if they were enrolled in a public school. It follows that the children of parents who homeschool could fare at least as well in public school as they do in the private realm of the home.

    Perhaps the best way to test for any causal relationship of homeschooling on these outcomes would be to conduct randomized trials that naturally account for the influence of confounding factors. Yet, by definition, homeschooling families are those that are motivated to self-select into the “treatment” group, making it virtually impossible to construct a useful comparison group with the same attributes and motivations, thereby undercutting the possibility of identifying homeschooling as the causal mechanism in improving outcomes. Alternatively, in trying to isolate the impact of homeschooling itself, researchers could attempt to control for all the other factors known to influence academic outcomes. However, researchers can more easily control for observable factors in comparing groups and treatments; they face significant obstacles with unobservable factors like motivation, initiative, and commitment to education—extremely important predictors of academic success that are known to be well represented in the homeschooling community. Therefore, any attempts to discern the impact of homeschooling are extremely limited, if not fatally flawed.

    Nevertheless, homeschooling proponents often point to surveys such as the report from Rudner (1999) in claiming that higher scores for homeschoolers show the effectiveness of the approach. Yet this is akin to arguing that dentists are more effective than emergency room physicians because they see lower mortality rates. The population represented in the sample in the Rudner study is qualitatively different than the larger population to which they were compared, making causal claims unsupportable, as even Rudner noted. In fact, the study drew on a sample of homeschoolers using a testing service offered by a conservative Christian university. Not only is such a sample not representative of the wider homeschooling population (as the author acknowledged), but—even if we were able to overcome the obstacles of controlling for unobservable factors with survey data—it is virtually impossible to construct a sample that is representative of the wider population. This is because basic information about the size and nature of the population that homeschools their children in the United States (an essential prerequisite for making general claims about the treatment) is unknowable due to the substantial degree of under- and nonreporting associated with the movement.

    Consequently, efforts to encourage policymakers to expand the homeschooling movement based on claims of the effectiveness of this approach are on extremely tenuous empirical ground. The research used to advocate for such an expansion does not and cannot support claims made regarding the effectiveness of homeschooling as a treatment. In fact, even some of the correlative research produced by homeschooling proponents suggests that it is not the act of homeschooling itself, but instead being the type of family that is interested in homeschooling, that is more closely associated with better outcomes. For instance, NHERI found that there were no statistically significant differences between students who spent varying years being homeschooled, nor any substantial differences in outcomes—less than .5% of the variance—based on the specific approaches used by homeschooling families (Ray, 2009). If there are no significant academic achievement differences between a student who spent his or her entire life being homeschooled and one who spent less, or between homeschooled students subjected to various pedagogical approaches, it would appear that what causes high academic achievement is not homeschooling per se, but the predispositions that most homeschooling families share. Further, it is shown that what causes the largest disparity between scores of homeschooled students are parental education levels, which is also true in the regular schooled population.

    In the realm of higher education, Saunders (2009) showed that homeschooled students displayed higher rates of persistence into their sophomore years. However, given that most homeschooled students come from homes with parents holding college degrees, a support structure within those families that aids homeschooled children as they matriculate and persist through college is more likely to be present than in the general population. It very well may be good role models—not homeschooling—that serve as an asset to these students. Thus, rather than encouraging the act of homeschooling, policymakers would be on firmer empirical ground by encouraging all families to be more like homeschooling families: to be highly interested and invested in the education of their children.

    Claims on Efficiencies

    A second, purportedly research-based claim made about homeschooling deals with the movement's potential cost-saving features and improved efficiencies. Regarding the former, advocates note that homeschooling families pay taxes for public education but do not themselves take advantages of those services, thus providing a financial boon for districts. Furthermore, on the latter issue, they make the argument that homeschooling is more effective by measuring the costs of education in public schools relative to homes, particularly in light of perceived academic outcomes (Ray, 2009). In both of these instances, public schooling is seen as an inefficient alternative to homeschooling because it takes and uses more resources than necessary. Precisely for that reason, such claims can be important in policy discussions because they position homeschooling as a more efficient and effective policy option that should be encouraged and expanded.

    As we have shown, such claims appear in the research of advocacy organizations promoting homeschooling. Although there is certainly some truth to the claim that districts are collecting money to educate students who will never set foot in their hallways (as is also true in the case of students attending private schools), the implicit and overt basis of these claims is not as strong as it may initially seem. In fact, many of these arguments break down on closer inspection. For instance, claims on expenditures often rely on inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons. Citing Ray (2009), the HSLDA indicates that public school students perform well below the level of homeschooled students, despite the fact that $9,963 is spent on the public school students compared to a median of about $400 to $599 for homeschooled students. Consistent with its insistence that government-run entities are inherently wasteful, the Heritage Foundation claims that homeschooling saves an average of $4.4 billion to $9.9 billion annually (Lips & Feinberg, 2008). These savings, according to the Heritage Foundation, can “be saved or reallocated to other uses” (Lips & Feinberg, 2008). This notion, partnered with claims of higher academic achievement, constitutes a claim of financial and academic efficiency.

    But such simplistic comparisons neglect basic social science tenets by comparing one population or process to another despite ignoring well-documented differences between the two groups and the inputs to the productive processes, including family income and education, special education costs, and so forth. Furthermore, these claims appear to ignore the substantial costs of homeschooling to the families that admirably shoulder these burdens, including overhead costs factored into the public school figure, as well as opportunity costs of adults foregoing paid employment or career advancement.

    Indeed, the basic claim of efficiency advantages is fundamentally flawed. Efficiency is a question of the ratio of inputs to outcomes, with greater efficiency being a matter of increasing outcomes while holding inputs constant and/or reducing inputs while outcomes do not decline. Yet, despite the appeal of homeschooling for its appearance of getting great academic outcomes with relatively minimal inputs, in fact, neither side of that equation is or can be appropriately specified. As we discussed in the previous section, researchers have yet to demonstrate the actual outcomes of homeschooling itself (controlling for other confounding factors). Furthermore, studies have yet to appropriately account for the inputs necessary for homeschooling, partly because so many of the factors going into any educational effort—motivation, experience, commitment, and so on—are nearly impossible to quantify. Moreover, the collective benefits typically associated with public education, such as increased social tolerance and cohesion, enhanced social capital and economic productivity, reduced fertility, and crime, are also difficult to quantify as direct outcomes of the endeavor.

    Yet, even if we accept the unsupported claim that homeschooling embodies efficiencies, it does not then follow that policies encouraging more families to homeschool will result in better circumstances for students remaining in public schools, even if fewer students are then using the resources devoted to public education. The transfer of one child from public school to homeschooling would typically have an insignificant impact on costs to a school or district, and does not really represent any savings because the school would typically still need the same number of teachers, a principal, budget for overhead, and so on.

    In fact, to effect significant cost savings for public schools, a critical mass of families—enough to merit reduction in teaching staff, for instance—would have to leave a particular school or district, and its budget would have to remain the same (i.e., the school or district's budget allocation is not determined on a per-pupil basis). Thus, even though the homeschooling movement is substantial across the country, only where it reaches this critical mass in specific localities could it potentially result in real budget savings, at least according to the logic suggested by advocates. However, if such a dramatic shift in student population were to occur, it could represent not only potential savings but also serious threats to those remaining in the schools. The loss of a substantial number of students may mean the loss of political support for local funding of public schools. Furthermore, the exit from public schools of a mass of educated, active families with an interest in education is likely to have detrimental impacts on the school community through a degraded peer effect (on the peer effect, see Epple & Romano, 1998; Hanushek, Markman, Kain, & Rivkin, 2003; Hoxby, 2000; Lubienski, 2003).

    A notable irony in all of this is that, even as advocates claim that there are cost savings to the public education system, they are advancing proposals to cut into those supposed savings to encourage the further expansion of homeschooling. For instance, the Heritage Foundation advocates for the expansion of educational tax credits and deductions for homeschooling expenses for families, as well as state tax incentives for other parties that contribute to a child's tax-free education savings account (Lips & Feinberg, 2008).

    Claims for Deregulation

    Finally, a problematic claim made regarding homeschooling is that further deregulation of the movement is necessary, presumably to improve opportunities and outcomes for more students. This claim is derived from observations about the relative performance of students taught by formally trained or untrained educators but is also situated within the context of homeschooling proponents’ general aversion on the part of leading homeschooling groups to almost any regulation or oversight. Consequently, this type of claim is used to support policies that further reduce public responsibility and involvement in education for homeschooling families. Current and recent proposals seek to accelerate and extend this trend by removing the requirement that parents educating their children at home have a teacher certification or even a college degree, and restricting state oversight of homeschooling, as with the reduction or eradication of mandatory testing for homeschooled children.

    These calls are based on a number of assertions from homeschooling advocacy research, particularly the claim that parents with teacher certification are not more effective than noncertified parents (Ray, 2009), or that certification does not have a significant benefit for education in general. This issue of rolling back state requirements that homeschooling parents need to be certified came to the fore when a court ruling in California unexpectedly (and temporarily) upheld such a requirement (Egelko & Tucker, 2008; Home School Legal Defense Association, 2008). Consequently, advocacy groups like the HSLDA point to survey data indicating that students whose parents were not certified actually scored higher on standardized tests, arguing that “critics of home-schooling have long insisted that parents who want to teach their own children should become certified teachers first,” yet their study “found that whether or not parents were teacher-certified had no impact on these high scores” (Ray, 2009; see also Ray, 2010).

    Such conclusions with regard to homeschooling are quite dubious. Again, available data and analyses are not able to support the claims made by these organizations. Survey data are not suited to making claims regarding a causal link, or lack thereof, between parents’ teacher certification status and the academic outcomes of their children. In this same vein, there has been a vigorous debate in research circles over the years about the degree to which teacher certification matters not only in homeschooling settings but in public education as well (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Moe, 2005; Walsh, 2001). Although much of the research has been mixed and contested, a recent large-scale study found that teacher certification was a significant predictor of achievement in school settings (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2013). Whether or not teacher certification is a significant predictor of achievement in home education settings has not been established in the empirical literature, and analyses of survey data simply have not examined the issue with any rigor; however, as we noted earlier, there is reason to think that the socioeconomic and unmeasurable motivational advantage of homeschool families often make up for or mask any deficiencies in pedagogical training (a secondary factor even in school settings) and that further expansion of the homeschooling movement could draw in families where these advantages are not as pronounced, thus diminishing the primacy of family background and enhancing the potential impact of formal training.

    EXPLORING THE DIVIDE BETWEEN RESEARCH EVIDENCE AND POLICY ADVOCACY

    In an era of school reform characterized by demands for scientifically based interventions, the curious case of homeschooling stands out for its lack of grounding in any sound empirical evidence. Facilitated by policymakers’ efforts to lessen restrictions on its growth, and despite a notable dearth of empirical evidence on its effectiveness, the homeschooling movement has grown by leaps and bounds, even as policymakers require research-based practices, and private funders pursue “effective philanthropy” that shows evidence of the impact of the programs they support. We do not intend to take a stand at this point regarding the overall desirability of homeschooling, nor on specific issues such as the requirement for parents to have a teaching degree. Instead, we simply want to point out the tenuous empirical basis for many claims made to advance the homeschooling movement.

    Considering the state of the data available, it is simply not possible to claim that homeschooling “works” and “leads to” desirable outcomes. Those claims might be true but cannot be supported by analyses of extant empirical evidence. Indeed, homeschooling advocates are on much firmer footing simply arguing for greater deregulation and expansion based on other grounds, such as the demonstrable satisfaction of many of those engaging in the practice, or the moral or legal argument that parents have a substantial right to control the education of their children. Still, leading proponents persist in trying to prove the academic impacts of this approach. We contend that this is because evidence of impact is quite persuasive in policymaking arenas that have been so focused on academic effectiveness as evidenced by standardized test scores and that advocates see this as a key element of their efforts to expand and further deregulate the practice.

    Despite advocacy organizations clamoring for more change, homeschooling has already been substantially deregulated over the last few decades in the United States, with fewer barriers, restrictions, and points of public accountability. However, we are not aware of any compelling evidence that deregulation to this point has improved the effectiveness of the practice. Indeed, in lieu of any firm evidence that the homeschooling “treatment”—as opposed to home factors—is at all effective, it is far from clear that expanding the movement will increase its impact. In fact, as the practice is likely further expanded due to deregulation, it could be that results will diminish as families with characteristics that are more marginally associated with academic success join the movement.

    Although they are often dressed up in a scientific rhetoric of performative measures and results, it appears that calls for further deregulation of homeschooling may be ideological rather than empirical imperative. Rather than showing a strong empirical basis to justify the expansion of homeschooling, the evidence indicates that the movement is growing for other reasons and that empirical claims of its effectiveness are just a very useful marketing mechanism.

    The Advocacy Agenda

    Of course, calls for further deregulation of homeschooling are taking place in an atmosphere of antigovernment advocacy. Although there are often good justifications for limiting state intrusions in the private sphere, proponents of many efforts to roll back the reach of the government frequently see this as an end in itself, regardless of the actual evidence on the effectiveness of public institutions or their proposed alternatives. Of interest, even as some proponents seek to reduce the government role in education by further deregulating and encouraging homeschooling, they also seek state subsidies to entice families into joining their anti-state agenda (e.g., Lips & Feinberg, 2008).

    There has probably been no organization with more success in advocating for homeschooling than the HSLDA. The group has been pushing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as for state legislation that would affirm parents’ basic legal right to control and direct the education of their children. HSDLA contends that



    HSLDA actively monitors state and federal legislative proposals and is very effective in mobilizing opposition to any bills it believes could even remotely represent the possibility of impacting the rights of homeschooling parents. For instance, it was famously instrumental in defeating the ratification of an international treaty—based on U.S. law—designed to secure the rights of disabled children because the proposed legal standard of the “best interests of the child” could, according to HSLDA's interpretation, “override the traditional fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their child with special needs” (Estrada, 2012b). HSLDA (2011, 2012b) has also opposed numerous legislative actions that proposed to change child abuse reporting standards. Such actions would require all adults to report child abuse. Among the concerns raised by HSLDA are that such moves will allow for an increase in baseless child abuse reports, and some of the proposals allow investigations without evidence of abuse.

    In addition, the HSLDA (2012c, 2013a) has been very active in opposing legislation to increase the compulsory school age because that would expand government control over education. The group responded to President Obama's 2012 declaration that states should require all children to stay in school until they graduate or turn 18 by noting that



    Such strident and preemptive advocacy for this agenda bears similarities to the successful strategies of the National Rifle Association in promoting its interpretation of the Second Amendment in response to any perceived threat to those rights. In these cases, an abstract principle is elevated to a pure, if extreme, interpretation of rights regardless of the real-world consequences.

    CONCLUSION

    In this analysis we have offered a critique of the empirical arguments made by and for the homeschooling movement. Rather than a critique of homeschooling per se, we have demonstrated that there is essentially no scientific evidence on the effectiveness of homeschooling. This is not to say that the practice is not effective, particularly in every case, but only that multiple research attempts have not yet proven its effectiveness. Despite massive increases in the scale of the practice, moves to further expand and deregulate homeschooling are not supported by empirical evidence.

    Yeah, I kind of alluded to my opinion on the effect limitations in my post. The trouble is homeschooled kids aren't a randomly selected sample. It's true they are scoring better (etc.) than public schooled kids, but is that gap due to their being homeschooled as homeschool advocates argue, or would that gap be even greater if they weren't homeschooled? Based on my knowledge of the heritability of educational attainment (~60%) and IQ (60 to 80% absent severe malnutrition), and the second law of behavioral genetics, I don't expect that it makes a significant difference either way, as long as the kids have reasonable access to information sources. At least I can say that assuming relatively normal family circumstances, homeschooling as a choice isn't likely to result in anything disastrous (which was the real point of my previous post).

    Being from Seattle, I know a fair amount of homeschooling zealots, many of whom are likewise anti-vaxxers, all far left in their politics (e.g. public schools are corporate indoctrination). Their kids are fine besides the usual stuff - treating their organic vegan food like a matter of ritual purity, mind creationism, etc. I don't think I personally got much of anything intellectual out of public school. When I was in elementary school, I was separated from the normal kids and put in a special "gifted" program with a handful of other kids from the school district who scored above a certain IQ threshold. It was more like unschooling than any sort of curriculum. After age 12, I rarely went to class except to engage in various forms of malfeasance for my own entertainment. Before I went to college (in the American sense of the word), I had to take a GED (high school equivalency) test, because my transcript was mostly a series of "incompletes". Subsequently, I received a letter congratulating me on receiving the highest GED score in the history of Washington State.
    Last edited by sumskilz; January 21, 2020 at 09:22 AM. Reason: fixed typo
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  4. #24
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,646

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    i wonder what the parents are doing? how hard is it to pack a healthy lunch for your kids? & if you're not teaching your kids to cook at home + daily exercise (parents lead by example here), then you're a poor parent.
    Last edited by Stario; January 21, 2020 at 10:19 AM.

  5. #25
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,225

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Probably nothing. In the US, homeschooled kids score in the 65th to 80th percentile compared to public school kids. They tend to get better scores on the SAT and ACT as well, and are more likely to attend university. The only caveat being this may all have more to do with the characteristics of the types of parents who choose to homeschool, although it's a pretty diverse group. This PDF is accurate to my knowledge: RESEARCH FACTS ON HOMESCHOOLING
    Nice set of self citations (what half) have to say form a not disinterested funding source I rather like a bit more outside sourcing.

    Two problems jump out at me something like 88% of the home school kids have families above the median income. 80% and have mothers that don't work and 85% of those who, do so only part time. Its interesting the author in his study chose to not examine performance based on having a stay at home parent nor any direct controls with public schools. For example the overall population but one that is more wealthy on average and with almost always stay at home parents. I absolutely confident that if my wife's career had not been the better choice and put me in a place where I have been mostly part time or online work my kids academic outcomes would be lower. I have to say he seems to be doing a the same thing drug companies do with efficacy studies compare to a placebo and not the existing best treatment. It would for example to know how academic performance differs between the roughly 30% of his sample that has incomes over 100,000% and a stay at home parent between the two options.

    Edit Left this opened and missed the post by Genava

    the government (where I am from) here has recently started giving away grants for every child that enrolls in sport (few hundred $ per child), but few thousands for any athlete competing at state or national level- this is a good start I guess. But parents too need to do their job also.
    Always difficult if you have to working parents. Back in the day in HS my school was not exactly elite nor was its population of students. But it and the more well funded ones in the local cities had early buses and late buses. Meaning you could be in a sport through school even if both your parents worked and you did not have a car.

    On diet consider

    https://newsarchive.heart.org/more-t...grocery-store/

    The stats are actually worse than the USDA numbers since it is a bit generous in defining grocery store.
    Last edited by conon394; January 21, 2020 at 10:19 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  6. #26
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,646

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Always difficult if you have to working parents
    Yeah totally agree, but this is no excuse- which is why me & the missus choose to go part-time. You gotta invest in your kids (don't be lazy & get others to do it for you i.e public schooling/the state etc).
    If you're having to work more than 5 days a week (or at least cant afford having one parent go part-time/not work at all) you probably shouldn't be having kids IMO.

    The stats are actually worse than the USDA numbers since it is a bit generous in defining grocery store
    Look i am not surprised, been to US many times & u can really see in someways the backwardness of the US; the line between the poor & middle class is also much more visible in US that other developed countries IMO; the amount of homelessness even in supposed wealthy suburbs + all the times i got approached at petrol stations of people asking money or to fill up for them just amazed me.
    Last edited by Stario; January 23, 2020 at 08:32 AM.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gromovnik View Post
    Hell yeah, that's the ticket. What could possibly go wrong with homeshooling? After all, every parent is a superb teacher and pedagogue.
    Teachers and pedagogues are typically people who couldn't succeed in anything else, so they chose the easiest academic/professional path. Pretty much the intellectual bottom of the barrel, at least within the context of North American education systems.
    So what could wrong with avoiding exposing your children to people who are not very smart and statistically more likely to be pedophiles then clergy?

  8. #28
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,731

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    In 2010, Obama administration signed a bill for child nutrition, setting new standards and funding several programs for free lunch in school.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...ds_Act_of_2010



    Here a part of the standard from the so-called Michelle Obama school lunch program:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    This final rule modifies several key proposed requirements to respond to commenter concerns and facilitate successful implementation of the requirements at the State and local levels. The rule phases in many of the changes to help ensure that all stakeholders—the children, the schools, and their supply chains—have time to adapt. Most notably, this final rule provides additional time for implementation of the breakfast requirements and modifies those requirements in a manner that reduces the estimated costs of breakfast changes, as compared to the proposed rule. As a result, the final rule is estimated to add $3.2 billion to school meal costs over 5 years, considerably less than the estimated cost of the proposed rule. When considered in the context of other related provisions of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010, sufficient resources are expected to be available to school food authorities to cover the additional costs of updated meal offerings to meet the new standards.

    Specifically, in addition to improving nutritional quality, the HHFKA mandated that beginning July 1, 2011, revenue streams for a la carte foods relative to their costs be at least as high as the revenue streams for Program meals compared to their costs. Consequently schools should receive over $1 billion a year in new food revenues beginning in School Year 2011–2012. That will help schools work toward implementing the new standards effective the following year, i.e., July 1, 2012. In addition, USDA estimates that the ‘‘School Food Authorities revenues’’ rule will increase participation in school meal programs by 800,000 children. In addition, the six-cent per lunch performance-based reimbursement increase included in the HHFKA will provide additional revenue beginning October 1, 2012. The Congressional Budget Office estimated about $1.5 billion over 5 years will be provided in performance-based funding.

    I. Background The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) in Section 9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4), requires that school meals reflect the latest ‘‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans’’ (Dietary Guidelines). In addition, section 201 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–296, HHFKA) amended Section 4(b) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1753(b), to require the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue regulations to update the meal patterns and nutrition standards for school lunches and breakfasts based on the recommendations issued by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, part of the Institute of Medicine (IOM). On January 13, 2011, USDA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (76 FR 2494) to update the meal patterns and nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) to align them with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. The proposed rule sought to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat fluid milk in the school menu; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat and trans fat in school meals; and meet the nutrition needs of school children within their calorie requirements. The intent of the proposed rule was to provide nutrient-dense meals (high in nutrients and low in calories) that better meet the dietary needs of school children and protect their health. The proposed changes, designed for meals offered to school children in grades Kindergarten (K) to 12, were largely based on the IOM recommendations set forth in the report ‘‘School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children’’ (October 2009).

    In summary, the January 2011 proposed rule sought to improve lunches and breakfasts by requiring schools to:

    •Offer fruits and vegetables as two separate meal components;
    •Offer fruit daily at breakfast and lunch;
    •Offer vegetables daily at lunch, including specific vegetable subgroups weekly (dark green, orange, legumes, and other as defined in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines) and a limited quantity of starchy vegetables throughout the week;
    •Offer whole grains: half of the grains would be whole grain-rich upon implementation of the rule and all grains would be whole-grain rich two years post implementation;
    •Offer a daily meat/meat alternate at breakfast;
    •Offer fluid milk that is fat-free (unflavored and flavored) and low-fat (unflavored only);
    •Offer meals that meet specific calorie ranges for each age/grade group;
    •Reduce the sodium content of meals gradually over a 10-year period through two intermediate sodium targets at two and four years post implementation;
    •Prepare meals using food products or ingredients that contain zero grams of trans fat per serving;
    •Require students to select a fruit or a vegetable as part of the reimbursable meal;
    •Use a single food-based menu planning approach; and
    •Use narrower age/grade groups for menu planning. In addition, the proposed rule sought to improve school meals by requiring State agencies (SAs) to: •Conduct a nutritional review of school lunches and breakfasts as part of the administrative review process;
    •Determine compliance with the meal patterns and dietary specifications based on a review of menu and production records for a two-week period; and
    •Review school lunches and breakfasts every 3 years, consistent with the HHFKA.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/.../2012-1010.pdf


    The context is a (still) rising obesity among children and teenagers in the US: https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...41/3/e20173459

    Little funding for school lunches:


    And a rising debt:
    https://newfoodeconomy.org/as-studen...its-real-cost/
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/17/u...rnd/index.html

    In 2017, a part of the school lunch standards has been removed by the newly elected Trump administration:
    https://www.usda.gov/media/press-rel...ls-great-again
    https://www.npr.org/2017/05/01/52645...re-initiatives

    The remove was mostly on the whole grains, sodium and milk standards.

    Now, the Trump administration decided to goes further, here some excerpts from different media and newspapers:

    ------------

    The Washington Post : More pizza, fewer vegetables: Trump administration further undercuts Obama school-lunch rules
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-obama-effort/



    Mother Jones : The Bizarre Trump-Fueled Backlash to Healthy School Lunches
    https://www.motherjones.com/food/201...chool-lunches/



    PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) : How Trump’s USDA wants to change rules around school nutrition
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ho...hool-nutrition




    ----------------

    Daily Mail UK : Happy birthday Michelle Obama, I've canceled your school lunches! Donald Trump's administration lets schools cut back on fruit and veg and sell MORE pizza and burgers - and serve fries every day
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-birthday.html



    The Hill : Trump to roll back Michelle Obama's school lunch rules on vegetables, fruits
    https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ol-lunch-rules



    NPR (National Public Radio) : More Pizza And Fries? USDA Proposes To 'Simplify' Obama-Era School Lunch Rules
    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...=1579435983021
    Of course, all that obesity can't have anything to do with what they're eating at home. What a bunch of BS!

    Back in the day, when I was a kid, we walked to school and my moma packed me a lunch to eat. Parents need to take responsibility. It's not the school's fault your kids are fat. They were fat when they started kindergarten. If you can't take care of kids, don't have kids.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Those damn children should pull themselves up by their BOOTSTRAPS! Is it so hard to have rich parents with enough leisure time to make you a school lunch every day? I'm telling you, I'm smelling cultural marxism behind this.
    Optio, Legio I Latina

  10. #30
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,646

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gromovnik View Post
    Those damn children should pull themselves up by their BOOTSTRAPS! Is it so hard to have rich parents with enough leisure time to make you a school lunch every day? I'm telling you, I'm smelling cultural marxism behind this.
    Rich parents have Gordon Ramsey working for them to make the kids lunches...LOL

  11. #31
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,225

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Teachers and pedagogues are typically people who couldn't succeed in anything else, so they chose the easiest academic/professional path. Pretty much the intellectual bottom of the barrel, at least within the context of North American education systems.
    Wow what annoying condescending thing to say/type. Personally I put lawyers up for that role.

    So what could wrong with avoiding exposing your children to people who are not very smart and statistically more likely to be pedophiles then clergy?
    Of course as always you backed that bizarre statement up with a load of facts and source err nope again not.

    Back in the day, when I was a kid, we walked to school and my moma packed me a lunch to eat. Parents need to take responsibility. It's not the school's fault your kids are fat. They were fat when they started kindergarten. If you can't take care of kids, don't have kids.
    I love a back in the day that is a lead into golden age-ism...

    Well to do this back in the day the economy used to provide a sufficient amount of well paid jobs with pensions (even bureaucrats) so that people could have a stay at home parent.

    ---

    Rich parents have Gordon Ramsey working for them to make the kids lunches...LOL
    I wish, made mine own lunch , got a budget once a week. But my mother was polish out of Detroit she could out swear Ramsy any day on a f count. The thing is we lived in walking distance to a good grocery store and the school had lots of busing. We could survive on one decent union income and one car and still have access to a decent ability to make food and quality lunches. The fact is that just is not true in the US today for all to many people. The schools can and should be a backstop or dare I say it a safety net. Because the simple fact is my life growing up in the 70s is something of a myth now in the US.
    Last edited by conon394; January 23, 2020 at 04:03 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  12. #32
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,731

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gromovnik View Post
    Those damn children should pull themselves up by their BOOTSTRAPS! Is it so hard to have rich parents with enough leisure time to make you a school lunch every day? I'm telling you, I'm smelling cultural marxism behind this.
    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post



    I love a back in the day that is a lead into golden age-ism...

    Well to do this back in the day the economy used to provide a sufficient amount of well paid jobs with pensions (even bureaucrats) so that people could have a stay at home parent.

    ---



    I wish, made mine own lunch , got a budget once a week. But my mother was polish out of Detroit she could out swear Ramsy any day on a f count. The thing is we lived in walking distance to a good grocery store and the school had lots of busing. We could survive one one decent union income and one car and still have access to a decent ability to make food and quality lunches. The fact is that just is not true in the US today for all to many people. The schools can a should be a backstop or dare I say it a safety net.
    Hmmm, I grew up poor with a single parent. My mom had a job and yet she still managed to make lunch bags for four children everyday before she went to work. Quit making excuses for laziness.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Yeah, I kind of alluded to my opinion on the effect limitations in my post. The trouble is homeschooled kids aren't a randomly selected sample. It's true they are scoring better (etc.) than public schooled kids, but is that gap due to their being homeschooled as homeschool advocates argue, or would that gap be even greater if they weren't homeschooled? Based on my knowledge of the heritability of educational attainment (~60%) and IQ (60 to 80% absent severe malnutrition), and the second law of behavioral genetics, I don't expect that it makes a significant difference either way, as long as the kids have reasonable access to information sources. At least I can say that assuming relatively normal family circumstances, homeschooling as a choice isn't likely to result in anything disastrous (which was the real point of my previous post).
    Home schooled kids are much more likely to be from 2 parent homes, and that in itself, is likely to give better results regardless of where they were schooled.

    The paper below concludes that children of single parent homes score lower academically than those of 2 parent homes. https://www.academia.edu/26014241/Ac...o_Parent_Homes.

    Further, those who home school their kids clearly are willing to have a higher investment in their children's education than the average parents, since home schooling requires a considerable investment in time on their part, and little to no savings over going to public schools. That kind of investment has bound to have positive effect, whether home schooled or not.

    Being from Seattle, I know a fair amount of homeschooling zealots, many of whom are likewise anti-vaxxers, all far left in their politics (e.g. public schools are corporate indoctrination). Their kids are fine besides the usual stuff - treating their organic vegan food like a matter of ritual purity, mind creationism, etc. I don't think I personally got much of anything intellectual out of public school.
    I know some home schooled kids, and their parents range from pretty conservative to pretty liberal, quite a range. While I have never done a statically analysis, my gut feeling would be the largest percentage be religious and politically conservative, but there were plenty of vegan types too. As you say, those who home school their kids range all over the map politically and religiously, from religiously devout persons of all kinds of religion to skeptics and outright atheist, and from the far right to the far left.

    The reason that I know some of them home school is that they did not like the unwholesome atmosphere of public schools - they did not want their kids exposed to the drug use, gang violence, and other negative influences in today's schools.
    When I was in elementary school, I was separated from the normal kids and put in a special "gifted" program with a handful of other kids from the school district who scored above a certain IQ threshold. It was more like unschooling than any sort of curriculum. After age 12, I rarely went to class except to engage in various forms of malfeasance for my own entertainment. Before I went to college (in the American sense of the word), I had to take a GED (high school equivalency) test, because my transcript was mostly a series of "incompletes". Subsequently, I received a letter congratulating me on receiving the highest GED score in the history of Washington State.
    I knew of a history teacher who insisted that the American public school system was primarily created not to educate the kids, but to keep them out of the labor market. As unions influenced increased, adult workers didn't want to compete with lower paying child labor, and you had to do something to keep the kids out of trouble. In the farm, there were always chores for children to do, but it was different in the increasing urban areas.

    I don't know of the truth of those claims, but in the light of that you can understand the emphasis that schools put on the drop out rate, and the far lower concern they appear to have that the kids actually learn something while they are in school. When I look at some of the test scores of some schools, if I were a student there I would drop out too, since I am clearly not learning anything in them and am just wasting their time their. That is why many academic critics fiercely hate SAT/ACT, because unlike the grades given school, which can be highly subjective and manipulative, SAT/ACT scores are objective and harder to manipulate. But educators try, which is why Mensa no longer will accept just SAT scores for admittance. SAT scores have been "re-normalized" (https://www.greenes.com/html/convert.htm)

    Anyways, we stray from the topic. Americans are eating poorly. Not only is junk food bad for you, but it is actually rather expensive compared to more natural wholesome food. Schools could be a source to promote better eating habits and better diets, not encouraging America's already bad eating habits. I know kids like junk food, but as adults we need to encourage better eating habits. School meal programs were created to ensure kids of poorer backgrounds got at least one good meal for the day, and we have kind of lost sight of why we had school meal programs in the first place. It is unfortunate that this, like so many things, have become politicized. This shouldn't be a right/left issue, good nutrition and good eating habits should be something all should support.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; January 23, 2020 at 08:45 PM.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Yeah, I kind of alluded to my opinion on the effect limitations in my post. The trouble is homeschooled kids aren't a randomly selected sample. It's true they are scoring better (etc.) than public schooled kids, but is that gap due to their being homeschooled as homeschool advocates argue, or would that gap be even greater if they weren't homeschooled? Based on my knowledge of the heritability of educational attainment (~60%) and IQ (60 to 80% absent severe malnutrition), and the second law of behavioral genetics, I don't expect that it makes a significant difference either way, as long as the kids have reasonable access to information sources. At least I can say that assuming relatively normal family circumstances, homeschooling as a choice isn't likely to result in anything disastrous (which was the real point of my previous post).
    Honestly the whole topic is a waste of time in my opinion. The most important factor should be the amount of macro nutrients provided and if they want to be anal about having a "complete" diet, then give them vitamin tablets to put in water or milk. Moreover, food assistance should be given to parents period to ensure the kids are fed. The issue with studies and the policies such studies suggest and that administrators end up recommending, is that they results focused instead of simply making sure that students are provided with the environment, the facilities, and the personnel needed to give them opportunity to succeed. Instead, the obsession with trying to finding problems with a microscope, rather than macro analysis of the education system, will ensure that American public education will always be sub-standard despite massive amounts of money thrown into it.

    Being from Seattle, I know a fair amount of homeschooling zealots, many of whom are likewise anti-vaxxers, all far left in their politics (e.g. public schools are corporate indoctrination). Their kids are fine besides the usual stuff - treating their organic vegan food like a matter of ritual purity, mind creationism, etc. I don't think I personally got much of anything intellectual out of public school. When I was in elementary school, I was separated from the normal kids and put in a special "gifted" program with a handful of other kids from the school district who scored above a certain IQ threshold. It was more like unschooling than any sort of curriculum. After age 12, I rarely went to class except to engage in various forms of malfeasance for my own entertainment. Before I went to college (in the American sense of the word), I had to take a GED (high school equivalency) test, because my transcript was mostly a series of "incompletes". Subsequently, I received a letter congratulating me on receiving the highest GED score in the history of Washington State.
    Their IQ test, to put it bluntly, was a joke. And so is the entire "gifted program". I could go into detail about the depth of waste and incompetence surrounding many of these school districts, but I'm sure you're well aware of them. The "gifted program" is yet another example of how incompetent the administration is. Not to mention that the "establishment" of these schools are so indoctrinated in current policies and mindsets, that newcomers with new ideas are unlikely to make much progress. I would also mention that the kind of people these jobs attract, aren't the most level-headed in this regard. A lot of divas or people who simply aren't passionate enough to truly reform the system.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Wow what annoying condescending thing to say/type. Personally I put lawyers up for that role.
    If that was the case then there'd be not teachers lol. I mean there are bad lawyers out there, but it simply requires more to be a lawyer then to be a teacher.
    Of course as always you backed that bizarre statement up with a load of facts and source err nope again not.
    Teachers being more likely to be pedos then clergy is kind of a fact.

  16. #36
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,225

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    If that was the case then there'd be not teachers lol. I mean there are bad lawyers out there, but it simply requires more to be a lawyer then to be a teacher.
    So you have in fact taught a course at any level any time?

    Teachers being more likely to be pedos then clergy is kind of a fact.
    Not if you do the statistics. But perhaps more importantly you have ask which organization covered up its problem and which one suspends, fires reports cases of abuse. Now of course the next question is when you really provided not a news story but data where do you not find find sexual abuse - by parents, in the military, in college... Give some real data for you argument.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    So you have in fact taught a course at any level any time?
    What does that have to do with the argument you quoted?
    Not if you do the statistics. But perhaps more importantly you have ask which organization covered up its problem and which one suspends, fires reports cases of abuse. Now of course the next question is when you really provided not a news story but data where do you not find find sexual abuse - by parents, in the military, in college... Give some real data for you argument.
    Like I said, the article points out that statistically teachers are more likely to commit sexual abuse then clergy.

  18. #38
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,225

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    So you didn't actually look up her studies or the ones she cites - right?

    So first her studies are good work. However statement is reckless and perhaps out of context. Since she as authored no comparable work on Catholic Church issues so can't really make such a comparison. Also you might have realized she is using a broad brush everyone associated with a school not just educators. Second she includes all reports such that a teacher who uses R rated material and was reported by a parent is considered an abuser even to a class of 17 year olds. Same way teacher disciplined in Utah for example fro showing uncensored classical or renaissance nudes would be included. Notably you missed one key point the rate abuse with a such a broad is lower than abuse at home...

    What does that have to do with the argument you quoted?
    I was wondering if you have relevant experience teaching since you seem too feel its an easy job.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    So you didn't actually look up her studies or the ones she cites - right?

    So first her studies are good work. However statement is reckless and perhaps out of context. Since she as authored no comparable work on Catholic Church issues so can't really make such a comparison. Also you might have realized she is using a broad brush everyone associated with a school not just educators. Second she includes all reports such that a teacher who uses R rated material and was reported by a parent is considered an abuser even to a class of 17 year olds. Same way teacher disciplined in Utah for example fro showing uncensored classical or renaissance nudes would be included. Notably you missed one key point the rate abuse with a such a broad is lower than abuse at home...
    So among a horde of pedos there was a few guys who triggered local Karens with Ruben paintings. That doesn't really change the statistic in any meaningful way.
    I was wondering if you have relevant experience teaching since you seem too feel its an easy job.
    That's irrelevant to the argument. Becoming a teacher is a path of least resistance academically and professionally. Being a good teacher may not be easy, but it is sure easy to be a bad teacher. Therefore, teachers are intellectual bottom of the barrel. Hence why in context of North America, homeschooling and growing your own food seems like the best possible solution, until fundamental factors (mainly the fact that trillions that could have been used for improving public education are sucked out towards "war on drugs" and endless wars in Middle East) behind the current state of public education change.

  20. #40
    Centenarius
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    865

    Default Re: Reverses on Michelle Obama's School Lunch Reforms.

    Everybody has an opinion on teachers, because everybody went to school... same thing in Germany, bashing teachers is a kind of sport here.

    @Heathen Hammer: Some bad experience in School maybe?

    I was offered a chance to do classes on our Puplic Service University, but I happily declined... for no money in the world would I start Teaching.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •