| Keeping Doors Open-Lobby to Reverse the Trend Toward Accreditation-as-Regulation | ||
 |
||
|
|
Keeping Doors Open-Lobby to Reverse the Trend Toward Accreditation-as-Regulation Rebuttals – Reject the Marketing of Accreditation - or Lose Understand that your home study program has no inherent limitations except those imposed politically. We needn’t run to accreditation out of angst or self-defense. Indeed, we need to resist the manipulation to demand accreditation. § The “Value” of Accreditation Increases with the Unnecessary Prohibition of Alternatives GAC’s success in building the mindset that accreditation is an important solution for home study programs comes by way of being granted an unnecessary monopoly as gatekeeper to the carrots of up-front HOPE, ACCELL, and joint enrollment. Every perceived advantage of programs validated through accreditation is a result of an imposition by policy that either denies alternative measures to accredited transcript or presents alternative hurdles that are punitive. Further, the inequitably high alternative hurdles at some colleges make regular admission of students from unaccredited programs possible only by exception or later transfer. The oversight of GAC Education Centers goes far beyond that necessary to provide transcripts for access to state benefits. § GAC’s Accreditation is Not Suitable For Everyone We doubt any home study program could be very "eclectic" and "unschooling" and still manage to be accredited. As one home educator has said: “The concept and practices of accreditation are absolutely not compatible with our family's approach to education. They would significantly limit our approach in a variety of ways. “Regarding logging hours: This is irrelevant to our way of learning. The idea that our family should count hours spent learning particular things has never crossed our minds, and, indeed, it would be an utterly undesirable if not impossible task for us since our kids go about learning all sorts of things in all sorts of ways all the time. The content of what is being learned is what matters to us, not how much time we spend on the learning. “Regarding grades: In a one-on-one tutorial situation, the use of grades as an assessment tool is also irrelevant. Furthermore, given the inflated significance placed on grades in institutional schools, I personally view the use of grades as counterproductive. The goal of our family’s educational journey is to gain knowledge for the sake of gaining knowledge, not to receive letter-badges. “Regarding tests: I have never found them to be necessary or desirable. We do not approach learning in ways that can be or need to be boiled down to questions on a test, and we definitely do not want to go somewhere else to administer tests or have them administered for us. “Regarding required activities: We do what we do because we determine that particular activities enhance our specific educational efforts. We do not need an externally imposed requirement in order to make appropriate choices. “Regarding required teacher instruction: My children and I are definitely more qualified than an accrediting entity to determine what sorts and sources of expertise are required for my children to learn the things they are endeavoring to learn. “The way we have gone about learning, we have not had to, nor have we wanted to, concern ourselves with any of these things. For us these are not merely "record keeping" or "paperwork" issues, either. The trappings of accreditation are manifestations of an institutional schooling establishment philosophy that are completely antithetical to my family's reasons for choosing home-based study. In order to end up with an accredited transcript, not only must one place a value on spending part of one's life engaged in attempting to quantify learning, one also must be willing to engage in the practice of having another's official stamp of approval on one’s quantified education, which supposedly then certifies that the education meets a certain quality standard. Our family places no value on these things. These practices, and the concepts that undergird them, are incompatible with my family’s basic philosophy of education. It has been an intentional and purposeful choice for us to exclude this type of thing from our learning adventure and we do not wish to ever have such things imposed upon us.” As the GAC ingrains its mantra that its accreditation is suitable for everyone, then the mere fact that alternatives for evaluation of college applicants aren't as bureaucratically efficient becomes the only rationalization required to refuse to fairly consider the alternatives. § Bureaucratic Inefficiency In High School Bureaucratic efficiency in the admissions process comes at the expense of bureaucratic inefficiency throughout high school. Bureaucratic efficiency is no excuse for the accreditation-as-the-sole-solution preference. Whether "bureaucratic efficiency" is an acceptable, rather than a bad, excuse for constraining applicants to only the accreditation path is a political position, overridden by Constitutional Rights. (See below) § “Umbrella schools” serve as “protection” from state intrusion into the home. Actually, accredited centers would regulate as government proxy. The value of high school accrediting bodies depends upon favored treatment of their graduates by the government institutions that deliver taxpayer supported opportunities to them. Therefore, those institutions (the military, the public college boards, and the state school boards) are in the position to dictate the regulations enforced by the accrediting bodies. If ever accreditation were required of everyone, the accrediting bodies would have no accountability to the clients buying the services (regulation) of the school programs. The captive clients would have no alternative. It’s not as though the GAC needs to be imposed upon to serve as the government's regulator: The GAC's "Standards for Non-traditional Education Centers" are really standards for an infrastructure to provide third-party oversight to insure in-home compliance with home study program law, and more. The rules even addresses the old straw man of socialization and require third party confirmation of the suitability of each home's physical study environment (home visits). GAC’s accrediting rules, if mandated, would more than fulfill every regulatory ambition of the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE) and the School Social Workers Association of GA (SSWAG). Constitutional Issues In this country, “parents have the right to teach their children at home, provided they meet minimal expectations regarding the preparation of their children for citizenship. This is not just a home educating parent’s view; it’s the consensus view that under girds every judicial opinion rendered in a legal challenge to home education.” 1 Defending the alternatives means to qualify for taxpayer-supported services rests on constitutional due process, which is simply a legal mandate for common-sense fairness. § The Due Process Clause Proscribes “Irrebuttable Presumptions” In State Policy Any favoritism toward accredited programs is tantamount to saying, “Only students who prepared in accredited programs can adequately demonstrate their deservedness of college admissions, etc.” This is utterly untrue and, in the case of taxpayer supported benefits, unconstitutional. It strikes at the vitals of the most universal philosophy under girding home education: There are many effective methods for educating children, and the merit of the methods can be proven by diverse means that do not discriminate against the less conventional. The “irrebuttable presumption” is a particular violation of constitutional due process. For example, a law or policy that extends a benefit to the students from accredited secondary programs, but denies a path by which students of unaccredited programs may qualify, is making the irrebuttable presumption that students of unaccredited secondary programs can’t produce qualified applicants. We must, as a community, reject not only accreditation being offered as the only route to USG admissions, but also ALL attempts to make accreditation a significantly preferable route. It is essential that fair and suitable alternative means to accredited credentials for demonstrating preparedness are recognized and accepted. § Due Process Is the Foundation of Our Presumed Innocence under the Law. Under GA law, home study program students are presumed innocent of violating compulsory attendance requirements. This is not a special privilege. Our laws presume all citizens to be innocent of violating criminal law until, with all due process, proven otherwise in a court of law. Yet, in the worldview many in the public schooling establishment, our home study program law constitutes a truancy or dropout loophole. If a law is revised to require proof of compliance (regulation), this is a reversal of our home study law’s present perspective of presumed innocence. § Due Process: Different Admissions Paths Should Present Equitable Hurdles Where law or policy does recognize alternatives to accredited transcript for validation, the Due Process clause requires the alternative to be an equitable, not a higher (much less punitive), hurdle than that presented by transcript requirements. Insist that the USG track comparative college student performance as a test of the policy. As stated by the Coalition for Equitable USG Admissions: “It is essential that the USG establish appropriate data collection and reporting processes to support policy making that affects our constituency… The following data should be collected: "1. The distribution of composite SAT I scores and composite achievement test scores for applicants. "2. The percent of applicants who are allowed into the admissions pool. "3. The percent of applicants in the admission pool who are admitted. "4. The GPA distribution and retention rates for students admitted. “The results of the data should be published annually.” Once the USG begins collecting appropriate data for students admitted from unaccredited secondary programs, the USG should hold a periodic workshop to review results and evaluate the policy with regard to retention rates for those students compared to others. The workshop should include both college admissions officers and home education experts in the workshop. § Due Process: Efficiency Is No Excuse For Violating Other Aspects of Due Process. Once we have established that the Due Process clause requires that alternatives be available, then bureaucratic efficiency in no excuse for the accreditation-as-the-sole-solution preference. In Stanley v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held that “The Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency; the Bill of Rights in general, and the due process clause in particular, were designed to protect the fragile values of the vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy which may characterize praiseworthy government officials no less, and perhaps more, than mediocre ones.” HOPE Scholarship and Joint Enrollment Accept the HOPE scholarship retroactively, and lobby to revise law to make it either retroactive for everyone or up-front for everyone, based on alternatives to transcript. Lobby to revise the public policy and enroll in private colleges for joint enrollment. For perspective: only about 14 out of every 1000 public high school juniors and seniors are joint-enrolled in public GA colleges. Seek Regents with the Appropriate Outlook (Principles of Good Admissions Policy) Lobby the Governor to appoint Regents who are in harmony with proper principles of admission policy: The Coalition’s “Proposed University System of Georgia Admissions Policy…” outlined certain principles for admissions policy. What follows is an abridged version of these timeless principles: "1. The USG should encourage intellectual diversity in the student population to honor the American traditions guarding freedom of educational choice... Mandating that every applicant should follow exactly the same curriculum leads to an intellectually homogeneous student body, lacking desirable diversity of abilities, ideas, opinions, worldviews, interests, competencies, and ambitions. The USG vision of “respecting and supporting the different ways students develop their minds, their persons, and their citizenship” should extend to students preparing for matriculation. "2. Admissions decisions should strive to identify applicants who have a reasonable expectation of succeeding in their desired program of study. The question should not be, “How did this applicant prepare for college?” Rather it should be, “Is this applicant prepared?”… "3. Grades are not the only means of assessing academic achievement. For many home study programs, grades are an irrelevant concept because the student studies a topic until he or she masters it, rather than for an arbitrarily assigned time period, such as a quarter or a semester. "4. Achieving CPC proficiency is but one of many possible ways to prepare for college. While it may be appropriate for students who have chosen to participate in a system where a CPC can be mandated, it is not appropriate for a population whose educational methods and curriculum choices, in accordance with Georgia law, are much more flexible. Students without CPC have succeeded, often with exceptional performance. Conversely, many students with excellent high school GPA in a CPC from accredited high schools do not succeed; demonstrating that CPC completion—even with good grades—is not sufficient to guarantee success.” Hold the Board of Regents to Hearing, Open Meeting and Open Records Law The Board of Regents’ staff typically operates in the dark. It’s hard to demand compliance with state open meeting and open records standards (OCGA 50-14-1) when we don’t know what committees are formed, what they are studying, who is on them, or when they meet. Further, the Board of Regents has avoided hearings per OCGA 50-13-4 regarding policy changes affecting the access by students of unaccredited programs to higher education. Legislation – Vette Widely Among Experts from Unaccredited Home Study Programs Bills have been proposed which were intended to insure fair and appropriate admissions policy for students who prepare in home study programs. As of yet, none would have had a positive effect and would actually have had a negative effect. One bill in particular would have given the Board of Regents the green light to apply a restrictive admissions policy that would have enrolled only applicants from accredited programs. Further, all of these past flawed bills would have extraneously authorized the Board of Regents to establish what it would mean to have “completed” a home study program, in spite of whatever competencies an applicant may have already demonstrated for admissions purposes. Potential bills intended to affect admissions policy must be vetted widely among experts from the unaccredited population of home study programs. Remove “Completed” Language from Code Some language in GA code section 20-3-519.2 describes who may qualify for the HOPE scholarship for the freshman year of college. The chosen language is poor and may lead to some unintended and unnecessary problems in the future. Further, we’ve seen this legal language duplicated in other bills. Any bill affecting this code chapter should remove the problem language. Currently, graduates of accredited programs are given the HOPE based on a formula. They receive HOPE as entering college freshmen. Currently, others qualify retroactively (after establishing the required GPA upon completing 30 hours of actual college level work.) There are two ways to define the others (those prepared for college by some means other than accredited schools) mentioned above. 1. Those who have graduated from or “completed” an ineligible (non-accredited) high school, 2. Those who are not graduates of an eligible (accredited) high school. Option #1 is the problem language. Option #2 is the better way and creates many fewer problems. If anyone thinks it wouldn’t be fair not to contrive a way to determine “completion” of an unaccredited secondary program when others are required to do so, there are two obvious answers:
The “completed” language isn’t merely extraneous. It should be avoided because it creates an open-ended authority for the GSFC to establish what proof of “completion” will entail. Thankfully, policy to date has not been onerous. Be Aware of Conflicts of Interest – Affecting Markets through Regulation – Lobbying by Professionals as Homeschoolers Be vigilant regarding who is lobbying in favor of a bill. Some advocates for legislation affecting our home study programs may have a livelihood that will benefit from any additional “opportunities” or mandates created by the government for their professional services. Those who accredit, provide testing services, tutoring services, or are certified to teach have a conflict-of-interest with parental Freedom in Education, even if they themselves utilize home study programs. Most in such a position surely will not let that impair their better judgment. Ethical folks with other interests will state such a conflict up front when lobbying for actions affecting home study programs. Conclusion: Remember: “Accreditation as the only solution is NO solution.”
|
