Léo’s Blog 2014-2015 Academic Year – Page 3

Who Says… We Need To Follow A Program?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-01-05.

When we look at creation, do we see diversity or nothing more than variations on a theme?

Building on a foundation that God is, that He created the universe and that He ultimately is responsible for our children’s being, should provide ample substance upon which to build our faith. This lengthy series will identify the secular thinking that has eroded that faith.

Bible Reference: Matt. 15:9

Scheduling and subjects is such a part of the overall education processes that few question the need to ask for a reasonable application in life. It can be argued that scheduling prepares a child for the real world, but we mistake the child’s world for an adult one, and fail to consider how much we feel trapped by the very schedule we subject our children to. Learning the importance of knowing a schedule actually only takes a few seconds. The first day a student shows up late for work should teach a lesson not soon forgotten! Good arguments can also be made for the need to focus on a subject, as long as it is part of a whole and not an end in itself. When schedule and subjects are combined, we get a program, which can and should be questioned.

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word program is the schedule for tonight’s performance at the theater. Perhaps, because of my appreciation for technology, the other thing I see when confronted with that word, is computers. It is, therefore, easy for me to see a program as a schedule of events in the school, but what are the events presented? When considering that educational programming assumes that all students of a given age in a certain place should study said topics in a subject, I begin to think of computers. Every make and model of computers such as the one I am presently using, is the same. There may be a few minor differences, such as memory and processing, but essentially they are clones with slight variations. Once purchased, they arrive as empty boxes. They are able to function as computers, but will only be of use to you once you have programmed them to do what you want them to do. Are you getting the picture?

Consider that without God, children can only be accidental products of nature and as such essentially come as empty boxes, able to function as children but incapable of doing anything productive until they have been programmed to do what we want them to do. The bible talks of training and teaching, but does not use the word “program”. Training implies repetition to enforce behavior which can be misunderstood as programming, but it ends once the lessons have been learned. Educational programs, whether secular or Christian, are all based on the assumption of naturalistic creative processes and therefore, common “makes and models” of students and their “common” abilities and interests. Programming built on these assumptions advance “common” goals and objectives, which are based on secularism rather than biblical directives, regardless of statements assuring otherwise.

Who says we need programming? Those who see children as lifeless computers that need to be programmed to think and to do according to the programmer’s agenda. While it should be obvious that God creates diversity, advancing programming based on false assumptions actually insists on a conformity which God does not celebrate.

Who Says… There Is A Standard?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-01-12.

Can a standard expectation be applied to a hundred billion unique individuals?

Bible Reference: Rom. 12:2

How many times have we heard a distraught mother say “am I doing enough?” or “my child(ren) are behind” or “I am not sure they are where they are supposed to be”. Even more disturbing is that we have heard fathers ask these very questions of their wives in their sincere desire to make sure the children are best prepared for their future. These are questions and concerns that unduly pressure moms to perform, but to what end and how will this be measured? By comparing ourselves and the children to the standard, of course!

We are constantly reminded that there is a standard of expected achievement. Educators strive to attain to these standards, but the funny thing is, I have yet to meet a teacher who can define or describe this standard. A standard is defined as “a level of quality or attainment” or as “an idea or thing used as a measure, norm or model in comparative evaluations”. These definitions are somewhat easy to understand when applied to industry, such as comparing computers or cars, where “standards” can be applied to thousands of units of similar inanimate items, but they lose their application when we attempt to make them fit human beings. The reason? There is no standard human being!

Consider this. The world has over seven billion people and no two are alike. We may even venture to guess that in the history of the world, there may have been over a hundred billion people born and each one had a unique fingerprint. How can we apply a standard of any kind to this? Is it possible for all to be able to attain the same level of proficiency in English, math or music? Can everybody attain a certain expected level of understanding of politics, religion or philosophy? Can everybody fix their own broken items? Where is the standard here? There is none! How can there be? Who came up with this idea?

Standards can only be applied to people if we believe that all people are the same and they are obviously not. If we believe that people are all accidental products of nature and as such are all similarly empty containers we can assume they that need to be programmed towards a standard. If that is the case, is a standard a measure of how well a child is doing with a program or how well the program is doing at standardizing the child?

Who says that there is such a thing as a human standard? Those who would have us all behave, believe and become what is expected of unquestioning clones. Stay away from these standards and take your measure of achievement from the Bible. From this perspective, all children are indeed where they are supposed to be.

Who Says… We Need Tests?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-01-19.

Test writing is a skill worth learning while testing is only necessary to ascertain proficiency, not an end in and of itself.

Bible Reference: Acts 15:10

One of the scariest words in the English language has to be “test”! Although it may not throw everyone into a bad mood, testing is not likely to be on many people’s list of things they like to do. Why do we need to test at all? How is testing done? What does testing prove? All good questions that need answers.

The test is a natural part of programming and it is a way to determine proficiency but when should testing actually be a part of training and teaching? If we follow a schedule of subjects in a particular grade where a multitude of children of approximately the same age are doing the same thing at the same time in a prescribed way with “standardized” expectations, a test is required to measure the mastery of the program. One teacher in a class of a couple dozen children does not have the privilege of looking over every student’s shoulder and to ask them what they have learned, like home educating parents do. A one-size-fits-all approach to teaching has to have a way to evaluate what has been learned, but this has no place in a home education. Parents not only instinctively know if their child has met with the program requirements, but they also demand excellence in the first place. Home educated students don’t need to be tested when they are simply expected to learn the concept as completely as reasonably possible within an environment of trust and honesty.

We tend to think of tests as multiple choice, true or false, or short answer questions, but life tests us in much different ways. Life does not grade us as 50, 75 or 90 percent, but as pass or fail. Learn your lesson and carry on. Paper test may give us a bit of an idea as to who better knows the concepts, but is this dependable? Does the higher mark indicate a better grasp of the subject or that the student is simply a better test writer? If there is anything I learned in my twenty five years as a high school teacher, it is that the student that achieved the highest mark would most likely not be the one who I would hire. Rather, I would hire the student who was smart enough to deliver the passing mark of 50% while fully aware that the testing was all part of a game that could be won with minimal effort. The higher achievers were usually very good at doing what they were told but usually could not repeat their results the next day.

Testing is a part of the real world. Whether we are seeking a driver’s license, certification or to prove proficiency, testing will be the vehicle through which these things will be accomplished. How to write tests is, therefore, an important skill that students must learn, but it need not be the final evaluation tool for every lesson.

Who says we have to write tests? Unfortunately, the world we live in does, but it need not be implemented until later, when it is taught as a necessary skill to advance to the next level. There is plenty of time to teach this at the conclusion of the home education program. Drop the need to test. Your children will love you for it!

Who Says… We Need A Well-Rounded Education?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-01-26.

A well-rounded education is not the same as getting a good education.

Bible Reference: Ecc. 12:12

We often hear about students having to obtain a well-rounded education, but probably have never taken the time to ask what, exactly, does that mean! My first impression of making students “rounded” is that we must first assume that they are square to begin with! We have all heard the old saying that “you can’t fit a square peg into a round hole”, but we forget that it can actually be done, but only by force and not without trimming off some edges. Even then the resulting “rounded” student will be a bad fit. Sounds a bit familiar to our experience with school?

We have already talked about the impossibility of having a general standard expectation for children as they never seem to fit the mold. Assuming that every child will be interested in the same things is hard enough to understand, but when we discover that what needs to be learned to be well-rounded is determined by a distant and disconnected third party, we can seriously question what the result will be. What is meant by well-rounded, anyway?

Once again, we can only understand this concept is we disengage from God’s creation and assume we all just happened to be born with chance directing the process. This way we can understand that children are blank slates that need to be programmed into something useful. From this perspective, we can understand the underlying desire to have students know a little about a lot of things which is what is meant by a well-rounded education. The problem with this foundation is that it is wrong! Children are not blank slates and they cannot be made into something God never intended in the first place. Not everybody understands or needs algebra or chemistry or Shakespeare to be fully functional human beings. Besides, if God left out musical talent in a child, is it not a bit presumptuous of us to assume that we can put it in?

Those of us who have been “well-rounded” in our education would be the first to say that the only things we do remember from all that rounding, are those things that have a meaningful application in our lives today. I am not saying that children should not be exposed to as many learning opportunities in as broad a range of interests as possible, but that they need only to be exposed. Let them run with what interests them. Otherwise they will demonstrate that they love their mother (teacher/guide) and that they are smart enough to “memorize” rather than “master” the information to beat the test and to forevermore forget what they “learned”. Well-rounded or well-rehearsed?

Who says that we need a well-rounded education? Those who have great faith in their own very limited ability to create something of children they had nothing to do with creating in the first place. We don’t need a well-rounded education. What we need is to provide opportunity to learn what interests them while encouraging students to be well-grounded in their faith.

Who Says… We Should Follow Public Programming?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-02-02.

Accreditation, while often necessary at the post-secondary level is not necessary at the secondary (high school) level.

Bible Reference: Romans 6:16

Sometimes we get so convinced that something is true, we simply don’t even think about questioning it. Adolf Hitler once stated that if you tell a big enough lie, loud enough and often enough it becomes the “de facto” truth. That certainly was the case in Nazi Germany, as we are well aware, but do we know it is also often the case in our own society and specifically within our home educating community?

When we first started on our home education journey, things were much different from what they are today. The biggest difference being that we were united in purpose and in deed. There were no separations along the “who are you registered with” lines and no one would even suggest following government programming. Programming we knew was secular, humanistic, unbiblical, unGodly and in lots of ways not only un-Christian, but at times anti-Christian in its message, was the very thing we were trying to escape. Over twenty-five years later, the public programming has most certainly not become less opposed to the Christian faith, yet today the majority of those choosing to teach their children at home bring the public programming home also. Why? What happened?

The reason is quite simple. Most parents have entrusted their God-given responsibility for the education of their children to professionals, hired by the government to deliver their program. Government is willing to pay to make sure that this mindset continues. Add to that the fact that greater amounts of money follow greater amounts of public programming, and you have the perfect formula to have home education providers, self-servingly, perpetuate the unquestioned assumption that government programming, with the accompanying accreditation, is necessary to advance to the post-secondary level.

If we are exposed to only one possibility regarding any issue, we adopt that one thing as truth, having nothing else to challenge that assumption. Since the majority of parents have been to some version of government education (remember that a “Christian” version of public education is still a public education), most know nothing other than what they have experienced. If it is the only thing we know, government programming becomes “normalized”, “Christianized” and then made to “harmonize” with the Bible, when it is in fact a program that discredits its teachings. When the institutional church seeks permission to exist from government, it tacitly acknowledges and validates the government’s claims to authority, including in education. We have been exposed to a lie often enough, and loud enough to unquestioningly believe that it is true.

Scripture tells us that we become the slave of whom we obey. We know that we become slaves unto righteousness when following Jesus, so what kind of slave do we become when following government? When we consider, once again, that the government is not representative of the truth, but God is, and that God creates us free, the point of government “programming” should become a little clearer. It is in keeping with the government’s agenda, which is not to lead its citizens to God but to itself, as god.

Who says home educated students need to follow government programming? Actually, it is not government that insists on it, nor is it colleges that absolutely require it, but home education providers whose bottom line is improved by advancing it. In short, the government has an agenda that providers are willing to advance, as long as the government is willing to pay for it. Therefore parents are not generally being told that they have better options.

Who Says… We Have Choice In Education?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-02-09.

Although home education is usually the best choice for training and teaching children, it is not always the best choice.

Bible Reference: 1 Cor. 10:23

By now, if you have been following this series of the Blog, you have a fairly good picture of where my heart beats with respect to education, after nearly forty years of experience. However, every once in a while, a correction is required to keep us from becoming overtly sectarian in our beliefs. This is one of those times.

I have often been asked if home education is for everyone. My first inclination is always to respond with “yes”, but that answer would be misleading. Let me explain. We are all aware of the fact that only parents give birth to children, and on that premise we can insist that home education is not only a right, but a responsibility. The right is a given. The responsibility is not. We all know that we are part of a dysfunctional world with plenty of examples of dysfunctional families within it. In a perfect world, where everybody cares for everybody else, the 80% of the people who could home educate, would help with the education of the children of the 20% who could not and everybody would be educated at home. Indeed, a study of Christian history demonstrates that this was how schools started in the first place. However, since the notion of helping one another has changed and the responsibility for doing so has been assigned to government, alternatives to home education are needed if, for no other reason, than that the world has become increasingly self-serving.

In the early 1970’s, Premier Peter Lougheed saw that if Alberta was to have a competitive advantage in a diversifying world, it would be because its education system was diversified. At the time, both public and separate systems were in place, but since then we have seen the inclusion of various creations of private schools, charter schools, Francophone schools, online schools, and since the 80’s, home school, to the list of educational choices. Today, the Alberta Education web site continues to state that “choice is one of the important principles Alberta’s education system is built on”.

All this may look good at first glance, but not all things are what they appear to be. There is a theme that now runs along the supposed choices we have in education, which truly questions what is meant by educational choice. Upon closer examination, we find that the choice has become decreasingly a matter of alternatives in education, and increasingly a matter of where this education will take place. Since the government has decreed that all students must register with the government for whatever educational alternative is chosen, the government has taken upon itself a kind of paternal or familial responsibility in education. Add to this compulsory registration, the fact that school programs are largely determined by government directives, and we are left with a choice of where (or what language) we would prefer in following the government sanctioned, public program. Our “choice” has become more a matter of location than one of content.

If you were my guest and I offered you cake, pie, pudding or ice cream for dessert, I have given you a choice, but offering a variety of flavors of ice cream, does not. Similarly, if the government provides us with a choice of venue where we will be exposed to what the government has determined we should learn, we have not been given a real choice. This is more akin to a school yard bully offering you a beating but providing you with the “choice” of where you are willing to receive it! While the educational bureaucracy increasingly manipulates and strangles our “educational options”, the funding schedule clearly shows that the government is prepared to pay to have its agenda advanced, no matter where the “education” is taking place. The government funding of educational “choice” does not necessarily mean it is supportive of real alternatives. Money talks, they say, and it helps the government to retain control, while advancing “free choice”. However, choice without control is not freedom.

In a world that is even more diversified, and more individualized, than it was in Peter Lougheed’s day, one would have to question why today’s government is increasingly demanding adherence to its one-size-fits-all programming, regardless of our “choice” of venue. Also, increasing numbers of parents, institutions and places of employment continue to demand that we all be educated in the same way, as well. The only place that remains more or less free of government programming is within a home education. It is, therefore, not surprising that more people are choosing this alternative as the last resort for freedom. Educational choice? Not really! I am sure Mr. Lougheed would be disappointed.

Who says we have choice in education? Only those who have lost sight of what the words individual and diversified mean. When government puts itself at the helm of education, it becomes the only parent of a family of multiple thousands of children. This is not the diversity that Lougheed sought, but a real push towards conformity with what the government now sees as expedient.

Home education may not be the best choice for everyone, but it becoming the only option left for those wanting true freedom within the learning environment of their children.

Who Says… The Media Is All Bad?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-02-16.

After all the discussion regarding congregate schools, they end up being “schools”, made up of parents wanting to escape public programming.

Bible Reference: Luke 16:13-15

Some of you may have seen the segment on CTV’s Alberta Primetime entitled “Regulating Home Education”, now available on our website. Some may even have recognized a few of the “stars” who are grateful for the opportunity to represent home education in this province. The program touched upon three issues, two of which I will briefly address and a third which occupied the majority of the program and therefore, the greater part of this blog.

The first issue was quickly addressed through a five minute video normalizing home education as a viable option in education, along with some insights as to why people may choose it. Following the video there was a panel discussion which briefly dealt with the funding of home education (to be discussed next week), but focused on the question of congregate schools. There were two parts to this segment, including what was said and more importantly, what was not said.

Before I address the discussion, let me explain what a congregate school is. The best description is that congregate schools are simply a group of home educating parents gathering to share resources and expertise; but this is not what is actually being questioned by the concerned agencies. Congregate schooled students are generally funded by the government as home educated students. At issue is that there are students attending these “collective home schools” in much the same way as any public school student, yet without using the public school curriculum and certified teachers required of public and private institutions. It should also be noted that the majority of these schools are being created by Low German speaking Mennonites that, while seeking independence from government control, welcome the government funding, which can be significant when considering the number of students involved, though certainly not what you would see in the public system. Even though these families are well within their rights, under existing legislation, to group their families into communities of home educators, they have come under the scrutiny of external agencies. Unfortunately, the possibility of schools and providers seeing these congregate sites as sources of easy money may have created the situation presently happening in southern Alberta, and the primary issue being addressed in this presentation.

The concern expressed by the “opposing” agencies can be summarized in this statement. “If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and acts like a duck, it is a duck!”. Likewise, if it is called a school, students are bussed to that school and attend it all day, every day and are taught by “teachers” rather than parents, then it is a school and not a collection of like-minded home educators. They reason that if it is a school, it should therefore have to follow the rules as they are applied to a school, and not as home educators. This argument seems reasonable, until you begin to listen to them in the context of possible motivation.

I question whether or not these concerns would indeed be raised if it were not for two things. The first is the seemingly universal belief that only government can determine what each student should learn and when. As mentioned in the last blog, government desires everybody to follow their prescribed program and it has managed to advance this position in every “choice” in education, leaving home education as the last bastion of freedom in programming. This would be the main reason home educators choose this option and why congregate schools, seeking freedom from government programs, will continue to exist in one form or another.

When concern is raised about the possibility of students not getting a “quality education”, I immediately ask what is meant by “quality education” and can it be guaranteed that all students attending schools following public curriculum, taught by certified teachers are indeed receiving this “quality education”, supposedly meeting “standards” that, in reality, cannot be measured? Although it may sound good, this argument ends up deflecting away from the actual motive behind these “concerns”, which is the expansion of public programming or the age old focus on money.

Would any of these agencies be truly “concerned” regarding the “quality of education” of these students if there was no money involved? When considering that nearly every agency involved in this debate is either gaining or losing money, it leaves us with no choice but to see these concerns as a cover for using children as a source of income. In my nearly forty years in education, this has remained my greatest concern regarding all students. Children are precious gifts that should never, ever be traded by parents, government, schools, churches or any other agency for anything, especially not money. Masquerading hidden agendas or money motivations under a guise of caring for the students’ “well being” is simply despicable. Nobody addressed this issue on the program!

Who says the media is all bad? Media can indeed be advancing an agenda, but we tend to see media as bad when we disagree, and good when it connects with our own beliefs. The Alberta Primetime presentation of February 13, 2015, was remarkable in the fairness of the information provided and the balanced approach it portrayed. It is too bad the real push behind the “concerns” raised were not really brought to light. Perhaps it was for the viewers to discern motivations. Although media can, at times, be bad, this presentation most definitely was not. Thank you to all the people who were involved in making this an example of good media.

Who Says… It Costs A Lot To Educate a Child?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-02-23.

Most people know very little about the cost of educating a child in Alberta. True home educators save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Bible Reference: 1 Tim. 6-10

Money! There never seems to be enough. Money can be either a blessing or a curse, depending entirely on who and/or what is involved. It is often stated that the LOVE of it is the root of all evil. My grandfather told me that money was not everything, but it was inconvenient to try to get along without it. I am sure a very significant percentage of the world’s population would agree with that statement!

Governments collect money in the form of taxes and spend it as they deem appropriate. Although this money is referred to as taxpayers’ money, taxpayers have little say in how this should be done, outside of the ballot box. Governments are aware of the significance of their decisions, and, for the most part, are usually somewhat careful of expenditures. To be fair, it must be stated that it is much more difficult to budget in billions of dollars, than it is to budget for a family; and that within a family, there are only a few individuals involved, while there are a great number of people directly or indirectly involved when budgeting the taxpayers’ money.

Education is one of the most expensive ministries government has to administer. Alberta Education budgeted 7.4 billion dollars for education in 2014, including capital costs. It’s web site boasts that it spends 37 million dollars for every day the province’s students are in school. Dividing this sum by the number of students in the province, one gets a number exceeding $12,000 per student per year! When calculating this figure, one has to take into consideration that this number is based on all students including the ones being educated outside of the public system, such as private and home education students, which are funded at a much lower rate than public school students. Therefore, the actual costs for educating a public school student is actually much higher, but for the sake of simplicity, we will work with the $12,000 per student.

Public schools receive a base funding in excess of $6,000 for every student, which on average, is approximately half of the total per student spending in this province. Private schools receive only 70% of a public school’s base funding, and do not qualify for extra programs or capital costs. So, it is fair to say that private schools operate on approximately 35% of the cost of educating a student in public school, with equal or superior results. Home education is funded at 25% of the base funding for public schools. However, legislation mandates that half of this money be made available for parent purchases of educational supplies and services. Once again, since the average cost of public education is estimated at $12,000 dollars per student with the base funding being approximately half of that, the 25% of base funding allotted to home education is really only 12.5% of what is spent for a public education, most often with superior results, in spite of public school supporters’ negative rhetoric. Another factor that must be considered here, is that since 50% of the home education funding is earmarked for parent resources, home education providers who are not involved in the delivery of the better paying public programming, must fulfill the requirements for the supervision of the home education program on 6.25% of what public schools require to educate a single student!

Even though the 6.25% figure represents an enormous savings for taxpayers, it goes without saying that this is the case if, and only if, the rules are being followed. As mentioned in the beginning, the love of money is the root of all evil and there is no lack of love when it comes to money. I was appalled at the graft and dishonesty of the schools in which I worked. It truly causes me no end of grief to see the same or worse level of dishonesty being committed by organizations making claims to a faith that sees the love of money a sin! Home education saves taxpayers a lot of money. How much more could be saved if the love was removed from money and directed to God?

Who says it costs a lot to educate a child? Anyone who uses simple math by dividing the total amount of money spent in education by the total number of students. Parents educating their children do not need any funding to provide opportunities to learn. Of course, there are costs involved, for which government help has been gratefully received by many thankful parents, yet most would forsake the money in a heartbeat in exchange for the freedom to be the full time parents and teachers of our province’s most precious resource.

From a taxpayer’s perspective, home education is a real bargain, producing well educated, generally well adjusted and responsible citizens of the Province of Alberta at a fraction of the cost of public education.

Who Says… School Boards Honestly Acquire Funding?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-03-02.

Money is an unsavory topic that we usually want to avoid discussing. Unfortunately, this often results in our turning the blind eye to its misuse.

Bible Reference: 1 Tim. 6-10

Last week, I explained home education funding from the taxpayer’s perspective and that it is indeed, not only a big saving to have more students educated at home, but that they, on average, get better results than their public school counterparts. I also shared that the greatest grief of my education career has always been centered on the “creative” ways student funding was acquired. This week, I want to more fully explain this funding within the context of home education with the understanding that not all school boards are dishonest or greedy.

Before I begin to share my concerns regarding the negative effects funding has had on home education, let me emphatically state that I am not against the proper use of money, nor am I against government making provision for helping parents who have chosen to educate their children at home, nor do I condemn providers that access it, nor parents who accept it. However, two very important points are assumed when making this statement. The first is that the government simply wants to be fair in its treatment of all the children of this province by making some funding available to parents desiring to educate their children at home. The second is that both home educators and providers are careful in accepting and using these funds in an appropriate fashion. Unfortunately, both assumptions are just that, assumptions and not reality.

There are really only two major considerations related to home education funding: the number of students and the level of funding. If only the lowest level of funding, and the fact that it follows the students, is considered, home education providers can be tempted to offer all sorts of things to attract more parents and their students, some even without regard for proper ethics. Even when only a minimum level of funding is accepted, the potential for abuse is still a concern since whenever any part of any given group is judged as unethical, all within that group are condemned as such, even when the association is only remotely connected. We may have observed a first hand example of such over the issue of congregate schools.

The second position of potential abuse has to do with increased levels of funding for increased levels of public programming. In a nutshell, government desires to see every student in the province follow their one-size-fits-all programming and are willing to pay to see this applied to home education. This is likely the main reason it funds home education at all. Combined with a fundamental, natural human desire for more, home education providers “encourage” greater student use of public programming which, while being advanced as of benefit to the child, results in more funding income for the provider. Although increased funding may be “shared” with the parents, it is never a fair division, nor is it always fully divulged or truthfully administered.

If I was to share what I have seen happen to the home education community over the past twenty-five years, it would take a lot more space than this week’s blog and you would be disgusted! The tricks, ploys and promises used to attract parents and students defy Christian sensibilities while the government’s offering of greater levels of funding for greater levels of state programming, has led to the near ubiquitous acceptance of it’s delivery. Where I once saw colleagues, I now see compromisers.

State programming, once avoided at all cost, is now being offered in a variety of creative ways by organizations, which were, not many years ago, traditional only. Blended programming, fully aligned programming, and high school accreditation programming are not only offered by nearly every home education provider today, but sometimes outside of the clearly defined rules regarding their delivery. My personal experience within the school system saw a great deal of dishonesty when it came to billing government for programs not actually being delivered as prescribed, or at all, for that matter. I find it hard to believe just how badly home education providers, many of whom profess a Christian faith, are willing to conduct their affairs to increase their “take”.

Who says school boards honestly acquire funding? Dreamers! Those who believe that man is fundamentally good. Those who assume others will never bend the rules or stretch the truth. Those who naively trust bogus claims to Christian faith. Those who have not been made aware or have not questioned what is really going on with home education program delivery. It is true that home education funding is not even close to public school funding, but whether one is cheating at 6.25% or 100%, it is still cheating.

To be concluded next week.

Who Says… Parents Have The Correct Point Of View On Funding?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-03-09.

Money is a blessing until it starts to control us, pervert a system or destroy relationships.

Bible Reference: 1 Tim. 6-10

Two weeks ago, I wrote about education funding from the taxpayer’s point of view. Last week, I addressed money issue from a home education provider’s point of view. This week, I would like to conclude by talking about money from a home educating parent’s point of view. I would like to do so by starting with parent resource funding from the school’s point of view and finish from the parent’s point of view. As you can see, it is all about perspective or the point of view and how we deal with money is very much determined by it.

When the government makes the 25% of public school basic funding available for the provision of a home education (public, separate and private schools are all funded at the same rate), it stipulates that a minimum of 50% of this money be made available to parents towards the purchase of educational supplies and services. (It should be noted that some home education providers promise slightly more than the 50% as a way of enticing more registrations along with the associated money.) Parents are often misinformed as to what this actually means. This money is to be made available (not given) by the school to the parents. This money is not sent to the parents but to the school and so it should never be viewed as the parent’s money. It is in fact the school’s money. It is the school that has to determined how parents can spend this money. The school is responsible to account for this money to the government from which it came. Everything purchased with this money belongs to the school, not the parents, and can legitimately be reclaimed by the school, even though most forego this option.

Therefore, the first thing that must be understood about home education funding is that the money does not belong to the parents, but to the school. Parents seeing this money as their money will be looking at it from the wrong point of view! With this wrong point of view will come bad decisions. Not only bad decisions but bad consequences that come from these bad decision, as this point of view leads to a sense of entitlement and entitlement usually does not consider the other guy. Many relationships have been irreparably damaged with this point of view.

The second thing that must be addressed is that the funding is to made available towards the purchase of educational supplies and services. Since the government has not stipulated how this money can or cannot be spent, there is lots of room for misappropriation of funds by both the provider and the parents. Unscrupulous providers can justify anything as an educational expense and often use this money as a way to “buy” more students. It is true that nearly anything can be justified as an educational expense, but we must differentiate between a legitimate expense and an illegitimate justification. In our twenty-five years of home education experience as parents, facilitators and providers, we could write a book on how this funding has been misused. However, it must be stipulated that no matter how badly this money has been abused, it is the providers that have allowed the parents to do so, largely out of fear of losing the parents to less discerning boards or as previously mentioned, as a way of increasing student count and who are ultimately responsible. We have seen a number of parents register with another board who is more liberal in the interpretation of educational supply and services and who are obviously far more interested in the immediate personal benefits than in home education’s long term best interest.

Who says that the parents have the correct point of view regarding home education funding? Some do. Most do. Most understand that this funding is a blessing and exercise reasonable restraint in how this funding can be spent. Furthermore, these parents are fine with not spending all of “their” money because they realize that it is not “their” money. Ultimately, all good things come from God and since if it comes from God it must be used with respect and thanksgiving. Good people are usually good stewards who make people and righteous living more important than money.