There has been a great deal of discussion recently around the issue of Ontario universities admitting homeschooled applicants. Shelley Welchner, who started the OFTP Universities Project, recently sent me a couple of thoughtful questions about this and I thought other people might have an interest in these issues. Below is her question and my response (with a couple of editorial revisions). Shelley Welchner wrote: Hi Bruce, I’m wondering, what procedures the universities presently follow for admissions after they have ‘processed’ (by computer, I believe) the first ‘batch’ of students.  Once the computer has rated the students (strictly by marks alone) how does the process for those who didn’t fit this method usually proceed? Also we would like to have a good understanding, from a university’s point of view, of the profile of “successful” students. I assume universities keep some sort of record of attrition rates and the profile of students who don’t make it to second year. We are looking for some positive information about successful students to be sure that HSers, truthfully of course,  “FIT” the profile. Is it possible to find out what the first year attrition rates are for different universities in Ontario? Would you know how to go about this? Any thoughts you have regarding these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Shelley Hi Shelley, Most universities in Ontario now admit a first round of students on the basis of marks, and each university wants to attract as many high marks students as possible. At WLU, we send out offers of admission to these students and then depending on how many come back, we then send out a second round of offers to the next group of students, again based on marks. This is the general procedure at many Ontario universities. Students have the option of submitting a portfolio along with their transcripts but this portfolio is really only used for students who are near the cut-off lines. Then these portfolios can make a difference between getting in and not getting in. Again, I think this is the basic procedure used at most universities, although in some specific programs (e.g., architecture, music, fine arts) a portfolio of work or an audition may take on more importance in the admission process. As for the profile of successful students, at WLU we don’t have any public statements or documents on this, but the best predictor of success in the first year is high school GPA. Of course this is just a statistical trend and there are many exceptions but if one wanted to predict who would go on to second year, the best thing to look at would be high school GPA. Students with marks in the 90s go on at a very high rate, students in the 80s go on at a high rate, but it drops off for students in the 70s. We don’t admit any students in the 60s (that I know of), but in universities that do, I suspect that there is a very high failure rate among them. Of course, marks are just an indicator of something else, so there is no reason to think that homeschoolers, because they don’t have high school marks won’t do well in university. Generally speaking, students who do very well in high school are not only bright but interested in the world around them and devoted to learning, which anecdotally is a pretty accurate description of most of the homeschoolers I have met. Students with low averages are less likely to have all of these characteristics, for a whole series of reasons. We all know of students who don’t fit this pattern and people often like to hold up Albert Einstein as someone who didn’t do well in school. But Albert Einstein was exceptional in every sense of the word, and it is definitely not the case that all of the students we admit with low averages turn out to be geniuses. One thing I should point out is that high school marks are the best predictor of success, but only out of the variables that universities regularly collect data on. That is, we know about their gender, high school marks, place of birth, and a few other things, but admissions processes do not, and in many cases cannot, ask about things which might be better predictors, such as level of interest in a subject, the emotional maturity referred to in the National Post story, or love of learning. Assessing emotional maturity, or love of learning would require asking questions which might be seen as discriminatory, and legally, although universities might want to know some of this stuff, they probably can’t ask about it. So marks are really the best predictor, at WLU anyway, in the absence of more precise indicators of abilities. But we all know that marks are not just an indicator of positive things like intelligence and interest. They also indicate a willingness and ability to fit into the discipline of a classroom which in mass education is an important part of the learning process. Homeschoolers don’t have as much as experience with this as their schooled counterparts but I don’t think the ability to fit into classroom discipline is as important in university as it is in school. The reason is that most people go to university voluntarily, and although they may kick around for a while deciding what to do, when they eventually settle on something they are willing to sit through classes that they know they must take in order to get a particular degree. I know this because I teach methods and stats courses, which most sociology students hate, but they are able to see that they need to get through the course in order to get their degree. Choosing to do something difficult or unpleasant or uninteresting because you know you need to do it in order to get something else is much easier than being forced to do it. Given this, I don’t think homeschoolers are at any

Recently OFTP was asked to comment in the press about the newly proposed tax credits for families sending their children to private schools. Donna Sheehan and members of the executive drafted and sent a brief statement after inviting email discussion about it. I just wanted to thank everyone who contributed to this request, showing their dedication on our behalf yet again. I personally really liked the release. More than that, I found it an education to watch it develop.The handling of this request was such a good example of the collaborative way the group operates, for which I’m very thankful.  The exchanges about it were stimulating and vigorous, as is typically the case in OFTP, and continued even after the release was sent out. In the fast-paced timeframe of the press, it is always going to be very hard to craft a statement like this that can be ready in the time needed by reporters to be useful for their stories, and yet get full consensus from the group. One thing dialogue does, as was the case with this one, is open discussion up about issues from perspectives people might not have considered before. So, let’s consider all of this a “learn together as we go along” process. Being asked for this press release, reminds me of that old stone soup fable, where the first ingredient was simply a stone for the pot and everyone else added their ingredients for the taste. In the end, when the stone was removed, there was delicious soup. As the press statement developed, each comment made was given weight and taken to heart. Invariably, as I read the points raised by all, I found myself thinking in new ways about the ideas they represented. Often it seems to me, the diverse positions of the group seem to include a few rich themes. We will always be exploring these themes together I think, and the discussions around the press release were tasty stone soup, as always. I think that the link between, and the distinction between, private schooling and homeschooling is a key theme that will resurface. Similarities between private schooling and homeschooling – both are alternatives to the public system, Differences – private schooling still tends to represent a form of “institutionalized” learning (school) as compared with family and community based learning. The implications of publicly funded vs. family funded education will also always be around.  Tied intimately to this –  “Who is responsible to educate our children and all the children in our province?”  Accountability, control, freedom, rights, responsibilities, etc. etc. etc. The theme of credentialism will always also underlie any discussion about funding. When people think of funding alternatives, they can’t help but wonder “What is legitimate? Who will tell us?  Who determines what is important to learn? What constitutes the stamp of approval bureaucratically?” And further, without dwelling on it here,  the theme of competency. “What does it take to be entrusted to teach?” I really believe these concepts will continue to affect how OFTP decides to word future position statements of any kind. And, of course, all of us have differing views on each of these topics. It will be interesting in future, to think together more about what is involved in making sure OFTP continues to speak for all its diverse members to represent them well, and still continue to have juicy condensed meaty statements that pack a wallop. Regarding this recent request for a statement from OFTP, I have been struck generally by the news articles about the tax credit, because of how much kerfuffle there was in them about whether the Harris actions threaten the public system. I wonder if OFTP was asked to comment because homeschoolers are sometimes unnecessarily considered “anti-schooling” and therefore a threat,  i.e. if we thought the tax credit for private schools was a good idea, it might mean it is generally bad for the system. I saw an interview with two administrators from private schools lauding the tax credit but being very careful to say while the credit would help private schools, “the public system is also doing excellent work and we need a strong public system in Canada.”   It somehow bothered me to hear them taking such great pains to say this, because it sounded so politically correct. As a homeschooler, I’m starting to think more and more about what needs to be in place in our communities to educate everyone in them well. I’m a tremendous optimist with regard to the resources we have in Canada to educate every person. I really believe as homeschooling is more accepted in society, it helps trigger better educational opportunities for everyone.  The focus shifts away from warehousing kids to teach them, and on to effective community based learning resources and lots of ways to learn. In my opinion, it is a healthy shift. However, I think homeschoolers are perceived as a threat whenever we are seen as the catalysts of, or advocates for, that change. It’s important to realize that this shift in focus is happening not merely because of homeschooling.  Roles rearranging in society, the advent of new technologies, and the difficulties the system is experiencing in meeting all the needs of every learner are also building pressure for lots of change in the way traditional systemic education is delivered. Some people may be feeling threatened by the change.  Maybe many caring parents can’t picture getting any more involved in their childrens’ education than they are already, and fear if the system crumbled they would be left without experts to help their kids. The cynic in me believes there are a few “experts” entrenched in the system who feel it their duty to fan such fears rather than allay them. Maybe some people in our society feel they must protect the status quo at all costs, and are worrying needlessly that no one in Canada would care about education unless the government mandates this. In contrast, I tend to think of the