I didn't want to further derail Belle's thread, so I started this one. I know we had some homeschooling threads last year or the year before, but I couldn't even begin to find them.
My opinions on homeschooling were not based on anecdotal evidence (although I can certainly provide plenty of that). I worked with approximately 600 children in 5 states who were homeschooled. Here are the main problems I see with homeschooling:
Commitment. Most parents don't realize that homeschooling is a full-time job, no matter what age or grade level their child is. Parents have to have extensive knowledge of the state educational standards so that their child can meet them. Parents have to plan curricula themselves or research and purchase curricula that they can teach from. They have to research and purchase textbooks. Parents also have to acquaint themselves with a variety of teaching and learning methods to find which one best fits their child (discovery-based, collaborative, visual, auditory, tactile/kinesthetic, etc.). Parents have to be aware of whatever state standardized tests their children are required to take and make arrangements to take them. In most states, parents have to enroll their child in a physical education program for 2-5 hours a week. Parents have to set up a place in the house for lessons where distractions are kept to a minimum. Then there's the actual teaching and assigning and grading homework.
What if the child has a learning disability or is gifted? The parent then has to design the equivalent of an IEP (Individualized Education Program) for the child. Very few parents are qualified to do this.
Then there is the more basic commitment, often the hardest to fulfill, which is just teaching in the home. Parents must turn off the telephone and television, ignore their email, postpone their chores and errands, and ignore the doorbell. This is more difficult than it sounds.
Parent-Child Relations. I'm not saying that parents shouldn't spend a lot of time with their children, but they shouldn't spend all of their time together. It just isn't good for either party. Parents need time away from their children so they can do things as individuals, not just as parents. Everyone needs some adult alone time and parents are no exception. Children need time away from their parents to develop their independence.
It can be hard to teach or learn with any detachment. If a parent is annoyed that a child hasn't done his chores or was ugly to his sister, it is often impossible to keep that from spilling into school time. If a child is angry that a parent made them do extra chores or apologize to his sister, that is also impossible to keep from spilling into school time. What if the child is slow to pick up a concept that the parent feels is easy? Can the parent react unemotionally with patience and support? Can the child avoid feeling like he has disappointed his parent? The answer to these questions is usually no.
Parent-child relations can become thorny in the tween and teenage years. Imagine trying to do Algebra problems with a fourteen-year-old who hates you because you're lame. Imagine discussing WWI with a sixteen-year-old who is angry with you for not letting him borrow your car. It's hard to teach or learn in such a tense environment.
Socialization. There's just no substitute for the in-school classroom experience. Whether it's good or bad, it's something that is shared by the majority of people in the U.S. By homeschooling, you are denying your child a basic shared experience with 99% of his peers. This will put your child at a distinct disadvantage as an adult. For example, there were 2 people on my college freshman floor who had gone to rival high schools and that helped us to bond. I became friends with people who had gone to high school with people I already knew. Shared experiences give people a starting point for friendship and not having a major one (i.e. going to school) is a disadvantage.
Many homeschooled children tend to be sheltered. It will much more difficult for them to interact with people who are different. This is especially true for children who are homeschooled for religious reasons. We had children in our program who only socialized with people from their church or visiting members of the same denomination. They were the same race and ethnicity, too, for the most part. How will they form opinions about people of other races and ethnicities without any firsthand knowledge? I think that a "stick with your own kind" mentality is harmful to both the child and to the society that he or she will eventually enter. In addition, these children are missing out on wonderful experiences. My best friends in high school were from Italian and Argentinean families. I got to eat cavatelli with homemade marinara sauce and practice Spanish with native speakers. I went to a Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve and Cara came to a Passover Seder.
Even children who are enrolled in extracurriculars (with children of different races and ethnicities) will have problems. They are only meeting children who share their interests. It's great for them to get along with other children who like soccer (or dance, karate, etc.), but how will they learn to get along with children who hate soccer? Adults cannot generally limit their interactions to people who share the same interests and often have to learn to get along with people who hate what they love. This is much easier to do if you start learning how at an early age.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: My opinions on homeschooling were not based on anecdotal evidence (although I can certainly provide plenty of that). I worked with approximately 600 children in 5 states who were homeschooled. Here are the main problems I see with homeschooling:
Okay -- you listed the "main problems" you saw.
Now list the "main benefits" you saw. I can't believe you only saw it one way, if you were dealing with 600 children. Surely not all of them were such losers, suffering from the things you cite.
And in what capacity did you work with these kids?
Farmgirl
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Argh, Mrs M. Please do what Farmgirl asked. While I agree there are a lot of nutcases out there homeschooling there are equally as many good committed parents. As I recall from your experience you were in a position that may have skewed you to see more failures than sucesses.
And honestly while I know you don't mean it this way in the least, it feels like a personal attack on me, like I need to defend my entire life and the person I've become just because I was homeschooled. I didn't ask to be homeschooled, but I don't regret being homeschooled either. None of the data I have to rebut your argument if necessary is anecdotal either.
AJ
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Well, I certainly never viewed the kids in the program as losers and I don't feel that any homeschooled kids are losers. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I do feel that they have significant disadvantages.
All of the children in our program did suffer from at least one of the factors that I cited.
The advantages to homeschooling are that children can learn at their own pace and get individual attention that they cannot get in a classroom. They can take Calculus at the same time they take remedial reading. They also aren't exposed to the pitfalls of public school such as classroom overcrowding, bullies, drugs, etc. There are situations where a public school cannot meet the needs of a child and the family cannot afford private school. In those cases (which I feel are rare), homeschooling is the better option.
I was the Director of Development and later Vice President of the company. Since we were such as small company, I worked with the children, parents, and teachers in almost every capacity. I oversaw the curicculum planning, scheduling, and advising. I coordinated the weekly parent-teacher conferences. I worked with the special needs families. For example, we had one family of 5 children ages 8-20 who were in the midst of a messy divorce. The mother had homeschooled all of the children and they were all basically illiterate - the 20-year-old could barely read. The father had gotten full custody for this reason and had chosen our program because the public schools in his district couldn't even begin to catch these children up. I even taught a few classes in emergencies. I used to work 16-hour days 5 days a week (and 8-hour days on weekends).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
About not being qualfied to deal with a "gifted" child -- it seems to me that my school experience was about 90% filler and only about 10% actually learning anything. It doesn't seem like it would take all that much effort to give somebody at *least* as good an education as I got in the public school system.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I certainly don't mean to attack you or your education, AJ. In fact, I held you up as an example of successful homeschooling in Belle's thread:
quote:That's the short version of it. The .01% of homeschooled children (whom I know) who are academically and socially successful can be found on this board - BannaOj and Human. If every homeschooled child turned out like them, I would sing its praises. However, they are the tiny, tiny exception to the rule.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Porter....
That is very similar to what I said to my pastor last night.
o_O
I said, "I could barely sit still for 8 hours of Jury Duty, and that was only for a week! Why do we make our kids do it everyday, when 90 percent of the time they're just sitting there, listening to lectures they won't remember, doing busy work, or coloring on their desks?"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I spent a large percentage of my time in class reading books.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Mrs. M.
I'm sorry that the kids you met gave an overview of homeschooling that falls so short...
I wish I could introduce you to all the kids in our local homeschool cooperative -- many of which have gone on to be very outstanding individuals, much like A.J. and others. Personally, I don't think your percentage of successful cases is accurate.
I am the mother of one 18-year-old son who did public school all 12 years, one homeschooled son, and one daughter that was homeschooled elementary, and now is in accelerated public high school. I have nothing against public schools. (I used to work in a public school) As you said sometimes there are needs a child has that cannot be met inside the public school system.
I just didn't want you painting with such a broad brush in your initial post, when I have seen so many wonderfully successful homeschooled students. I don't argue that there are cases that are not wonderful.
Farmgirl
edit: I realized I made an error in my paragraph above. My 18 year old did NOT do 12 years of public school. He is an 18 year old Junior in University as we speak. So he did -- ummm.... 9 years of public school (he just crammed a lot into it and on the side, including a little bit of summer homeschooling (his idea) to advance at his preferred rate).
[ August 04, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Education can be gained, where there is a will; but after a certain age, social cluelessness sticks to you like skunk musk.
Then again-- the public school system leaves much to be desired. Sometimes I wonder if the goal of public schooling is to wring love of learning out of each and every child.
Bah. Junebug starts public school in September. I've got to keep positive!
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
As to gifted children being bored in public school, I don't think that the only alternative is homeschooling. Gifted children are entitled to the same accommodations as children with learning disabilities. In some districts, they are even classified as special needs children and so have access to wonderful programs. If your gifted child is bored, there are ways you can advocate for them.
I believe that Belle has done that for her oldest daughter, but of course she would be the one to speak to about that.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And Mrs. M on the socialization discussion. I have much better arguments against as well as for. That is one of the weakest arguments and I'm surprised you picked it.
The easy rebuttal to that particular one: Homeschooled kids live more in the real world than kids who are stuck in school. They tend to be better at interacting with a broad range of ages and groups rather than just ones exactly in their age group and just like them. Why? Because they have to interact and get along daily with their brothers and sisters of varying ages, as was normal for millenia before schools existed. They see and are influenced by many adults interacting in daily life, going about their work, not isolated in a classsrom setting, where often the strongest male role model is the janitor.
A homeschooler does not suffer from the negative effects of peer pressure or conformity all too visible at most schools. The public schools are churning out masses of conforming people, when it is the non-conformists, that are the societal innovators 9 times out of 10.
... I've run out of steam and am hungry but I could probably go on for two more pages both pro and con <grin>
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Mrs. M I *know* gifted kids, I went to college surrounded by National Merit Scholars. All of them uniformly were bored out of their minds by 3/4ths of the "gifted" programs they were all in.\
In fact that boredom, was the unifying theme of the over 200+ that I know, the only other unifying theme being the fact they all read voraciously.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't get the whole socialization thing to be perfectly honest, and I don't think it matters much. As I said in the previous thread I didn't have what you might call "De social skills" growing up, but who cares? I learned them anyway. *shrug*
Oh yeah, and I read through school too. The teachers never got onto me though, and I think it's because they knew I needed the stimulation.
Considering that everything I learned each day in school could have also been taught to me in an hour, maybe less. Imagine what a kid could do with all that time. They could be *gasp* kids!
Honestly, though. My husband's aunt homeschools her kids and they only go for like two hours a day, and they know as much as high schoolers.
[ August 04, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Any other public schooled kids feel like their socialization was neglected or systematically defeated by public schooling?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have been pleased with our gifted program, the teacher doesn't view gifted as "they're smarter, just give them more work" but rather "they're different - they learn differently, they need unique challenges."
They spent a unit on games, studying the different types of games, and had to pick a research project - either a game inventor or player, DD chose Bobby Fisher. Then the kids had to design their own games and they had a day where they all played each other's games.
They did a unit on shipwrecks. They did lots of creative writing.
We have been lucky - we have a good teacher, who is dedicated to doing the best for her students with meager resources. That program gets practically zero funding. I walked in on the class one day to find two kids in one corner hovered over a chessboard, several reading independently, and the teacher sitting on her desk with several students aound her having a discussion on the political process. Which reminds me, last year for our state gubernatorial race, she randomly assigned the kids into opposing camps, and had them research the candidate they were assigned and put together a campaign to convince the other side why they should vote for their candidate.
Unfortunately, I think teachers like Nona Vickers are rare in the public schools.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Pooka! ME! Being with a mom who thought I was great would have totally beaten out being with all those kids who made fun of me all day.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Parent-Child Relations. I'm not saying that parents shouldn't spend a lot of time with their children, but they shouldn't spend all of their time together. It just isn't good for either party. Parents need time away from their children so they can do things as individuals, not just as parents. Everyone needs some adult alone time and parents are no exception. Children need time away from their parents to develop their independence
Well, I was just a little concerned about this particular part. Who made up this rule?
I mean -- 100 years ago or so, the family was together 24/7. Kids worked alongside their parents on the homestead or family-run businesses in town. They were taught mostly at home, and most of the time the parents always knew where their kids were. That is bad????
Native American tribes (prior to white man's education) carried their children with them everywhere, and then they worked alongside a parent to learn whatever skill/role they had. This is bad?
I see so many families where kids are in school a great deal of time (school, then sports, etc.) come home late. Dad & Mom come home from work -- rarely even all arrive at the same time to have supper together -- maybe 30 minutes or so of real conversation takes place before everyone is off to bed. This is good?
There are just as many dysfunctional family relationships in public school children as homeschooled children. Again, it depends on the priorities of the family.
Farmgirl
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The only drawback I see to homeschooling is the separation of the teacher/parent role.
I think we all need someplace to come home to. Like, my husband immediately begins unwinding when he comes in the door because he's home. My kids come in from school and flop on the couch with a big sigh and wait for me to ask them how their day went so they can vent any frustration or tell me how great things went.
One of the struggles of being an at-home mother is that you never get to go home. Home is no longer a refuge, it's your workplace too. I think homeschooling might have the same effect on the kids.
That is really the only drawback I see to it. I think (if the parents do their job) homeschooled kids do fantastic both socially and academically.
I joined a mailing list for homeschooling parents in the area (I quit because I realized that they almost always discussed curriculum and I knew I wasn't going to use a formal one for kids as young as the twins) and while I was there the list was emailed by a recruiter from UAB. Her question? What can I do to attract more homeschoolers to our college?
She then went on to say how much they love having homeschoolers, they are independent, used to working on their own, academically sound, and do very, very well in college.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I just didn't want you painting with such a broad brush in your initial post, when I have seen so many wonderfully successful homeschooled students. I don't argue that there are cases that are not wonderful.
And I don't argue that there are cases that are wonderful. From what I know about you, I'm sure that you made the right choices for your children and that they are in the small percentage of successful homeschooled children.
But I wonder, are the children in your local homeschool cooperative interacting at all with public or private school children? Are they learning to cope with the social stigma that they will probably enounter from being homeschooled?
AJ - what about the homeschooled children who don't have any siblings? Also, if children aren't exposed to peer pressure, how will they learn to fight it?
I went to public and private schools, and I don't feel like I'm a conformist. I was also in gifted programs that were awesome (I did the game program, too, Belle and I picked Bobby Fisher!). I was a National Merit Scholar and I wasn't bored in school from 7th grade on.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Farmgirl, I don't really agree that people used to spend all their time with parents. Back then you could kick your kids out and they could explore the world and go wherever they wanted.
But I certainly don't think that spending most of your time with parents is a bad thing. It's what kids do before they go to school, and most of their personalities are formed during that time. It's how they grow.
Should we then take kids away from their parents when they are infants so that they can grow away from them? Would they benefit from many outside influences even at that young age? I believe that kids learn MOST of their social skills from their interaction with their family members, and it doesn't change as you grow.
And as far as what you said about teens having to learn from parents that think are lame, I think that doesn't apply as often as one might suspect. From my experience, successfully homeschooled adolescents have better relationships with their
edit: BTW, only the first two sentences or so of that post was meant to be directed at Farmgirl.
[ August 04, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was in every single honors or AP class, and I was bored all through school. It's not that I was *soooo* much smarter than everybody else -- it's just that school was a phenomenal bore.
But then, I've taken some tests that say that I'm of a personality type that doesn't deal with school well, so YMMV.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: From my experience, successfully homeschooled adolescents have better relationships with their parents than their public schooled peers.
Might that be because those without good relationships with their parents don't stay in home schooling?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:But I wonder, are the children in your local homeschool cooperative interacting at all with public or private school children? Are they learning to cope with the social stigma that they will probably enounter from being homeschooled?
Yes -- but I think Kansas has a much more open homeschool community and better cooperation between homeschool and public than many states. In most areas, homeschool kids are allowed to take just certain classes like "art" or "band' at public school if there isn't another way they can get that interaction. And the homeschool team competes against public school teams in regular sports seasons.
Plus, most of these kids are also usually involved in a church and church youth group, which is a mixture of public and private and homschooled kids. Plus they may be involved in other things (martial arts, dance, etc.) that allows them to interact with others. I have not seen any "stigma" attached to homschooling because it has become so popular.
In fact, our colleges also actively seek out homeschool kids. Of the handful of kids who got full-ride scholarships to one nearby college, over 75% were outstanding homeschool students.
Farmgirl
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Being with a mom who thought I was great would have totally beaten out being with all those kids who made fun of me all day.
PSI, would it really have been better? I'm not saying it was good that you were teased, but you did learn to cope with it (I make that assumption because you grew up the be the cool person we know and love today). No one can learn to cope with rejection if they aren't exposed to it.
quote:I mean -- 100 years ago or so, the family was together 24/7. Kids worked alongside their parents on the homestead or family-run businesses in town. They were taught mostly at home, and most of the time the parents always knew where their kids were. That is bad????
No, it's not bad, but it's not an option for most families today. We don't have an agrarian society anymore, so that way of life isn't available to most of us.
quote:Native American tribes (prior to white man's education) carried their children with them everywhere, and then they worked alongside a parent to learn whatever skill/role they had. This is bad?
Again, no, it's not bad, but it's also no longer an option.
quote:I see so many families where kids are in school a great deal of time (school, then sports, etc.) come home late. Dad & Mom come home from work -- rarely even all arrive at the same time to have supper together -- maybe 30 minutes or so of real conversation takes place before everyone is off to bed. This is good?
No, this is terrible. I saw it, too, when I worked at the Y afterschool program. I don't think that homeschooling is a panacea, though. I think that reviewing and adjusting schedules and priorities is necessary for these families.
quote:There are just as many dysfunctional family relationships in public school children as homeschooled children. Again, it depends on the priorities of the family.
I completely agree.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: (I make that assumption because you grew up the be the cool person we know and love today).
Sorry. No I don't think I ever learned to deal with it, but that's just me. I ended up going to a special magnet school for kids gifted in Technology and Math, and Art and music (and I was enrolled in both programs). In other words, freaks like me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See I don't think exposure has anything to do with fighting peer pressure. Over time, constant peer pressure will break down an individual, studies have demonstrated this time and time again in adults and children. I think a strong sense of self-identity is the only thing that helps a child whether in or out of school in dealing with it. I would argue that, in general, a homeschooled child has a much stronger sense of self identity (even if it is vastly different from those in his age that do go to school)
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I would agree with AJ on that last point about self-identity.
That is one thing we strive very hard to instill in our children - a sense of who you are, where you come from, what we believe, and what is acceptable for our standards of behavior.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I think that a child's self-identity is a combination of the values that the parents instill in them and outside influences.
I was the only Jewish child in a very, very Christian public school and I was able to maintain my identity as a Jew and have a great social life. Should my mother have homeschooled me and put me in activities with only other Jewish children (not that that was possible where we lived)? Most of the world is Gentile and I would have had to learn how to interact with them sometime.
Also, I was (and still am) painfully shy. Being in school (and doing theater) helped me to overcome my shyness.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and anecdotally I can tell you just as many friends with painful shyness that public school exacerbated.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This pretty much sums up my opinions regarding public school and homeschool:
A parent is responsible only for giving a child an encouraging environment to grow up in, with love and nurturing. The child is the one that is responsible for how he grows. Not necessarily accountable, mind you. But he is his own person, and has to make his own choices. I think it's helpful for a parent to give the child the best opportunities they can, but you can't do everything.
That said, if a child is thriving in homeschool or regular school, I say keep him there. If he's not, consider the other alternatives. We should try to focus on what the child needs rather than trying to cram him into where we think he should be.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
O_O
My first bowing man!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Sorry -- I realized I had to go back up and edit my second post in this thread because it may look like I misrepresented a family fact (for those of you who know me).
Farmgirl
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm replying to Pooka's question about public schools and socialization. My experience at the local public high school (after attending a private Christian school for four years) was arguably the best thing that ever happened to me socially. Suddenly, it was acceptable to be smart and a little geeky, and I found people like me to hang out with. In general, the kids at the public school were more welcoming, friendly, and tolerant. I'm sure part of the difference was just that high school students are more that way than middle schoolers are. But I suspect that the public school was indeed better for me socially. There was also much less pressure to conform than at private school.
I think homeschooling can be a wonderful thing, although I'm not certain it would have worked very well for me. Having a faster pace would have been nice, but my mom's teaching style just doesn't mesh well with my learning style.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Shigosei: I'm going guess that you didn't go to public high school in a University town?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yes, I did. Oregon State University is in Corvallis.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
ONe thing I would like to touch on is that the professionals who deal with the kids for whom homeschooling failed, IME, seem to have a very strong anti-homeschooling bent. And this is understandable. I know a retired remedial reading teacher who is anti_HS, but she saw the kids entering school at 3rd-4th grade, unable to read. I view that as neglect on the parent's part.
The main, over riding reason we are homeschooling is the low academic standards in out district. There is no gifted until 3rd grade. They don't introduce algebra until 9th. Well, my 7 year is doing algebra, and loves it. He loves Ancient Greek History ( also HS level in our district). I am also aware of his weaknesses (spelling) and I'm working on that with him. He doesn't test until the end of next year, but based on what he reads and comprehends (anything he can get his hands on), he would be bored to tears in a public 2nd grade classroom. Another sticking point for us is that in our district, none of the schools have a full time nurse.That really bothers me. Although I don't weant their social circle to be homogonized in terms of religion or race- and I put lots of effort into making sure it isn't, I DO like being able to keep them away from kids offering them drugs, from kids that watch crap and eat crap. I don't like the commercialization that goes on in public schools- Channel 1, soda machines, and the like. Our district schools have lunches donated by the Pepsi/PizzaHut/Taco Hell corp. I think that sends an unnacceptable message, not to mention being unhealthy food. Then there's the Krispy Kreme fundraisers.... if we want to curb the obesity epidemic, let's start in the schools.
All said, I don't think it matters whether the parents pick public, private or home school, as long as they are deeply involved and willing to re-evaluate if it's not working.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
How big is it, Shigosei?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I am also aware of his weaknesses (spelling)
That's OK. You can become vice-president of a major country and not know how to spell potatoe!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The town is about 50,000 people, the university somewhere around 15,000 and the high school I went to had about 1,100 students. It should be noted that due to all the high-tech industry around here (Hewlett Packard is probably the major employer in town) a huge percentage of the adults here are very well educated. Corvallis is also pretty affluent, which seems to have a positive effect on public schools.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
quote: However, they are the tiny, tiny exception to the rule.
Do you have any statistics or other evidence to prove this point?
I'm having a problem with this topic because it seems bent towards convincing us that homeschooling is a bad thing.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
What Shigosei is describing sounds a lot like my public high school. We're also in a college town so most of the students are either professors kids or kids whose parents work at the nearby navy base as engineers. Of course we still have groups and 'cool" kids and all, but everyone was in a group, I don't know many people who were left out, even if they were geeky.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I worked with approximately 600 children in 5 states who were homeschooled.
I am basing this on my personal experience with a very large number of children in a large geographical area. I did have statistics on my old work computer, but I (happily) handed that in when I resigned. I can try to track them down, but I'm not sure that I'll have the time.
In another thread, I was asked my opinion.
quote:Just curious because I didn't know you were agsinst it or why.
quote:I'm always interested in why people are against homeschooling.
I didn't want to derail the other thread (Belle's about homeschooling her twins), so I started this one to explain my position. I'm not saying that no one should ever homeschool their children or that all homeschooled children will be unsuccessful in life - far from it. I do, however, feel that it is untenable for most families for the reasons I stated throughout this thread.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*embarrassed that Mrs. M quoted my misspell*
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
PSI, I'm sort of curious why having a university in town would affect the high schools negatively. Is it just the cultural influence of a lot of irresponsible young adults in town?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Just for me I've noticed that the big university towns have alot of the older kids hanging out with the high schoolers, thus kinda bringing sex and drugs onto the scene much earlier. I've never felt accepted when attending schools in university towns verses non-university towns, or whatever you'd call them.
Example: In Savannah there were virtually no cliques, no one had sex, or admitted it if they did, etc. But in Tucson, sex, drugs and cursing were rampant. Scary. Your mileage obviously varies on that one. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I didn't see too much sex and drugs going on at my school. Then again, I am usually quite oblivious. And I know that some of my friends deliberately watch what they say to keep me innocent (as in pure, not as in naive).
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I'd be very curious to see how many students in those 5 states were homeschooled. That can give a better idea of how many 600 really is. Just dividing that is 120 per state. In the state of Arizona, according to a survey in 1999, there are 16,534 students that have a certified affidavit of homeschool on file. The estimate of total students was 27,190 in 1999. I don't know what states you have experience with and if the information is available online. Comparing your numbers with my state, you are talking about a small percentage--3.6% of the total homeschool students. I'm sure I can find the numbers of below average or failing students in the public schools compared with total student numbers and the results would be similar. You had experience with the segment of the homeschool population that didn't do well. There are several hundreds of thousands of students homeschooled in the United States. I think the percentage of them that do poorly is smaller than you may think. And its just possible that many of those 600 would have done just as poorly in large classrooms in the public school setting as well, eliminating homeschool as the cause.
(edited to add what got left out because I clicked post too early....)
[ August 04, 2004, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Wendybird ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Funny PSI my observation has been the opposite. In a university town, generally the parents are among the most educated per capita in the state. Therefore they demand the best education for their kids and the public schools are good. Though if all the educated people put their kids in private schools then it doesn't work.
AJ
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
Mrs. M, I know that you've seen many homeschooling failures and I can understand that you would view it with skepticism.
But let's face it, plenty of public and private school students finish school with large gaps in their education and skills, with poor or no social skills, etc.
Regarding gifted programs, what is a person to do if they don't exist? WHen we left the MAdison (WI) public school system, there was no TAG (talented and gifted) program to speak of. There isn't one in our current school district-- they simply don't have the money to provide one.
I've been homeschooling for 6 years now, and it's working well for my kids. In our local homeschool groups, there've been a few people who've "given up" and sent their kids back to school, and those kids are doing well. A lot of families homeschool until high school, and their kids have had no problems integrating into the schools. There have ben plenty of kids who have gone on to have successful college careers, jobs, etc.
On your comments about the commitment involved on the part of parents-- yes, it does require commitment, but it is no where near as difficult and involved as you make it sound. I always tell people who ask that homeschooling can be as easy or as complicated as you care to make it. I say this because I just hate to have anyone who is considering homeschooling to see your post and think , oh I can't do that.
ctm
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
AJ, I think our experiences match up. The schools themselves are excellent schools with lots of funding and programs. It's the kids I had problems with.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ahh, ok that makes sense PSI and I can see what you mean. AJ
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Few people are cut out to be excellent teachers. It takes training, dedication, and a gift for teaching.
I think success of homeschooling depends on how well the parent is trained, how dedicated he or she is, and how much teaching is a part or that person's parenting style.
I would not hesitate to homeschool my child, and am going to watch her very carefully this first year of fulltime public school. There are no gifted programs at her level, unfortunately.
Mrs. M. has probably seen all sorts of issues because most homeschooling parents lack the training they need to be effective. They don't know what their children need to be successful in education or they might not be familiar enough with child psychology to know how best to teach the kids. And they don't see any need to get the training, or lack the time and money to get it. It makes me shudder to think of most parents homeschooling their children.
However, when the parents are like Belle, I don't worry. Belle is intelligent, she knows her limits, she knows her kids, and she'll do what it takes to find out how to best teach her children. She will also network. She will examine her own efforts. So I have no fear for her kids.
Me, I want to start a Hatrack school and teach all our brilliant little ones...
When, oh when, will OUR Hatrack become a reality?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've heard of this wildlife preserve... Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:"At some point, children are going to have to interact with the rest of the world," he said. "If they haven't had the opportunity to build their emotional muscles so they have that capacity to interact, how effective are they going to be outside their cloistered environment?"
The use of the word cloister makes me mad. As if homeschooled kids never get out and interact at all.
But I totally agree with the growth factor - in my "circle" of friends about half homeschool, and it's certainly not looked down upon here. Of course, we're deep in the Bible belt.
Jenny, thank you for your kind words. I do know my limitations and know that I can't provide the best environment and teaching for my kids, because of my personality type. An ADD teacher? Those poor things will never know what to do! There are some terrible things going on in some public schools, but some very wonderful opportunities there and some gifted teachers that can really enhance your child's learning. I don't feel guilty for not homeschooling, and I support it in principle, just don't think it's right for our family. What I want to do this year with the twins is about the extent of what I think I can handle!
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I actually got into a disagreement with a friend about homeschooling last night. She homeschools, and is absolutely great at it. But she said that every year they get a call from the public school system wanting her curriculum for the year, and this ticks her off. I asked her if anyone checks up on homeschoolers, and she said no, which surprised me, and also said that no one had the right to. I disagreed with this, because I think there is unfortunately always going to be parents who need checked up on so that their kids actually get an education. What do you guys think?
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I am arguing about this RIGHT NOW in Arizona. I am so mad that they want to get involoved in the education of my children that I could just spit. What makes them think they know my kids better than me? What if my kid is a whiz at reading but terrible at math, so that we have to do remedial math for years? What do they care? In public school they'd just get passed with their lack of skills so that one day someone realizes they can't divide and they're in eleventh grade. I don't see that the state can possibly have a single clue about what my child needs other than love, food and shelter and that's all they should care about.
*calms down a bit*
Part of the reason I want to homeschool is to get out from under the thumb of the government as far as education goes. I really think that they are only trying to assert themselves where they don't belong. Sorry if that upsets someone, I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just very worked up about this.
[ August 05, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I'm not arguing about how good/bad homeschooling is, or that parents know their children better than the govt. I'm just asking why some parents don't want safeguards in place for the people who don't homeschool the way they should. (i.e. not having any sort of curriculum, etc.)
space opera
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Few people are cut out to be excellent teachers.
It's true. I had maybe 3 good teachers during all my public school time. The vast majority were mediocre, and I certainly had more bad teachers than good ones.
At least they were good, mediocre, and bad for me.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My personal opinion, despite what Mrs. M attests to, is that most mothers don't homeschool if they aren't interested in spending time with their child. Why would a parent keep kids with her all day, every day, if she doesn't want to be teaching them? I can think of things that would be really fun that I could do during that time, but I choose not to.
My problem is more with the fact that I don't think the government needs anymore power in that area. I can see that they made it a law that kids have to go to school. In my opinion, I'm following that law and my kids are in school. As the parent, I should be able to choose the method of learning.
I liken this to my view on homosexuality. Yes, there's a small chance that some kids will get warped under the educational thumb of their mom or dad, but it's slight. Should we then keep a close watch on gay men because there's a chance ONE of them might sodomize a child? Do we put cameras in their houses?
This is the deal. A parent can turn in curriculum all day long and still teach their kids what they want to. Then what? Do they have to be tested every year? Taught in a monitored learning environment? The main reason to homeschool is to set up the learning environment that YOU approve of, not the state. It's the whole point. Again, they are just trying to assert themselves where they have no right.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I want to add that in Arizona, the problem is even worse. They are trying to make laws that allow the state to TEST my children every year to make sure that they measure up to the state's idea of where they should be. I find that ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Why homeschool if I'm going to be controlled by the curriculum of public school? I am very against the idea of the government getting involved in my child's education.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I honestly don't know. I'm not sure how to frame my questions about homeschooling in a way that doesn't cause defensiveness. I can certainly understand the defensiveness, because I'm sure that parents who homeschool often get a lot of crap from people. Maybe I should stop asking questions! My question last night to my friend ended up with one of her friends telling me that I was grossly misinformed about everything and then she brought up an example of how CPS had failed a child in a public school. (Huh?) It just makes me want to shout, "I'm not attacking!! I'm just trying to learn something!!"
space opera
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Space opera, Go ahead and ask. If there is any place that's safe it is Hatrack. As long as they are legit questions I don't think anyone will be offended. The thing is people are coming from oppising preconceptions. And there are die hards on both sides.
I am the first to admit homeschooling isn't perfect, but to say that it is awful and destroys children is just a little to far the other direction for my taste (and not even Mrs M went that far in her first statement.) Especially because that is a value judgement that includes the loaded idea that I, having been homeschooled until college, am therefore a worthless member of society. Make sense?
AJ
[ August 05, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No. You're welcome to ask questions however you want. I'm not trying to scare you off, and I'm not annoyed at you in the least. I'm frustrated at Arizona right now and it's coming out in the thread. I'm very sorry.
I guess my major fear is that the curriculum or tests, etc, will include things that I don't agree with and I am not willing to take that chance. What if they decide that evolution is part of the required course, you see? They made them teach it in public schools and that's part of what I'm trying to get away from. It's flawed science at best, and yet they continue to teach it in public schools because it's a "fundament of science and education". I don't want them to be able to make me teach my kids those things at home.
edit: Um, that no was a little too exuberant and appeared to be directed at Banna's post. Heh heh.
[ August 05, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI, regarding the standardized tests. If they were down in that one area but up to standard in every other area I don't think you would have anything to worry about. (There are only so many questions that one can ask a small child about evolution, and most of the time they don't, they are more worried about the water cycle) At most, though it would vary with grade level they could legitimately put maybe 2 questions on a test about evolution and/or dinosaurs without neglecting far more critical aspects of science education.
AJ
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Makes perfect sense. I guess my main question was - what's wrong with a little check now and then just to catch those parents who aren't giving their kids an education? My friend said that when the public school system calls they would know if a parent wasn't doing anything because the parent's answer would be something like, "Um, curriculum? Well..." and then something could be done. So in a roundabout way she did agree that sometimes small checks are needed, but when I proposed this it just made her angrier.
I think homeschooling vs. public schooling is a decision that is private. I see absolutely nothing wrong with either one. I have just been surprised that people get so upset about it. I have met plenty of people since we've moved who homeschool and think I'm terrible for not doing so. I totally understand that homeschoolers don't want the government looking over their shoulders every single second, but why are they (at least the ones I know IRL) so dead set against very basic, very general checks that in liklihood could actually benefit some children?
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, first of all I plan on homeschooling my kids throughout school unless they demonstrate the need to be in public school, so evolution would probably come up.
CT, I personally really have no problem with my kids learning about evolution as a flawed opinion of science that we have since pretty much decided isn't true. But why? I maintain that it's more about the idea that the government wants anything to do with what my kids learn.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
cont.
Still, I ask, why do they care? Are there any serious, far-reaching studies that show that homeschoolers tend to be significantly lacking in important areas? I highly doubt it! If there were serious problems from homeschoolers I might understand this, but there aren't. Why would they try to exercise control over an "institution" that is largely successful?
Let me put it another way. I think we ought to check the children of gay parents every year, to make sure they are being raised well. You never know what those gay people are teaching their kids! Or the white people in Georgia! They might be teaching their kids to hate black people.
See why I'm so upset? Why do this to homeschoolers and no one else?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I think CT is doing a good job asking questions that I'm interested in. And PSI, I know that you aren't annoyed with me but rather someone else attempting to take control of your children's education.
space opera
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
CT, I'm not sure I can sufficiently answer that question without sleeping on it, but I'll try.
The only reason I can see to say that a child MUST be taught to read is because it would help them get along better in society. But the same could be said about not being racist. Yet do we test children to see how they feel about different races?
I guess that I have to be perfectly honest...I see no minimum. I do not believe that anyone has the right to control how I raise my child, or anyone else.
It is very painful for me to say that because I'm fully aware of all the doors that would open up. But I hold to it. If the government decides that my kids need to be able to read to function in society, what else would they decide that my kid needs to know?
Despite how it sounds, I do not think of the government as some machine that's out to get me. I realize that it's fallible with fallible people in it. But I believe that America is a free place where all different people can raise their children despite their beliefs, and that goes for white people, black people, Muslims, lawyers, doctors, and morons. (Morons, not Mormons. Mormons are welcome too. )
But I ask. How many kids are coming out of the homeschooling system unable to read at all?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Okay, CT, about the maximum. But what happens if the government decides that I must teach my kid something that I find loathsome? Let's say I was against all birth control but I was told to teach my children all about birth control, how to use it, when to use it, etc? (I'm not against all BC by the way.) Am I supposedly to drill this concept into their heads and then end it with, "This is an evil thing by the way, but the government is making me teach it to you?" How much do you think that's going to matter?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
PSI, I do appreciate that you are putting so much thought into your answers - I always like to learn. Just so I am certain that I'm understanding your perspective correctly, is it the "teaching" versus "exposure" to things you think are bad that upsets you?
space opera
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:But what happens if the government decides that I must teach my kid something that I find loathsome? Let's say I was against all birth control but I was told to teach my children all about birth control, how to use it, when to use it, etc?
I think that's the exact problem I have with homeschooling. It promotes educational segregation more than a public school ever could. We try to construct a foundation for all children in the US (though I admit, we're having trouble reaching that goal), which is open to everyone to see and criticize. Why is education mandatory to a certain age in the US? Because it's a vital part of our society, and rightly so. It's not just to annoy children until the age of 14 or 15, it's so that they can gain a common set of skills and knowledge.
You insist that you can teach your child whatever you want and omit whatever you want without government regulation. I think it's narrow-minded and a true loss for that child and society.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
I have had a (Gifted) Public School educatio, in the course of which I have met many home-schoolers.
Many of them turn out to be of above-average intelligence and knowledge...in math and science. The problems I have seen with home-schooled kids:
1) Naivety. They are generally gullible, and unable to see scams or other cons, often repeatedly. Some may find this endearing, but it can truly be damaging.
2) Under-exposure. They know their parents' viewpoints, and since those are the only ones they know, they assume them to be axiomatic fact. Many do not keep up with the news or discuss the news as one would among peers in a public school.
3) Reasoning abilities. Yes, they are typically intelligent, in knowledge. The ones I know, though, have trouble predicting. For instance, predicting the outcomes of a lab or extended mathematical problem. This prediction ability is needed so you can look at an answer and know whether or not you screwed up badly somewhere.
Also, a place where this stands out to no measurable degree is in predicting human behavior. They simply cannot do it; they lack the experience with a variety of human behavior and responses.
Yes, home-schooling has its advantages when it comes to test-taking and attainment of knowledge. But it is severely deficient in areas I would consider much more important.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I would think underexposure would be the biggest fear. You have a lot of different teachers between ages 5 and 18, each with their views and styles. Not to mention the views of your classmates. You have a much smaller selection of parents and peers in a homeschooling circle.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yes. I should try to make this clear. It is not specifically the fact that my kids would be hearing things that I don't agree with. My major problem is that the government would have any control at all. The most tangible example of that is that I can imagine that it's possible that I be required to train my children in an area I don't agree with.
Exposure is one thing, but it seems possible to grind something into your kid's head to the point that they believe it, without even trying. Look at all the girls that think they have to look like the models on TV, and no one even directly SAYS that they have to. That doesn't mean I won't let them watch TV, it just means that I'm not going to teach them about models, and then give them an exam featuring every commercial for a beauty product.
I think there's a difference between saying "This is what Greeks once believed" and saying "Zeus is god". I realize that. But I do believe it's possible that things won't be so easy to distiguish.
But in general, my major annoyance is less about the actual curriculum as it as about the control issue. I don't feel like there's any REASON for the government to get involved.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I have trouble getting my own head around being comfortable with children not being ensured for learning how to read, or not being protected by child labor laws, or not being protected by required intervention for suspected abuse, or many of the other devices the government has in place.
There is a vast difference between monitoring possibly abused children and monitoring for whether or not children can read, namely that abuse is illegal, while not reading is not.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
PSI, the State of Arizona cannot require you to have your children tested. I am frankly shocked that they are trying to do so. I suggest that you direct them to the Arizona Revised Statues Annotated, Title 15, Chapter 7, Article 3 (15-745):
quote:A. Nothing in this article shall be construed to require the testing of children who are instructed in a home school program while they are receiving home school instruction.
Your children are legislatively exempted from taking any essential skills and standardized non-referenced achievement tests, which includes the AIMS and ASAT.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You insist that you can teach your child whatever you want and omit whatever you want without government regulation. I think it's narrow-minded and a true loss for that child and society.
While I find it dangerously narrow-minded that there is a standard that you want to set for everyone in America, and have everyone learn exactly the same things. Where's the diversity? How can different ideas come out of a society when everyone is trained the same way?
(They are trying to amend that, Mrs. M, if I'm not mistaken. It's been put on hold for a short time but was a serious debate not too long ago.)
[ August 05, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Part of the reason why this is such a hot button topic, is because many homeschoolers have gotten dragged in front of Childrens Services and some threatend with removal of their children for truancy, even when they have been abiding by the local homeschooling ordinaces, simply because the children are seen outside at odd times of the day when children "should" be in school.
There are some horrible people that use "homeschooling" to legitimize abuse. Unfortunately once a DCFS person has seen one of these they have a pre-concieved idea about how everyone else in that group behaves. In any group it seems the negative stereotypes are the ones that surface first no matter how strong the positive sterotypes are.
For an illustration: Jews-greedy powermongers, Mormons-polygamists; Southerners-illiterate; Homeschoolers-child abusers.
All of the above are equally fallacious stereotypes, but we all have gut reactions to each of those stereotype that are hard to get past.
AJ
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
quote: But what happens if the government decides that I must teach my kid something that I find loathsome?
What if you find the idea of genetics loathsome? Or Microbiology loathsome? Your distaste for a subject does not change its veracity.
In my many debates on evolution, I have found the major problem not to be actual arguments against evolution, but rather misconceptions and myths about evolution that children have been taught by their parents and clergy.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I need to go as well, since dishes are covering my entire counter. I hope this discussion continues!
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
In the end, I really just don't see that there are sufficient grounds to check the progress of a homeschooled child. Before they start making laws regarding that, I think that a LOT of study is needed to determine if there actually any problems at all, relative to other methods that parents use to train or teach their children.
AJ: Homeschoolers=child-abusers? I've never heard that.
[ August 05, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
A personal anecdote:
One of the skills I had to learn in college and still struggle with, was that of listening to multiple people at the same time. Not so much in classroom or group meeting situations with more serious undertones, but with a bunch of people piling into the same dorm room and chattering all at once.
But, I can't prove, that this was due to homeschooling. Some people have equally difficult times processing having been to school their entire life. I am, as a result, very good at running meetings here at work, making sure everyone has their say and understands everyone else, because I show them how hard I'm trying to understand them and how much I want to understand them.
AJ
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
PSI, I doubt you truly believe that every adult from public school has come out standardized to a cookie-cutter version of anyone else who has come out of public school. I agree with CT that this specifically means minimums, with icing for everyone who is willing.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
AJ: I think that it's obvious that people will come out of homeschooling with different strengths and weaknesses than those in public school. Environment changes things, and I don't think that's necessarily bad.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI do you belong or have you heard of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association? Basically if you look at their legal briefs that is exactly what most of the things are claming. You can put an intermedieate step in there but many don't.
Homeschooling --}truancy --} child abuse
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I think that's the exact problem I have with homeschooling. It promotes educational segregation more than a public school ever could. We try to construct a foundation for all children in the US (though I admit, we're having trouble reaching that goal), which is open to everyone to see and criticize. Why is education mandatory to a certain age in the US? Because it's a vital part of our society, and rightly so. It's not just to annoy children until the age of 14 or 15, it's so that they can gain a common set of skills and knowledge.
You insist that you can teach your child whatever you want and omit whatever you want without government regulation. I think it's narrow-minded and a true loss for that child and society.
quote: PSI, I doubt you truly believe that every adult from public school has come out standardized to a cookie-cutter version of anyone else who has come out of public school. I agree with CT that this specifically means minimums, with icing for everyone who is willing.
Okay, Sun. But from your posts I got the idea that your minimum would be a very large set of requirements, much larger than the basic reading, etc, that CT mentioned.
So what would your minimum be, since I feel like the diversity that we get from people being raised in all different learning environments is good for society, not bad?
And I should also point out that there is a difference between saying that kids should have the OPTION of learning whatever they want to know, as opposed to the responsibility. I'm not saying that exposure to different sources is inherently bad for kids, far from it.
AJ: No, I hadn't heard of it.
[ August 05, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No Suneun I'm sure she doesn't, however the fact is many homeschooled children are radically unique in their life experiences, both good and bad. I know I am, and my closest RL friends know I am, but it isn't worth going around explaining most of the time exactly what I was doing at the age of eight or 10, cause it doesn't matter that much unless you are going to marry me or something.
AJ
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Still, PSI, until it's repealed, they shouldn't be attempting to force testing on you.
quote:My personal opinion, despite what Mrs. M attests to, is that most mothers don't homeschool if they aren't interested in spending time with their child.
Actually, my point was that it can be difficult for many homeschooling parents to spend almost all of their time with their children and a lot of them don't realize that when they start. One of the biggest complaints that I got from my homeschooling moms was that they had barely any time for themselves. This didn't make me think any less of them as parents or as homeschoolers.
I feel like there is a perception that I don't like homeschoolers or that I didn't like the ones that I worked with. This upsets me because it could not be farther from the truth. No one worked harder or advocated more for those children than I did. I changed curricula so that every child could have one that best fit his needs. I accommodated every request from parents, even when they were contrary to my own personal beliefs. For example, I designed 2 biology curricula, one including evolution and one excluding it (which is in accordance with the educational laws of most states, btw). I actually allowed a child to be exempted from reading The Crucible because his parents didn't want him exposed to witchcraft (even though there is no witchcraft - they were faking). I juggled the books and found money for extra classes for children who needed them. During one of my business trips to Aliquippa, PA (the most depressing place in the world), I drove up a mountain in my tiny rental car to fix a 7th grader's computer so that he wouldn't miss any classes. I worked and advocated for those kids to the point where I completely neglected my family and my health, so I'm sure that everyone can understand why disturbs me to be seen as an enemy of homeschoolers. [/rant]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, I didn't think you felt that way at all, Mrs. M. As far as testing goes, I wasn't clear, I'm sorry. They are not trying to force testing on me. I'm fighting the fact that they are trying to amend that in the first place. Sorry.
I honestly don't understand the "time for themselves" part. I mean, compared to a child in public school, maybe. But I don't know a mom out there that homeschools her child for more than two hours, each child. It isn't necessary, because in that time a child can absorb far more than they can in 8 hours at school. Then the kids have homework time but the mom shouldn't be directly involved with that.
The child has MORE time to explore, have fun, and follow his own personal objects of enjoyment than the public schooled child. It would have been so nice to be outside on those warm spring days after having my lessons than inside, doing busy work because the teacher has to spend so much time going from child to child while you wait to be checked on.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Mrs. M I know you were doing the best by those children you could. There were clearly problems with the homeschooling process that the parents were having, which is why they turned to your company for support.
Hey, at least those parents were admitting there were problems and asking for help. There are some that don't and deny there are problems. But there are also many of homeschooling parents that don't get themselves in the hot water the parents you were describing got themselves into either.
The underlying educational philosophy, of homeschooling that is still there even though it it has been clouded with overtones of fundamental Christianity of various species, is best described in a book called Summerhill by Alexander S. Neil.
I really wish we could have everyone in this discussion read this book, because while there still might be fundamental disagreements it would create a more uniform basis upon which to discuss the philosophy of education.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, a child removed from public school, will be far, far more demanding on a parent's time than a child that has always been homeschooled. It is because it is a different pace of life. One is generally far more structured and the other while structured has a lot more flexibility involved.
The transition period, can be difficult. It will be the most difficult for a child who was removed because the parental judgement was that they needed to improve their academics and/or behavior, while the child was perfectly happy staying in school. This is where the most conflict arises. The clashes between parent and child on a variety of issues are epic, and it takes a parent with vast amounts of patience to cope. My mother (who ran several independent study programs herself) would warn these parents about the "detox" effect that would happen. I honestly don't know the sucess percentages but I'd guess it was 50-50.
A child who is discontent in school to begin with and wants to leave is much more likely to thrive in an environment where they can explore and learn on their own, and much less likely to tax parental resources to the utmost.
AJ
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
IANAT (I am not a teacher), so lets see what I can come up with.
Banna: Lets say, since we probably agree, that the majority of homeschool kids get a sufficient and good education. But standards aren't there because everyone isn't meeting it, or because everyone is meeting it. Minimums are there to catch the 10% or 15% of kids who aren't getting taught certain things.
1) Geography: US and World 2) History: US and World, with Cultural History, History of Religions, and Political History. 3) Math: Through Algebra I, lets say. 4) Foreign Language: intermediate level in one language other than english 5) Sciences: Basic Physics, Chemistry, Biology. Lets leave Evolution out of this discussion for now. 6) Language Skills, English: Basic grammar, reading comprehension, vocabulary.
---- The only one that seems slightly optional is Foreign Language. It's not as necessary, but I'd put it in as a minimum if I could choose. To get at the nitty gritty of what some parents won't teach their children, we'd have to outline each one fairly extensively. And as much fun as it would be to design a curriculum for a kid from K-12th, I'm not going to do so here.
If a minimum makes it so a kid who wasn't going to learn chemistry ends up learning basic chemistry, I see that as a good thing.
I want to get back to school being mandatory. What is the purpose of mandatory school attendance (public/private/home)? Again, I think it's to gain a minimum of skills and knowledge to work within the society we have created.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Suneun, this cracks me up, because I doubt most graduating seniors from high school could meet your minimums. And I could probably dig up test results to prove it.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Probably, Sun, and I don't have any problems with the curriculum you listed. I think everyone needs to know all that stuff, and would encourage people to teach it. But, like my opinions on religion, I'm extremely hesitant to make a LAW about it. I'm not going to make it so that gay people have to report somewhere about everything they're doing with their children, and I'm not going to do that about homeschoolers either.
BTW, I keep using homosexuals as an example because everyone knows my opinion on homosexualtiy and I want to make it clear that my thoughts about government intervention don't change just because I agree or disagree with a practice.
edited: for general stupidity
Oh, and about mandatory school: I very, very slightly disagree with the institution of mandatory school, but I don't worry about it because homeschooling is there, and was set-up specifically for that reason. Meaning that parents who don't want to have their children's learning decided by some other person have another option. If they ever made homeschooling as structured as public school, I'd be against mandatory school.
I KNOW that it can be mistreated, but I'm more worried about losing basic freedoms to the government.
It's possible that I might agree to a type of minimum requirement for homeschoolers, but I would have to thoroughly understand it, and there would have to be strict limitations put on the people doing the checking and on the tests themselves.
[ August 05, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
okay so lets go back to Why is School Mandatory to a certain age in the US?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It used to be to educate the populace. But the fact is the public education system isn't doing a very good job. Otherwise politicians wouldn't campaign about it.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
^ | | Answer
Gah, sorry...I keep editing instead of reposting. I begin to edit but I get carried away and type for ten more minutes.
[ August 05, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
True that public school kinda sucks these days. And there needs to be a lot of good ideas put forth on how to get education into kids.
Lets say it's still about educating the populace. And there are no exceptions to the Must School Rule. How do we know that the home school child is being educated?
This is not the time for, "but person X was educated! I was educated! I educate!" but to think, isn't it reasonable to require proof on this thing which is mandatory?
It's like getting your driver's license. Is it enough to say "I know how to drive. My mom will vouch for me. Give me the license."? Yes yes, it's not identical to giving a driver's license, or else education would be called Driver's License. But you can see what I'm trying to say... I think.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
And I really think saying, "But the public schools are worse than I am" isn't very productive. It's true, but it's not the important part.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In fact a very, very credible argument can be made, from the facts cited by the French Dude that toured the U.S. in the 1800s and came up with a bunch of statistics, that the institution of mandatory education, caused the literacy rate of the country to decline.
(I've seen the argument made and it still works even taking into account the large amount of illiterate immigrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s.)
AJ
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I dunno, sounds like there are hundreds or thousands of other factors that occurred simultaneous to mandatory schooling that would have possible effects on literacy. But I haven't seen the study.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I agree with you to some degree, Suneun. I just don't see how any kind of test can be accurate for my child. What happens if he doesn't meet the requirements because he's not made that way, and not because I'm not doing my job? They have three options:
1. Try to change how I teach him without really understanding what he needs. 2. Do nothing and let me to continue to teach him remedial math. 3. Force me to send him to a different school.
Which of these options works for you? Only two works for me, and in my opinion, they don't need the test if that's what they're going to choose.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
dabbler, I would submit that the GED does exactly what you are saying for the proof of minimum education. I wouldn't have any problems with people requiring homeschooled students to take the GED. Many do now anyway, though I never did.
Yes, I have a college diploma, but not a high school diploma.
And NdRa and TomD would submit that a college diploma isn't necessary to get ahead in life anyway (I find delightful irony in the fact that Tom Davidson is employed by a college.) And even for non-technical employment a certificate that you passed the GED is all you need to get a job.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
cont.
Unless you think the test should be for something extremely basic, in which case it's probably not that important. Like a test that only makes sure they can read in sixth grade.
I also wonder why you don't think people need a college education as well?
[ August 05, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
what do you mean "he's not made that way"?
I think we'd get a lot further in this discussion if we actually had a govt-sanctioned set of requirements to look through. I think it would be totally reasonable to have certain portions of the requirements opt-out-with-a-form. Submit a short essay on why your child doesn't need to be taught A, B, or C. Not for Reading or Chemistry, but certainly why you refuse to teach Evolution or Creationism or Christianity.
There will likely also be exceptions based on handicap, but I don't think that's where you were going about your son. It almost seems like it's a nebulous strawman enemy for you. The evil requirements you may or may not have to face. A bad bill is a bad bill, but I still think the sentiment of mandating minimums is correct.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Yeah, probably something like the GED would be a good thing to agree on. The only problem with the GED is it's an after-the-fact test. Perhaps a test at ages 8, 12, and 16 or something like that. Shrug.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
By "he's not made that way" I mean that he might be a slow reader, for example. I was assuming that you aren't talking about giving kids one test when they're out of school, but smaller tests along the way. Am I not correct?
Slow, sorry.
[ August 05, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I should write an essay sometime detailing the modern homeschooling movement history as I've observed it.
One of the most fascinating things that happened, which I was present at the right time to witness, was the shift from the extremely liberal unschooling peace and love hippiesque crowd to the current devout religious types. Both had libertarian leanings(in the philisophical, not party sense). You still see a few of the hippiesque types, but most of their children have grown up to do interesting things and they've moved on and aren't as vocal in the movement anymore.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Dabbler, the thing is only NCLB which educators are whining about (and I agree has many pitfalls and flaws), has ever really instituted a national standard that public schools have to test children for.
To say that this standard needs to be put in place by the government for homeschooled children when public schools can't meet them seems hypocritical.
There is also the philisophical argument at what level the public education system should be regulated, locally or by state etc.
AJ
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Can I ask where your homeschooling fell on the spectrum, B OJ?
I am tron ont he idea of testing. I am pretty sure that's considered heretical for a homeschooling parent to say. We are supposed to all be adamantly anti-testing. I really don't worry about, say, the parents who don't want to teach evolution or books with (witchcraft, sex, fill in the blank). However, I do have some friends who have whole heartedly embraced radical unschooling and I worry about their kids. Eight year olds unable to read because their parents beleive that when they WANT to read they will decide to do it and have no problem. I guess I would say I am opposed to extensive testing but that children have a right to be taught to read, to math, write legibly etc.
I describe myself as an eclectic classical home schooler.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I guess I would say I am opposed to extensive testing but that children have a right to be taught to read, to math, write legibly etc.
If that's true, I would hold that they also have the right to NOT be taught those things. Do we then wait until they're old enough to decide? Or do we force them to learn it anyway?
In my opinion, the parent is a better judge of that than the state.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, the public education system is probably doing approximately the same quality of job as it always has. The perception has changed due to a change in expectation for levels of education, and all demographics (up until probably 40-50 years ago, there were fairly large swaths of people who didn't finish _middle_ schooling, much less high school; in those times, this wasn't seen as a serious issue that needed to be addressed).
I went to public school (K-8). I went to private school (pre-school, 9-12+undergrad). I took part in G&T programs, such as they were. I am a reasonably intelligent guy (straight As, all that jazz). I was fine in public schools, but maybe that was due to a general culture of learning I grew up in, outside of the school itself. I DO think that the Hatrack demographic, generally speaking, is a subset of the US that has qualities that make it seem like public schools don't work.
I don't know that this is true, at least in a systemic sense. I think a lot of the issues that are good reasons to homeschool are due the pupil, in the sense that no system can be flexible enough to accommodate everyone, and so there will be exceptions that need a different learning environment.
-Bok
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah I meant de Tocqueville, though his name eluded me at the moment, and I think I've read both sides of the argument, probably the same ones you've seen CT.
I'd say as far as the unschooling vs the totally structured schooling, my own education was fairly in the middle, due to the time of history during which I was homeschooled as well as my mother's predilections.
My mother did voluntarily test me yearly, because of the flip side of PSI's argument. If they public authorities tried to take us away from her on truancy grounds, she had indisputable documented proof that we WERE learning. I took the Stanford Achievement tests every year for years, until I scored so high off the charts they decided it wasn't worth it anymore because the tests weren't actually testing me on my actual knowledge.
I am very, pro voluntary testing, and I think it can provide valuable information to homeschooling parents. It can tell them their own teaching strengths and weaknesses and alert them to areas where they might have a gap even though they thought they were strong. That's what public school teachers use them for and they are valuable tools.
But the instant it becomes mandatory I have problems with it, because of the freedoms it infringes on. You can argue that short of abuse raising your children the way you believe is permitted both by the freedom of religion and the right to privacy in the Constitution.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It almost seems like it's a nebulous strawman enemy for you. The evil requirements you may or may not have to face.
I think that this applies to both of us. Those that are supportive of a testing system or approved curriculum are worried about some straw-child not learning how to read, a child that may or may not exist. I'm still waiting to see if there are any studies that show that homeschooled kids get inadequate education as compared to peers in other learning environments.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
From personal experience I can vouch for that.
They tested my brother's eyes because my mother noticed some abnormalities while teaching him to read (he had a lazy eye). I think I was in 3rd or 4th grade before I got glasses, though I'd probably needed them since kindergarten. Mom was mortified, but the reason why she didn't notice, is because I read so well regardless. I never had to look at far away blackboards so there wasn't a learning issue that she would have observed.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's an important article, CT. I swear I'm not trying to avoid being wrong, but I have a serious concern about the testing, and it's this:
What tests did they use to determine these things? I ask because I remember being coached on all the standardized tests I took in public school for a month or two before the tests were actually administered. I'm wondering if it's possible that the tests were more geared to the public schooled children?
I mean, if they all took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, I might think the public school kids would have an unfair advantage.
I've been thinking about this, and I decided that I will research it more. If I can find some more evidence that homeschooled kids are lacking, I would probably okay some minimum testing.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Wow, that's surprising, our ped is very good about doing the vision/hearing screen for us.
PSI, I do hold that in our society, a person with inadequate skills in rwadin, writing and math will have a VERY hard time getting a job, if they can get one, and to not teach those things to our children is neglect. Case in point, one lady I was on a message board with had a 15 year old, who had just learned the proper way to write his letters, and as far as I could tell ( from the mom's words) it was not b/c of an LD but b/c she felt it would be stifling him to correct him. Yes, that's very unusual but it REALLY bothered be that no one had done anything about it.
I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of mandatory testing, especially being the hippie freak that I am, but these cases make me wonder.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See PSI, there's the difference in philosophy between you and my mother. My mother was dead certain we WEREN'T lacking, and wasn't afraid to have us take the tests to prove it.
I know several times she did find we'd scored lower in areas than she expected, and realized that they were asking questions over a topic she hadn't yet taught etc.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, AJ, I feel like the things that the test for are in a very specific group, one that might not be taught in certain years to certain homeschoolers. AND, the only reason I can see that the homeschooled kids should be taught those things in those specific areas is because the want to pass the test. That seems counter-productive.
I'm not talking about reading, writing, etc. I'm talking about, maybe, Louisiana's legislature versus Georgia's, for example.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Mandatory, CT? That isn't part of a normal check-up? Or do you mean among parents who wouldn't ordinarily take their kids to see the doctor?
(I'll have to come back later, I have mom-stuff to do. Hopefully I can return before tomorrow morning. )
CT: Oh. I must have misread it.
[ August 05, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
A.J. -- if there is anything at all I can say to add to your position here, let me know! You're doing a great job!
Farmgirl
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
But see, if you know you are teaching something different and are going to hit it next year it is OK. Different school systems do it differently based on curriculum as well. The tests take this into account.
With the Stanford Achievement tests (which I took and remember which is why I'm addressing that one specifically), it realizes that different school systems teach things in different orders and it doesn't really hit anything in that depth. It is more of a broad shotgun of questions to see whether overall a child knows most of what everyone else knows. I think your fears are probably too specific.
My mother supervised the testing program in our area for many years (for all I know she may still volunteer occasionally with it even though her own children are grown) While the parents were not allowed to see the tests beforehand, every day after the testing for that day was completed, she allowed them to see the test books with the questions and their own children's answers. A regular teacher would see that. Admittedly there were always people there making sure no one changed the answers but that wasn't the point.
The point was that the test, doesn't always test over exactly what you have taught. And that way if a particular area comes back low, you are able to make the judgement call, of oh, that was something I haven't taught yet and doesn't matter as much, or oh, that is an area where my child is really struggling.
So you can get meaningful results from these tests, whether or not they are actually taught to. Remarkably enough whether or not the tests are taught to, the homeschooled children that take them seem to do pretty darn good overall.
AJ (readability edits)
[ August 05, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Farmgirl,
I'd love to show this thread to my mother. I'll probably discuss a bunch of it with her on the phone. I may cut and paste a lot of this into an e-mail to her. The problem of actually linking her to hatrack is twofold. One she isn't terribly computer literate, and two this is MY space, where I come to whine about the occasional familial difficulty. I don't have to worry about her finding it on her own, but I don't want to hand it to her on a silver platter either.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Another point:
Homeschooling no more guarantees a good relationship with your children after they are grown than any other method of schooling.
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Popping in real quick, then I swear I'm leaving.
I see, CT. I thought the point that it was different from what was in the literature was referring to homeschooling literature, and was meant to show that the literature was misrepresenting homeschool. Did that make any sense?
And as far as mandatory well-child check-ups, give me some time to think about it. I have never given it a thought, but immediately it strikes me that not everyone can afford that. That kinda dips into socialized healthcare which I'm not so sure I support. More later.
<--really leaving now.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Here is a list of ongoing legal actions that involve homeschoolers. You won't have to read very far before "child abuse" and social services come up.
AJ
[ August 05, 2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Re: mandatory vision/hearing screening -- I was thinking about those kids whose parents chose not to take them to well-child visits. Would it be an infringement on parents' rights to legislate that all children must be screened for vision and hearing problems by someone licensed to do so (in school, or at doctor's office, or wherever)?
What difference does it make? I mean -- there are kids in public schools all the time whole flunk vision and hearing tests, but nothing is done because their parents can't afford the eyeglasses or hearing aids.
Heck I myself flunked my vision exam two years in a row in junior high and nothing was done. Just had to wait until I got to the age to get my driver's license, and flunked it there.
I was at the DMV the other day when a high school kid came into get his driver's license and flunked his eye test. You could tell by the way he dressed that he was very poor. But the gal even asked him what school he attended and he told her. So I'm assuming he got vision tests at school...
FG
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This is clearly biased pro, but it still might be an interesting read. I'd appreciate anyone reading it with a critical eye towards the statistics.
The Rudner study was performed by an outside contractor, you could argue that they were still biased, but it makes it clear the parents chose to participate before knowing the children's test scores.
ooh it is talking about the idealogies that I mentioned before... this one has good stuff in it. It includes Canadian information too.
[ August 05, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: (If you have a non-pediatric general practitioner, then he or she may not have been aware of all the resources. That's an unfortunate side effect of not having been trained specifically for meeting children's healthcare needs. If you have no primary care provider at all, then I will worry about you even more, and I may start stalking you with medical-type questions. [Frown] )
Well, it's been several years back now, CT, and I think we were on medicaid at the time, and bounced by the state from physician to physician.
Of course, things are better now -- good job, insurance, great primary care physician, good optometrist, etc. I was just relating to others who are at the point where we once were....
Farmgirl
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
CT while I found a couple of turns of biased phrasing in the report from the Cato institute, I think on the whole you would enjoy reading that report.
AJ
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I think it is a crime that in this country, any child wants for health care.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
What's a crime is that in many cases, the services are there, the parent just doesn't know where to go to find them! When my twins needed physical and occupational therapy, I was amazed at how much stuff I got for free.
The head opthalmologist at Children's Hospital in Alabama had a clinic twice a month for free eye care. You wouldn't know about it though, unless you'd been referred to it by one of the social workers.
The system breaks down when people don't know where to go for help.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
In fact, I held you up as an example of successful homeschooling in Belle's thread:![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
PSI![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I honestly don't know. I'm not sure how to frame my questions about homeschooling in a way that doesn't cause defensiveness. I can certainly understand the defensiveness, because I'm sure that parents who homeschool often get a lot of crap from people. Maybe I should stop asking questions! My question last night to my friend ended up with one of her friends telling me that I was grossly misinformed about everything and then she brought up an example of how CPS had failed a child in a public school. (Huh?) It just makes me want to shout, "I'm not attacking!! I'm just trying to learn something!!"![[Frown]](frown.gif)