Sorry, my mistake. I didn't see where you had answered that.
 

No worries.

What about from a different angle. There are those of us who are homeschooling children who are learning disabled (LD). My daughter has dysgraphia- something that a good deal of teachers know very little, if anything, about.
If I put her in public schools she will be placed in LD classes for everything.
She isn't LD in all areas.
She is 11.
Words like Parimaribo and Paraguay (recent spelling words) are a breeze for her to spell verbally, but she has a hard time getting them down on paper.
How would public schooling help her when I know more about the type of LD she has then they do?

In an ideal world all teachers would be properly trained in all the learning difficulties they come across.  Of course, that isn't the reality.   Good teachers are pretty good at adapting to the individual needs of each student, many of which are diagnosable and (as I'm sure you are aware) the individual needs of kids diagnosed with the same LD can be wildly different.  My spouse has dysgraphia, and can't spell decently verbally or on paper, for example.

I never heard of this particular LD until I went looking to see why my daughter's handwriting was so sloppy and she was missing so many spelling words in the third grade. I found out what the LD was and how to work around it. I learned how to teach a child with this LD and I can learn how to teach her other topics as they arise. [/color]

I've never argued that homeschooling is never better - in her case it may be that you are a naturally competent teacher, and your ability to cater for her (greater than average) individual needs outweighs your lack of training in the individual KLAs, at least at a junior level & middle school level.

Seriously though, my 'training' did help me learn that there is no big mystery to teaching. The best teachers seem to take to it instinctively. The 'training' seems to consist mostly of learning the paperwork.  

Sounds like the training is very different there than here.

I'm still highly skeptical that you can do as well in certain specialist subjects such as maths and science unless you have the appropriate background and understand of how kids learn (and don't learn) those subjects.

My oldest daughter takes Spanish. I took French in high school and college. I can't help her there. Does that mean we can't homeschool? Nope. It just means that I have to find other alternatives.

Have you ever heard of a publically (or privately) schooled student needing extra help? There's always a high school student available to tutor and there are Huntington and Sylvan learning centers, etc.

At least half the tutors I've encountered have been very poor, and that's when they are on top of having an adequate classroom (maths) teacher.  Several have been worse than useless.

IOW, being 'schooled' by a teacher who specializes in a subject matter is no guarantee that the student will still 'get it'.

Of course not.

There are some awesome teachers out there. I have no problem with that! I do have a problem with the whole institutionalized, 'one-size fits all', idea.

It's not ideal - I'm not claiming it is - but it's all that's feasible for the vast majority of people, and I still maintain that it stands up pretty well against homeschooling.  Each system has its advantages and its disadvantages.

The very best homeschooling should equal the very best schooling, and probably does.

I'm sceptical that most homeschooling is significantly better than most public schooling, but there is no way we can ever tell for sure.

I'm certain that if most people homeschoooled the standard they would achieve would be terrible.

I have no answer. You make a good point. I'm going to have to look deeper into this.

I am not sure where you got the idea a pastor is the shepherd.

Because of the word "pastor."

Christ's instructions to Peter seem to pretty much set him up as a shepherd too (John 21:15-17)

I'm not sure that Reba's post was clear, so I'll try:

That table doesn't tell you whether or not blacks are more likely to have abortions that whites.

It tells you, for example, that in 1994, 34.6% of abortions were performed on black people, but without knowing the proportion of black people in the population that is meaningless.

ebia- do you know any homeschoolers?

I believe I've already answered that:

Quote:
Have you ever homeschooled or been homeschooled?

 
No, but I've friends who do.

Anecdote this morning at staff briefing from our Principal (a nun):

Student:  You always seem to be going overseas.
Principal:  Well, my mother advised me to join the convent and see the world.
Student:  So was you mother a nun too.  

Cute.

The frightening thing is, this isn't some innocent year 7 kid, this is a 16 year old year 10 student, educated in catholic schools.

That doesn't actually answer the question thought, does it?  It's just a long winded way of saying "we don't know".   Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but it's a valid question that God hasn't really given us any answer to.

I would disagree with your statement: It is not man's place to ever question the power, majesty, and purpose of Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe.   I think God can handle us questioning it quite a bit - the psalmist certainly did.

Ebia,

Your post was longer than mine and didn't contain an answer.

Unlike you, I didn't claim to have an answer.  You did, but failed to give one.

However, if it has to do with the Bible or morals, we can count on you to be against it.

No, I just against people spouting garbage and claiming it's correct or divinely inspired.

You are at least consistent - a pain.

Some of my students think that too.

Anecdote this morning at staff briefing from our Principal (a nun):

Student:  You always seem to be going overseas.
Principal:  Well, my mother advised me to join the convent and see the world.
Student:  So was your mother a nun too?  

This really fries my potatoes.    I heard of a big city public school principal who homeschools his own kids.  

And of state employees who homeschool theirs.

It really eats my shorts--if you'll pardon me.

Why?

It's perfectly reasonable for a school principal to believe strongly in the availabilty of free public education for all, but knows he can't deliver as good an education for his kids as he can at home.

One doesn't have to take the view that everyone should be homeschooled or everyone should be public schooled.

As far as state employees - why should they even have to agree with every choice the state makes.  If that were a job requirement, NO-ONE could work for the state.

I mean, give me a break!  It's like the Jews who trafficked with the Nazis in their Jewish brethren, to the death camps, or the Africans who sold their brethren into the slave trade!

Maybe they don't see homeschooling as quite as evil as genocide or slavery,

1. ditto on the LOTR... (can we take the dvd set too???)

Yes, but not a player  

The Screwtape Files:  CS Lewis
Smile on the Face of God:  Adrian Plass
Either another CS Lewis, or Alien at St Winifreds (Plass)

from ebia: Doesn't matter - as long as one learns, the system is successful.

Kids learn through homeschooling. So the system is successful.  

Absolutely.  Just pointing out the inconsistency in "I went to public school and learned nothing, so I'm going to teach my kids at home."

Being a mum is no less a difficult job than being a teacher, but it isn't the same job.

Actually, being a mom is harder.  

Quite possibly.

What you are good at, and what you can teach well, are not necessarly the same thing.

Exactly! And just because a teacher is 'trained' in a certain subject matter, doesn't mean that they're good 'teachers' of the subject matter.

Also true, but the training does weed out some who won't be good teachers.

You don't have to study up on the age levels that you will be teaching ala 'Materials and Methods' style when you KNOW your own child and how your child learns best. Those studies best serve strangers teaching others children. They can give you a general overview but not specifics pertaining to individual differences.

No - you don't need to know as broad a range as a classroom teacher should

Have you ever been a professional school teacher, or trained as such?

Yes, to both questions. And I must (grudginly) admit that it took me a good full year to get that out of homeschooling!  

Unless your training was spectacularly poor, I don't believe you aren't making use of what you learned, even if its just what to avoid.   Either way, that puts you way ahead of most homeschoolers.

I'm still highly skeptical that you can do as well in certain specialist subjects such as maths and science unless you have the appropriate background and understand of how kids learn (and don't learn) those subjects.

So you haven't taught or attended schools in the US? And you haven't homeschooled or been homeschooled?  

's what I said, isn't it?

What ever happened to "reading, writing, and arithmetic." The proper teaching responsibility of public schools.

You should have learned those by the end of primary school (or whatever you call it over there).  Universal secondary education has allowed us to aim a bit higher than that.

When did it become the public schools responsibility to teach moral behaviour?

When kids stopped learning it elsewhere - and to a frightening extent, they have - the schools had to try and take over.

I think I distrust them because of the bureaucratic aspect--people are just there to do "a job".  It's not a "love"--tho for younger teachers perhaps early on they have ideals.

Whatever a teacher may say, no-one just does it as "a job".  It's too much like hard work to do it if you're not getting something else out of it.

My husband and I were both public schooled.
Because of what we learned in public schools, we have chosen to homeschool for now.

If the public system has equiped you to homeschool competently, it's done pretty well.  If not, ....

The public schools severly lacked in teaching many things. I grew up in the Bay Area, my husband grew up in rural MN.
History classes were ok, for the most part.
Goverment classes we learned to laugh at the right and were taught that the issues of the left were serious.

Hopefully things have moved on.  The early days of "citizenship" as a subject idea were pretty flaky, but I dare say the same was true when science, say, was first taught in schools.

English classes, books like Judy Blume's Wifey (which is a book that condones extra marital affairs) were allowed for book reports.

Allowed, or you were forced to read and agree with it?

Science taught the lies of evolution.

Whether you agree with it's conclusions or not, evolution is good science, and must be taught as such.  Anyone who doens't understand why it's good science certainly isn't qualified to teach science to anyone.

Math classes were ok.

Pleased to hear it.  

Planned Parenthood came to our Health classes on a regular basis.

I wonder how much time was actually spent on it.  Our perceptions can be very misleading as to what we spent our time on at school.

As far as not being qualified to teach certain subjects.....
I didn't know how to potty train a child until I actually had to. We got through potty training between the ages of 2 and 3 so I think we can get through just about anything else.

Which show's how much you know.

I know enough to know that I've been a mom for 18 years and I'm no where near an expert.

Being a mum is no less a difficult job than being a teacher, but it isn't the same job.

Different children learn at different rates. I know my children better than any teacher who has to deal with 20-30 of them at a time.

Of course.  Homeschooling certainly has some advantages, and that one is undeniable.

Then you should do everything in your power to avoid the public schools, private schools, homeschools, etc.
My pastor's wife is a teacher. She went to school to be a music teacher. She teaches music and English, yet English wasn't one of her strong points in college.

What you are good at, and what you can teach well, are not necessarly the same thing.

Nevertheless, I think it is one of the failings here is that teachers commonly teach way outside their area of training.  This is much less common in England.

Even so, she's still only paid to understand and try and keep up to date in two KLAs, not all of them (which you have to do).

She does a lot of learning as she is teaching.

Of course, any teacher does, but learning content as you go (reading one page ahead in the textbook, as we say) isn't the same as trying to teach a subject where you don't understand the issues.  When you teach maths, do you spend as much time reading up on how maths should be taught, what the issues for kids are, etc, as you spend actually teaching it?  And that's supposing that you know the content already.

If the public system has equiped you to homeschool competently, it's done pretty well.  If not, ....

Or it could be a matter of learning from the mistakes of public schooling.  

Doesn't matter - as long as one learns, the system is successful.

If you are able to devote more time to learning to teach each topic than the kids need to spend learning it, then fine.

*snorts*
The joy of learning something new along with your child is priceless! Wonderful for bonding and definitely shows your child that you're never too old to learn!  

Absolutely, school teachers learn from and alongside their classes too, but if one expects one's children to spend, say 20 hours a week learning, then that leaves you to spend, say, 30 hours a week learning.  Plus whatever other learning you may need to do in your life.  If you can afford that, unpaid, that's quite a luxury.

ebia,
Have you ever taught or attended public school in the US?

No - I teach in a Catholic school in Australia, and I've taught in public schools here.

I accept that US public schools have far from a great reputation internationally, but generally not for any of the reasons listed in this thread.

Have you ever homeschooled or been homeschooled?

No, but I've friends who do.

Have you ever been a professional school teacher, or trained as such?