ChristiansUnite Forums

Just for you, Tibby  :-*.... Do you think these would be considered MORE or LESS adjusted after they left home?

· "A study of adults who were home educated found that none were unemployed and none were on welfare"

That would be a good thing, eh?

"Social Activity and Emotional Development

· Studying actual observed behavior, Dr. Shyers (1992) found the home educated have significantly lower problem behavior scores than do their conventional school agemates.5
· Multiple studies show that the home educated have positive self-concepts.2
· Homeschool students are regularly engaged in field trips, scouting, 4-H, and community volunteer work, and their parents (i.e., their main role models) are significantly more civically involved than are public school parents.2"

What was that last line? Let me take another look.... ;)

and their parents (i.e., their main role models) are significantly more civically involved than are public school parents


* Brian D. Ray, Ph.D., is a researcher, writer, and speaker, a former professor of education and science (at the undergraduate and graduate levels), a former middle school and high school classroom teacher, and is the president of the National Home Education Research Institute. Dr. Ray holds his Ph.D. in science education from Oregon State University.

So much for that brain child, eh?

I got to get to class, I'll post more later.

So much for that brain child, eh?

Wrong 'brain child', Tibby. These would be the correct ones:



So I have begun to show findings to back up what I've said. If you can't, then just say so.... ;D


They will throw out facts about Homeschoolers being better students.

So we do agree on one aspect of it??!!  ;)



I got to get to class, I'll post more later.

I look forward to it!  :D

Yes, students with a teach who gives a care are sure to do well, and this is the case in home schooling, where the students personal help, and are taugh by and Educator who has something to gain if the Students do well.

As for those people, Well, you list has a few holes. An example being the fact many of the people listed are College educated. They didn't get ALL there Education from Homeschooling. Another problem is some of these people where not even homeschooled in anyway, Joan of Arc, for example. And most of the rest where only Homeschooled because there where not public schools to go to. Most of them where not given a chance to attend public school in the first place.

And no, I can’t seem to find any studies.

The difficulty in comparing homeschooling to conventional schooling, is that the populations are not the same.  

The kids who are homeschooled generally do well, but those same kids would probably do just as well at school - they have the parental attitudes to learning, etc, that they need.  Most of the kids who the education system fails for, are those with parents unwilling or unable to provide the support and culture of learning at home that the kids need.  Those parents would never consider homeschooling.  The best teachers in the world can't make up for inadequate parenting.

Since you can't sit down with 500 kids and randomly assign them between home & conventional schooling, you simply can't tell whether homeschooling is more effective or not.

I'd like to see the study this is clipped from - my initial reaction when I see "none" is to suspect either too small a study, or a highly biased sampling.  Or both.

To Ebia, Tibby and other home school detractor's,

There is a vast array of differences between home school children and public, but I will list just a few.

1) The materials used in home schooling are far superior than public. Many home educator's include Bible classes along with a curriculum that incorporates Biblical principles.Most families I know that home educate include a phonics, instead of the miserable sight reading approach.

2) Many home schoolers teach the basics, such as the three R's, Instead of learning how to put on a condom, spend countless hours studying the Amazon Rain Forrest, or save the planet, etc.

3) Home school families actually spend more time going on field trips, and exploring their world, than their public school counterparts.

4) Most home school families have vision. Vision to raise up godly children, who will make a difference.

Of course there is always a family who will not discharge their duties properly. There is always the exception to the general rule.

But the proof is in the pudding. The stats don't lie!

Please take the time to read over this information.

http://www.hslda.org/research/faq.asp

Psalm 119

Yeah, like in Public School, is okay to use God or Jesus Christ as an expletive.

But don't get caught saying you believe in Him.

But it's okay to curse Him.  Yeah, that's just fine.


     >:(

Oh, defensive are we?



Bible classes? yeah, because IT IS HOME. At home, the parents SHOULD have bible classes, regardless of where your child is educated



I spend all my time in public and a little private schooling. Yet, I never leaved how to put a condom on there, and Nickelodeon taught me about Saving the planet, not school. You sure have a twisted view of Public Education.



Again, these are things parents need to do regardless of where the children go to school



Again, parents need to do regardless of where the children go to school.

Public Schools are just extensions of the socialist state.

They don't teach you how to be self reliant.

They teach you how to rely on them.

That's why they have "scholarships".


   
      ::)

Hang on - I wasn't detracting from homeschooling - I just said its difficult if not impossible to show whether or not its better.

These may be specific where you are - good public schooling includes multiple approaches to reading, for instance.

As for bible classes, there's nothing to stop you adding these on at home if they aren't adequately provided by your school system.


Kids need to learn the essential skills (like the "3 Rs"), and they also need to learn how to think, and how to learn for themselves.  A good schooling will provide both, whether it's public, private or home.  Missing either is selling the kids short.

Probably true.

Also probably true, but this would still be true for those families whether they chose to homeschool or not.

This is a particular problem with your public school system.

Here, children are perfectly free to practice their faith at school, and religious education is offered where an outside body (church or whatever) wants to provide and pay for a suitable teacher.

No, but they can mislead.

The stats shown compare homeschooled kids to the national average.  I'd be horrified if homeschooling wasn't doing considerably better than the national average, because these are not average families.

A kid from a family that cares enough, is involved enough, and considers themselves qualified enough, to even consider homeschooling is likely to do very much better, whatever system is choosen.  The stats page makes no mention of this, let alone any attempt to address it.

I went to a charter school for a year or so, and now I am homeschooled.

I can tell you that for me, I'd choose Home-schooling anyday, there is nothing you could EVER say to change my mind, and I plan on Home-schooling my own children.

I don't want some near stranger teaching my children that they are related to a monkey.

In fact, I just can't imagine sending my child off to someone I don't know very well to teach them. I want my children taught by ME, because I love them, and I want to nurture them.

I couldn't send my child, from an early age, to school every morning, to bond with a stranger, while I wonder why they are so unresponsive to me. Sending them to school to me, is like setting them in front of the world's sinful desires and saying "You shouldn't do these, but I'm going to set you in the middle of them."    :'(

As for those people, Well, you list has a few holes. An example being the fact many of the people listed are College educated. They didn't get ALL there Education from Homeschooling. Another problem is some of these people where not even homeschooled in anyway, Joan of Arc, for example. And most of the rest where only Homeschooled because there where not public schools to go to. Most of them where not given a chance to attend public school in the first place.

A few holes in the list? Hmmmm.... The list is of famous people who were homeschooled. The 'hole' you mention is more of what I've been trying to get you to see. That is, that homeschoolers DO go on to be productive members of society.

You said: ~AND~
So I skipped the stats showing the better test scores, etc. I pointed out a few that show AFTER homeschooling - i.e. after they've left home! That was your point, wasn't it?

The kids who are homeschooled generally do well, but those same kids would probably do just as well at school - they have the parental attitudes to learning, etc, that they need.  Most of the kids who the education system fails for, are those with parents unwilling or unable to provide the support and culture of learning at home that the kids need.  Those parents would never consider homeschooling.  The best teachers in the world can't make up for inadequate parenting.

Actually, more and more 'special' students are being homeschooled. And they do better at home than in a classroom setting. That really should be obvious, since special needs children may not sit still in a desk, stand in line, etc. Depending on their exceptionality, most would do better at home. That would include ADD, ADHD, MMR, etc. (The ones that might not benefit from a home setting would be severe and profound, etc. But that would be a whole different story in that they may not be learning facts but the parents may simply need a reprieve.)

So no, they wouldn't do just as well in a conventional classroom setting.

Which educational systems are you referring to? Would that be here in the US or abroad?

What is also seemingly not being considered is the fact that no matter how good the teacher is, he/she can only be spread so far. It is simply not feasible for a teacher to impart educational knowledge whilst trying to meet any social, moral, etc. needs. And the sheer preponderance of time that our youth are spending in an institutionalized setting should show that those needs can not be met.

I'd like to see the study this is clipped from - my initial reaction when I see "none" is to suspect either too small a study, or a highly biased sampling.  Or both.

http://www.nheri.org/ (http://www.nheri.org/)

They don't teach you how to be self reliant.
They teach you how to rely on them.

That is truer than many know (or will admit to).

The stats shown compare homeschooled kids to the national average.  I'd be horrified if homeschooling wasn't doing considerably better than the national average, because these are not average families.

I guess it would depend on what you mean by 'average'...  ???

Kids need to learn the essential skills (like the "3 Rs"), and they also need to learn how to think, and how to learn for themselves.  A good schooling will provide both, whether it's public, private or home.  Missing either is selling the kids short.

Actually, here in the US, students are required to memorize and regurgitate more than anything. Most will come into thinking on their own IF they attend a good college/university.
I agree that missing either is selling our youth short. Sadly, that's where our school systems are.

A kid from a family that cares enough, is involved enough, and considers themselves qualified enough, to even consider homeschooling is likely to do very much better, whatever system is choosen.  The stats page makes no mention of this, let alone any attempt to address it.

That would be kind of a Catch-22. The fact that they are sampling those who choose to educate their own children seems to imply that the parents DO care and are involved, etc. But it doesn't mean that the kids would do just as well in any system.

Tibby, You said:
I spend all my time in public and a little private schooling.
And I just want you to know that I REALLY do believe you on this statement!  ;D Really!

This child is wise for her age.


I'm a grandma so i can call you a child.



After working in the LOCAL public school for a few years .... I am so very thankful my grandchildren are homeschooled. Besides the religious reasons this little story is glaring.... Rachael was in the second grade public school, She did not want to go she disliked it so very much... along came  the good ol partent teacher conference... they talked about why she was so board found out when she finished her work she could go read or color. they asked why cant she  "go ahead" with her studies... they reply was  'we cant allow a student to get too far ahead of the the others we cant be teaching at different levels and besides it could hurt the other childrens self estem.  I understand not all government schools are like ours...

HonRosie I couldn't send my child, from an early age, to school every morning, to bond with a stranger, while I wonder why they are so unresponsive to me. Sending them to school to me, is like setting them in front of the world's sinful desires and saying "You shouldn't do these, but I'm going to set you in the middle of them."    


Amen to that.


It's not wise to send mere children into such an environment, these days--if you have a choice, that is.

Some parents literally have no choice, it seems.

     

I'll have a closer look later - I can't find the relevent info there at the moment.



The average family does not provide their kids with anything like the support, value of learning, etc, that they need.  Kids from families that do provide that sort of background do much better however they are educated - I can point you to studies that demonstrate that if you want, but they are print not webbased.  Parents that are prepared to homeschool clearly provide that sort of background.

Comparing homeschooled kids to the national averages (which is what your study showed) is, therefore, statistically pointless - you aren't comparing like with like.

If you want to demostrate that homeschooling is better, you have to compare comparable families, in the same way that (here at least) schools are compared with so-called "like schools" that have a similiar intake and serve a similiar community.  Your control would, at the very least, need to be sampled from families that provided the same set of values, support, etc but still chose to send their kids to school.


Our schools aren't perfect either, but they've come a fair way from that.  Memorizing facts and skills (beyond a few basics like times tables) is utterly pointless


Exactly.  See above.  This makes the stats invalid.


No, indeed it does not.  What it does mean is that, from the evidence given, we simply do not know.  They would (on average) certainly have done much better than the "national average".  Whether or not they would have done better or less well cannot be shown from the statistics.  The stats, therefore, do not show what they claim to show - that homeschooling is better.

The vast majority of parents have no choice - homeschooling is not an option for most, who simply do not have the skills, inclination or time to do it.

Of course homeschooling does have many advantages - most particularly a far more individually taylored curriculum than is possible in a school.  On the converse, students are not exposed to the broad range of styles, opinions, etc that they receive in a decent school.  Personally, I'd rather kids learned to evaluate and differentiate, and make their own minds up, than just go with what I tell them because that's what they are exposed to.

Dredging up horror stories proves nothing - sure, some people receive shocking treatment at school, but I'm sure there are horror stories about homeschooling too.  Anecdotes don't demonstrate which is best.

I find this attitude frighteningly close to brainwashing.


Again, what a stifling attitude.  They not possesions for your personal satisfaction.


's going to happen eventually.

I find this attitude frighteningly close to brainwashing.


Yes, how dare a parent presume to teach their own children.   ::)


Again, what a stifling attitude.  They not possesions for your personal satisfaction.


Well certainly, the overly protective parent could be a real pain.  But honestly, ebia, whose possessions are they?   You're beginning to sound like a classic social engineer--"our" children really belong to the State??  Seems they tried that  in Stalinist Russia--at the expense of 47 million lives?

Hon Rosie seems to have wholesome objectives for her family, ebia.  What's wrong with running your family the way you see fit.  Since when do the progeny of my body belong to someone else?   >:(

I'm sorry if I seem hasty in my response to you, ebia.

I see Hon Rosie's response as entirely understandable, even admirable, for a future mother, and not at all overly protective.  On the contrary, at least here in U.S., surrendering your children to the mercies of a "well-meaning" and "liberal" and varied education is more now like a sacrificial offering of your own children to the agenda, vagaries and, increasingly, unforgiving whimsy of a jealous State.  There are exceptions.

But your argument comes from a similar one I see here by others, that is, that we are trying to train the little ones to function successfully in the society at large; and that homeshcooling may impede that.  Certainly, that is a critical point.

But I might counter with the simple question of what is education in the first place.  I disagree with that above premise that we are to bring up a child in the best possible way to "adjust" to the society at large--that is, even, with superior marks, better grades, etc.  Tho it may be advisable and even helpful, I do not see the ultimate goal of any education to be able to necessarily "go along to get along"--or even, to necessarily beat them at their own game.

On the contrary, my overriding concern and objective, in a teaching situation, would be simply to teach my charges the difference between fact and fiction.  To me, that's what an education is about--separating fact from fiction.  

To me, if a person knows how to separate fact from fiction, he will function very well in "society"--though he may not function exactly on society's terms, since at least what society is offering these days is so full of fiction.

Proficiency in the ways of the world would for me not be a priority.  Obviously, very few if any are flocking to my door to help them with their curriculae--public, or private.

Harvard for instance is the flagship of higher education here.  Just this week they've announced a student publication on sexual issues, complete with photos of nude Harvard students.  Yet everyone just falls down and drools if their son or daughter gets into Harvard.

No, I don't think HonRosie is at all over doing it.  Not now with what is happening.   :-\

You're putting words in my mouth again, though closer to home this time.

To get a bit academic for a moment, education can broadly be recognised to have three aims:
1.  To produce good, effective citizens.  (Social)
2.  To produce good, effective workers.  (Economic)
3.  To give the best chance in life to each person (Individual)

You can break them in different ways, but you end up with much the same thing.

Now what each person values from number three varies, and in this day and age it tends to be "getting me into the best paying job possible".  Since this has become the overriding concern of education in the US in particular, but the rest of the western world almost as much, lots of aspects of our education systems are back to front.


If I can expand that a bit, to all aspects of critical thinking, then I'd agree that's the most important thing we can teach them.  That means they have to practice making choices for themselves. There is no intrinsic reason why that skill cannot be as well taught in a school (state or independent) as at home.  I would argue, that its easier to learn if you are presented with a variety of teachers with a variety of styles, opinions, methods, etc, than if you only have one teacher (mum, say) whom you have grown up regarding as always being right.   I try to make it clear to the kids I teach that I'm not always right, that they need to think for themselves, and challenge stuff they disagree with.

To learn these skills, you need to practice them.  Being told what is fact and what is fiction won't do much to develop skills in discrimation.

One does need to know enought of the ways of the world to be able to operate in it, and to work for God in it, though.


So what?  The question is whether people are learning to think there.  The real problem is, that people aren't drooling over Harvard because you learn anything there, they are drooling over Harvard because its a step towards a good, well paid job.  Its got to the situation that its not the learning that is valued, but the certificate at the end.  The nude magazines are neither here nor there - you could always have bought something similar somewhere and its not the role of a university to teach morals.

I want my children taught by ME, because I love them, and I want to nurture them.

Amen!  :D

Deuteronomy 11:19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates,

To get a bit academic for a moment, education can broadly be recognised to have three aims:
1.  To produce good, effective citizens.  (Social)
2.  To produce good, effective workers.  (Economic)
3.  To give the best chance in life to each person (Individual)

Sadly, that's not what is emphasized here in the states that I personally know of! Though there was a time in our history when it was!  :-\

There is no intrinsic reason why that skill cannot be as well taught in a school (state or independent) as at home.

There's no reason that a lot of things couldn't be taught elsewhere - but it's a moot point since they simply are not!

Our schools aren't perfect either, but they've come a fair way from that.  Memorizing facts and skills (beyond a few basics like times tables) is utterly pointless

So your school may be better - but as a parent I want best!

No, indeed it does not.  What it does mean is that, from the evidence given, we simply do not know.  They would (on average) certainly have done much better than the "national average".  Whether or not they would have done better or less well cannot be shown from the statistics.  The stats, therefore, do not show what they claim to show - that homeschooling is better.

My point was that in a lot of cases we DO know! In the cases of 'special' children; we've learned that a different environment can produce multitudes of positive results that could not be seen in a classroom. ADD and ADHD for instance... It often means that medication can be reduced or done away with entirely since the environment that enhances any 'problems' can be controlled! It can also add dignity to a curriculum for a special child that can not be added in a public instituion!

There's a difference between teaching them, and wanting to be their sole influence.

Actually, a common misconception that most have about homeschooling is the whole socialization aspects of it. Who's actually influencing the children that are in school for the 7-9 hour days? Peers, mostly! And to a lesser extent, the teachers they come in contact with! But the classroom setting doesn't provide for much individual interaction with a positive adult influence. So it heads back to the peers! And that in no way prepares for them for the real world! I have NEVER had a job where I worked with people my age only (+/- a year). Yet, throughout school, that's where the children are. Homeschoolers do have the advantage of learning to socialize with people of ALL ages! And I do mean ALL! From infants to the elderly.

On the converse, students are not exposed to the broad range of styles, opinions, etc that they receive in a decent school.

That's simply incorrect! See above... Homeschoolers are, as a rule, out in the community much more! They come into contact with a much wider and more diverse group that staying in a classroom and basing their worldviews on peer-aged examples. Homeschooled children are usually more fluent conversationally with all ages than publically schooled children.

Again, what a stifling attitude.  They not possesions for your personal satisfaction.

Ah, but they are our personal responsibilty!

This sums it up much better than I can:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000068.asp (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000068.asp)

The nude magazines are neither here nor there  

   ::)

*sigh*


- you could always have bought something similar somewhere and its not the role of a university to teach morals.


*sigh* again.   ::)



Well, isn't it kinda nice to go to a highly trained or skilled individual--say a doctor for instance, without getting molested?  

I mean, "molestation" is about "morals", isn't it(or rather, IM-morals)?


     :-\

I'm just seeing this for the forst time now; I can tell you the public schools are laden with agendas. So they will say whatever is necessary to open the public mind to its indoctrination.

You people have made some really great posts about homeschooling. Sincereheart, I love that list you posted. It's very inspiring! :)

To get a bit academic for a moment, education can broadly be recognised to have three aims:
1.  To produce good, effective citizens.  (Social)
2.  To produce good, effective workers.  (Economic)


Well, this is sorta my point...  These two are largely defined by society at large.  It's like sorta using "society" as the yardstick by which I measure my own or my children's success.  Sort of like what Whitehorse is intimating there, with "agenda"?


Perhaps put another way, in view of the Harvard debacle,
then what we're really saying is,

Women going to their Harvard-trained gynechologist won't mind his waiting-room coffee table strewn with the latest porn magazines then?

    ??? :-[

       :-X


Really, though, I'm thinking our schooling and univeristy training has everything to do with morals.  It has to.  No matter how highly skilled someone is, if he hasn't any morals...


    :-[     You have a Joseph Mengele.   :-X


And he and his 24 other highly trained collegues, were all highly skilled??

Yikes.  Just Google "Mengele".    ???

For kids with very significant special needs, I'll go with you 100% - I doubt that there is an educational system anywhere in the world prepared to put the money in to give them what they need.


All kids get that - outside of the classroom.  I wasn't primarily talking about social interaction (although I think kids do need significant time interacting with their peers, in the past schools haven't done a good job of ensuring that interaction was healthy - I spent most of my free time at school trying to avoid being bullied).  I think kids need to be taught by a variety of teachers - you shouldn't underestimate how much influence a good teacher has, despite the sever limitations on the individual time we can spend with each child.  (Although, I think we may be better off here than where you are - aren't class sizes around 40 common in the US - here the limit is 28 and most are around 25.)

There's still only one person - one viewpoint - steering all that.

 
That would make sense, but do you have any evidence that its true?  Comparisons with average public-educated students is not good enough - see my earlier posts.

Absolutely.  When it comes to the crunch it has to be your choice.

Thats more about professional ethics, which is an aspect you'd like to think was within their remit (though I do wonder - there's not much about professional ethics for teachers in an education degree down here).

I don't think the University should be in the business of publishing this sort of stuff, but, at the end of the day, people are exposed to it all the time so I really don't see it as a big deal compared with the other failings I've outlined.

These are defined by society at large.  Ultimately, everythings got an agenda - if people didn't have a purpose in doing something it wouldn't get done.   What evidence do you have of pernitious agendas having a significant and detrimental effect on what happens in your schools?


Why would a gynechologist think that appropriate because of what Harvard are doing, any more than he would think it appropriate because those magazines are available from the newsagent that supplies his newspaper every morning?

I'll agree that people need morals, and that schools need to help provide them - although parents are always the best and most effective teachers of morals.   I don't believe Universities ever have, ever will or ever could.

That isn’t the schools job to teach morals, Ebia is right. Morals are taught in the home. The teacher has the student for a few hours a week, the parents, a few years. If the parents fail to teach the right and wrong, why is that the schools problem?

Actually, I'm not sure if I can show evidence. I'll be glad to try, though, if you are asking because you want to see it as opposed to just asking for the sake of argument (and I don't mean that offensively!). Is it more of a rhetorical statement?

I DO know that for my family, homeschooling has actually opened doors to witnessing! Because my kids are good kids (no, not perfect! ;)), I've had people come up to me and ask questions. Now I even get phone calls from strangers asking about homeschooling. We've had people come over to see how we do it. Etc. Of course, that all started because we are out and about during the course of a 'school day'.

My teen daughter does what we call 'shadowing' about once a month. That is where she 'works' at a local business. She learns what the real world is like and spends time communicating with a variety of people on different levels. Some of the shadowing has been more glamorous than others - LOL! She's learned that she definitely doesn't want to be a waitress and has learned a greater appreciation for them! "Book learning" isn't a problem for her! But a classroom setting can not provide for her the 'extras' that homeschooling does! Nor can it meet her needs individually. She's classified as 'gifted' which can be a good or bad thing! The local schools here provide for that by offering a separate program for ONE hour ONE day a week. Homeschooling provides her the opportunity to go deeper!

My youngest was painfully shy! She's learned to order meals, leave tips (based on the check price), ask for help, and even answer all those questions that a stranger will ask.... ::) And oddly enough, since she hasn't been in a classroom all day; she's better behaved in her extracurricular activities! No, that's not parental prejudice - that's been the observations made.
Oops - got long-winded there. Sorry! :-[

All kids get that - outside of the classroom.  I wasn't primarily talking about social interaction (although I think kids do need significant time interacting with their peers, in the past schools haven't done a good job of ensuring that interaction was healthy - I spent most of my free time at school trying to avoid being bullied).  I think kids need to be taught by a variety of teachers - you shouldn't underestimate how much influence a good teacher has, despite the sever limitations on the individual time we can spend with each child.  (Although, I think we may be better off here than where you are - aren't class sizes around 40 common in the US - here the limit is 28 and most are around 25.)

They were larger. There's been a new movement to reduce the class sizes. I agree that schools haven't done enough in the past to deal with bullies, etc. Here in the US, they still don't! Though it's not been a big problem for my kids, when I was teaching in the classroom I spent quite a bit of time dealing with that! And it was horrendous in Special Ed! The 'regular' children were brutal!

I would never underestimate the influence of a good teacher! But what is a good teacher? Would that list involve one who cares for the child as an individual? And who better as that caring teacher than the child's parent?  :) Why do we think that the child has to have a stranger as that good teacher as opposed to their own parent?  :-\

That isn’t the schools job to teach morals, Ebia is right.
 ??? Ebia said:
I'll agree that people need morals, and that schools need to help provide them - although parents are always the best and most effective teachers of morals.

The teacher has the student for a few hours a week, the parents, a few years.

Here's a really simple test for you..... Count up the hours spent in a regular school day, plus any outside school activities, plus travel time (school bus, etc.). Then add sleep to the list for the average public school student. That would be the time spent with peers. Now subtract that from the 24 hours that God has given us. What does that leave?
I'll give you an example: Here, the bus picks up at 6:30 a.m. and drops the kids off at 4:15 p.m. That = 9 H 45 M. Add what? 9 hours sleep? That goes up to 18 H 45 M. Let's be cautious and add only 1 hour a day spent on outside activities (for the younger that might be playing with friends, older might be after-school activities - whatever). That comes to 19 H 45 M. That leaves 4 H and 15 M that the child is directly influenced by the parents. Of course, out of that time the child will be doing homework, etc. so that total time is not directly influenced by the parents.

But just back to the time directly spent with peers = 9H 45M
The time directly spent with family  =                       4H 15 M
More time IS spent with peers! Logic would dictate that who you spend the most time with is who would have the most effect on you.

I may have wrote this quote in another thread, if so, I apologize. It is however, worth repeating!

"The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense."  Karl Marx 1848

It all boils down to who will raise your child? The atheist marxist public schools? Christian Schools? or the parent? Do you want a walking talking robot that has been reared in the public reeducation camps? Or a child who can think critically and biblically?

Symphony and Sincereheart you both have made some excellent points.

Psalms 119

Thank you, Psalm119.  
"The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense."  Karl Marx 1848

Ouch!  :-X

Over here (and in England) schools do organise work experience things.  The limitation tends to be on the number of kids that suitable businesses can take and deal with properly.

Sadly, here in the US it's different! There are high school organizations that kids can join that basically allows them to go to school part-time and work part-time while getting credit for it. I saw more of the job training in Special Education. The kids would go in to local restaurants before they were open and help set up the linens, tables, etc.
But I do see that the sheer number of students would limit the availability of offering it for all.

Well,
1. not all parents would be good teachers.
2. not all parents are skilled up in all the areas
3. like I said, even if you are a very good teacher, I still think kids benifit from a variety of teachers, and thats one thing you can't provide.

To be fair, not all teachers are good teachers! And percentage-wise I'm just not sure how many teachers that a child encounters in their span of a school career would be considered 'good', either! And if you do find that 'good' teacher, that's usually for a year. But in that same year, they may have others that do more damage than good! And a teacher that IS 'good' still has a personality. And no matter how much they try to remain detached, there are just some kids that annoy them and some they just like more than others.

No, a parent is not skilled in all the areas. They don't have to be! Is every PE teacher qualified to teach dance or Karate (for example)? No. But can a child still learn them? Of course.
History is my weak spot. I don't like history! But I've actually enjoyed it since we've begun homeschooling and I've learned WITH my kids. They've seen that you're never too old to learn and that you're never too old to enjoy learning! I also have no problem with saying that I just don't know -but let's find out! My point is that there are ways around it!

What homeschool can do for a child that traditional schooling can not is let them find out their interests (i.e. strengths) and run with them. A school must, by it's organizational set-up, limit that. They can try to give a child a balanced education but they will lack in some areas. They either won't cover every interest a child might have, or lack the depth in an area that a child would need.

As for a variety of teachers, I'd agree that they need a variety of people - and choosing which adults influence my child is of particular importance to me. The activities I listed are intended to also put them in contact with a wide variety not limited by the walls of a classroom!

What evidence do you have that public school are marxist, or churning out robots?

Public schools are far from perfect, but I see little evidence of either of those two faults.

I've seen some pretty poor teachers, but I don't think I've seen any that do more damage than good.  Certainly those are few on the ground.


So they should have.  Who you are as a teacher is at least as important as the material you teach.


So?  Even if I do a slightly better job for the kids I like (something I try to avoid, but probably fall into a little), does it matter, so long as I do a good job for ALL the kids I teach?

Thats true to an extent - even teachers work like that some of the time, especially in shortage subjects like I.T., but if you want to teach mathematics well, for example, beyond a basic level you need to be pretty fluent in maths or you WILL be teaching misconceptions (plenty of maths textbooks actually have some quite appallingly wrong mathematics).  If you want to teach science properly, you have to have a pretty good grasp of scientific principles, etc.  You don't need all the detail, but for these sorts of subjects, you do need a really firm understanding of the underlying stuff, and preferably good training in where students aquire misconceptions and how they can be avoided.


Perfectly true.   I've accepted that homeschooling's strength is differentiation.

But they are relatively limited - your influence is overwhelming compared to that of any other individual involved - and those people are all chosen by you and presumably have similar views.   IMO, you have to take the risk of exposing them to people and views you don't agree with, and without giving yourself the chance to try and counter their views, if children are really going to learn to think and discriminate for themselves.

These are defined by society at large  'Xactly.  'Sorta my point.   ;)

Ultimately, everythings got an agenda  Boy, tell me about it!

What evidence do you have of pernitious agendas having a significant and detrimental effect on what happens in your schools?

Huh?   Um....*Columbine" comes to mind...??

A student in one high school was recently suspended from announcing because he closed with "God Bless".  Federal courts are forbidding "one nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance.   It's okay to use God or Jesus as an expletive, but not teach about Him...     :-X

I don't believe Universities ever have, ever will or ever could.


...teach morals.    Um, that's what they were about in the first place--separating truth from error.  That's what brought us out of the superstitious Dark Ages.  That's what morals are.  Separating truth from error.  Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Life.   ;D

Tibby:  That isn’t the schools job to teach morals, Ebia is right.

That's very convenient, Tibby.   ::)   It's every teacher's job to teach morals--in the way they talk, in whom they marry, in how they act.  
 
If the parents fail to teach the right and wrong, why is that the schools problem?

It's everybody's "problem", Tibby.  That's why homosexuality, is everybody's "problem".  It's not "only" the teacher's problem, of course.

ebia:  like I said, even if you are a very good teacher, I still think kids benifit from a variety of teachers, and thats one thing you can't provide.

Yes, use to, the exposure was probably good.  I don't see it today.  I don't see being exposed to what teachers are "representing", today, is at all good.  Fortunately, the smart kids, or even the dumb ones, can usually see through it.  Actually, it's the smart ones who don't see through it.  Because the school is too busy pumping up their egos, so they're blinded to the whole socialistic agenda that they're gradually being indoctrinated into.  If you'll notice, you don't dare disagree with the general agenda of any public school, these days...   They can be fairly unforgiving.  I'm beginning to wonder if "the Beast" in America isn't making it's way primarily in through the doors of our public schools--the occupants are the most vulnerable, and easily programmed.

Sincereheart: As for a variety of teachers, I'd agree that they need a variety of people - and choosing which adults influence my child is of particular importance to me

Yes, selectivity is important, if possible.



Psalm 119:  I may have wrote this quote in another thread,

AARRRGG!!   Oh, Psalm, I'm gonna have to bust you for this one.  "Wrote"!  Argh.  Oh, the grammar.  Oh.......Off to Jail Psalm must go, Psalm must go, Psalm must go....BUSTED!!  :-X :-\

Ooo, but the Marx quote.  Thank you, Psalm.  That illustrates the whole point, I think, increasingly worldwide.  Okay, that'll get you off the hook, THIS time.   :-\

the public reeducation camps?   Oooo, yes, I'm afraid that's true.  

Symphony and Sincereheart you both have made some excellent points.  

Thanks, Mom!   ;D


ebia.... :-\  


    ???

Not really - I was posting them AS society's definitions (though I probably didn't say so explicitly).

Ultimately, everythings got an agenda  Boy, tell me about it!

What evidence do you have of pernitious agendas having a significant and detrimental effect on what happens in your schools?

Ok, this is an American thing, and I think it's ridiculous, BUT saying you can't promote your religion in school (which is what he could be seen to be doing over a public announcement) is not the end of the world.

You know as well as I do, that doesn't reflect the reality.


& I never said what Tibby implied I said.  I do think it's our job to teach morals, but I don't think we are the main teachers of morals.
 
ebia:  like I said, even if you are a very good teacher, I still think kids benifit from a variety of teachers, and thats one thing you can't provide.

Either America is the worst country in the world in which to live and bring up kids, (but does a very good job of hiding it from the rest of the world), or you badly need to see a doctor about your paranoia.

But they are relatively limited - your influence is overwhelming compared to that of any other individual involved - and those people are all chosen by you and presumably have similar views.

Honestly, our influence as parents is overwhelming - as is our responsibilty to our children! That's one of the bonuses of homeschooling! And I don't mean this offensively but I might have said more of the same before I had children. I'm guessing that you don't have any? But whether or not you agree that it should be might be a different story. I will say that I think this part of a discussion would need to be narrowed down by age levels... The teen that is shadowing comes into a much wider array of people than the seven-year old. She is also much more widely traveled than the youngest. She does visit family members all over the US and flies unaccompanied - though extra is paid to make sure she is met, etc. In time, the youngest will, too. But not until she is ready and as parents, it's up to us to make that distinction.

IMO, you have to take the risk of exposing them to people and views you don't agree with, and without giving yourself the chance to try and counter their views, if children are really going to learn to think and discriminate for themselves.
Agreed (see above) as long as it is a controlled risk!

Thats true to an extent - even teachers work like that some of the time, especially in shortage subjects like I.T., but if you want to teach mathematics well, for example, beyond a basic level you need to be pretty fluent in maths or you WILL be teaching misconceptions (plenty of maths textbooks actually have some quite appallingly wrong mathematics).  If you want to teach science properly, you have to have a pretty good grasp of scientific principles, etc.  You don't need all the detail, but for these sorts of subjects, you do need a really firm understanding of the underlying stuff, and preferably good training in where students aquire misconceptions and how they can be avoided.


I don't doubt that you're a good teacher. But in all fairness, are you a good enough teacher to meet every individual math need of all your students? Do you know each student well enough to know what kind of math they need now and will need in the future? Will some have no desire to go to college and therefore need a more practical math? Can you be sure they have the basic math skills to balance a checkbook while making sure they have the college preparation math needed to succeed in college? Can you cover interest rates and the differences in their calculations while making sure they grasp polynominals?

Here in the US the kids decide which to take in high school. Some opt for Algebra 1 and 2 followed by Trigonometry. Others, take General Mathematics. Those that have no intention of going to college will take the General. Those who take General and then change their minds closer to graduation don't have enough time to catch-up. Does that mean that they no longer can attend college?

But I do get your point and would like to mention that a parent that homeschools has to be more creative at times. And a parent that homeschools is more likely to be willing to. They have homeschooling co-ops where they meet as a group and the one who has specific knowledge can teach it while another parent may share their expertise. That's one example. The same teenager I mentioned has been blessed with an ability to sing and uses it as a mission field. I make a joyful noise- with the emphasis being on noise. So if I enroll her here in the schools her choice of music is either Chorus or Band. Now neither of the two would harm her; however, they also don't help her with her specific interests. So what can we do? If I'm not musically trained, does that mean I'm short-changing her in some way? Or does that mean that I have to be more creative in meeting her interests/needs?

So?  Even if I do a slightly better job for the kids I like (something I try to avoid, but probably fall into a little), does it matter, so long as I do a good job for ALL the kids I teach?

Yes, I think so. Usually the children that are the least likeable are the ones that most need the extra. And a lot of children are sensitive enough to pick up on it no matter how well hidden a teacher may think it is. I know I was guilty of leaning towards the underdogs. The spoiled, arrogant ones annoyed me, no matter how well I tried to deceive!  :-X

So they should have.  Who you are as a teacher is at least as important as the material you teach.

Agreed! Now if it could only be guaranteed that they would each have the personality that every individual student needed at the time they needed it.... ;)
I remember many of my teachers.... Some good, some not so good. The ones I liked; I remember most fondly. Ironically, one of my favorites was a high school History teacher. He was a unique individual who knew more about History than any textbook. Sadly, he was the most boring (IMO)! He contributed to the fact that I hated History! Was he a bad teacher? Not at all! He just didn't teach History in a way that appealed to me! But I will always remember his cowboy boots! And the fact that he was also a rancher. My point is that no matter how good he was, and no matter how well he knew his subject, he couldn't meet the needs of every student in that class.

I've seen some pretty poor teachers, but I don't think I've seen any that do more damage than good.  Certainly those are few on the ground.
Based on the perspective of an adult - not a hormonal teen! ;) I'd say that an adult's requirements for a good teacher and a child's are entirely different! And somewhere in the middle is probably the truth!

Either America is the worst country in the world in which to live and bring up kids, (but does a very good job of hiding it from the rest of the world),
Or... it's a wonderfully diverse place with schools that are sadly lacking in too many areas!  ;)

You know it's fairly recent idea that we must give our children over to strangers to 'raise'; that these strangers can do a better job than the parents. My goal as a parent is to prepare my children for college and for the world. And taking them back from strangers just makes more sense to me.

No one questions whether or not a parent can meet the nutritional needs of a child. They don't question whether or not I have the fashion sense required to dress them. They don't even question whether or not we have too many kids or even not enough. But if I care enough about my children to provide what's needed for them, why shouldn't I also be able to provide that for them educationally? Just a thought~

And I wonder if Thomas Edison's mother was 'smart' enough to homeschool him? Since the school system thought he was stupid causing his mother to pull him out; how did he progress to the point he did if his mother wasn't trained in Electrical Engineering or Science or Math?

Well, thank you, sincereheart, and ebia, and Psalm.

I don't doubt teaching is a difficult task.  From reading your posts.

It's not easy work.  A lot to think about...

In the end, we're comparing the inadequacies in each system, and we can keep on forever.  If you're the perfect parent-teacher, or you have access to the perfect school with perfect teachers, then the choice is clear.  In practice, neither is going to be the case, and you have to way up the advantages & disadvantages of each in your situation.  That's your call as a parent, and so long as you are up to the task (many are not) homeschooling is a fair enough call.

Some people are just so naturally brilliant they thrive without a decent educator.  Gauss survived an appallingly bad schoolmaster and demostrated his mathematical brilliance at the age of 7.  Ramujan progressed to doctorate level maths with no outside help whatsoever.    Remarkable cases are interesting, but they don't prove a lot.

Symphony,

Yes, you busted me for poor grammar! What can I say? I'm a product of the public government education system. It has been hard to teach this old dog new tricks.

Psalm 119

In practice, neither is going to be the case, and you have to way up the advantages & disadvantages of each in your situation.

"...way up..."

Unless in Australia it's a local custom, isn't it "...weigh up..."?

 
   ???


    *Sigh*


(http://drudgereport.com/siren.gif)


poor ebia.  Off to jail.    :'( :'(
 

 
    hehe  ;)

I guess that's what happens when you type in a hurry before dashing off to school.

In the end, we're comparing the inadequacies in each system, and we can keep on forever.

Valid point. The only major difference being that in any school system they either can't or won't make changes needed for one student. In homeschooling, we can! Any inadequacies can be compensated for!

But thank you for the discussion! I enjoyed it!


Yes, you busted me for poor grammar! What can I say? I'm a product of the public government education system. It has been hard to teach this old dog new tricks.
ROFL!
 

Good article...for those who homeschool...as well as the rest of us.

As Christian home educators, we have recognized that our first area of ministry is within our own homes. We know that although we may not be able to reach the whole world, we certainly are responsible before God to be faithful stewards over whatever is within our own jurisdiction, which according to Scripture beings with ourselves and own households. The warning and teaching in wisdom that we do, like charity, begins at home. The first persons whom we want to present mature in Christ are ourselves and our children. Excellence in that sphere then qualifies us to serve in a larger arena, as a household devoted to ministry. If we are Christ's ambassadors, then our homes are his embassies. This is a most important concept in Christian home education.

It is too easy for us to get bogged down in the immediate and necessary concerns (how to teach math or spelling) while losing sight of the eternal, benefits of training our children for Christ. Though school subjects are very important, in the eternal scheme of things it may not matter whether our children learn Latin and trigonometry. However, it certainly will matter that we have ministered Christ to them and equipped them to minister, as well.

      The life of Christ within us is a treasure. The gifts and callings we hold in trust from God are treasures. Our children are treasures, and our vision of raising them for Him is a treasure. These precious treasures are worth cherishing and developing.

      However, since we and our children inhabit earthen vessels, we find many occasions to fall short. If we expect perfect performance, in them, or in ourselves, we most surely will be frustrated and disappointed. We can only strive for excellence, not absolute perfection, and even then whatever excellence we achieve must be of God and not of mere human effort. This process of pressing toward the mark requires our total and continual dependence on the Lord. Without Him we can do nothing, but through Christ we can do all things - even raise and educate godly children in the 1990's.  The task calls for high standards and bended knees.- (I like that!)

http://winn.com/whee/TreasureEarthenVessels.html

Great article! Thanks!

~The life of Christ within us is a treasure. The gifts and callings we hold in trust from God are treasures. Our children are treasures, and our vision of raising them for Him is a treasure. These precious treasures are worth cherishing and developing.~

Amen!