Homeschool

[Reba]

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."    

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...

[Symphony]

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.

     

[ebia]

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/

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

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'...  

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.

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.

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

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.

Exactly.  See above.  This makes the stats invalid.

But it doesn't mean that the kids would do just as well in any system.

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.

Some parents literally have no choice, it seems.

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.

[ebia]

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 find this attitude frighteningly close to brainwashing.

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.

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

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."    

's going to happen eventually.

[Symphony]

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?  

[ebia]

I find this attitude frighteningly close to brainwashing.


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

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

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?

Just because I voice objection to one extream, doesn't mean I support the other extream.  Children are people - they aren't anyone's posessions.   If I believed the state had a right to indocrinate children, then I'd presumably work in a state school, insteading of supporting parents' right to choose by working in a Christian (Catholic) school.

I don't have a problem with homeschooling if its for the right reasons, wanting to keep them from every viewpoint you disagree with is not a good reason.

Hon Rosie seems to have wholesome objectives for her family, ebia.  What's wrong with running your family the way you see fit.  

Nothing.  I'd back her right to do so.  But I'm also entitled to voice my concerns with her motives and/or means if she chooses to post them in a public forum.

Since when do the progeny of my body belong to someone else?  

I never said they did - you're reading an agenda into my posts that simply isn't there.

[Symphony]

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.  

[ebia]

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.

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.

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.  

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[sincereheart]

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

Amen!  

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!

[sincereheart]

This sums it up much better than I can:

In the public school system, children are socialized horizontally, and temporarily, into conformity with their immediate peers. Home educators seek to socialize their children vertically, toward responsibility, service, and adulthood, with an eye on eternity. ~T. Smedley

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

[Symphony]

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)?


     

[Whitehorse]

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!

[Symphony]

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?

   

       


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.  


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

Yikes.  Just Google "Mengele".    

[ebia]

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!

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

 

Homeschooled children are usually more fluent conversationally with all ages than publically schooled children.

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.

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

Ah, but they are our personal responsibilty!

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

[ebia]

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)?
     

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.