Homeschool

[ebia]

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"?

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?

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?

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?

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...

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.

[Tibby]

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...

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?

[sincereheart]

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

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.

[ebia]

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

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?

You can try if you like, but it was largely rhetorical because I don't believe you can.  Not because you are necessarly wrong, but because I don't see how the necessary data could reasonably be collected.

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'.

It sounds like you are a success story in the field.  I certainly wouldn't deny that homeschooling works well for some - I could also give details of friends for whom its been a mistake.

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!

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.

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!

Differentiated curriculum is, of course, homeschooling's strongest argument - there is no way I can provide the kind of differentiated work for my kids that you can.

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.

Again, schools do organise this sort of stuff here - probably not as much of it as you do, that's a practical limitiation of how many the business can deal with properly.  In a sense (& I'm not having a go) you're queue jumping.  

Oops - got long-winded there. Sorry!

's ok

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 dare say.   Bullying isn't easy to deal with, and needs a school where everyone is truely committed to dealing with it.

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?  

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.

[Psalm 119]

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

[sincereheart]

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!  

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!

[ebia]

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

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.

[ebia]

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!

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.

And a teacher that IS 'good' still has a personality.

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

[Symphony]

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...    

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.  

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!!  

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!  


ebia....  


   

[ebia]

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

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?

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...    

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.

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.  

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

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.  

& 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.

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.

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.

[sincereheart]

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!  

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?

[Symphony]

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...

[ebia]

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.

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?

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.

[Psalm 119]

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

[Symphony]

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*





poor ebia.  Off to jail.    
 

 
    hehe