Home schooling in CA [Archive] - Lounge of Tomorrow

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 06:42 AM

While my kids go to private school, I am a big supporter and advocate of home schooling as well.

While I do not completely know all of the aspects of the case, I am concerned about this.

If a parent does not have a college degree and a teaching certificate, they are deemed unworthy to teach their own children. I find this law (which admittedly has been around on the books for quite a while, but only recently a child welfare case made this a headline issue) to be troublesome. One example of a concerned parent in CA is a woman with a law degree but no teaching credentials. She is not worthy or able to home school her children????

Here's what really, really got me, though.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs' two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law.

"They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor," she said. "If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers."

Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."

Am I misreading that? A duty to ensure their ongoing safety? As if a parent home schooling their own child does not have that as a higher priority than a public education system? I've seen some pretty brutal public schools, and I can be certain that 99% of the time a home schooling parent is just a bit more concerned about the safety of their child than the teachers or administrators.

Am I making more of this than it is? Does anyone else see a problem here?

Cadaverous Pallor

03-10-2008, 07:33 AM

Where did you get the quote? I believe it's in reference to a case involving a homeschool "cooperative" where the "teacher" abused the kids. Hence the concern with safety.

Why a parent would trust someone who has no credentials to teach their kids is baffling to me.

As for the rest of the issue - I don't have time for a longer post at the moment.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 07:43 AM

It was not a homeschool cooperative, it was a family that was homeschooling and being accused of abuse. The person who gave the highlighted quote, you'll notice, is from the "Children's Law Center", a county agency that deals with, among other things, child abuse. So the case became a matter of accountability and oversight and therefore tangented into the area of homeschooling. Whether you agree with the eventual ruling or not, that IS the chief concern of the agency Ms. Heimov works for and I see nothing wrong with her statement.

As for the ruling itself, she's got a point. According to the letter of the law, it's hard to see how homeschooling can be allowed. They've skirted the issue thus far by basically saying that homeschools are de facto private schools, but that's a pretty flimsy interpretation. That law may need to change, but as it stands, I can't find much fault in the judge's reading of it.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 08:05 AM

Agreed, GD, on the ruling. My problem is with the law. I doubt that it will be overturned in CA any time soon.

swanie

03-10-2008, 08:27 AM

Agreed, GD, on the ruling. My problem is with the law. I doubt that it will be overturned in CA any time soon.

According to an article in Time Magazine...

"Every California child deserves a quality education and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children," Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement today. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will."

Hopefully they will act sooner than later. With all of the education budget cuts going into effect in California, I doubt they need the system to take on nearly 200,000 kids right now.

swanie

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 08:29 AM

That's good to know. However, I think the teacher's unions are not going to allow it to be changed easily.

Strangler Lewis

03-10-2008, 08:40 AM

A school is a school is a school, so what, if any oversight of home schooling would you favor besides expressed good intentions?

swanie

03-10-2008, 08:48 AM

That's good to know. However, I think the teacher's unions are not going to allow it to be changed easily.

Oh no, they have "applauded" the ruling. Arnold has had no problem in going toe to toe with the union before, so I hope he doesn't back down now. Frankly, I can't believe the teacher's union hasn't challenge the enforcement of the law before (even though they weren't the ones to do so this time). It seems pretty black and white to me.

Honestly, I can't imagine home schooling my kids and I don't believe it is the best fit for everyone. But that being said, I've seen many circumstances where it can and does work. I know several families here in AZ that do it and do it well. Unless California can offer parents more choice, they can't eliminate the right for parents to take education into their own hands.

BarTopDancer

03-10-2008, 08:49 AM

I think that home school educators should be required to prove knowledge, or the ability to teach the subjects required. How many of us remember 7th grade math? And how many of us would be able to teach it to our children?

Our education system is in a state of crisis. We're doing our children a great disservice by not teaching them the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed in this world. To function with people from other countries.

I have nothing against homeschooling. But homeschooling educators should be able to teach and understand the subjects that they are covering.

Alex

03-10-2008, 08:55 AM

There is quality homeschooling. Then there is homeschooling that is designed explicitly to make sure the children are not actually educated (so that they aren't tainted by the horrors of actual science, actual history, or the concept the maybe God isn't actively involved in every little thing). The libertarian in me cringes at preventing homeschooling. The human in me cringes at the impact the miseducated boobs will eventually have on society.

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 09:13 AM

I agree on the God stuff, but I have a hard time imagining that even those people can't turn out a kid more educated than he/she would be in a public school.

As a homeschooler, with a lot of homeschooling friends, I'm somewhat biased on this issue (as are all of us, apparently). I think the vast majority of the time a homeschooling parent is more concerned about thier child's education than a public schooling parent. I mean, you have to be. Homeschooling is tons of work, and I see why some don't want to do it.

I don't think you need to remember all the subjects that a school teaches in order to homeschool. You relearn things as you go, you get tutors or join co-ops for the things that you aren't great with, etc. I think the reality is that most homeschoolers will be much more advanced in some subjects and less in others than their public schooled peers. It isn't the sort of education that fits in a box like public school does. I, for one, think that's a good thing.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 09:16 AM

Our education system is in a state of crisis.

So therefore we should force home schoolers into the government run system?

I don't remember a whole lot of trig. My 8th grade pre algebra daughter is doing basic trig functions. I relearn it, help her with it.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 09:18 AM

I think the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that people who are homeschooling have their sh*t together. I'm just not sure of the best way to accomplish that without trampling rights.

BarTopDancer

03-10-2008, 09:39 AM

So therefore we should force home schoolers into the government run system?

That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that homeschool educators should have to be able to prove they are qualified to teach the subjects, or provide someone who can. I am not saying that they should have to have a teaching degree, just that they have knowledge on the subjects.

Strangler Lewis

03-10-2008, 10:07 AM

I think the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that people who are homeschooling have their sh*t together. I'm just not sure of the best way to accomplish that without trampling rights.

I don't know that I see a huge rights question here. If there is one, it's no different than the one that comes with the requirement of a basic education or with child labor laws. If some black single mom said that she needed to take her twelve year old daughter out of school to take care of her younger siblings so that she could work, we/the government would say no. If a coal mining family in Indiana said that it needed to take their twelve year old son out of school to work in the mines to make ends meet, we/the government would say no. In both situations, the government would be acting to ensure that the kid is not deprived of an education. We/the government have the same duty with respect to home schooling.

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 10:40 AM

There's a basic assumption here that I would like to challenge. Not all people need to know the same things. I remember almost nothing of 95% of what I learned in school. Yet I'm functioning in our society quite well. My husband hated school and did poorly in it, but he spent all of his spare time messing around with computers. Ta-da! Good job as a computer guy. If a homeschooled kid spends 98% of their time on art and only 2% on "basic subjects," what does it matter as long as he can provide for himself as an adult? It isn't like there is some age cutoff where we must stop learning. If an adult feels they were shorted in math by school or their parents or whatever they can always learn it on their own.

My kids are really young so we haven't yet run across any challenges that I haven't been able to meet with the help of the internet. But we don't teach in any formal way. We expose them to a lot of life and as many interesting things as we can and they learn. Humans learn. It's what we do. The only way to dampen that natural tendency is by forcing kids to learn what they have no interest in or simply aren't ready for.

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 10:41 AM

Also, I'm really fond of this (http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/unschooling.shtml) article about our education system.

Strangler Lewis

03-10-2008, 10:51 AM

If a homeschooled kid spends 98% of their time on art and only 2% on "basic subjects," what does it matter as long as he can provide for himself as an adult? It isn't like there is some age cutoff where we must stop learning. If an adult feels they were shorted in math by school or their parents or whatever they can always learn it on their own.

The things I learn or relearn best as an adult--be they language, music, or physical/hand-eye coordination things--are things in which I acquired some basic competency as a child or youth when these things are most easily learned. The idea of a child spending only two percent of his school day on reading and math strikes me as a recipe for failure. Some tendencies are to be encouraged. Some are to be overcome.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 11:00 AM

I've been homeschooling for the past five years. (I do happen to have a college education, and my MIL is a teacher. ) I know a lot of homeschooled kids and they are all very advanced academically. Most graduate with their high school and two-year college degrees, as kids are allowed to start junior college when they are 16 here. The daughter of a friend of mine started at Gonzaga University as a junior this year- she's 18. (She's in their accounting program, and doing great).

As far as teaching subjects, what subjects I know I teach, and any others I can learn about beforehand or hire a tutor. (You'd all be surprised how many teachers stay up late to cram for subjects they have to teach the next day, btw.) My MIL is a teacher, but she taught 2nd grade and the Girl passed her up long ago, so I do nearly all her teaching and I decide on the curriculum. Our state's Office of the Superintendent (OSPI) very clearly lays out the learning requirements per grade level, and homeschooling resources are the same- and sometimes better- than the public school's.

This ruling in California will force the lawmakers to corrective action, of that I have no doubt. The homeschooling movement is too strong now, and public schools couldn't handle the influx of kids (particularly special needs kids) if they were to disallow it.

Kevy Baby

03-10-2008, 11:01 AM

There's a basic assumption here that I would like to challenge. Not all people need to know the same things. I remember almost nothing of 95% of what I learned in school.I challenge your 95% figure. It is probably a lot closer to 50%. So many things that you probably take for granted are somehow based in direct things you learned in school (for example, problem solving skills) as well as indirectly (for example, working as a part of a team).

I believe that the single most important thing that people learn in school is how to learn. You aren't going to acquire that skill by focusing all of your energies on one thing.

Also, education needs to be well rounded. In addition to core competencies (reading, writing, Arithmetic), art, music, and physical education are also important. Just because one may never become a scientist does not mean that one does not need to learn the sciences.

I'll bet your husband, "who did poorly in school" probably learned a lot more than he is giving credit to. For example, I'll bet he picked up a lot of math in school and I wouldn't be surprised if it were one of his better subjects (or at least "least bad").

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 11:05 AM

I understand what you are saying, but so far we find so much reading and math in everyday life that the thought of sitting down and "teaching" these things is absurd. We don't have a school day (and never will as far as I can predict) but whatever amount of math life brings us is how much time we spend with it. As it happens, this is quite a bit. Granted, it takes more effort to incorporate higher math into everyday life as kids get older, but it is certainly possible.

As far as the law is concerned, the only thing that should matter with regards to education is that a person can support themselves. From a legal standpoint it shouldn't matter whether a person spends all their time on art or all their time on math, provided that they aren't a burden to other taxpayers later in life.

Strangler Lewis

03-10-2008, 11:09 AM

As far as the law is concerned, the only thing that should matter with regards to education is that a person can support themselves. From a legal standpoint it shouldn't matter whether a person spends all their time on art or all their time on math, provided that they aren't a burden to other taxpayers later in life.

Then you agree we shouldn't have child labor laws.

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 11:13 AM

I challenge your 95% figure. It is probably a lot closer to 50%. So many things that you probably take for granted are somehow based in direct things you learned in school (for example, problem solving skills) as well as indirectly (for example, working as a part of a team).

Nothing that I couldn't have learned by playing and exploring and being with other kids.

I believe that the single most important thing that people learn in school is how to learn. You aren't going to acquire that skill by focusing all of your energies on one thing.

I think this is the one skill that most people unlearn in school. Nobody taught you how to walk, talk, etc. You learned it by absorbing it from your surroundings. Humans are innately learners. Most people experience a high level of shutdown in school.

Also, education needs to be well rounded. In addition to core competencies (reading, writing, Arithmetic), art, music, and physical education are also important. Just because one may never become a scientist does not mean that one does not need to learn the sciences.

I would question the assumption that education needs to be any one thing other than fulfilling to the recipient, but if life is well rounded, and that's what you are learning from, then education certainly will be as well. I would stipulate that it is so much easier to have a well rounded mind if you aren't in school. Schools barely have time and resources for the basics.

I'll bet your husband, "who did poorly in school" probably learned a lot more than he is giving credit to. For example, I'll bet he picked up a lot of math in school and I wouldn't be surprised if it were one of his better subjects (or at least "least bad").

I would bet otherwise. I'm not saying that he, or I, learned nothing throughout our school days. What I'm saying is that we could have learned all of that stuff more easily and with a higher retention rate without school.

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 11:15 AM

Then you agree we shouldn't have child labor laws.

I'm not sure how saying that as far as the law is concerned the purpose of education is to produce functional adults is the same as saying there should be nothing to protect kids from child labor.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 11:16 AM

I don't know about California, but budget cuts have decimated the music, PE, after school sports and extra-curricular activities, art and other programs here in Washington. Ironically, it's largely due to the WASL, which is our state's attempt to adhere to the NCLB act. It's an incredibly expensive and very high-stakes test that has everybody in the public school system hating life right now. Tons of kids have just dropped out (No Child Left Behind really means only gifted and non-special needs kids will meet the graduation requirements, and those who drop out are not counted) and the school districts are only too happy to refer any kids who might drop their scores or prove a drain on their resources to the Homeschool programs.

Our state does have oversight and basic requirements for homeschool teachers. Besides, wasn't NCLB created to address the failing public schools? If they were doing such a bang-up job, why pass such a law?

Strangler Lewis

03-10-2008, 11:21 AM

I'm not sure how saying that as far as the law is concerned the purpose of education is to produce functional adults is the same as saying there should be nothing to protect kids from child labor.

I thought your premises are that parental choices about how family business is conducted should be deferred to and that a child's interests in shaping how his formative years are spent should be deferred to. If the child would prefer to spend his day as a chimney sweep or a blacksmith's apprentice--rather than studying reading, math or art--and the family would have it so, why should the government intervene?

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 11:26 AM

I don't think anyone is claiming homeschooling has no value. However, the state has a vested interest in having a populace that is educated to some degree. To ensure that, oversight of some nature is required. At the base level, there are 2 models for achieving that. Either require some level of testing for the students (e.g. GED exam), or try to ensure that those doing the teaching are "qualified".

The pitfall of option 1 is that it often means catching issues too late. By the time they are testing, kids can already be behind and have missed critical learning periods. As Strangler pointed out, there are some well known developmental stages that are best for learning certain things. Missing those phases can have long lasting effects on a child's learning ability.

The pitfall of option 2 is that it does beg the question of what exactly defines "qualified", and there's no easy answer to that. It would certainly squeeze out a lot (not all, but a lot) of non-traditional options.

Option 2 has advantages, though. It mitigates the pitfall of option 1 in that it provides reasonable assurance that they'll be getting good info from the start, rather then finding out too late that they're missing things.

I remember almost nothing of 95% of what I learned in school.I'd venture to guess that's not true. That's a perception caused by misrepresentation of the role of education. Any good teacher will tell you that education is less about facts than about learning how to interact with the world. Facts and tests are there as useful tools to gage progress, but most people have lost sight of the real purpose of education. You may have forgotten 95% of the specifics, however the basics of critical thinking that you received through your education are there whether you like it or not. This is why I, and most real educators, detest "No Child Left Behind." The focus is on factual regurgitation, not critical thinking.

BarTopDancer

03-10-2008, 11:28 AM

NCLB is a giant clusterfvck.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 11:38 AM

For the record, NCLB was written by big time liberal Ted Kennedy. Many people try to pin this on Bush, and this is what happens when trying to reach across the aisle. Anyway.....

Ciritical thinking is great and I agree should be the goal, but I believe that far too often bias comes in and when a student comes to a conclusion through critical thought that the teacher doesn't agree with....well, grades can suffer. Too often critical thought means thinking the way the teacher wants you to or coming to the same conclusion as the teacher. Indoctrination by government agencies is not a good thing.

Facts do, however have their place. There isn't a lot of critical thinking in locating France on a map or finding 8 times 7. Facts are important as well.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 11:44 AM

Facts do, however have their place. There isn't a lot of critical thinking in locating France on a map or finding 8 times 7. Facts are important as well.Knowing what 8x7 is is well and good, but what good does it do if you are comparing, say, prices of different sized packages at the grocery store and can't even figure out that 8x7 is what you're supposed to be solving for? And how is knowing where to point on a globe at France useful if you can't comprehend the local and world impact of France building troops up along their border with Blegium?

Facts do have their place, however they are means to an end, they are not the most important component of education.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 11:47 AM

GD- just so you know: Here in Spokane School district 81, a child has to be at least two years behind to receive any remedial services. Attending public school is no guarantee that the needs will be identified in a timely manner, let alone addressed in the same.

Strangler Lewis

03-10-2008, 11:47 AM

Ciritical thinking is great and I agree should be the goal, but I believe that far too often bias comes in and when a student comes to a conclusion through critical thought that the teacher doesn't agree with....well, grades can suffer. Too often critical thought means thinking the way the teacher wants you to or coming to the same conclusion as the teacher. Indoctrination by government agencies is not a good thing.

Since government agencies are, at least theoretically, our proxies, it depends on what's being indoctrinated. Civics, civility, patriotism are commonly indoctrinated in our schools.

As to the larger point, clearly, students should not be punished for attempting to defend unpopular positions in a persuasive manner. What is the home schooling alternative that you envision? More openminded approaches to analytical writing or simply indoctrination of different ideas?

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 12:01 PM

Good question, Strangler.

Being that teaching often includes value judgements of events or facts themselves, it seems to be the right of parents to protect their children from value indoctrination that they would deem as harmful. Often times NOT including value judgements is a statement in and of itself. These are not the children of the state, they are minors in the care of their parents.

So yes, I agree that indoctrination through opinions and methodologies and body language or tone of voice or whatever will take place when there is education. If I object to the values my child is picking up in the government schools I should have the right to pull that child out and teach that child myself.

Morrigoon

03-10-2008, 12:09 PM

I think I agree with requiring a college degree, but a teaching certificate might be a bit much (odd as that seems). I could see requiring a one-semester course in teaching that the parent can do before, or concurrent to, starting to teach their child.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 12:20 PM

katiesue

03-10-2008, 12:52 PM

Traci - what happens when the kid who's been doing art for 90% of their time decides they need to go to college for whatever reason. College degrees are almost manditory for many jobs, even things like receptionists. If you don't have a degree on your resume they don't even bother. So if they go to college how to they catch up on things like math and science which would be required courses? I'm just curious.

Scaeagles - Personally I want my child to understand that other people have values different than my own. Seeing and understanding that will, I hope, help her to choose her own values. And some may be different than mine.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 12:58 PM

All I have to do is look at my kid, and I can tell by her expression if she is 'getting' the material being taught. If not, I simply re-state it in terms that I think she will understand. This is not something one can expect a teacher to do when they have so many other students to deal with at the same time. However, with Deaf/Hard of Hearing students, this is something that has to be done to ensure they get the same information hearing students get. Since the school district was unwilling to hire an oral facilitator, we had no choice but to pull her out and teach one-on-one. In our case, the District knows what they need to do to give my child what the law requires- they were simply unwilling to do it. I know I am not the only example of the public school system's failure to do what the laws of the land require. I could have sued, but I have neither the time or the money to do so. Homeschooling was our only answer, as it is for thousands of others. Yes, it can be done badly, but so can public school.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 01:06 PM

I don't understand all the methodology stuff with teaching. Seriously. Some trained teacher is supposed to understand better than I do how my child learns the best when I've been raising my child and to the teacher my kid is just one of 25-30 kids who may learn in a completeyl different fashion.A good teacher, absolutely. Would you say the same of doctors?

By most accounts, I'm a math genius. I knew more about calculus than my calculus teacher did before I began taking the class. And yet I have tried countless times to tutor people on basic algebra...and have failed miserably. I am a terrible teacher, I don't understand it at all. It's a skilled occupation. No amount of restating it until they get it has ever done me any good. I simply do not possess the skill of passing my knowledge on.

Traci - would your parents have made good homeschool parents? Nevermind, I think know the answer to that based on what you've said about your family. Odds are, many of the same qualities that would have made them poor homeschool teachers are the same that lead you to feel unserved by your education. There is a HUGE misconception that the goal of public education is to dump your kids and have them magically absorb knowledge. The reality is that any education system can do no more nor less than provide a framework in which to learn. Success relies on active (and productive) participation by the student in the learning process and by the parent in the student's learning process. I'm sure Traci and Wendy and others are in a better position to confirm this, but my suspicion is that a good chunk the homeschool community are people with parents that didn't do much to reinforce good learning while they were in public school and therefore have a bad impression of it.

And Wendy, like I said before, no one is arguing that there isn't a place for homeschooling. At least, I'm not. No system can fit everyone's needs and homeschooling is absolutely the right choice for some. All I'm saying is that not allowing for some level of accountability is not a workable option. While it may be true that the majority of the 200,000 homeschool students are doing just fine, even a small percentage of 200,000 is too many kids getting left behind (to coin a phrase) or worse as in the case that lead to this ruling.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 01:08 PM

I would suggest that public school is done badly FAR more often than home schooling is done badly.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 01:10 PM

While it may be true that the majority of the 200,000 homeschool students are doing just fine, even a small percentage of 200,000 is too many kids getting left behind (to coin a phrase) or worse as in the case that lead to this ruling.

This is based on the premise that public education does better. I do not support that premise.

Alex

03-10-2008, 01:11 PM

I would disagree with that as well. But the homeschooling debate is like the abortion debate. All that happens in most discussions of it is that people slowly get angry with each other.

LSPoorEeyorick

03-10-2008, 01:17 PM

For the record, NCLB was written by big time liberal Ted Kennedy. Many people try to pin this on Bush, and this is what happens when trying to reach across the aisle. Anyway.....

Yes, I know. I knew this when it was passed, and I didn't like it back then, either. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they don't look critically at other liberals. Bush, as president, is the bottom line, though - and if a liberal president had passed it, I would have blamed them, too.

I don't have children so I'm a bit hesitant to really weigh in on home schooling, since I'm not actually in the thick of the reality. Or, at least, I'm not interested in absolutes because, not having a child, I can't really fully imagine what it's like.

I know that the public system is simply not right for every child, so I have no problems with people taking matters into their own hands. At the same time, I do think that the well-roundedness is very important - as is learning to cooperate with children other than your relatives, and learning to work with adults other than your parents. If I were to put my children into home-schooling, I imagine I'd want to use a co-op with many other children taught by many other parents, and I suspect I'd want them to learn all of the standard subjects taught in school, as well as the creative ones that have been all but eliminated.

For kids that work OK within the provided system, I've really appreciated what my sister has done with them outside of school - their homework period has served as a sort of home-schooling session, building on what they've learned at school (teaching higher-level and real-life applications.) I think this gives kids the best of both education processes.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 01:18 PM

Each state has different requirements for teaching homeschool, and it appears California at present is a bit more lax than others. As homeschooling increases in popularity nationwide it is likely that such things as teaching and curriculum requirements will tend toward standardization, but it won't happen without a fight from both sides- the public school system and parents who value their autonomy with regards to their child's education. One interesting note: here in Washington, the school districts were very much against homeschooling, at least until the NCLB, WASL testing and such were enacted. Then they couldn't wait to set up homeschool programs, which have turned out to be quite profitable for them. They receive the funding from the state for the kids, and they have minimal output. Parents get a modest stipend ($500 a year) for supplies and the school gets the same amount as a full-time student. I find it somewhat amusing to see the same officials who railed against homeschooling a decade ago now embracing it enthusiastically.:rolleyes:

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 01:23 PM

This is based on the premise that public education does better. I do not support that premise.
I'd like to point out, for the 3rd time, that I'm not suggesting that homeschooling be abolished in favor of sticking them all in public schooling. I simply am saying that a higher standard of accountability is a justifiable pursuit of the state.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 01:24 PM

I would suggest that public school is done badly FAR more often than home schooling is done badly.
I and I would suggest that most students who are doing poorly in public school would also do poorly if their parents were homsechooling them.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 01:26 PM

LS, I agree - Bush blew it on this by signing it and allowing Kennedy to write it (or rather his staff). I've never supported it, but I think it is important that it is known that NCLB wasn't a grand republican idea to fix education.

NCLB is just one more failed attempt at a one size fits all education system. I don't think there is one. This is why I think home schooling is such a great alternative, particularly for those who can't afford a private school that meets their needs.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 01:27 PM

This is based on the premise that public education does better. I do not support that premise.
I agree. Again, like I stated before, if the system was so fabulous, why are they trying to fix it? Plenty of kids slip through the cracks and their parents have to stand by helplessly and hope that someone in a position of authority will do the right thing. The school systems are so friggen political it's disgusting, and anyone who has had a child in pubic school and had to contend with the arrogance encountered when trying to resolve a problem at or with school can attest to that. Their attitude is "Too bad- we're the only game in town so you'll have to suck it up". With homeschooling, the field has been leveled a bit. I'll tell you what- they treat homeschool parents a great deal more respectfully than regular student parents. We work with the school as a team with the same goal: a quality education for the child. The bad attitudes I dealt with in regular public school are non-existent.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 01:29 PM

Would you say the same of doctors?

If I were stuck in a room with 25 other patients who may or may not have similar symptomology and medicinal allergies and we were all told to turn to page 154 of the health textbook to cure our ills or to follow along on the chart while he points out various organs.....yeah, I probably would.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 01:31 PM

I'd like to point out, for the 3rd time, that I'm not suggesting that homeschooling be abolished in favor of sticking them all in public schooling. I simply am saying that a higher standard of accountability is a justifiable pursuit of the state.

I don't believe anyone thinks you have said that. I just believe that if you are saying even a small percentage of kids failing in homeschooling is unacceptable you might think public education was a worse choice in most circumstances, even with teachers trained in education.

BarTopDancer

03-10-2008, 01:33 PM

I believe that the public education system failed me. I also participated in an educational institution very similar to home-schooling, where I don't think I learned much at all. Somehow I managed to graduate high school short credits and unable to do math. Can't do basic algebra or beyond to save my life.

Because of these missing math skills, I was unable to get into a Cal State school (scores were to low). So I chose to go after my community college, non-transferable AA. That got me by for a bit, until I found that I'd probably not get very far in life. Heck, even now I couldn't transfer in to a Cal State school (as a junior) without passing a basic math class first (which I tried several times to do at GWC and OCC). That was the only thing keeping me out. A bit of research and I found that I was able to get in to PSU. I'll have to pass a Stats class this summer. All I need is a D. My beautiful 3.9x gpa will be marred because it is highly unlikely I'll get anything beyond that D. Getting that will be a huge struggle, and I will take it.

I'm smart. And I've gotten some very lucky breaks in life without having a degree. I work in IT - I've tinkered with computers my entire life. But if you look at job listings now, it's a BA/BS degree AND experience to get your foot in the door. I can't leave my job, because I don't have the degree to get me another one. There is to much talent with degrees, they don't need to look at anyone without one.

Wendy - I don't think anyone here is criticizing you for homeschooling T.

katiesue

03-10-2008, 01:34 PM

I and I would suggest that most students who are doing poorly in public school would also do poorly if their parents were homsechooling them.

I wouldn't agree with this. A friend of mine is homeschooling, well Charter School which is a little different, because her child was doing poorly in public school. His test scores have improved tremendously since she started. He just needs more attention to accomplish this, and she knew that in a standard Jr. High he would get lost in the system.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 01:43 PM

Kevy Baby

03-10-2008, 01:53 PM

Interestingly, though slamming on the public education system, I got a great education in CA public schools (grew up in Napa, CA). But that was 20 years ago, and I'm not wanting my kids in the current public education system.I am a product of the LAUSD. There were problems, but a lot of them were caused by my own attitude and lack of proper parental guidance (a problem that is still persistent in today's landscape). Overall, I say that I had some great education opportunities.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 02:14 PM

I am a product of the LAUSD. There were problems, but a lot of them were caused by my own attitude and lack of proper parental guidance (a problem that is still persistent in today's landscape). Overall, I say that I had some great education opportunities.Same boat here.

I'll admit that I had the slight advantage that my parents were part of said system. However, they NEVER went behind the scenes to pull strings. Everything they did and had access to were things that any parent could do and had access to. They were just more familiar with what those things were.

But the reality was that I spent 13 years (including kindergarten) in the LAUSD and got an excellent education. For 7 of those years I was with largely the same set of students. Most did well. A lot did not. Of those that did not, my observation was that most of the reason was that education was simply not a priority in their home. There were certainly a few for whom the public system simply did not have the capacity to help. But, to my eye, they were the exception. The majority of those that were struggling would have been perfectly capable of learning and achieving within the system if they actually tried.

Strangler Lewis

03-10-2008, 02:17 PM

Speaking of private schools, Eliot Spitzer and I prepped together. Well, not really together. He was three years ahead of me, and I didn't know him. The school was all boys when I started in seventh grade. It went coed the next year except for the junior and senior classes. Spitzer was in the junior class. After eighth grade, we moved to southern California where I went to a coed and somewhat startlingly precocious public school. I probably did not get as good an education, and my path to power, well, it was just shot. I have, however, never been to a prostitute, much less a ring of them.

MouseWife

03-10-2008, 02:53 PM

Damn but that was a lot of reading.....

I've been following the matter, just a bit, as I have homeschooled my two boys, just one year each, but I have.

I do not have any type of degree, certificates, nada. But, I knew I did not want my kids returning to their schools the following year. Schools may be for teaching but not all schools are equal. If I had a child who was to be in grade school right now, I do not think I would put them in.

The public school system, what programs haven't been cut? They are also cutting nurses, vice principals, teachers, but, adding more and more classrooms.

I can offer my child more as far as arts & sciences on my own, I believe, than most schools now can {especially with the budget cuts as well as the programs being replaced with other programs, like the emersion program}. Imagine taking a group of 50-70 kids on a field trip to an art museum, how much do you think one child would learn? Imagine trying to teach 20 children to read, write, or do math and how many of them don't speak English, or, haven't had any introduction to any type of education? Then imagine sitting alongside your child, showing them, teaching them. Which situation do you think your child would benefit more from?

When I went through the homeschool system, I had to be assigned to an accredited school. They interviewed me, asked me why I wanted to homeschool. We were assigned a teacher. Then I was assigned all of the books, workbooks, worksheets, etc., as well as the year plan of when each lesson was to be taught. We would turn in samples monthly as well as meet up with the teacher, though, not as often. The school had a small library as well as a computer room, and weekly classes in art and really every topic. They had fieldtrips where the kids could socialize {as well as those weekly classes}.

I think that the time I spent with my children homeschooling was the best time ever. I knew so much more about what they were learning and every where we went I could point out things that were relevant to their lessons. I think those things really sank in.

As for things that parents don't know, the teachers manual pretty much explains it all. Things you don't understand, you can either look on line or else set up a meeting with the teacher.

I don't think that right for parents should be taken away, and I don't think that we should have to have a degree. Some classes, that might help parents in how to teach, become organized. But, when the schools are in such bad shape that they are in, why should we be forced to send them?

I would like to see some checking up on parents, though. I know we worked and we covered everything they required, plus more. But, we were quite serious about it and I've always felt education was important, mostly, reading and math. The other subjects, I like for the kids to discover what interests them most and then focus on them. But, I do know parents who fudge things, who do not put in the necessary amount of time. That bothers me greatly. I wonder what happens when these children are tested {as they do test them regularly}.

That being said, I think it might balance out for the students in regular school whose parents are fudging things and not taking their education seriously. Either way, I personally, want that choice.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 02:55 PM

I didn't really feel like I was being criticized, BTD, but I will cop to feeling defensive with regards to comparing the homeschooling quality of education to the public school experience. They both have their advantages and drawbacks and both rely heavily on motivated students, parents and teachers. In my case, I am both parent and teacher, and as such am even more invested in a positive outcome.:D

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 02:59 PM

DreadPirateRoberts

03-10-2008, 03:02 PM

We have been homeschooling for the past 2 years. Our experiences have been similar to MouseWife's.

Alex

03-10-2008, 03:02 PM

I don't really give a damn if someone uses a prostitute (since I think it should be legal anyway).

But when a politician does it, it really calls their abilities into question for me. Not because of any moral question but I do have to wonder about the decision making capabilities of a person willing to trade the non-trivial risk of embarrassment and disruption to their agenda for the incredibly short term benefit of ejaculation.

BarTopDancer

03-10-2008, 03:09 PM

The choice to homeschool should be there. I think the way that MW had to go about doing it (meeting with teachers, ensuring that her children were learning and where they should be) is the way to go.

It concerns me that nearly anyone who wants to homeschool, can. There is nothing stopping someone who is illiterate or has no concept of basic skills from teaching their kids (and passing on the lack-of-knowledge).

There is also nothing mandating socialization. Yes, there are a lot of options available, but nothing that requires kids to be around other kids. How are they going to learn basic skills like playing with others, problem solving with their peers, sharing, stuff like that. How are these kids going to function in the real world?

katiesue

03-10-2008, 03:10 PM

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 03:12 PM

But the reality was that I spent 13 years (including kindergarten) in the LAUSD and got an excellent education. For 7 of those years I was with largely the same set of students. Most did well. A lot did not. Of those that did not, my observation was that most of the reason was that education was simply not a priority in their home. There were certainly a few for whom the public system simply did not have the capacity to help. But, to my eye, they were the exception. The majority of those that were struggling would have been perfectly capable of learning and achieving within the system if they actually tried.

If a lot did not do well, then by your own standards earlier in the thread, something should be done to change that. Also, if, according to your theory, the same kids that do poorly in public schools will do poorly homeschooled, then why object to homeschooling them?

What if the students that didn't really try just weren't interested in what was being taught, or the way it was presented? I didn't try at all and still got good grades and a full scholarship all while deliberately learning as little as possible. That's a flawed system, IMO.

I can see Indi being one of those kids that just wouldn't try. He would do horribly sitting all day in a classroom staring at some grown up chattering away about things that bored him. Similarly, he would do horribly if I made him sit down and learn a "lesson." So we do a totally different type of homeschooling which works with the way he learns. He loves to have his hands on things...building, drawing, cooking...we explore in a very physical way while talking about what we are doing. There's a lot of learning involved, but nothing formal. He couldn't get that in school. At best, his drive to learn would be squelched. At worst, he'd be labeled ADD or something similar.

He just turned five a few weeks ago and has become interested in learning to write. The way he likes to do this is by having me write a word on his paper and he copies it. For one thing, I was amazed at how accurate his printing was, having had no experience with it. When your brain is ready for something, you do it easily. But what struck me most was how he would experiment with it. He would put words together and add extra letters to the end and then ask, "What does this say?" It was such a fantastic way to learn. He would never have been allowed to do that in school. I can totally see him in kindergarten or first grade with his little lined paper being told to write the same letter twenty times or whatever they do and either refusing or getting more and more bored with every passing minute. Then eventually he'd be labeled as one of those kids that just doesn't try. But why try for something that feels so crappy?

Morrigoon

03-10-2008, 03:14 PM

Same boat here.

I'll admit that I had the slight advantage that my parents were part of said system. However, they NEVER went behind the scenes to pull strings. Everything they did and had access to were things that any parent could do and had access to. They were just more familiar with what those things were.

But the reality was that I spent 13 years (including kindergarten) in the LAUSD and got an excellent education. For 7 of those years I was with largely the same set of students. Most did well. A lot did not. Of those that did not, my observation was that most of the reason was that education was simply not a priority in their home. There were certainly a few for whom the public system simply did not have the capacity to help. But, to my eye, they were the exception. The majority of those that were struggling would have been perfectly capable of learning and achieving within the system if they actually tried.

I am also a victim product of the LAUSD, but I credit that system with nothing. This is the system who, after a great deal of effort to meet with my counselor, get pre-approval on coursework I'd be taking on foreign exchange, etc., called my parents in October of that semester to ask why I wasn't in school. Good job guys. And mind you, it's not like the system provided me with any info about foreign exchange either. Anything outside of the box or dare I say it, enriching, like that was completely beyond their ability to comprehend. That's just one example, but I found it to be the case across the board. Anything over and above the lowest common denominator was beyond the system's abilities to deal with. LAUSD bites.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 03:22 PM

If a lot did not do well, then by your own standards earlier in the thread, something should be done to change that. Also, if, according to your theory, the same kids that do poorly in public schools will do poorly homeschooled, then why object to homeschooling them?Aaaaargh! :mad: :mad:

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 03:23 PM

I know that the public system is simply not right for every child, so I have no problems with people taking matters into their own hands. At the same time, I do think that the well-roundedness is very important - as is learning to cooperate with children other than your relatives, and learning to work with adults other than your parents. If I were to put my children into home-schooling, I imagine I'd want to use a co-op with many other children taught by many other parents, and I suspect I'd want them to learn all of the standard subjects taught in school, as well as the creative ones that have been all but eliminated.

I would go a bit farther and say that while most kids survive the public school system, less than half truly thrive under it. Don't get me wrong, I certainly want my kids to have a well rounded education. My statement earlier was that as far as the state is concerned, the only purpose of education, public or otherwise, is to ensure productive citizens.

My experience with homeschool and socialization is that it's much easier to provide a homeschooled kid with a well rounded social life. There are so many groups that do fun things and the kids have friends of all ages. The older teach the younger social skills much more quickly than one would learn when segregated by age.

As far as learning all the standard subjects taught in schools...I want this to a point. I think there is something to be said for knowing what everybody else knows. But there is so much knowledge in the world that you can't be well rounded in every subject known to man. I'm totally ok if my kid is four years ahead in biology and two years behind in math. At some point extra focus on math might be needed to get into college in this hypothetical example, but my point is that as long as my kids have a diverse educational offering and an eagerness to learn then I'm pretty happy. I think that we sacrifice something in order to churn out people that know exactly the same stuff. There is something to be said for really digging into something you are interested in. Yes, you want to cover the basics of other stuff as well, but not to the exclusiong of speciality.

BarTopDancer

03-10-2008, 03:24 PM

Some children will grow up to be artists. What happens to all the children who were unschooled or homeschooled with a focus on art when they can't make a living that way? And they can't get into college because they don't have the knowledge or skills to pass the tests to get in? And they can't get a job that pays a living wage because they don't have a degree.

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 03:25 PM

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 03:30 PM

Some children will grow up to be artists. What happens to all the children who were unschooled with a focus on art when they can't make a living that way? And they can't get into college because they don't have the knowledge or skills to pass the tests to get in? And they can't get a job that pays a living wage because they don't have a degree.

This is just such an absurd hypothetical that I can't even properly respond. Of the unschooled adults I know, one is a writer, one is a biologist, and one is a computer programmer. I don't even think you can unschool with a focus on art. You unschool with a focus on life. Here in AZ it's pretty impossible not to get into college. Homeschoolers can start at 14 and they teach very basic classes for people that don't score well. I don't know anyone that couldn't get into college as a result of homeschooling (or unschooling).

Unschooling is not about deliberately not learning. It's about finding opportunities to incorporate learning into everyday life. Most of the unschoolers I know seem to be advanced in at least one subject. I say seem to be because it's not like we're measuring our kids all the time. The most important thing is that they are learning to use their brain very effectively, or rather not being taught to shut if down and swallow whatever learning pill a school wants them to, making your scenario above highly unlikely.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 03:32 PM

Sorry, GD, after I posted that I read your comment about not objecting to homeschooling kids (see where my "critical thinking skills" got me?! lol). Though it does sound like you are pro-public schools from the rest of your posts.
Yes, I am pro public schools. That doesn't mean I want kids who will benefit more from homeschool than public school to be forced in to public school. I just think that public schools and public school teachers take a lot of sh*t for things that aren't (and shouldn't be) within their control, nor do I think that the issues that most kids have in public school can be solved by homeschooling.

I would never argue that the public school system is not flawed. It is. But there's a massive disconnect between what the public thinks is flawed vs. what is actually flawed. So when I see people bad mouthing the system for things it was never designed to do, yes I get defensive.

Not Afraid

03-10-2008, 03:33 PM

MouseWife

03-10-2008, 03:35 PM

I was a very involved parent. Of course, time available to volunteer was limited by having to take care of my other children. And, it all depended upon the teacher and how much involvement they wanted from me. And, most teachers don't want you in the classroom anymore after first grade, they just want you to make copies, check papers, etc. Not things I was there for, and, I felt they should be correcting the work to see where the students were at.

Our schools PTA are very poor. I was involved with many a project that previously had funding from the PTA and then they said they had nothing to offer.

I think the involvement that I had with the schools only made me more upset at the level of their education/treatment of the children later and why I pulled them out.

We have always contributed to the classrooms. In kindergarten, always a room mother. On fieldtrips, working with the students as well as helping the teacher when she needed help organizing projects.

One first grade teacher was very open to our help; we brought in pets for them to tend to, plants for them to grow, I made a 'store' for them to learn about money and math.

Even when we weren't involved with the PTA, we were involved with trying to make the school a better place. When the school tried to stop the trick or treating, we worked together to make sure it happened. {much better for the kids} When the budget called for cuts for the sixth grade activities, we fought for them as well as trying to find ways to get funds for them.

Wow, and ya know, other parents {those of kids not in your childs' grade} don't seem to give a care about anyone but their own grade. Never would they imagine that their child would be in that grade, eh? We seemed to end up fighting parents as much as the school for a lot of funding.

The other thing that we had issues with; when our children were sick and missed school, the disctrict would send out threatening notices. That really p'd me off because I couldn't help if they were sick. Perhaps if other parents kept their kids home sick so many others wouldn't miss school because they caught what they had?

{Homeschooled, my kids never got sick.}

And, on that note, when my kids were in grade school, I remember being told not to send the kids in if they had a fever within the past 24 hours {like say the evening before}. Or, if they may have vomited, keep them home. Now, they keep kids at school when they are sick. This can't be a very good way for them to learn and it is how the sicknesses are spread.

katiesue

03-10-2008, 03:43 PM

Unschooling is not about deliberately not learning. It's about finding opportunities to incorporate learning into everyday life. Most of the unschoolers I know seem to be advanced in at least one subject.

But you can do this with traditional schooling as well. Maddy did a report on Hearst Castle - so we went there. We do outside things that reinforce or enrich things she's learned at school all the time.

I'd say most kids are more advanced in one subject than in others. No matter how they're schooled.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 03:49 PM

That doesn't mean I want kids who will benefit more from homeschool than public school to be forced in to public school. Let me clarify that:

I don't care if someone chooses homeschooling over public schooling, whether it ends up benefiting them more or not. My whole point is that no matter what, it comes down to how much the student and parent want to get out of the situation. Except for some outlying cases where public school just is not right for an individual student, if the parent and student work to get an excellent education out of public school, it can be done. If a parent and student work to get an excellent education out of homeschooling, it can be done. But not every responsible parent has the inclination or ability to be both parent and teacher (and yes, I will continue to assert that those are two different skills), so public school provides a valuable service to those that can't...as long as the parent remains invested in their child's education (a prerequisite for success in ALL schooling options).

The only point of contention I have is lack of oversight and accountability in homeschooling. And "well, public school is screwed up" is not an argument against that. Those are independent issues that both need solving.

Not Afraid

03-10-2008, 03:59 PM

When I was in the 6th-8th grades, I went to a MGM school. We had so many more opportunities to do things than the "regulars" that shared the school with us. We had a community garden, a small farm, a intensive, all subject study of Yosemite followed by a 1 week trip to the Valley each year. We also had music, theater, art classes and lots of other fun things.
While I still sucked at the subjects I've always sucked at, I felt successful in some of the other opportunities I was given. It really changed the way I thought about school and learning and made a HUGE difference in my life. I wish every child in school had these time of opportunities.

MouseWife

03-10-2008, 04:48 PM

Prudence

03-10-2008, 04:50 PM

For some kids homeschooling is the best option. But I think taking your kid out of a public school just because you think the quialty is low doesn't help. What if you instead helped out at the school? Your impact would be greater. Or lobbied to help fix the programs that are broken. Maddy's elementry school had an art teacher. Her salary was paid for by the PTA. The parents wanted art so they made it happen.

Someone who is orgainzed and motivated enough to homeschool their child would probably be a great help in the classroom or with the PTA. In my experience the schools are only as good as the parents who help keep them going. And motivated parents also work with their kids at home as well to follow up on things learned in school.

This assumes that the school is open to accepting the help you feel is needed. Your PTA wanted to support an art teacher and the school accepted that help. What if the school had said "we don't want to include art in our curriculum. Any donated PTA monies will be used to fund our pilot underwater basketweaving program"?

Wendy already mentioned Washington's obsession with the WASL. I certainly can't speak for all school districts, but I know local parents who have not been permitted to contribute additional enrichment activities because the school is all WASL, all the time, and will not devote space or time to non-WASL activities. (Goodness knows competent people graduated prior to the creation of the mighty WASL - why not try employing some of THOSE techniques? But that's a rant for another day.)

If I had children and lived where I do now and could not find a private school I found suitable, I would absolutely home school. I think they should have certain skills upon graduation, and receive a well-rounded education, but I want that education to be the goal, not passing the great and mighty WASL. Until the local public schools are freed to follow a similar goal, I wouldn't send my kids there.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 05:27 PM

But not every responsible parent has the inclination or ability to be both parent and teacher (and yes, I will continue to assert that those are two different skills).....

I think you can be a good teacher without being a parent, but every good parent is a teacher. You must have teaching skills to be a good parent. This does not mean I would be good in charge of a classroom setting (though I am in a gym with a group of basketball players).

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 06:14 PM

I think you can be a good teacher without being a parent, but every good parent is a teacher. You must have teaching skills to be a good parent. This does not mean I would be good in charge of a classroom setting (though I am in a gym with a group of basketball players).
To some degree, I agree. But with any skill, there is a difference between using one's naturally ability vs. refining that ability through training. To use a hokey contextual analogy, it's one thing to find a kid who has natural basketball skills and throw him on the court. It's another to have that kid coached in the finer points of the game. Most parents may be naturally good at teaching their kids some level of knowledge, but a good (and I stress good) teacher has the tools to do more.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 06:16 PM

This assumes that the school is open to accepting the help you feel is needed. Your PTA wanted to support an art teacher and the school accepted that help. What if the school had said "we don't want to include art in our curriculum. Any donated PTA monies will be used to fund our pilot underwater basketweaving program"?

Wendy already mentioned Washington's obsession with the WASL. I certainly can't speak for all school districts, but I know local parents who have not been permitted to contribute additional enrichment activities because the school is all WASL, all the time, and will not devote space or time to non-WASL activities. (Goodness knows competent people graduated prior to the creation of the mighty WASL - why not try employing some of THOSE techniques? But that's a rant for another day.)

If I had children and lived where I do now and could not find a private school I found suitable, I would absolutely home school. I think they should have certain skills upon graduation, and receive a well-rounded education, but I want that education to be the goal, not passing the great and mighty WASL. Until the local public schools are freed to follow a similar goal, I wouldn't send my kids there.

Thank you , Pru.

The WASL is a monstrous waste of time, resources and talent. It forces teachers to teach to the test, to the detriment of all other disciplines. That means very little to no art, geography, music, foreign language, etc. It's an incredibly high-stakes test created by a for-profit corporation and it's ruining our schools.

As far as changing things from within: fine, if you're into quixotic pursuits. I hope you enjoy bumping heads and egos with suburban soccer moms hopped up on Starbucks. Our PTO was a flippin' Peyton Place, and I have no tolerance for that kind of merde. It's not something I can even adequately describe- anyone who doubts will just have to experience it for themselves. Did it for two years and regret every second of it.

katiesue

03-10-2008, 06:18 PM

I personally could never do it. I don't have the patience for it. There are days we barely get through the nights homework without me going all wickywonky on her.

My Mom was a Kindergarten teacher - for Kindergarten I went to a totally different school just so I wouldn't be in her classroom.

Ghoulish Delight

03-10-2008, 06:21 PM

There are days we barely get through the nights homework without me going all wickywonky on her.
Heh, the thought of my mom teaching my sister full time makes me shudder. One of them surely would not have survived the experience.

Alex

03-10-2008, 06:32 PM

I think you can be a good teacher without being a parent, but every good parent is a teacher.

I'm going to call bull**** on that one unless teacher is used only in the broadest sense of the word.

No matter how well intentioned, my mom would not have been able to teach me algebra or the fundamentals of chemistry.

Sure, she could have read the book the night before I did but if pressed she could only parrot the book back to me, which isn't much help if I'm already not getting it.

There is no magic that happens when a penis is put in a vagina that gives a person instructional skill.

But I'll agree, that a good teacher will be a good teacher whether it is in a classroom or not. However, if a parent is not a good teacher there really won't be any easy means of detection until after much damage is done. Yes, this can happen in schools as well, but the safeguards for at least detecting failure (if not fixing it) are greater.

I'm sure my sampling is skewed but in my experience most home schooled children were not home schooled because the parents were confident that they could better teach a curriculum than the school district but rather because they wanted to "protect" their children from perceived evils in what the schools will try to teach them.

It is one thing to reject the truth of evolution because you've been exposed to it and another completely to reject it simply because it has never been to you or taught to you as a materialist conspiracy. I remember my first week of college, in a geology 100 seminar a home-schooled student who interrupted class absolutely enraged and flabbergasted that the professor was teaching the class on the assumption that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. She stood up in front of 500 students and said this. She was a perfectly well educated home schooled kid, she'd just never actually been exposed to the ideas that her parents thought irreligious.

And that, for me, is the biggest failing of most home schooling. Not lack of socialization. Not failure to teach the basic educational facts. But rather that there is a single, overly emotionally involved person making the decisions about what facts the child will even be exposed to and capable of making sure that nothing "horrible" sneaks in: whether that be evolution, religion, capitalism, competitiveness, the homosexual agenda, etc.

Also, the inclinations of the parents can't help but drive things in major and minor ways. There's a reason that as you advance academically you move from having a single teacher all day to have separate teachers for separate subjects. There are certainly drawbacks to this but one of the great advantages, hopefully, is that for each subject you are presented with a person passionate about that subject who interacts with it on a level of pleasure rather than just necessity. If a parent loves American history but isn't much into meteorology, sure they can teach both subjects but they can't convey passion about them both at the macro level and at the subtle level will tend to emphasize one over the other. And just like it is oh so convenient for the stage dad that his little 5 year just happens to love the pageant circuit it will be an equally wonderful coincidence that his 10 year does better in American history than meteorology.

I'm not saying any of the homeschooling parents here are guilty of these sins. I've never met (at least not to sufficient degree) any of them to have an opinion. And I've known fabulous home schooling parents and home schooled kids but even the best of them have to work very hard to overcome these challenges. And worst, many of the parents don't want to overcome them because these are the very benefits they see in homeschooling: not "I can teach this child better" but "I can make sure this child grows up thinking like me."

No, public schools are not a panacea, they have huge problems. And a certain number of children will fail regardless of what system they are in while some will fail in one but not the other. But while I would be very hesitant in moving towards strong regulation of home schooling I remain extremely bothered by the "defensive" rather than "proactive" stance of a large part of the homeschooling movement.

tracilicious

03-10-2008, 06:37 PM

I think I had one subject specific teacher ever who was passionate about his subject. A fan-fvcking-tastic teacher, but he was in the very small minority.

Alex

03-10-2008, 06:42 PM

And I had dozens, and when I didn't have one there was a chance the next would be.

With home schooling that will never, and never have a chance, improve.
Because like it or not, if you're not that into math to start with you aren't going to get any more into it as the years go by.

And in my experience impassioned home schooling parents (beyond maybe a subject or two) are also rare and the harm is much worse.

I was wary of posting to this thread, like I said above: it is like abortion, people just end up defensive, annoyed, and probably angry. So I'll concede that every parent here that is home schooling their children is among the best exemplars of the craft ever.

But, in my opinion: most of the time a regular school environment that is bad will produce a mediocre education with mechanisms for identifying it whereas a home school environment that is bad will produce a horrible education with almost no such mechanisms.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-10-2008, 07:17 PM

Alex has pretty much summed up my thoughts on the issue.

scaeagles

03-10-2008, 07:44 PM

I'm going to call bull**** on that one unless teacher is used only in the broadest sense of the word.

Of course I mean it in a broad sense.

I completely understand the whole higher math and science aspect. Not many home are set up for a chemistry lab. The home schooling families I know have a pseudo-consortium in which someone who is skilled in math teaches a group of 10 HS students higher math and another might teach chemistry, set up more like a college course (meaning two-three extended classes each week). I suppose that isn't home schooling in the truest sense of the word.

I do believe home schooling works best only up through the end of elementary, and perhaps through 7th and 8th grade, but that's about it. However, I know many in the arrangements set up as above, including a choir and one mom who sets up field trips, etc, and that seems to work out fine.

MouseWife

03-10-2008, 09:37 PM

I think you can be a good teacher without being a parent, but every good parent is a teacher.

I actually love this. This is how I feel, how I've treated being a parent. The time we spend with our children is always an opportunity for a lesson.

I've always taught at home; my children didn't go to pre-school but they were prepared for kindergarten. Two of my children were first to read in their classes. I saw every day as an opportunity to learn.

But, as school teachers, we all make mistakes. My experience is that most teachers don't admit to theirs.

wendybeth~oh gawd, yes, I really had it with those parents. Egads, and my time was before Starbucks, I really feel for those now!!!!

Alex~you are right, not every parent homeschools because they are not happy with the school. A friend of mine pulled all of her kids out because they did not like the direction the school was going, just as you said, about evolution, the evils, etc. I had the same concerns as you, that the kids would grow up only knowing their parents opinions. A pretty narrow world.

I was worried about that, I have never forced my beliefs on my children. Because of that, my kids are all over the place {meaning, they have varied interests, beliefs, their own, not mine}. But, I do respect their views.

Oh, and our schools, if they have labs at all, are very limited.

€uroMeinke

03-10-2008, 09:51 PM

I was meant for the classroom I think, test were easy, and when things got dull we learned ways to subvert the system.

It's an amusing fantasy thinking of being home schooled by my immigrant parents, though I'm sure it would have left me with the cutest of German accents. As it was they at least supplemented my education with lessons on mixology and wine pairings.

wendybeth

03-10-2008, 11:54 PM

(Imagine €uro with a cute little German accent: "Ve shall haf a Svanking, and you vill all haf so much hedons your leetle heads vill exploden!")

I hadn't really thought about the religious nuts out there- I must say they make homeschooling more difficult. My reasons for doing so differ greatly from theirs- they choose to do this, whereas I had little choice. We've had problems with these people ourselves and they really get on my nerves. I suppose they are in the majority, but the demographics are changing rapidly and the curriculum's available reflect that. When we first started there was little non-religious oriented material out there, but now we've a ton of stuff to choose from. The internet is a huge boon as well- there are some really great sites that cater to parents who want their kids to have excellence in education.

Gemini Cricket

03-11-2008, 12:17 AM

How do ya school a home?

Mousey Girl

03-11-2008, 05:50 AM

My sister homeschools. My nieces are currently 10 & 13. They started off at a Christian school, run by their church. There were a lot of problems, so L pulled them out to teach them at home. The younger one is currently doing 5th & 6th grade work, the older one is doing 7th grade work. While L keeps them busy, there are a lot of activities that they are into, I don't totally approve.

They go to a school setting for certain things during the week. They do the science fairs and the speech competitions.

They have no real concept of the Real World. All of their socialization comes from their small circle of home schooled, church based kids, just like them. I worry about them when they finally do get to join the RW. They will go into culture shock. They are extremly sheltered.

scaeagles

03-11-2008, 06:11 AM

At what age is it time to gain a concept of the "real world"? I don't think my six year old needs that concept yet. I don't think my eight year old needs that concept yet. My 14 year old....yeah. She's getting it pretty much every day even at a private Christian school. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the student populace at a Christian school and a public, really. There's bullying, catty-ness, drug usage....the main difference is how the faculty and staff are allowed to deal with it. I'm not saying public schools don't, but there are different methods permitted at private schools and religious schools.

There are plenty of kids who don't get "socialized" at public schools, whether it is by self imposed isolation or limiting their circle of friends. I'm thinking The Breakfast Club, which was such a profound (sounds strange, I know) movie to me when it came out my junior year in HS. Fact is even in public schools you often don't know what the "other" kids you don't socialize with are like or are going through.

I don't necessarily consider "sheltered" to be bad. I think it's part of being a parent, just as is introducing your child to the reality of life when they are ready. I want my kids to be sheltered from certain things and decide when they are ready emotionally and physically to deal with things that I find objectionable or potentially harmful.

Strangler Lewis

03-11-2008, 06:47 AM

I would agree with much of this, although it's hard to figure out the right balance. Sometimes I think my parents spent too much time letting me watch the nightly news with them. Body counts from the Viet Nam war, the assassinations of '68, etc. I found it scary.

As a parent I pay more attention to other kids, and it's surprisingly easy to spot kids who appear headed for a rough road and natural to want to protect your kids from a similar fate. On the other hand, part of life is making mistakes. Still, there are some mistakes I won't mind my kids making, and some I would prefer they not make.

wendybeth

03-11-2008, 09:30 AM

My daughter had mostly very negative social experiences in school. We discovered kids can be evil little ****s, even in kindergarten, and teachers are largely clueless. I'll have to scan a pic I found not too long ago- it's of Tori in kindergarten, and she's glaring, with arms folded, at the kids who cut in front of her in line. So, we decided the 'social 'benefits' were outweighed by concerns for the amount and quality of educational information she was getting. I will say, it's been fun watching these kids turn into teens- most of the ones who were mean are now getting into all sorts of trouble, and the same parents who didn't seem concerned about their little darlings being mean to a deaf kid now fawn over Tori when they see her. Some are even considering homeschooling, like that is the only reason my kid turned out nice.:rolleyes:

MouseWife

03-11-2008, 12:04 PM

wendybeth, while this isn't on topic, I know of what you speak.

And, it is upsetting that the kids who do that sort of thing {cutting, bullying, controlling the situations basically} usually aren't reprimanded. I've experienced that they would rather not deal with it as it is too much trouble. They don't deal with it and make the other kids suffer to 'keep peace'.

I did not like that my child was supposed to just take it, it teaches them to take that shiet for the rest of their lives. My son was being hit on the playground, I told the teacher and said that I have taught my son not to hit and she said that was fantastic. I said, but wait, I am taking that back. There is no way I am going to allow my son to take that. She asked me to please wait as the school needed more parents like me. I said that I could not and if my son felt the need to strike back, he most definitely would.

Ugh, I really hate remembering the issues I had with grade school.

As for the PSs, every night I see on the news reports of budget cuts, problems with money, students, and staff. It is a business anymore, the focus taken off of teaching.

And, those damn tests. Fun has been taken out of learning just so that they can focus on the tests. No funding for fieldtrips, no fun parties, nothing. I would tell the teachers that I bet that they celebrate the holidays. You know in the staff lounge they always decorate and have lunches. But, the kids can't. That isn't fair.

Sorry if I am off topic but these are real issues I had to deal with during my time with my children in public school.

tracilicious

03-11-2008, 12:37 PM

I'm not sure kids learn much about the "real world" by being in school. In the real world you get to direct a lot of your time yourself, you aren't isolated to people of the same age, etc. I didn't really even have exposure to very many different kinds of people in school. In the advanced classes it was mostly middle class white christians. It wasn't until after I graduated and got a job at a used bookstore that I encountered different ways of thinking. The real world theory doesn't hold a lot of water.

cirquelover

03-11-2008, 02:11 PM

As usual, I'm late to the party!

We have a different kind of home schooling experience because technically Zach is doing the public school online. We have real teachers we can contact whenever he wants and now that he's in 6th grade he has a lot more teachers to keep track of. We are under most of the same guidelines as regular brick and mortar school kids but with more options. Zach has been allowed to take many electives for the last three years that wouldn't be offered in the regular school. For now it works for us.

I'm sure Connections Academy is in CA also, wonder if their rules are different. Some states only allow them to go up to a certain grade.

My daughter had mostly very negative social experiences in school. We discovered kids can be evil little ****s, even in kindergarten, and teachers are largely clueless. I'll have to scan a pic I found not too long ago- it's of Tori in kindergarten, and she's glaring, with arms folded, at the kids who cut in front of her in line. So, we decided the 'social 'benefits' were outweighed by concerns for the amount and quality of educational information she was getting. I will say, it's been fun watching these kids turn into teens- most of the ones who were mean are now getting into all sorts of trouble, and the same parents who didn't seem concerned about their little darlings being mean to a deaf kid now fawn over Tori when they see her. Some are even considering homeschooling, like that is the only reason my kid turned out nice.:rolleyes:

I can relate to this experience 100%. It's sad that people can be so cruel. I love it when they turn around and think that homeschooling years later will fix all the problems they have allowed to occur in their children:rolleyes:

I know in Oregon, even homeschooled kids must pass State required tests at certain ages to make sure they are at least learning the basics. I think that's a good idea as I know parents who pulled there kids out just to avoid fighting with the child!! Um, HELLO, are you actually teaching Junior anything or just letting him sleep and stay out of your hair?! She's now paying the price as the State is breathing down her neck!

Strangler Lewis

03-11-2008, 03:37 PM

And, it is upsetting that the kids who do that sort of thing {cutting, bullying, controlling the situations basically} usually aren't reprimanded. I've experienced that they would rather not deal with it as it is too much trouble. They don't deal with it and make the other kids suffer to 'keep peace'. . . . As for the PSs, every night I see on the news reports of budget cuts, problems with money, students, and staff. It is a business anymore, the focus taken off of teaching.

In our clean, middle class school, there was a fair amount of bullying that went unchecked. My sense was that our popular principal was not lazy or a fan of bullying; rather, he made his choice to foster a happy, happy school to maximize fundraising. Now that he has retired, the new principal is strong in her aspirations that the school and the home be safe and settled places to learn.

And, those damn tests. Fun has been taken out of learning just so that they can focus on the tests. No funding for fieldtrips, no fun parties, nothing.

I disagree with this, at least on the subject of parties. At our school, there is no holiday too small to justify hitting the parents up for cash to pour sugar into our kids for an hour in the afternoon. Plus, we have post-Halloween pajama/candy/pervert day, other pajama/pervert days and extra parties that the kids can "earn" to bring dolls and stuffed animals to school.

As far as tests go, our school, though posting decent raw numbers, has been consistently in the bottom ten percent of our demographic in the region. This suggests to me that no one on either side is stepping up. Now, I always did well on standardized tests, so I have a "how hard can it be" attitude. We should be able to scratch all our itches: "teach to the test" to whatever extent necessary, teach beyond the test and have endless parties to foster unhealthy habits.

I would tell the teachers that I bet that they celebrate the holidays
You know in the staff lounge they always decorate and have lunches. But, the kids can't. That isn't fair.

Here I agree. It was generally accepted that our American history teacher in high school drank in class (spiked soda can). We had to go off campus to do that.

MouseWife

03-11-2008, 06:29 PM

In our clean, middle class school, there was a fair amount of bullying that went unchecked. My sense was that our popular principal was not lazy or a fan of bullying; rather, he made his choice to foster a happy, happy school to maximize fundraising. Now that he has retired, the new principal is strong in her aspirations that the school and the home be safe and settled places to learn.

I disagree with this, at least on the subject of parties. At our school, there is no holiday too small to justify hitting the parents up for cash to pour sugar into our kids for an hour in the afternoon. Plus, we have post-Halloween pajama/candy/pervert day, other pajama/pervert days and extra parties that the kids can "earn" to bring dolls and stuffed animals to school.

As far as tests go, our school, though posting decent raw numbers, has been consistently in the bottom ten percent of our demographic in the region. This suggests to me that no one on either side is stepping up. Now, I always did well on standardized tests, so I have a "how hard can it be" attitude. We should be able to scratch all our itches: "teach to the test" to whatever extent necessary, teach beyond the test and have endless parties to foster unhealthy habits.

Here I agree. It was generally accepted that our American history teacher in high school drank in class (spiked soda can). We had to go off campus to do that.

Comparing our school years to now, well, that is hard. I try to forget most of mine....:rolleyes:

Ah, it sounds like your school is going the opposite direction. Too many parties. I don't know where our school was at. I should look that up. {I know before the Immersion Program, we ranked pretty well....} I know the middle schools in this area are very low on the charts for test scores. The lower scoring schools try to recruit the high test score kids to bring up their rating.

But yeah, with all of the time they spend in school, even with parties, why oh why can't they pass the damn tests???

And, today, my son learned what grading on a curve means.

How many high schools in your area have metal detectors?

LOL I say 'Unfair!' if the teacher could drink in class, why not you guys? ;) At my daughters school, it was evident they did their drinking in the parking lot {empty vodka/beer bottles all over}.

wendybeth

03-11-2008, 06:43 PM

Our teachers used to stand outside and smoke with us.:rolleyes:

katiesue

03-11-2008, 06:53 PM

The yearbook/english teacher used to take kids out to get high in his car in the parking lot.

Alex

03-11-2008, 06:53 PM

I hope he learned the correct meaning of it. When I was in high school not one of the teachers that "graded on a curve" did so. They all graded on an adjusted scale.

BarTopDancer

03-11-2008, 06:53 PM

My freshman science teacher was drunk by the time we got to class.

Kevy Baby

03-11-2008, 07:15 PM

I hope he learned the correct meaning of it. When I was in high school not one of the teachers that "graded on a curve" did so. They all graded on an adjusted scale.Can they grade on a curve if you are home schooled? Could be interesting.

Not Afraid

03-11-2008, 07:16 PM

My theater teacher used to smoke in the classroom.

cirquelover

03-11-2008, 07:17 PM

My History teacher was drunk most days and loved to look down the girls shirts. He lived vicariously through his son that was a big football player and talked about it all the time, not much learning in his class.

Kevy Baby

03-11-2008, 07:18 PM

My Sociology teacher once smoked in class. But that was because we set her on fire.

tracilicious

03-11-2008, 07:24 PM

Omg, Kevy. I am so glad I was not drinking when I read that.

We had a math teacher who kept the room extra cold and had the front row full of girls.

LSPoorEeyorick

03-11-2008, 07:33 PM

Our orchestra teacher was jailed for sleeping with a student. Our choir teacher wasn't, because she waited until he graduated.

cirquelover

03-11-2008, 07:38 PM

My English teacher married his special student when she graduated!

Alex

03-11-2008, 07:43 PM

My sixth grade teacher inspired me to greater achievement by convincing me that I needed to be an active participant in my own education.

MouseWife

03-11-2008, 08:40 PM

I hope he learned the correct meaning of it. When I was in high school not one of the teachers that "graded on a curve" did so. They all graded on an adjusted scale.

Ha! Probably not! I am the one who told him. :D

Would ya explain it, huh Wally?

The school I went to, some staff was very caring of me. The custodian would make sure I had breakfast by sneaking me over opening up the little cafeteria and giving me a hot cocoa and whatever pastry they had. The nurse, she would take me home when I was sick as my mom wouldn't come out to get me. One secretary, always gave me lotion for my dry hands and would always ask me how I was doing.

Now,it is this type of interaction that I think some kids need. I know I benefited from it. I try and keep my eyes open for kids who fall through the cracks

Gemini Cricket

03-11-2008, 08:50 PM

If I was home schooled as a child, I'd be nothing more than an introverted, socially inept geek who sits at his computer all day and hangs out on discussion boards and...

Never mind.
j/k

Strangler Lewis

03-11-2008, 08:52 PM

My sixth grade teacher inspired me to greater achievement by convincing me that I needed to be an active participant in my own education.

I don't think we learned about masturbation in sixth grade.

Alex

03-11-2008, 08:58 PM

Proper "curving" of grades relies on the assumption that grades will be distributed among a group of students in a pattern that roughly matches a normal bell curve distribution.

It is not a grade given based on how many points you achieved on a test but rather a grade given based on how you performed in relation to the other students.

So, for example, the average score achieved might be given a C, with all scores out from that score (in either direction) given Cs until 50% of the class has a C. Then the next 20% of students on the high end get a B while the next 20% of students on the low end get a D. Then the top 5% get an A while the bottom 5% get an F.

Under the strictest form of this system is it is impossible for every student to get an A. Even if every student scored 100% they'd all get a C. But theoretically it also means that even if every student scores less than 50% some would still get As.

Now, abstolutely strict curves really never happen but this was the basis on which GPAs were originally given comparative value for ranking students. Since all students were always graded on a curve and all went through the same curriculum there was consistency allowing for more realistic class ranking (as opposed to how you go about comparing an A in auto shop for Student A to an A- in AP Calculus for Student B).

Anyway, what most of my teachers in high school did was not a curve. They adjusted the scale. They said "ok, whatever the highest score in the class is, we'll call that 100% and an A. Then anything within 10% of that score will get an A as well. Anything between 80% and 89% gets a B, and so one.