Home schooling in CA

[tracilicious]

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

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]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

[wendybeth]

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?

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.