Home Schooling

[Roadtoad]

I realize that this thread will probably be moved nearly as soon as it's been posted, but this seemed to me the Science board was the best place to post it to start. But, I digress....

Several years ago, my wife and I pulled my younger two sons out of public school and opted to home school them. There were several reasons for this:

(1.) Jonathan, my older son, kept running into teachers who seemed to have some animus towards him. It was an odd thing, because he's always been such a kind and loving kid, and very gentle towards other people. The prime exception was his teacher from the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades, who stayed with the kids from their first day of fourth to the last day of their sixth. (One of the few educational experiments the Rio Linda School District attempted that actually worked, and worked well.)

(2.) Matthew, my youngest, was not learning at all. We had tried for years to get him in for some sort of assessment to find out why, but the school district kept putting us off, telling us they'd do it later in the next semester, or early next year. (We later found out from his pediatrician he was ADHD, something that was later confirmed early last year. He was 15 then.) We were always getting excuses why they couldn't manage to teach Matt to read or do basic math, and any time we tried to work something out to keep in contact with his teachers, so we could work together and fix the problem, there was always an excuse as to why they could not be bothered.

(3.) Increasingly, the Grant Unified School District, which is responsible for the nearest high school to us, has had to deal with more and more violence in the school. At one point, friends of ours had a daughter in Highlands High who was threatened by another girl. The other girl flashed a knife, and told our friends' daughter that after school, she'd be dead. When our friends' daughter told the school administration, they shrugged their shoulders and said it wasn't their problem. (Our friends contacted the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, and MADE IT THEIR PROBLEM.)

We started off using the ACE program, (The School of Tomorrow, from Texas). This fundamentalist Christian program is fine if all you choose to teach your kids is excellent Mathematics skills and superb English, but if you need to teach them Science, forget it. It's strictly Creationist.

I made up the difference in that area with back issues of National Geographic and Smithsonian, and sought out other books on the subject from the library. As I explained to everyone from my wife to my pastor(s), even if you don't choose to believe in Evolution, how can you refute what you cannot understand? Our pastor(s) were not impressed, of course, and they really got hot under their dog collars when I asked, "If, when you get to Heaven, you find Stephen Hawking standing next to Jesus, what are you going to do? LEAVE?"

I would have appreciated more information on History, but I've got plenty of books on those subjects which I've bought over the years. (One thing is certain: I learned from doing this what areas were merely skimmed over in my own education.) It's been tough, but I think it's been worth it over time. I've learned a lot, and I know my wife has, since she's been the primary force behind this. (It meant her giving up a job so this could be done.)

Presently, we're working through Horizon Instructional Systems out of Lincoln, CA. This is a purely secular program. The Science program has been a massive improvement, and the boys have gained by it. I could still wish they had better History instruction, but there's only so much you can do with it.

Both boys meet with a teacher once every other week, while Matt meets with a specialist once a week at our local library. Matt can at least read now, and his math skills are steadily improving. Both boys read at the College level, though I still believe they could do even better. We'll see.

At present, they both test very high on standardized tests. My biggest problem is that even when we signed up with Horizon, it took several years before we could get Matt in for an assessment. I know money is tight for schools, but there's no excuse for delaying this for as long as they did.

I could wish there were more "together" times for the kids going through these programs. There isn't. Even Churches, which seem to be bent towards boosting these programs, try to discourage them and the parents. Our kids were not learning from our public schools, and the private schools we investigated were not much better. (I'm supposed to pay out money I don't have to give the boys a substandard education? I don't think so...) Also, many of the parents I encounter who do home school are trying to "shield" their kids from "negative influences," (newspapers, international criticism of the U.S., hard Science education, etc.), something I've tried to avoid doing. (Someone may want to mention to Wayne Grabert that Jonathan has read some of his posts. I suspect he's seen more in what Wayne has had to say than I have. We have some interesting conversations from this.)

My concern, now, is for what's to come in the next couple of years: Jon will be graduating from High School, (six months late, no thanks to the SoT), and starting training to become a fireman. This will require a lot of time at a Community College, more likely Sierra College in Rocklin. Matt still hasn't made up his mind what he wants to do, so we're playing that by ear. (He graduates the next year.) I'm concerned about two young men who do well when it comes to learning, but haven't had much actual formal classroom time.

Some parents resent the notion that when you're trying to teach within Horizon's system, the school requires that firm guidelines be drawn up for each class taught, and that they be adhered to. (Both boys took a "class" from my father-in-law, a retired diesel mechanic, in "auto-shop." They won't be hired any time soon to work in a garage, but they can change their own oil, and make some repairs to their cars, when they actually purchase their own.) I actually think that's the wisest course, and I've watched my wife work this out with the boys' teacher over the past few years. It's been tough, but as I say, it's been worth it.

I'd be interested in hearing from other parents who have homeschooled. Did it work for you? Why or why not? We're not finished yet, so if there's corrections to be made, we can still cover our bases. I'm hoping to help them as they make their way through the first half of college.

(Intersting P.S. - Matt wants to study genetic engineering. Maybe I didn't do so bad, after all...)

 

[athon]

Hey RT,

I'm a secondary teacher in an Australian high school, so you'll understand the bias I approach this with initially. Also bear in mind that our system may be somewhat different to yours, and I can only speak from personal experience.

Firstly, I disagree with homeschooling, with few exceptions. An education system relies on more than a teacher-student relationship to educate a member of society. Entailed within is something called in pedagogical circles 'The Hidden Curriculum'. It covers all the less obvious things that are learned in a social setting, involving relationships, social ettiquette and rules...basically anything that is not tested at the end of the day.

A social setting is essential for this - no exceptions.

Secondly, with a diversity of teachers (and by this, I also mean fellow students, who do a large amount of 'peer teaching' themselves), a child can learn more (and not just 'subject-matter'), picking up skills that may suit them better. A single educator might not teach the way they learn, as you have experienced.

Lastly, a school environment follows the social structure more closely that a home one. The disappointment of failure, while hardly sought after, is an important lesson. Unfairness, struggle and peer-comparison are all sh*tty lessons, but essential when one experiences the crap of real life.

Now, that said, I am hardly a Nazi when it comes to this opinion.

If a parent balances homeschooling with ample social experiences (i.e., sports clubs, YMCA, social outings...hell, even Church Youth Groups, dare I say it), and involves tutoring to offer a more diverse range of learning methods, it may be a good option. Especially if the parent decides that the local education system is failing their child.

A child will hardly end up socially retarded by being educated at home. But in my experience, parents end up doing their kids a diservice by educating them at home personally. Especially when they themselves have limited or biased education.

Athon

 

[Roadtoad]

Thanks for the input, Athon. It's been greatly needed, believe me.

There are, I'm certain, differences between our respective school systems. The primary goal, naturally, is supposed to be the same, but I sometimes wonder about the committment of some of our nation's school teachers to the task at hand. (Don't even get me started about the administrators! More about that later...)

Thankfully, in our situation, we've had help with a regular instructor who comes in, as I said, once every other week. (She used to come more frequently, but we recently switched instructors. God, I really miss Laurie, the earlier teacher they had.) I could honestly wish we'd get a daily visit, but the way this is working out, we're pushing it with the contacts we have. Every family working through Horizon has a budget, and that budget is reviewed every semester with the parents. Modifications can be made, but usually with some difficulty.

In order to get that sort of "teacher-student" contact, we've turned to friends who have expertise in certain areas. Also, if I can get the kids in to see certain exhibitions at some of the major museums within drive time, we do that, too. It's not easy, but it covers some of the gaps.

My concern, and again, the reason for our choice, was that the boys weren't learning from their situation. Also, as I pointed out, Highlands High has a deserved reputation for violence. I question how well any kid can learn when they're worried about whether or not they're going to get a knife in the gut during lunch, or after school. As I said earlier, our friends wound up calling the county sheriff, literally forcing the school to suspend the girl, and force her into giving up her weapon. (BTW, we had recently passed a ballot initiative outlawing ALL weapons on school grounds. I guess the school administrators forgot about that.) Since the schools weren't willing to teach, or to even develop the environment necessary so kids could learn, I had to make a choice. It may not have been the best choice available, but it was one we could work with.

I'd like to hear more about the hidden curriculum, because from the little bit you're discussing, that's an area of weakness. Jon is presently taking courses through the Regional Occupational Program which is training him to become a fireman/paramedic. He's getting classroom time, which is helping him in his social skills. I suppose this is part of what you're referring to when you talk about "peer teaching," though if you could be more specific, it would help. As it happens, he's probably one of the shyest people I know.

(Odd: girls walk right up to him, and just start talking with him as if the two of them are old friends. He likes girls; he talks about marrying and having kids, and all that, but damn, he's so cautious with them. He even had a nurse in her 30's getting sweet on him in one class, though, thankfully, I don't think anything is going to come of it...)

Matt, on the other hand, is so outgoing, I have to hold him back a bit. We worry about pedophiles around here. I probably shouldn't be so concerned; my "baby" stands 6'1". He's always talking with people. The only downside is that in a classroom setting, he locks up. I don't know why; the ADHD seems to not be a factor in other areas, but I could be wrong.

We've tried to keep the diversity up, as you've suggested. I'd still like to learn more, and try to open things up even more. Thankfully, both boys are extremely inquisitive. I have, however, nixed the idea of Jon joining JREF, simply because I don't want him running into JK, or certain others; no one, at 17, needs the head games played by these people. (Given that I'm 43, I think I'm a little better able to take on folks like that.) My suspicion is that Matt might enjoy JREF more than Jon, but he's lacking in maturity, (like another 16 year old I've run into around here). Any suggestions would be most welcome. So far, you've given us a lot to work with in your short message. Thank you.

 

[athon]

No problems. You seem to be looking at the issue responsibly, and with real cause (not a simple 'we could do better', which I've argued with some parents before).

The Hidden Curriculum is a term used to describe about 80% of what a kid learns in the school environment. In the classroom it covers how to interact with authority figures, with peers, and with 'subordinates' (i.e., a kid is elected as class leader, for instance). It involves basis manners, ettiquette, exploration of ideas, and, if you're in my classroom, ability to argue a belief. In other words, no parent will ever see a grading covering these things on the child's report card. In the playground it involves how kids interact in sports, lining up, and simple social hierarchies. Unfortunately these things are more important, yet often neglected by many older teachers who are essentially unaware of it.

While I'm hardly a sports-fan (I'm as far from the lounge-potato-armchair-sportsman as you get), I really think it is important for kids to participate in a sporting program. Especially if they aren't socialising through a school. It promotes healthy way of thinking, association with a rules system as well as basic manners (shaking hands after a game...that sort of thing).

Diversifying their tutors is a good thing. We all learn differently, and some kids who have troubles at school with one teacher will do wonders with another, simply because one will do a 'chalk-and-talk' lesson, while the other may show more movies (or something). Again, this is more important than the actual material they learn. The 'stuff' component, in my view (the amount of actual information they learn and later use) is minimal - I'd say conservatively only 10% of that they learn at school in terms of concrete knowledge is ever used. Hence the rest of the stuff they learn is more important.

If the school is as violent as you say, it's a good thing to get them out. There's less cause for concern with actual violence (how many non-gang related stabbings are there every year?), but more because nobody can learn when the only lesson they are concerned about is how to stay on the right side of 'the mob'.

I had my experience in inner London - and I can see where you're coming from.

Good luck. I think if you get them out into the real world (have them get part time jobs as soon as they are capable - even McDonalds is good for it) and be there for them, they can't go wrong.

Cheers,

Athon

 

[Samus]

I will preface my comments by saying that I was not homeschooled, and I have no kids of my own. However, I have worked with many homeschool teenagers over the years via a volunteer organization I am a member of.

I can see the benefit of homeschooling in your case. Given your alternatives (a public school that wasn't working for them, sub-par private schools), I'd say you made the best choice available.

The key to homeschooling well is to diversify their activities. One problem I've seen with homeschool students is that their parents shelter them. Now, I can see that this is not the case for you, but sheltering can sometimes be subtle. I remember these two brothers, socially inept they were. Their family was ultra-Christian, and the kids only participated in sports and other activities with other Christian homeschoolers. Sure they did a lot of stuff, but it was all with the same basic type of kid. One advantage to public schools is that you learn how to deal with all the different personalities you'll have to work with in real life.

Furthermore, allowing your kids to see the potheads, boozers, and "bad" kids will give them an appreciation for how good they have it, and drive home the lessons that you've tried to teach them. At least, that's what it did for me.

Homeschoolers I've met are usually rather polite, but seem to be at a disadvantage when it comes to being a part of a team. That, or they're not decisive enough to be in charge of anything. They're good at taking tests, but not good at learning and applying what is on those tests. Those are some non-curriculum areas you might want to keep in mind when teaching them. Now, they were both in public schools for a few years, so I don't think they will have the problems that exclusive homeschool students do.

Good luck with this. Some of the sharpest and best teens I've ever met were homeschooled. But those teens had public school friends, and participated in a lot of activities without other homeschoolers. The worst case I've seen are the sheltered teens. When they get away from mommy and daddy, they're going to be totally unprepared for what life will hand them.

 

[Ladewig]

I have a lot to say on this subject, but because I am not really qualified, I'll throw in just a couple of quick ideas. Make sure the kids learn public speaking. There are very few desireable jobs in which the ability to speak comfortably to groups of people is not an asset e.g. some firemen address school children or teach fire safety.

As for social aspects, there may be continuing education classes in the area (cooking, juggling, sign language, public speaking, magic, etc.). Perhaps some local museums have classes. Does Habitat for Humanity have a local chapter? Sometimes local organizations have river clean-ups or other group activities. Lastly, while it sounds strange, you could give them an assignment to study social interaction: let them hang around a college campus for a couple of days and then write a report or have them interview people about their social interactions.

 

[kedo1981]

In the States the “teacher student relationship” has all but been removed.
Home schooling has puzzled me for years, who the heck can afford to do it?
I also am skeptical about test scores and how they are tallied.

 

[cbish]

Hi Roadtoad.

I'm a high school science teacher just up the road at Nevada Union. Home schooling is very big here for the primary schools but most students do come to high school here (it's better to get into college).

I have some very definitive thoughts on the subject. 1) I've never met a home school parent who didn't think they weren't doing the right thing. Also, I've never met a home school parent who thought they were incompetent. To be fair, I've never met a teacher who thought they were incompetent either.2) With my experiences, homeschooled children do poorly. I would estimate that less than 10% of the homeschooled students I've had the last decade are "adequate" let alone excellent. My # 1 Biology student this year is a homeschooled girl so it can be done, but it's rare.

I pretty much agree with everything Athon has said. I'll add my two cents. In addition to Athon's comments, homeschooling is inadequate for two more reasons.

1) most parents are unqualified to offer any type of education. When it comes to the high school level material, most people are not formally educated in all subject areas. It sounds to me like you're aware of that and have taken strides to reduce that. Also, parents are not trained as educators. Believe it or not, I had to be certificated and I am required, as I would do anyway, to take continuing ed. to further advance my skills. Most parents don't have that and unfortunatly do not desire that. I am familiar with the Grant Union district and I will not deny what you have said about it. One thing though, you can be educated there if you choose. I have a cousin who graduated valedictorian from Highlands High in 2000 and is doing well at UCLA. (Incidently, why do you live there? If you cross I-80 you're in a different country!)

2) I have found homeschooling to be bare bones education. Because of this, home schooled kids really struggle with structure. They have very little self expectation. So, even if they're cognitively on track, they fail because they have no metacognitive skills; i.e.concept of deadlines or personal management.

In my mind, homeschool success depends on the educational level of the parent. It also depends on the effort the parent puts into it (which for most of my experiences has been poor). Taking what you have said, it seems you have made efforts to minimize what I've brought up. I think the Sierra College idea is an excellent one. American River is good too. If you have any questions go ahead and PM me. Good luck!

 

[Roadtoad]

First of all, Laedewig, you're not unqualified. You may, in fact, be better qualified than I am, simply because you're not in the middle of it. Please, by all means, get into this debate! (BTW, my sons are reading this, too.)

To be honest, cbish, I've been worried about our qualifications. Math has been the biggest struggle, simply because it was my worst subject in school, and my wife does it grudgingly. Horizon has provided video tapes and the like, and there are deadlines the boys have to deal with, but I'm not so sure that we've gotten the better deal out of it at times. Their math skills are what I might consider "adequate," but for what interests Matt, he's going to need to study as far as Calculus, and frankly, that is WAAAAYYYY out of my league.

As I described earlier, we used the PACES program, (ACE for some, I think), which was fine if you wanted kids with good math and English skills, but once you started getting into hard sciences, like physics, chemistry, earth sciences, and the like, and you're really screwed, to put it bluntly. History, to put it kindly, is presented from a pro-American stance which would make Rush Limbaugh look like a pinko. Scary. To counter that, I actually tried to get them into contact with people who liked Bill Clinton, and could articulate why. I tried to get them to talk to people with differing viewpoints.

Unfortunately, science has really come up short. We have little contact with people with the solid grounding in science, and science education. Jon is getting that now, given his interests, but Matt is the one I worry about. We've been playing catch-up, using the internet, and such sites as Frogguts.com, (I think that's the site), and we've gotten several science kits from the home school, but when you're having to catch up, you realize the value of a strong grounding in those areas at an early age. (Frankly, the Rio Linda School District is one of the poorer districts in our area, and they're lacking in a lot of resources.)

Public speaking, that sort of thing comes up often for both of them, but I'd really appreciate more contact on a lower level with other people.

I need to find resources to help continue the boys' critical thinking training. We spend lots of time at the library, but trust me, for all that's there, there ain't enough.

My interests, being primarily in politics and such, I can cover a lot. Plus, we've got lots to read around here, (The Federalist Papers, The Crisis, Common Sense, The Republic, The Prince ), but I sometimes wonder if that isn't a little advanced. Hard to say.

Any more ideas about how to cover the gaps? Adequate simply isn't.

 

[cbish]

I still think the Sierra College idea is the best, but I think you have to be 16.

I still have one burning question. Why do you live in Rio Linda??? Did you research the school districts when you moved there? In my mind, if you went 10 miles north to Roseville & Rocklin, problem solved. Woodcreek & Rocklin HS are excellent schools. You could also go east. Casa Roble, Oakmont, Granite Bay are good as well.

Are you sure there isn't more to it than you're letting on?

 

[Roadtoad]

I'm a truck driver. I don't make much money. We bought our home for around $76,500. In order to move to Roseville, I had to be making another $20 Grand a year.

You're right about Oakmont, and Roseville in general, for that matter. Phenomenal schools. Unlike the Grant District, (remember Hazel Mahone and her chief assistant? Blowing half a mil on redecorating their offices...!), Roseville has its priorities straight.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

These are my skeptical positions about schools and "The Hidden Curriculum".

Position One: Teachers are not qualified to be teachers.

Most teachers are people who were barely intellectually qualified to get into tertiary education. Teaching degrees are such soft options that the brighter Arts students feel superior when they see the course material.

So if you never made it past high school yourself, and there is no shame in that, you are probably better off handing your kids over to the school system.

A relative handful of teachers are actually people who like kids and are good at teaching. You are very lucky if you get one, because the system does not encourage them.

So if you have a real tertiary qualification and you got As (or the equivalent) in school, you're better qualified to teach than a school teacher if you have any interpersonal skills at all.

Position Two: "The Hidden Rationalisation"

It doesn't take a genius to realise that most of what is taught in high school is either a lie or useless. Nor does it take a genius to realise that most of what students learn, useless or otherwise, they forget within a few months of graduating unless they go in to a job or course where those skills are required.

So what do teachers do when they realise this? Well, they could get a real job. But most don't have the brains for better paid white collar work or the inclination for manual labour.

So they make up a fairy story. Which is "The Hidden Curriculum".

The story goes like this. Making children spend six hours a day in an authoritarian environment as faceless subjects of bad tuition is not, as you might think, the unfortunate side of a necessary education. No, doing so is the point! It teaches them to knuckle under to authority figures, obey rules, subordinate themselves to a team in pursuit of empty victories and to shut the hell up even when they are trapped in an idiotic system.

This is the real curriculum, they say.

It's a cunning story, because it justifies absolutely everything besides the curriculum. It's the hidden curriculum, don't you see? Everything we do is okay, because it's teaching them a valuable covert lesson.

The truth is that the important socialising parts of growing up can take place just fine without classrooms and uniforms. As long as the kids get out of the house and have interests that bring them in to contact with other kids, they'll do fine.

The reason most home schooled kids are substandard is that a lot of home schooling is done by religious drones rather than intelligent people. (Yes, there are people lower down the scale than teachers).

The conclusion reached from these two positions is that if you are a bright person and can spend the time on it, you are far better off home schooling your children. Teachers will of course disagree, because they have to present themselves as having something to offer professionally.

Before anyone asks, I don't have kids and don't want them. So parents, save us all some time and if you want to reply, engage with the content of my argument rather than running out the good old line "when you have kids you'll understand".

Not that the above paragraph will stop you.

 

[Tesserat]

I don't like the concept of the hidden curriculum either. In most high school envirements I've seen, it's the most dominant kids who set the pace. Most kids learn to go along with the norm. High school puts huge pressure on kids to conform. The pressure comes in the form of what kinds of clothes to wear to be cool, what stuff to buy, what music to listen to.

The adults I know who are the most interesting are the ones who were geeks in high school. THey didn't conform, and when they left school, they continued to do stuff that was unconventional.

The people who I admire most have one thing in common. They were around adults a lot when they were growing up. Not just their parents, but in their communities, there were many activities where adults and children mixed, both at work, and in play.

These kids grew up knowing how to relate to adults, and not seeing them (as much) as adversaries. A lot of high school students I've been exposed to get a job, and then treat the adults around them as they would treat their parents, or their buddies at school.

I think school below the college/university level is a very artificial envirement that is not designed to prepare kids for social life. I think it'd be great if all the courses of the "hidden curriculum" were brought out in the open, and taught as essential life skills, instead of expecting kids to pick them up at random.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

These are my skeptical positions about schools and "The Hidden Curriculum".

Oh come now ... a couple of unsupported assertions topped off with a conspiracy theory is a skeptical position? Someone's been watching one too many X-Files episodes...

Position One: Teachers are not qualified to be teachers.

Most teachers are people who were barely intellectually qualified to get into tertiary education.

Source, please?

Position Two: "The Hidden Rationalisation"

It doesn't take a genius to realise that most of what is taught in high school is either a lie or useless.

Someone's bitter. Please elaborate on the "lies" taught in high school.

So what do teachers do when they realise this? Well, they could get a real job. But most don't have the brains for better paid white collar work or the inclination for manual labour.

A recent survey in the UK shows that a fair number of teachers plan to leave the profession within five years. Some are due to retire, but the number who are leaving for a different job is about the same as the number of people who are signing up for teacher training.

If it's such an easy job that any moron could do, why aren't more morons doing it?

link

So they make up a fairy story. Which is "The Hidden Curriculum".

And to top it all off, we have a conspiracy theory.

I hope your post was just a joke and I missed it due to lack of sleep. Really.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh come now ... a couple of unsupported assertions topped off with a conspiracy theory is a skeptical position? Someone's been watching one too many X-Files episodes...

It's generally my belief that if something is either a conspiracy or a c*ck-up, nine times out of ten it's not a conspiracy.

But it's also generally my belief that if a professional group articulates a viewpoint that is transparently bogus and conveniently self-seving, that they are deliberately lying.

It's conceivable, I suppose, that teachers are smart enough to come up with a story like The Hidden Curriculum but also dumb enough to believe it.

But since others have expressed similar opinions to mine since, if I recall correctly, well before I was in school, I can't claim that these ideas are in any way fundamentally new. So it's not as if I was the first to notice, or as if the teaching profession has not had the opportunity to engage with such criticism in the past.

As for lies in the curriculum, I grew up in Australia. So I got the version of Australian colonial history that barely mentioned the Australian aborigines. I got the approved version of WW1 that told us that Gallipoli was our "baptism of fire". I got the approved version of the Dismissal that neglected to mention the involvement of the CIA, or the large sums of money paid to the Liberal Party by the US government. The parts of our history that it didn't suit the Powers That Be were strangely absent, while the impression was cultivated that having studied history we had informed opinions about things like WW1, the Dismissal and so forth.

Yes, I'm angry about that. I educated myself afterwards, but I'm sure the majority of Australians of my generation are still influenced by the snow job done in History class. When I was younger I thought that kind of blatant misrepresentation of history was the kind of thing only those nasty foreign totalitarian regimes did.

 

[tamiO]

I found this wonderful article when I was looking for a suitable Occam's razor link for another board.

http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/AERG/Oth73-Occams-Razor.htm

I wanted to study children educated at home because of the unique opportunity it gave me of looking into what for centuries has been assumed to be the very essence of good teaching: one-to-one dialogue between teacher and learner.

To get me started, I took up an invitation to spend a week "living in" with a home educating family. The experience was a complete eye opener for me, and started me off thinking about what I've come to call "The Childs Theory of Learning" which contrasts sharply with the way children are expected to learn in school.

Homeschooling was cheap for me.
I didn't buy a curriculum.
You can't stop a child from learning.

Hey Jer, are you reading this?
Is it snowing? Can you smell it?

 

[Occasional Chemist]

But since others have expressed similar opinions to mine since, if I recall correctly, well before I was in school, I can't claim that these ideas are in any way fundamentally new. So it's not as if I was the first to notice, or as if the teaching profession has not had the opportunity to engage with such criticism in the past.

Appeal to poplularity.

Perhaps they simply don't feel the position is one worthy of debate. You might notice that mainstream scientists don't spend too much time worrying about what Joe Conspiracy Theorist thinks about crop circles. They have too many other interesting things to do.

Frankly, if teachers listened to everyone who thought they could do their job better than they could, there would be no time for teaching. They're like professionak athletes, actors, and army officers in that regard. EVERYONE thinks they could just step into their jobs.

The parts of our history that it didn't suit the Powers That Be were strangely absent, while the impression was cultivated that having studied history we had informed opinions about things like WW1, the Dismissal and so forth.

In countries like the USA, we have school boards that are (in theory - sometimes they're contaminated by religious groups and other influences) supposed to prevent that sort of thing. In your case, I suppose you have to take it to your elected representatives. Either way, what are you doing about it?

Okay, so we've got a little support for how some materials aren't up to the standards they should be. So, how will the situation be different if a student were home schooled? In a subject like history, you can pretty well find books slanted to any version of history you prefer. Whose chemistry books will you buy? Biology? Economics? Is the kid more likely to get a balanced education?

You still haven't backed up your "skeptical" position one, by the way.

 

[cbish]

Position One: Teachers are not qualified to be teachers.

Most teachers are people who were barely intellectually qualified to get into tertiary
education. Teaching degrees are such soft options that the brighter Arts students
feel superior when they see the course material.

So if you never made it past high school yourself, and there is no shame in that, you
are probably better off handing your kids over to the school system.

Well I don't know where you come from but here you have to have at least a Bachelors degree in your subject area. Over 60% of our district faculty has post graduate degrees.

A relative handful of teachers are actually people who like kids and are good at
teaching

Sorry, it's the other way around!

Kevin, please don't hijack this thread. It's been a good discussion on a good topic. Unless you have anything substantive to add...piss off!

 

[cbish]

Roadtoad wrote

. In order to move to Roseville, I had to be making another $20 Grand a year.

Fair enough! That's more information than I need to know.

The reason why I brought it up, to be honest, was I was about to rip you up & down. That was based on a few comments from your initial post.

Jonathan, my older son, kept running into teachers who seemed to have some
animus towards him.

Matthew, my youngest, was not learning at all. We had tried for years to get him
in for some sort of assessment to find out why, but the school district kept putting
us off, telling us they'd do it later in the next semester, or early next year...........there was always an excuse as to why they could not be bothered.

The other girl flashed a knife, and told our friends'
daughter that after school, she'd be dead. When our friends' daughter told the school
administration, they shrugged their shoulders and said it wasn't their problem.

Based on their face value, these are really wild, extreme statements. To be frank, they're unbelievable. They right down there with "the cops are always picking on me" on the ol' credibility scale. I have heard statements like these dozens of times in my career. I've statements like these made about me at times during my career. When statements are made like this, either the parent is extremely culpricious or their nuts!!

At first I thought you might be one of those, but now I don't think so. However, you may not want to say things like this. I'd be a little more vague like "our school district isn't that good or we've had some bad experiences". Things like that.

I do have to tell you, I'm impressed with your efforts and concerns. Those traits are pretty much nonexistant in most homeschool scenarios. And, as I've said, I've had some excellent homeschool students. I just wish I had more of them. Again good luck & let me know if I can help.

 

[Roadtoad]

Based on their face value, these are really wild, extreme statements. To be frank, they're unbelievable. They right down there with "the cops are always picking on me" on the ol' credibility scale. I have heard statements like these dozens of times in my career. I've statements like these made about me at times during my career. When statements are made like this, either the parent is extremely culpricious or their nuts!!

At first I thought you might be one of those, but now I don't think so. However, you may not want to say things like this. I'd be a little more vague like "our school district isn't that good or we've had some bad experiences". Things like that.

I do have to tell you, I'm impressed with your efforts and concerns. Those traits are pretty much nonexistant in most homeschool scenarios. And, as I've said, I've had some excellent homeschool students. I just wish I had more of them. Again good luck & let me know if I can help. [/B]

You make a good point, cbish. I wasn't sure if I should have mentioned those things, simply for the reasons you mentioned. I know exactly what you're talking about there; my wife, Peggy, worked for several years as a teacher's assistant within the Rio Linda District, primarily with severely maladjusted kids. (If we can connect in person, I'll let her tell you about them. Some of these tales can rip your heart apart. Believe me, Teachers [caps intentional] have my deepest respect.)

Peggy had to deal with parents who couldn't accept that their kids were capable of doing violent/crazy things. On one occasion, I was visiting her at work, when one of the kids went off. Scared the hell out of me, and I was in my late 30's, 240 lbs., and burly as hell. Sadly, I don't think mainstreaming that particular kid was going to work out. I could wish; when he was calm, he was a good kid to be around.

Can you help? Hell, yes! I really need to get my mitts on some sort of books I can use to work with Matt and get his math skills up. Basic science books are always welcome. ANYTHING!

Kevin, please: If you had a genuine problem with the schools you attended, tell us how you solved them. Provide evidence. Document what you say. (I can.) BUT, please, let's not get into a riff where we're running down public education at every angle. That helps no one. Solutions are what we're after, here.