NationStates Jolt Archive

Homeschooling is pretty pish, but if people want to do it then fair enough, so long as there's a central body to monitor if kids are being taught the right kind of things (i.e. they can do a bit of maths, can read and write etc.).

The only thing I think they lack is associating themselves properly with kids their own age while growing up.
I fail to see why this is a problem.

The only thing I think they lack is associating themselves properly with kids their own age while growing up.
source?

I fail to see why this is a problem.

Because it doesn't prepare them for the "real world" where your company will only employ same age peers for you to work with and you won't ever see anyone outside of work, therefore you must learn to socialize with your same age peers while working, because if you don't go to work every day with same age peers just like everyone else does you will fail at life. :rolleyes:

source?

In Nanatsu's defense, you'll note the "I think" in that statement...

In Nanatsu's defense, you'll note the "I think" in that statement...

True. I just want to know why people think that. Where did that thought come from? A lot of people think that, I just can't figure out why.

True. I just want to know why people think that. Where did that thought come from? A lot of people think that, I just can't figure out why.

Because the kids are taught at home and thusly don't get to interact with other kids, other than family members.

I was home schooled on and off throughout elementary and high school. My parents made that decision because I was miserable with the academics offered by public school. I came home after a week of kindergarten and asked my mother, "When are we going to LEARN things?"
The home schooling experience was mixed for me. I got to read a lot, which was nice, but my parents did not take an active role in my education. That taught me to be very self-motivated. I joined a local debate team and published and sold a pretty decent magazine in high school. I did a lot of volunteering. My social life didn't suffer.
However, now I'm attending a rigorous college, and there are definitely gaps in my education. Certain skills, particularly in the maths and sciences, simply were not taught. I think that's in part because I was less interested in them, in part because my parents didn't possess the skills either (or have the time to teach me).
I think that all home schoolers should have some accountability to the public school system. There should be an advisor or counselor who meets with the student once a week, minimum requirements met by the end of the year, etc. I also think some kind of extracurricular should be mandatory, either through the schools or through a church, private lessons, etc.

Because the kids are taught at home and thusly don't get to interact with other kids, other than family members.

It's not true though.

source?

If what I´ve seen counts as a source, by all means I´ll be more than happy to give it to you.

When kids grow up around grown ups, they tend to think and act as such. There´s nothing better than to let a child be just that, a child.

That happened to me while growing up, I was around adults too much, thusly, my mom and my dad said I acted like a little adult myself. When it came time for me to go to preschool, I had a hell of a time adjusting. I didn´t understand kids my own age for a while.

Of course, I´m not saying this will be the common denominator on children that are home schooled. But, letting a child interact with children from his/her same age group is key to early social development in life. I think school, regular school, plays a key role in that social development.

It's not true though.
Depends upon the home-school environment. There are enough wackjobs out there who do indeed keep their kids isolated for whatever reason that it is a concern, but I do agree with you that the majority of home-school students do socialize in other ways. The only one I'm a bit iffy on is the depth of such socialization. Meaning that public school kids usually have more of a chance to interact with people from different backgrounds/POVs/ethnicity/etc than home-schooled kids. However, I acknowledge that this is a pretty weak argument as just because a child has the opportunity to interact with, say, an exchange student from Switzerland at their school, it does not necessarily follow that they WILL interact.

Yep. Im arrogant. I think I know whats best for teh babies. There you go.
Yes, you are indeed quite arrogant. If you truly are preparing to become a teacher, my advice is for you to drop your attitude and lose your arrogance or else you are going to have one hell of a time with both your kids and their parents.

If what I´ve seen counts as a source, by all means I´ll be more than happy to give it to you.

When kids grow up around grown ups, they tend to think and act as such. There´s nothing better than to let a child be just that, a child.

That happened to me while growing up, I was around adults too much, thusly, my mom and my dad said I acted like a little adult myself. When it came time for me to go to preschool, I had a hell of a time adjusting. I didn´t understand kids my own age for a while.

Of course, I´m not saying this will be the common denominator on children that are home schooled. But, letting a child interact with children from his/her same age group is key to early social development in life. I think school, regular school, plays a key role in that social development.

You are working from the assumption that homeschooled children do not have opportunities to interact with children their age. You also seem to be operating under the assumption that they have no siblings, neighborhood children, etc. to interact with if they are not active in extra curricular activities. It's a false dichotomy either they go to school and make friends or they are homeschooled and have no friends. These are not the choices in reality. Like Nervun says there are children who are isolated but they are in the minority (at least that's my experience). There are also children in school that are isolated. I was one of them up until high school.

It's not true though.

Not universally true anyways, it is true of the first instance of home-schooled kids that I was aware of, and judging by the fact that there is a number of other people who seem to think this is true, I'd say it is true too often.
Not to say that it is a majority or even necesarily a sizeable minority, just that it being true for any home-schooled situation is it happening too often.

I'm up to post 249 and I have a LOT of replies for my next post.

I'm very interested in the reform of public education (all education really) and I'm embarrassed to discover how little I know about home schooling.

Many many people have said how public schools need more funding, and I agree, but I want to say this: teachers need to be paid more right now, and their future wages guaranteed to rise (say by indexing to a multiple of the CPI) ... because better teachers aren't just going to walk off the street. Getting enough qualified teachers that they're ALL good teachers is a long-term proposition, due to the training required.

Even if every teacher in a public school was a good teacher, we'd still need more because class sizes need to get smaller yet. Thirty kids is way too many for most subjects (yes, 'lectures' are a component of education -- but shouldn't be the mainstay of it.) We should be aiming for something more like 6 in primary school, 10 in high school.

Smaller class sizes seem to me a fundamental advantage of homeschooling which to some extent compensates for the lesser training of the "teachers."

I'm up to post 249 and I have a LOT of replies for my next post.

I'm very interested in the reform of public education (all education really) and I'm embarrassed to discover how little I know about home schooling.

Many many people have said how public schools need more funding, and I agree, but I want to say this: teachers need to be paid more right now, and their future wages guaranteed to rise (say by indexing to a multiple of the CPI) ... because better teachers aren't just going to walk off the street. Getting enough qualified teachers that they're ALL good teachers is a long-term proposition, due to the training required.

Even if every teacher in a public school was a good teacher, we'd still need more because class sizes need to get smaller yet. Thirty kids is way too many for most subjects (yes, 'lectures' are a component of education -- but shouldn't be the mainstay of it.) We should be aiming for something more like 6 in primary school, 10 in high school.

Smaller class sizes seem to me a fundamental advantage of homeschooling which to some extent compensates for the lesser training of the "teachers."

Personally I'd say 12 for both would be a good enough goal...

Oh my gosh!

Homeschooling is certainly good for some kids...

BUT IT'S GOOD FOR ALL!! Amazing for all!

I homeschooled Grade 1-5.

Best damn thing I EVER did.

Entered school Grade 6, top honours in 99th percentile for SSAT. Education, computation speed, and knowledgebase of random facts (which I love) have fallen since.

Only reason I stay is it's a damn good school compared w/the rest and has amazing options and extracurricular activities.

Seriously, in homeschooling I spent two hours of structured learning a day, learning more than I would in a week of school, and then read and walked and improved myself.

For homeschoolers, the world is our school.

You are working from the assumption that homeschooled children do not have opportunities to interact with children their age. You also seem to be operating under the assumption that they have no siblings, neighborhood children, etc. to interact with if they are not active in extra curricular activities. It's a false dichotomy either they go to school and make friends or they are homeschooled and have no friends. These are not the choices in reality. Like Nervun says there are children who are isolated but they are in the minority (at least that's my experience). There are also children in school that are isolated. I was one of them up until high school.

To add, you're correct.

And yes, most kids I know who homeschooled think have thought at a very adult level and BEEN ABLE TO act as such since Grade 4...

But they're still children.

There is no crime more evil than to chain children to a school for seven hours, and then make them do homework, learning in a structured manner. There is no sin more heinous than forcing children to 'learn' at a level that is either higher or lower than their's, an invisible average. Let children be children, to play the day away, to have no stress, no cares. Not this, not this.

Thank you, Kat. As someone who just worked her ass off to get her credential this year, it drives me kind of nuts to hear people indiscriminately bash public school teachers when they have a very limited understanding about the system. As someone who became a teacher, in part, because I had such HORRIBLE experiences with teachers, I am one of the first to point out that there are indeed incompetant teachers in the country, and they can do a lot of damage. But there are a great number of excellent, qualified teachers who are dedicated to their jobs and their students. I know so many teachers who battle parents and administrators, who struggle to make ends meet on their salaries, who are up at dawn and home after dinner, day after day, because they care so much for their students and providing the best they can that all the crap is worth it.

I am not denying the existence of good teachers, indeed I was fortunate to have some excellent teachers and some do put a lot of effort in and care about their students and geuinely want to teach and want to kids to learn more than the just the minimum standard imposed by the state, and I respect those teachers. You said yourself that they are incompetent teachers in the country, these are the ones I am referring to and while Kat mentioned that teachers need a degree in Education and accreditation, that does not mean that the teacher will be good at their job.

Also, I would add that children, such as me, who did not have an overabundance of acquaintances, as one would have in school, but perhaps limited to 20-30 regular correspondents, that was by far enough.

And, this is the clincher.

The homeschooled I know, especially me, now attending school, had far less acquaintances then their school-counterparts, although still many.

BUT: A, the schoolfriends were often not as close.

AND B: Homeschoolers are very good at socializing, and make friends and colleagues very quickly, although they don't have occasion to very often, as in school. School people, on the other hand, have a harder time and are more socially uncomfortable (in general) if they don't know people, as school can be circle-of-friends oriented, whereas homeschoolers are usually comfortable in any social situation.

Until they go to school for a while.

Even if every teacher in a public school was a good teacher, we'd still need more because class sizes need to get smaller yet. Thirty kids is way too many for most subjects (yes, 'lectures' are a component of education -- but shouldn't be the mainstay of it.) We should be aiming for something more like 6 in primary school, 10 in high school.

Small classes are good, from my own personal experience I can say that the smaller the class I was in the better my education on that topic was.
There are a few problems with the numbers above (just to play devils advocate), does the state have the number of teachers to be able to meet these numbers?, and do they have the money?

Kids don't socialize during school. Only during breaks. And sometimes, if they don't have too much homework, after school.

Break time for a homeschooler could be the whole day or 4 hours, depending on the day.

Small classes are good, from my own personal experience I can say that the smaller the class I was in the better my education on that topic was.
There are a few problems with the numbers above (just to play devils advocate), does the state have the number of teachers to be able to meet these numbers?, and do they have the money?

Should the state be running schools?

No.

Do you think it's just random that people with the money send their kids to private school?

You are working from the assumption that homeschooled children do not have opportunities to interact with children their age. You also seem to be operating under the assumption that they have no siblings, neighborhood children, etc. to interact with if they are not active in extra curricular activities. It's a false dichotomy either they go to school and make friends or they are homeschooled and have no friends. These are not the choices in reality. Like Nervun says there are children who are isolated but they are in the minority (at least that's my experience). There are also children in school that are isolated. I was one of them up until high school.

As I already stated, I´m in no way assuming this isolation will be the common denominator. Many home-schooled children are well adjusted and have no problem what so ever interacting. Some do have problems but it isn´t, in any way, the norm for them not to be.

As I already stated, I´m in no way assuming this isolation will be the common denominator. Many home-schooled children are well adjusted and have no problem what so ever interacting. Some do have problems but it isn´t, in any way, the norm for them not to be.

I'm cool until the last sentence, then I get kinda fuzzy on your point. (sorry blame benedryl)

Some public school kids also have problems socially and don't have many friends, they at times (in the US anyway) show up and try to shoot everyone. Surely "not having a lot of friends" isn't a homeschool issue.

I'm cool until the last sentence, then I get kinda fuzzy on your point. (sorry blame benedryl)

Some public school kids also have problems socially and don't have many friends, they at times (in the US anyway) show up and try to shoot everyone. Surely "not having a lot of friends" isn't a homeschool issue.

Oh, I agree. If a child is going to have problems adjusting, is not an issue of education. I´ve heard extremely good things about home-schooling and I´ve seen how well many home-schooled kids do when they attend college. I just sometimes feel like a home-schooled child misses out on the activities that are so common and fun while in school. Of course, I don´t have children. And with the society we´re living in, if I had kids, I would honestly consider home-schooling, at least for the first few years (preschool and 1st. and 2nd. grade at least).

Should the state be running schools?

No.

Do you think it's just random that people with the money send their kids to private school?
Do you think it's just random that 80+% of people in the US are public schooled? That means most likely anyone you meet from business leaders and politicians, doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, professors, police officers, military, etc., etc., etc. were educated in public schooling.

And guess what, they can act just as well as home-schooled kids.

Home-school works for some kids, it does not work for all kids as you have claimed and it sure as hell wouldn't work for the bulk of families.

And yes, the state DOES need to run schools because the state (I.e. everyone within it) has a very vested interest that ALL kids are educated. No matter where they are or their situation

Small classes are good, from my own personal experience I can say that the smaller the class I was in the better my education on that topic was.
There are a few problems with the numbers above (just to play devils advocate), does the state have the number of teachers to be able to meet these numbers?

No. Not right now. There is a real shortage of teachers in Australia, and apparently in many other developed nations. When I say "real" I mean not that classes sit there without teachers (though that happens) I mean we are so short of teachers that kids endure the "teaching" of very bad teachers.

We need more teachers training for the job so we can sack the ones who just aren't good at it. To give them the incentive to train there must be an expectation of higher future wages -- hence the indexation idea. The immediate pay bump is more a proof of resolve to do that than a reward for all teachers for what they are doing now.

The very best teachers would probably keep teaching even if their wages were CUT. But those teachers aren't the problem (but where's the harm in raising their wages?.)

I really think very few people have what it takes to be a good teacher, it's a matter of recruiting as many of those as possible.

And do they have the money?

We afford far less important things ... like the military or universal health-care. And anyway, it doesn't get hugely expensive until several years in the future when the trained teachers become available and the classes get smaller. We need to build more classrooms then, and yes it will cost so much it hurts.

That's the price a society has to pay to do it right. Education is IMPOSED on very disempowered people, children, and doing it wrong has very harmful effects, including crime and the oppression of individuals by other individuals.

What is the cost of ignorance? It is beyond measure!

Oh, I agree. If a child is going to have problems adjusting, is not an issue of education. I´ve heard extremely good things about home-schooling and I´ve seen how well many home-schooled kids do when they attend college. I just sometimes feel like a home-schooled child misses out on the activities that are so common and fun while in school. Of course, I don´t have children. And with the society we´re living in, if I had kids, I would honestly consider home-schooling, at least for the first few years (preschool and 1st. and 2nd. grade at least).

What kind of fun activities?

The homeschool groups in my area do marching band (fun!), foreign language clubs, science fairs, prom, graduation, etc. There aren't many things I did in school that aren't covered.....even the things I didn't like are covered, for example Friday night I have to take the girls to field day *puke* complete with the 50 yard dash and long jump.

Kids don't socialize during school. Only during breaks. And sometimes, if they don't have too much homework, after school.

Break time for a homeschooler could be the whole day or 4 hours, depending on the day.
What exactly are you talking about? Kids socialize throughout the entire school day. Not all socializing is verbal for one, and the teacher doesn't talk all the time in school anyway. There is certainly more going on during recess and lunch, and even that alone is a lot more than home schooled kids would get.

What exactly are you talking about? Kids socialize throughout the entire school day. Not all socializing is verbal for one, and the teacher doesn't talk all the time in school anyway. There is certainly more going on during recess and lunch, and even that alone is a lot more than home schooled kids would get.

source?

What kind of fun activities?

The homeschool groups in my area do marching band (fun!), foreign language clubs, science fairs, prom, graduation, etc. There aren't many things I did in school that aren't covered.....even the things I didn't like are covered, for example Friday night I have to take the girls to field day *puke* complete with the 50 yard dash and long jump.

Like field-days and prom night, or the Forensics team and Rhetoric group. Clubs like that. But hey, that´s just what I think.

source?

How about every day that I've been in school and common sense?

Like field-days and prom night, or the Forensics team and Rhetoric group. Clubs like that. But hey, that´s just what I think.
It's okay. Homeschool kids get to do all those things though.

How about every day that I've been in school and common sense?
How about you show where homeschool kids don't get to socialize with anyone?

*snip the second*
Do you think it's just random that people with the money send their kids to private school?

Fine and good on them, it's one less kid in a crowded public school.

But taking an example of something that SOME people do with good effects, and proposing to remove any alternative, is just the sort of moonshine we always see from libertarian idiots. It's "I've got the power, let's make rules which suit me."

Should the state be running schools?

No.
*snip the first*

Well, choose an alternative or propose your own:

1. Parents pay for schooling, or their kid doesn't get it.
2. People are banned from having kids, unless they can pay for schooling.
3. The government hands out vouchers for the cost of private schooling.
4. Leave the running of schools to charities.

It's okay. Homeschool kids get to do all those things though.

Now I know.;)

Now I know.;)

Yay! I'm only trying to do homeschool apologetics, because a lot of people don't know.

Now I know.;)
And knowing is half the battle!

G.I. Joe!


... What?

... Ok, I'll shut up now. :p

What exactly are you talking about? Kids socialize throughout the entire school day. Not all socializing is verbal for one, and the teacher doesn't talk all the time in school anyway. There is certainly more going on during recess and lunch, and even that alone is a lot more than home schooled kids would get.

You might just as well say that adults are socializing when they're working in the factory. Would they turn up and operate the metal-press for no money ... just for the social opportunity?

To me, the school rules which apply AS THE KIDS ARE SOCIALIZING distort that socializing in a very negative way. Interacting with peers is cast into the mold of an extraneous, non-core activity, a compensation for BOREDOM.

Yay! I'm only trying to do homeschool apologetics, because a lot of people don't know.

Now I do. W00T!

source?

Smunkee, you're the best poster to the thread and I'm finding your posts both sensible and informative.

But demanding a source for what is obviously just an opinion is just a bit ... die-in-the-ditch-for-it, hmm?

KoL came at you with a lot of sophistic nonsense, you slapped him around real good. But it was an ugly and stupid little passage in an otherwise excellent thread, so please don't succumb to the blood-lust and go looking for the same fight again!

Smunkee, you're the best poster to the thread and I'm finding your posts both sensible and informative.

But demanding a source for what is obviously just an opinion is just a bit ... die-in-the-ditch-for-it, hmm?

KoL came at you with a lot of sophistic nonsense, you slapped him around real good. But it was an ugly and stupid little passage in an otherwise excellent thread, so please don't succumb to the blood-lust and go looking for the same fight again!

But slapping down people for presenting opinion as fact is fun.

KoL came at you with a lot of sophistic nonsense, you slapped him around real good.

Ooops, I forgot. Girls can be knights too. Silly me!

Smunkee, you're the best poster to the thread and I'm finding your posts both sensible and informative.

But demanding a source for what is obviously just an opinion is just a bit ... die-in-the-ditch-for-it, hmm?

KoL came at you with a lot of sophistic nonsense, you slapped him around real good. But it was an ugly and stupid little passage in an otherwise excellent thread, so please don't succumb to the blood-lust and go looking for the same fight again!

This myth that homeschoolers don't socialize bothers me. The opinion comes from somewhere, I have to know where. Would you rather have people walk around ignorant of reality?

Let me put this another way. "I think black people aren't as smart as white people, it's my opinion, I don't have a source, it's just my experience with them"

does that fly NH? I didn't think so.

This myth that homeschoolers don't socialize bothers me. The opinion comes from somewhere, I have to know where. Would you rather have people walk around ignorant of reality?

No I guess not. And it was a bad call by me that that was just an opinion, it was obviously put up for debate because it contradicted what it quoted.

I guess I just find "source?" to be hostile. We usually give people a chance to back up their opinions with their own words before demanding a study, don't we?

Even "why in the hell would you think that?" seems more of an opening to explain what they said.

Let me put this another way. "I think black people aren't as smart as white people, it's my opinion, I don't have a source, it's just my experience with them"

does that fly NH? I didn't think so.

That's not the same. Racism is out because people are expected to know better, it's a very common debate. Not to mention that skin colour is not a choice, whereas to homeschool is.

You need to cut people more slack for being ignorant on this subject.

Almost everyone has personal experience of schooling (oh, except Ruffy who was raised by wolves) and I think there's a tendency to "own" the decision to go to school, despite clearly not being the main author of it.

I had a neighbour (of the house I'm still living in) who home-schooled her kid. IIRC, she was a retired teacher, so it wasn't just a question of ignorance. She was a mean and paranoid person, the sort who won't meet your eye but drops notes in your letter-box threatening legal action for some silly little thing (sometimes completely imaginary.) As far as I know, she never let her son leave the house. In the years they lived there I knew of only one visitor, one of her adult relatives. The kid couldn't even play in the yard without her watching him and telling him "don't go near the fence" etc. No-one but an immediate neighbour would even know that kid existed.

That's the only person I've met in real-life who I knew to be home-schooled, and if I based my opinion of home-schooling on that one example I would have to say it is protectiveness carried to the extent of oppression.

Now that I know a little more about it, I mean to take up with each of my parents the question of why they didn't consider it for me. I certainly don't remember ever being offered the choice, but I'm pretty sure it would have suited me well. Both my parents taught me well (to the extent that I was very bored in school, it just went too slowly) and had the necessary qualifications to teach in a school.

I remember being offered the "option" of switching to a private school after year 6, but I also remember being in no doubt my parents didn't want me to. I doubt it would even have come up, except that one of my best friends was considering it and I'd brought it up with my parents.

I think it's laudable the way you give your kids choices over the things that affect them. But I remember my parents doing that with me ... and there were still many many things I would never question, the olds just seemed too certain about them for there to be any real doubt in my own mind.

My son goes to school, but I am forever doubting if that is the best thing to do.
He is an only child, so I figured it would be too hard to meet other children if he did not go to school, especially since we moved country when he was eight.
So basically, he goes to school to socialize with other children.
But school has so many disadvantages. For one, it is holding him back academically.
He is a bright boy and ever since he went to school most of what he was suppose to 'learn' there was stuff he either knew already, or he knew it after a single lesson and then the endless repeats -pointless for him- follow. And the teachers just keep complaining about his daydreaming!!!
I feel guilty about sending him to such a boring environment every day, certainly now that he gets less and less playtime with friends.

Second disadvantage is that sadly for us, most people (especially where we live) have very different lives and values than we do. My son appears to be the only one in his year who has no game computer, who has never seen a MacDonald's from the inside and who does not get sweets on a daily basis. And many kids (not all!) are so materialistic and ruled by whatever is on television, it's gross. I guess that can be good too, at least he gets to experience society for what it is.

Third, I know many schoolkids and by now also many home-educated kids. The home educated kids are ALL well-brought up, socially well-adjusted, reasonable kids, even the teenagers. Not because they are home-educated, but because their parents are also socially well-adjusted, reasonable people.
As for the school kids: in our 'deprived area' an awful lot of children are not being well-brought up- or indeed brought up at all- and it shows.
Next year my boy he'll be going to the local secondary school, and I really worry about that. If it is too bad, he will be home-educated.

I worked in a high school for one year, as a teacher's assistant (it was too hard for me, I'd have quit if I hadn't been sacked.)

The school I was in had a program called EPISTL which involved parents coming into the school and observing classes. They have to be told over and over not to try teaching or disciplining the kids, they have no authority to do so and that would royally piss the teacher off, particularly if they did it well.

Exactly what the point of the program was I'm still not sure, but it was sure interesting for the parents. Alarming, even.

Even quite worldly parents were shocked at how the kids were behaving in school. They'd say things like "gee, I hope my kid isn't in the same class with that dreadful Toby boy."

Then you tell them that their own kid is just as bad as that Toby boy, when they aren't there to put the fear up them. The look on their faces then, whoa ...

How about you show where homeschool kids don't get to socialize with anyone?

Wow, way to misquote me! I know that homeschooled kids get to socialize, but they certainly don't get the same opportunities that kids who go to school with other kids get. No matter what sort of extra-curricular or other types of activities the homeschool kids may be doing they still aren't spending the hours interacting with other kids during school.

Now, why are people homeschooling their kids? Religious reasons, a lack of confidence in the public school system/private school system/monetary reasons? If there are others that I don't know, please enlighten me.

It seems that people who don't want their kids exposed to the Godless world of school with other children are keeping them from socializing with other people outside of school as well, and if you are homeschooling for monetary reasons, it is less likely that you would pony up the money to get your kid in all sorts of extra clubs outside the school that you can't afford. So the people who don't trust the public school system (or can't find a decent private school) are left, who have enough time or money to teach their kid or hire someone else to do it. I don't really know what they'd do, but I'd guess they aren't going to be shuttling their kids around any more than usual parents would in order to make up for the difference in social interactions that their kids are losing by not being in school.

There are of course exceptions to every rule, but seeing as there hasn't been any comprehensive study of homeschooled kids that I've seen I'd say that generalizations aren't such a bad place to start.

Here's a thing which is worrying me about home-schooling: how to assess whether home-teachers are teaching well, up to the standard expected of school teachers?

Just looking at the test results of the kids isn't enough. Perhaps you see a passing grade ... but how do you know whether this is a talented student held back by bad teaching, or a learning-impaired student receiving outstanding teaching?

A school teacher who is teaching badly will be revealed by a worse average result from the bigger sample of kids they're teaching, and by comparing the results of individual kids between when that teacher and some other teacher had their class. That might not work perfectly and it might be hard to sack a teacher just for teaching badly, but at least it's enough to identify the least effective teachers so they can be retrained.

How do you do that when a "teacher" only has a few students, and teaches them for several years consecutively?

You might just as well say that adults are socializing when they're working in the factory. Would they turn up and operate the metal-press for no money ... just for the social opportunity?Well, perhaps not a factory; but if it's working at Macdonald's; then apparently so http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23463431-details/Millionaire+lottery+winner+goes+back+to+job+at+McDonald's...+because+he+misses+his+workmates/article.do

But school has so many disadvantages. For one, it is holding him back academically.You can teach him extra stuff yourself after school, can't you?

He is a bright boy and ever since he went to school most of what he was suppose to 'learn' there was stuff he either knew already, or he knew it after a single lesson and then the endless repeats -pointless for him- follow. And the teachers just keep complaining about his daydreaming!!!There aren't other schools? At my school we could just work ahead if we wanted. If need be the teachers would get materials from next year to keep you busy.

Here's a thing which is worrying me about home-schooling: how to assess whether home-teachers are teaching well, up to the standard expected of school teachers?

Just looking at the test results of the kids isn't enough. Perhaps you see a passing grade ... but how do you know whether this is a talented student held back by bad teaching, or a learning-impaired student receiving outstanding teaching?

A school teacher who is teaching badly will be revealed by a worse average result from the bigger sample of kids they're teaching, and by comparing the results of individual kids between when that teacher and some other teacher had their class. That might not work perfectly and it might be hard to sack a teacher just for teaching badly, but at least it's enough to identify the least effective teachers so they can be retrained.

How do you do that when a "teacher" only has a few students, and teaches them for several years consecutively?

Maybe home teachers cannot be checked or controlled in the way school teachers can, but I don't think it makes much difference. The school system doesn't work all that well either. Schools tend to focus on 'the average child'. Anyone who is not average misses out, certainly with school classes of over thirty pupils. . Lately, there has been more interest in and focus on children with learning problems, but they still miss out on a lot. And for talented children there is even less. At least a home educator can give more personal attention and create proper learning opportunities for each individual child.

It's not a good idea.

It's not a bad idea.

At school kids get bullied, and at home they won't learn social skills.

No. Not right now. There is a real shortage of teachers in Australia, and apparently in many other developed nations. When I say "real" I mean not that classes sit there without teachers (though that happens) I mean we are so short of teachers that kids endure the "teaching" of very bad teachers.

We need more teachers training for the job so we can sack the ones who just aren't good at it. To give them the incentive to train there must be an expectation of higher future wages -- hence the indexation idea. The immediate pay bump is more a proof of resolve to do that than a reward for all teachers for what they are doing now.

The very best teachers would probably keep teaching even if their wages were CUT. But those teachers aren't the problem (but where's the harm in raising their wages?.)

I really think very few people have what it takes to be a good teacher, it's a matter of recruiting as many of those as possible.

This is one of the best posts I have seen on this thread. I would have to agree with you and is what I have been saying that there are bad teachers out there due to the shortage they don't get dismissed. While Kat pointed out to me that they do require a degree in Education and do get assessed, they will still remain while some may change schools they are never fired and the problem continues. In regards to the way teachers are paid that is opening a can of worms, but is one that I agree with in principle, maybe not the exact same method but the standard wage is why bad teachers do not improve because there is no incentive and why some fairly good teachers may put in less effort because they see no further award I know some teachers will always put in the effort as you pointed out their reward is seeing students learn and become a more well rounded. There will be one problem with trying to get some merit based pay in the system and that is the union, this was suggested as an idea last year and some of my friends who were at Uni doing their teaching degree were immediately told that they livelihood was on the line and why they should always fight this idea, this came from their lecturers and tutors coupled with the union, so they are against it and will not listen to any reasoning about it. (And some people say that students aren't indoctrinated by their educators)

We afford far less important things ... like the military or universal health-care. And anyway, it doesn't get hugely expensive until several years in the future when the trained teachers become available and the classes get smaller. We need to build more classrooms then, and yes it will cost so much it hurts.

That's the price a society has to pay to do it right. Education is IMPOSED on very disempowered people, children, and doing it wrong has very harmful effects, including crime and the oppression of individuals by other individuals.

What is the cost of ignorance? It is beyond measure!

I chucked that question in because it will be one to come up, it is not one I have a strong issue on, however, I think (from my own economist point of view) money should be spent on education, without it the growth of the economy will be hindered.

You can teach him extra stuff yourself after school, can't you?
I might do that if he had shorter school days. I even tried to negotiate with school if he could come in only afternoons, since they only teach literacy and maths in the mornings and he is not really getting much out of that, but they won't have it. He spends so many hours in school, and gets homework as well. I don't want to push more work at him when he is home. Anyway, he teaches himself a lot of extra stuff by exploring things and by reading.
My main problem is that he wastes so many hours in school having to sit still and listen to things he can already recite in his dreams.

There aren't other schools? At my school we could just work ahead if we wanted. If need be the teachers would get materials from next year to keep you busy.
This is the best primary school here. (no, actually, there is a better one. But that would cost us just a few pounds more than our entire yearly income, so that is not quite an option)
And he IS working ahead. And they do get some stuff from 'next year'(which in his case is secondary school, so they even have to go elsewhere for those resources), but he knows most of that as well. If he doesn't know it, he knows it after one lesson. Schools in general focus on repetition, and he doesn't need that. The teachers aren't bad, but they really don't have the time to bring in so much extra stuff mainly for one child (of the 64, a quarter of whom have special needs).

It's no disaster, but it is a bit of waste of his talent (and since he doesn't have any other talents, that's extra sad ;)) Worse, he finds it horrible to just sit sit sit and listen to endless repetitions. It bores him to bits, and he keeps escaping into his inner world of dragons and bionicles.
Still, I feel that at the moment giving him opportunity to interact with many other children is more important than his academic development. Yet, it would be so good if those two could be combined....

It's not a good idea.

It's not a bad idea.

At school kids get bullied, and at home they won't learn social skills.

It's a myth that home educated children don't learn social skills. I have recently been getting involved with several home educating families (just in case secondary school wont work out for my kid) and what I noticed most is that their children have excellent social skills. They seem to be more able than many school children to communicate with people of different ages, they are respectful as well as assertive, seem to have more confidence, and are a lot less aggressive and violent than most of the kids in my sons school.

In schools, children are usually in a very unnatural environment of large groups of same aged kids, and group dynamics are far more prominently present than in daily life, so it's not as if the social skills you learn there are the most useful in later life. Unless you actually live in a group home, that is.

There will be one problem with trying to get some merit based pay in the system and that is the union,
Are you sure you're not an American? You really sound like the standard American conservative.

this was suggested as an idea last year and some of my friends who were at Uni doing their teaching degree were immediately told that they livelihood was on the line and why they should always fight this idea, this came from their lecturers and tutors coupled with the union, so they are against it and will not listen to any reasoning about it.
Reason, huh? Ok, tell me the reasoning you have. Make sure to include how to calculate merit though.

(And some people say that students aren't indoctrinated by their educators)
Yeah, because we teachers have nothing better to do doing class time than to give long lectures on union talking points. :rolleyes:

...and at home they won't learn social skills.

hence, the internet

hence, the internet

Oh, definitetly. Cause all us geeks on NSG and elsewhere have such brilliant social skills...

Oh, definitetly. Cause all us geeks on NSG and elsewhere have such brilliant social skills...

Dude, I'm not a geek.

Dude, I'm not a geek.

Dude, I'm not a dude.

It's not a good idea.

It's not a bad idea.

At school kids get bullied, and at home they won't learn social skills.

I don't understand how home schooling automaticaly means no contact with other children.

... and at home they won't learn social skills.That's not all they won't learn.

I was homeschooled myself and I learned so much more than when I went to public. My homeschooling period lasted for the first seven years, and since I started public schools the only thing I have really learned a lot from was sciences(that was because I was learning from christian cirriculum and they excluded a lot of the information from astromony, biology, and etc.).

There are some issues, but they can be fixed. Social issues which I still face is a burden. But, its not like parents cannot fix that. YMCA and other organizations and clubs are great ways to socialize with other children. Also, the issue with parents not having degrees. That is not a issue at all, but people view it as one. If I had a question, and my mother couldn't answer it, or my father, I had to research it. I didn't have someone to cheat off of, or I never asked the teacher if I could have the answer. I researched what I didn't know. And when I did, I learned the answer and more. Teachers are just a primary resource, they are not there to tell you the answers.

Public schooling is a complete waste of time. I am sure there are some benefits and you do learn. But I think you could learn more from a 1 hour documentary on the discovery channel than to go to school for 6 hours. Also, when I was homeschooled, I could wake up at 9 o' clock. I would start at 10, and finish usually at 12. It doesn't take long to do homeschooling, and you can do it at your own pace.

Yes, you are indeed quite arrogant. If you truly are preparing to become a teacher, my advice is for you to drop your attitude and lose your arrogance or else you are going to have one hell of a time with both your kids and their parents.

Hear Hear!

My fiance is studying to be a teacher herself. In fact, she is on her way to her placement right now and next semester is student teaching. She at least has more intelligence when it comes to these matters than KoL does.

Public schooling is a complete waste of time. I am sure there are some benefits and you do learn. But I think you could learn more from a 1 hour documentary on the discovery channel than to go to school for 6 hours. Also, when I was homeschooled, I could wake up at 9 o' clock. I would start at 10, and finish usually at 12. It doesn't take long to do homeschooling, and you can do it at your own pace.
Look, I have absolutely no problem with home-schoolers sticking up for the value of the education they received, but could we please knock it the fuck off with all this "public skool sux!" crap?

I went to public schools for 13 years, and I received a FANTASTIC education. I have since been in 4 years of undergrad and not-saying-how-many years of grad school, and I STILL feel that the three best teachers I've ever had in my life were from my public school district.

Some public schools suck, just like some home-schooling sucks. If you went to a crappy public school then fine, but kindly stop insulting all the wonderful educators who are out there busting their asses to educate children for lousy pay and in constantly-underfunded classrooms. It's extremely rude and uncalled for.

I would have to agree with you and is what I have been saying that there are bad teachers out there due to the shortage they don't get dismissed.

Yes. And I'm not about punishing teachers for not being good at the job, it's simply that the students' interests have to come first.

While Kat pointed out to me that they do require a degree in Education and do get assessed, they will still remain while some may change schools they are never fired and the problem continues. In regards to the way teachers are paid that is opening a can of worms, but is one that I agree with in principle,

OK. I'm not sure people trust governments to do what they say they will do (years hence) anyway. Not enough to make a major decision like "I will invest time and money in training for this job."

maybe not the exact same method but the standard wage is why bad teachers do not improve because there is no incentive and why some fairly good teachers may put in less effort because they see no further award I know some teachers will always put in the effort as you pointed out their reward is seeing students learn and become more well rounded.

Ah, merit pay. Tricky, and less necessary in a system where bad teachers are put out of the profession. My focus here is on getting the good teachers into the system in the first place, and when that happens the ones who aren't going to cope won't even start. Why invest time effort and money in a degree they can't use to get a job?

There will be one problem with trying to get some merit based pay in the system and that is the union, this was suggested as an idea last year and some of my friends who were at Uni doing their teaching degree were immediately told that they livelihood was on the line and why they should always fight this idea, this came from their lecturers and tutors coupled with the union, so they are against it and will not listen to any reasoning about it.

You could point out that merit pay is there already. Head teachers and non-teaching administrators (who usually got there by seniority and started as teachers) get higher rates of pay. They may be very good teachers, but they spend less time teaching because of the other responsibilities they have.

That is, there is an monetary incentive for good teachers to NOT teach. How can that be right?

I chucked that question in because it will be one to come up, it is not one I have a strong issue on, however, I think (from my own economist point of view) money should be spent on education, without it the growth of the economy will be hindered.

I reject that. Or more precisely, I reject the idea that a student's stake in a growing economy is comparable to the benefit they may get personally from being well-educated.

Compulsory education is a decree of government. It's compulsion. You can't do that "for the public good" without considering the good of the person who is compelled, ie the student.

I also think economic growth is bunk in developed economies. If we're addicted to it, we should be looking at getting off it. But that really is another subject.

============

Are you sure you're not an American? You really sound like the standard American conservative.

Play the ball, NERVUN. Not the player.

Make sure to include how to calculate merit though.

That is a real worry I agree. Do we reward teachers whose students show the most improvement? Those whose students get a lifelong love of learning but do averagely-well in tests? And just as in any profession, some teachers will be better than others at 'working the system'.

But there already is merit-based pay, in one sense. Private schools can pay higher wages and have more discretion as to the teachers they can hire, so they can simply poach the best teachers unless those teachers are ideologically bound to public education. (Of course, many are.)

What do you say? Should the public system be prevented from bidding for those teachers?

Play the ball, NERVUN. Not the player.
Sorry, but it does seem to be a standard complaint for American conservatives, when in doubt, blame the teacher's union!

What do you say? Should the public system be prevented from bidding for those teachers?
My personal opinion is that schools do NEED to be able to bid on such teachers, I'm also for merit pay, just as soon as someone can give me a good way to check on merit. Sadly, most people proposing merit pay for teachers either operate under the assumption that schools and teachers need to be competitive, which schools do not, nor should they be so, or that merit should be based upon test scores. This seems to be akin to telling an engineer that he won't be paid for the bridge he built, but by how well people drive on it. It also opens up the system to a LOT of cheating, and even worse, teaching to the test (I'd want to give my kids the best education I can, but even I have to admit that if it came down to teaching to the test and making sure my salary can put food on the table for my own son... just call me Drill and Kill Bob).

The only problem I can see with bidding would be the need to fix the districts and how money is allocated to schools, or else you're going to see a lot more of the best teachers walk off to the suburbs and the good schools as opposed to the intercity ones who really do need them more.

I don't understand how home schooling automaticaly means no contact with other children.

It doesn't, but it's unlikely that it would be 8 hours a day, 5 days a week of social interaction with other children.

hence, the internet

Hahaha. No. Encouraging a child to learn "social skills" by interacting on the internet? Do I need to even point out the error in this concept?

Dude, I'm not a geek.

You make me laugh.

If you think that you can learn social interaction on the internet, that would suggest you spend a lot of time on the internet, which would suggest you are a "geek". However, "geeks" are stereotypically smart, and because of that aspect, I'll let you slip away with just being labelled a "loser". ;)

Sorry, but it does seem to be a standard complaint for American conservatives, when in doubt, blame the teacher's union!

To be fair, the State System of Higher Education Union here in PA nearly fucked over my Fiance when they threatened to go out on strike beginning July 1 of last year. If they had, her math class would not have continued and if I understood the union reps correctly who came to the Student Senate, she would not have received credit for that math class.

Of course...in any strike, both sides are at fault for letting it go that far.

Of course the highlight of that meeting was when the Union admitted to everyone there that a strike hurts not just the students but themselves. Of course, five minutes after they admitted that, they fled the Senate Room :D

It doesn't, but it's unlikely that it would be 8 hours a day, 5 days a week of social interaction with other children.

6 hours a day, 5 days a week of low-quality social interaction. At least, that's how I experienced it. Social interaction whether I wanted it or not, social interaction under the eyes of a mob.

Chess club or the library for me. Any environment where fucktards are not allowed to socially interact with me. And when the bell rings bolt for home and some much-needed solitude.

This wasn't me "failing socially." This was me trying not to play Lord of the Flies. And that, at an above-average public school with almost no violence and few slack teachers.

If you think that you can learn social interaction on the internet, that would suggest you spend a lot of time on the internet, which would suggest you are a "geek". However, "geeks" are stereotypically smart, and because of that aspect, I'll let you slip away with just being labelled a "loser". ;)

*tries not to laugh*

Tsk, tsk. Don't flame now.

Aspects of the internet (like this here forum) are indeed social interaction. If you'd argue it doesn't count, that there are no real interests at stake, I'll toss that right back at you and ask: what real-life stakes are there in a school? Being the most popular, or perhaps not getting beaten up?

Look, I have absolutely no problem with home-schoolers sticking up for the value of the education they received, but could we please knock it the fuck off with all this "public skool sux!" crap?

I went to public schools for 13 years, and I received a FANTASTIC education. I have since been in 4 years of undergrad and not-saying-how-many years of grad school, and I STILL feel that the three best teachers I've ever had in my life were from my public school district.

Some public schools suck, just like some home-schooling sucks. If you went to a crappy public school then fine, but kindly stop insulting all the wonderful educators who are out there busting their asses to educate children for lousy pay and in constantly-underfunded classrooms. It's extremely rude and uncalled for.

Agreed. I went to an amazing comprehensive sixth form with some of the best teaching I've ever received. The system is not perfect, you get good schools and you get bad schools, same as you get good and bad teachers. But the principle of public education is the foundation upon which western economies are built.

Public schooling is a complete waste of time. I am sure there are some benefits and you do learn. But I think you could learn more from a 1 hour documentary on the discovery channel than to go to school for 6 hours. Also, when I was homeschooled, I could wake up at 9 o' clock. I would start at 10, and finish usually at 12. It doesn't take long to do homeschooling, and you can do it at your own pace.

Rrright... instead of attending school for several hours a day, and then sit down doing homework for a couple more hours, you just watch discovery for 2 hours a day and still assume you learned more from that?

I have to admit that a lot of what I've learned I forgot again in the decade since I left school and university, but I do know that I learned more than what discovery could teach (including 3 foreign languages), and I do know that you can't get much studying done in just 2 huors a day.

I call bullshit on that one.

Rrright... instead of attending school for several hours a day, and then sit down doing homework for a couple more hours, you just watch discovery for 2 hours a day and still assume you learned more from that?

Yeah, speaking as a professional scientist, let me just say:

The Discovery Channel is a great idea. It's excellent entertainment, and I've seen some really good programs on it. But it should NOT be anybody's primary source for science education. Just like nobody should be relying exclusively on MTV for their understanding of American culture, or thinking that watching the Surgery channel is just as good as going to med school.

The one think I am saying, is that my experience with home-schooled kids is agreeing with the lack of proper social skills. :eek:

The one think I am saying, is that my experience with home-schooled kids is agreeing with the lack of proper social skills. :eek:

Your first post and that's the best you got? :rolleyes:

I was homeschooled for like 10 years. I love it. It was the best years of my life. I would homeschool everybody if I could. It's really good. When I went to a Charter school, where I am now, I was among the smartest in my classes. That was a result of my being homeschool.

I was homeschooled for like 10 years. I love it. It was the best years of my life. I would homeschool everybody if I could. It's really good. When I went to a Charter school, where I am now, I was among the smartest in my classes. That was a result of my being homeschool.

You must agree though that it is not for everyone.

or thinking that watching the Surgery channel is just as good as going to med school.
Naw, the Surgery Channel is a good thing to eat your dinner to... especially if dinner consists of very rare steak. ;)

My roomies always yelled at me when I did that, I still don't understand why. :p

I was homeschooled for like 10 years. I love it. It was the best years of my life. I would homeschool everybody if I could. It's really good. When I went to a Charter school, where I am now, I was among the smartest in my classes. That was a result of my being homeschool.

Are you in year 10 then? And a native English speaker?

I'm just saying. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of tenses.

I was homeschooled for like 10 years. I love it. It was the best years of my life. I would homeschool everybody if I could. It's really good. When I went to a Charter school, where I am now, I was among the smartest in my classes. That was a result of my being homeschool.

Well, you didn't learn a lot of grammar, now, did you?

I was homeschooled for like 10 years. I love it. It was the best years of my life. I would homeschool everybody if I could. It's really good. When I went to a Charter school, where I am now, I was among the smartest in my classes. That was a result of my being homeschool. I really don't want to sound mean, but a writing class would not be wasted on you. The style in that paragraph is abysmal.
Unless English is not your primary language.

Are you sure you're not an American? You really sound like the standard American conservative.

No I am not.

Reason, huh? Ok, tell me the reasoning you have. Make sure to include how to calculate merit though.

No I don't think I will I can tell that you are one of those people who will jst dismiss any argument as wrong if it doesn't agree with you. I will also tell you that I worked for two years where everyone was paid the same regardless of the amount of work they did.

Calculation of merit pay in regards to teaching is something which I have always said would be hard to calculate,after all what do you base it on, I agree with you NERVUN it will be difficult there are many things you have to take into consideration.

Yeah, because we teachers have nothing better to do doing class time than to give long lectures on union talking points. :rolleyes:

Well I must have just imagined all those lectures by my teachers over the years telling us what position we should take on an issue :rolleyes:

Oh and after the 2004 election the head of the NSW branch of the Australia Education Union said "Year 12 English teachers are not doing enough to ensure their students won't vote liberal"

Well, you didn't learn a lot of grammar, now, did you?

I really don't want to sound mean, but a writing class would not be wasted on you. The style in that paragraph is abysmal.
Unless English is not your primary language.

Lol, I beat you both to that one!

Are you in year 10 then? And a native English speaker?

I'm just saying. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of tenses.

But let's face it, what we really can't stand are NOOBS WHO DON'T USE THE DEFAULT FONT.

Kill the noob! Kill!

Lol, I beat you both to that one!



But let's face it, what we really can't stand are NOOBS WHO DON'T USE THE DEFAULT FONT.

Kill the noob! Kill!

We can't stand anyone who doesn't use the default font, spelling or grammar (the only accepted exceptions being l33t and lolcatz talk, of course).

And we certainly don't like noobs. :D

Well, there are pros and cons. On the one hand you get exactly what you asked for. You are a genius? You adjust the lessons to your level. You are not a very smart one? You have all the time you need, to get ahead. Additionally, the teacher knows exactly what you' re interested in, and can make the lessons more interesting. On the other hand, you need to communicate with the world. If you have an evening class, homeschooling is okay, but never, never ever remain alone at home for a whole decade. So my advice is: If your child is a child of normal capability, you should better not homeschool him. But even if you do, remember: Your child needs to communicate with the world, so let him join an evening class. I hoped I helped you.
To those who criticize every post's English: English is not my native language.

Your first post and that's the best you got? :rolleyes:

Carefull now carefull. Ease the newbies in don't scare them off.:D

Sorry, but it does seem to be a standard complaint for American conservatives, when in doubt, blame the teacher's union!

Excuse me, did I blame the teachers union? All I said was that union members came in and told the student teachers "the facts", which were misleading and many of these student teachers will not listen to any counter arguments. One day one of my friends came up to me and said that it will be terrible if I vote Liberal because they had a plan to introduce a national cirriculum and why a national cirriculum was a terrible thing to have, what the union forgot to tell them was the Labor government also has a plan to introduce a national cirriculum. I had to pull out a flyer posted to me by our local labor member and show her that what I was saying was true, I still don't think she believed me. I have not yet blamed the education union for the problems with the education system

We can't stand anyone who doesn't use the default font, spelling or grammar (the only accepted exceptions being l33t and lolcatz talk, of course).

And we certainly don't like noobs. :D

What! I like boobs?:rolleyes:

What! I like boobs?:rolleyes:

Dunno, do you? I do.

Dunno, do you? I do.

Yes, yes I do!

We can't stand anyone who doesn't use the default font, spelling or grammar (the only accepted exceptions being l33t and lolcatz talk, of course).

And we certainly don't like noobs. :D

No no no we don't. Not one little bit!

The only reason we tolerate them at all is because they might turn out to be one of our tiny clique, puppeting.

Hmm. Was it a bit TOO bad? Let me try my hand at a correction (just the tenses):

I was homeschooled for like 10 years. I love it. It was the best years of my life. I would homeschool everybody if I could. It's really good. When I went to a Charter school, where I am now, I was among the smartest in my classes. That was a result of my being homeschool.

Corrected:

I was homeschooled for like 10 years. I loved it. Those were the best years of my life. I would homeschool everybody if I could. It's really good. When I went to a Charter school, where I still am, I was among the smartest in my classes. That was a result of my being homeschooled.

Nah, let this one live. It's probably Kyronea, farting around.

6 hours a day, 5 days a week of low-quality social interaction. At least, that's how I experienced it. Social interaction whether I wanted it or not, social interaction under the eyes of a mob.

Chess club or the library for me. Any environment where fucktards are not allowed to socially interact with me. And when the bell rings bolt for home and some much-needed solitude.

This wasn't me "failing socially." This was me trying not to play Lord of the Flies. And that, at an above-average public school with almost no violence and few slack teachers.



*tries not to laugh*

Tsk, tsk. Don't flame now.

Aspects of the internet (like this here forum) are indeed social interaction. If you'd argue it doesn't count, that there are no real interests at stake, I'll toss that right back at you and ask: what real-life stakes are there in a school? Being the most popular, or perhaps not getting beaten up?

The first thing I said was "at school you get bullied". It's tough issue, really. I'm honestly not sure which I'd prefer, probably traditional school, but if I had the time as a parent to teach my child who didn't want to go to traditional school, I would be happy to go it.

I think the internet doesn't count because it's like being drunk: your uninhibited. I can be as stressed/anxious/crazy/weird/naked/whatever as I want on the other end of this computer and I don't need to learn the consequences, because I can just close the browser window if things aren't going my way.

I'm not saying school interaction is good, but through experience we learn etc.

Well, there are pros and cons. On the one hand you get exactly what you asked for. You are a genius? You adjust the lessons to your level. You are not a very smart one? You have all the time you need, to get ahead. Additionally, the teacher knows exactly what you' re interested in, and can make the lessons more interesting.

Back when I was being serious, I made a case for small (very small) class sizes. This is one of the reasons.

I won't ask you to read the entire thread (it's getting too long for that) but if you did, you'd find that the assumption that a homeschooled kid has one teacher, and that that teacher is a parent of theirs, is not necessarily true.

*snip stuff I'm not replying to*

To those who criticize every post's English: English is not my native language.

I was only having some fun. That poster mentioned a Charter school, which as far as I know only exist in the US. If "like 10 years" meant that they are in fact ten years old, then I guess I might have been a bit harsh.

The first thing I said was "at school you get bullied". It's tough issue, really. I'm honestly not sure which I'd prefer, probably traditional school, but if I had the time as a parent to teach my child who didn't want to go to traditional school, I would be happy to go it.

Kids should not be bullied at school. And homeschooled kids should not be deliberately isolated from other kids.

Neither of us are parents, right? Perhaps neither of us should be so sure about what we would or wouldn't do if we were.

Just out of curiosity, is the school day really 8 hours long where you live? Here it's a little over six hours.

I think the internet doesn't count because it's like being drunk: your uninhibited. I can be as stressed/anxious/crazy/weird/naked/whatever as I want on the other end of this computer and I don't need to learn the consequences, because I can just close the browser window if things aren't going my way.

Ah, well I don't see it that way. Many are the mornings I've looked at what I posted the night before and felt quite ashamed.

Just like being drunk and all uninhibited. There are consequences, like waking up naked and cufflinked to a sheep at a major railway station in rush hour.

The only way I've found to avoid that is abstinence from alcohol, or filling my pants with glue before going out on the town. Neither is entirely satisfactory.

I'm not saying school interaction is good, but through experience we learn etc.

Well, I'm saying that school interaction is probably good for some kids, so good luck to them. Six hours at a time in a large group of people has never been good for me, and I'm very dubious about imposing it on any kid. "Sink or swim" is fine if you learn to swim, but ...

Well, there are pros and cons. On the one hand you get exactly what you asked for. You are a genius? You adjust the lessons to your level. You are not a very smart one? You have all the time you need, to get ahead. Additionally, the teacher knows exactly what you' re interested in, and can make the lessons more interesting. On the other hand, you need to communicate with the world. If you have an evening class, homeschooling is okay, but never, never ever remain alone at home for a whole decade. So my advice is: If your child is a child of normal capability, you should better not homeschool him. But even if you do, remember: Your child needs to communicate with the world, so let him join an evening class. I hoped I helped you.
To those who criticize every post's English: English is not my native language.
You're doing beautifully. What is your native language?

Here's a thing which is worrying me about home-schooling: how to assess whether home-teachers are teaching well, up to the standard expected of school teachers?

Just looking at the test results of the kids isn't enough. Perhaps you see a passing grade ... but how do you know whether this is a talented student held back by bad teaching, or a learning-impaired student receiving outstanding teaching?

A school teacher who is teaching badly will be revealed by a worse average result from the bigger sample of kids they're teaching, and by comparing the results of individual kids between when that teacher and some other teacher had their class. That might not work perfectly and it might be hard to sack a teacher just for teaching badly, but at least it's enough to identify the least effective teachers so they can be retrained.

How do you do that when a "teacher" only has a few students, and teaches them for several years consecutively?

Not entirely. A teacher will possibly get a talking to at worst. A tenured teacher is basically impervious to such problems. It can take 10-15 years to 'get rid of' a bad teacher. So to say 'at least as good as a teacher' is in a vacuum. If the teacher was held to the same standard as the homeschool parent, probably half the teachers would be sacked.

Well, I'm saying that school interaction is probably good for some kids, so good luck to them. Six hours at a time in a large group of people has never been good for me, and I'm very dubious about imposing it on any kid. "Sink or swim" is fine if you learn to swim, but ...
I think this is an important point.

I'm a "big city" kind of personality. I've always liked being in places with lots of people and lots going on. I enjoyed going to a relatively large public school with tons of different people to interact with, and I functioned well in that environment.

My kid brother is more a "small town" sort. He's more introverted and doesn't feel comfortable in large groups. He enjoys having a small, close group to work and play with. He also has several learning disabilities and neurological issues that limit how well he can function in the standard classroom setting.

If it had been possible for us to do so, it probably would have been a bit better to home-school my brother, though our public school district has done some great things to help him out. He would have been happy in that kind of setting.

Me, on the other hand? Oh hell no. Home schooling would have been a nightmare for me.

I think it's rather silly to insist that either option is flat-out BETTER than the other, since kids have different needs and wants.

Not entirely. A teacher will possibly get a talking to at worst. A tenured teacher is basically impervious to such problems. It can take 10-15 years to 'get rid of' a bad teacher. So to say 'at least as good as a teacher' is in a vacuum. If the teacher was held to the same standard as the homeschool parent, probably half the teachers would be sacked.

Really? How long does it take to get rid of a parent whose teaching isn't up to scratch?

I think this is an important point.

I'm a "big city" kind of personality. I've always liked being in places with lots of people and lots going on. I enjoyed going to a relatively large public school with tons of different people to interact with, and I functioned well in that environment.

My kid brother is more a "small town" sort. He's more introverted and doesn't feel comfortable in large groups. He enjoys having a small, close group to work and play with. He also has several learning disabilities and neurological issues that limit how well he can function in the standard classroom setting.

If it had been possible for us to do so, it probably would have been a bit better to home-school my brother, though our public school district has done some great things to help him out. He would have been happy in that kind of setting.

Me, on the other hand? Oh hell no. Home schooling would have been a nightmare for me.

I think it's rather silly to insist that either option is flat-out BETTER than the other, since kids have different needs and wants.
Which is what I have been saying. For average kids either is probably an okay choice, for kids outside of the "box" then one might be a much better choice than the other. It depends on the child.
Really? How long does it take to get rid of a parent whose teaching isn't up to scratch?
About 30 minutes, they come into your house without a warrant, take your kids, give you a court date and put the kids in foster care in the interim, it's difficult to get your children back.

About 30 minutes, they come into your house without a warrant, take your kids, give you a court date and put the kids in foster care in the interim, it's difficult to get your children back.

Huh? I thought you said that you didn't have to provide any form of exams or prove that your kids are learning what they need to learn to anyone?

Huh? I thought you said that you didn't have to provide any form of exams or prove that your kids are learning what they need to learn to anyone?

In PA you do have to live up to standards. I never had any trouble with the district. In fact, my mother was so thorough that they do not even bother checking things anymore because we came into the district office with about three containers with binders full of all of my work and records of what I did during the year.

Huh? I thought you said that you didn't have to provide any form of exams or prove that your kids are learning what they need to learn to anyone?
I don't. If truant officers or CPS are called by a neighbor or the school, they will come to your house and try to get you to let them enter (I never do), if you let them in, they can use anything they see or believe to build a case of abuse or neglect. They can often say your children are being "educationally neglected" and they have the legal standing to take your kids away, they then have time to "prove their case" and investigate more. While your children are in foster care they will be strip searched for bruises, questioned about possible abuse and they will ask everyone you contact how you "treat the children". You have to go to court to try to get your children back, even though they were removed for "educational neglect" they may change the charge, to fit with the evidence they have found. It's happened to a few of my friends. I've had the truant officer called about 3 times and CPS has been called twice. I just tell them to go away and I call my lawyer.

I don't. If truant officers or CPS are called by a neighbor or the school, they will come to your house and try to get you to let them enter (I never do), if you let them in, they can use anything they see or believe to build a case of abuse or neglect. They can often say your children are being "educationally neglected" and they have the legal standing to take your kids away, they then have time to "prove their case" and investigate more. While your children are in foster care they will be strip searched for bruises, questioned about possible abuse and they will ask everyone you contact how you "treat the children". You have to go to court to try to get your children back, even though they were removed for "educational neglect" they may change the charge, to fit with the evidence they have found. It's happened to a few of my friends. I've had the truant officer called about 3 times and CPS has been called twice. I just tell them to go away and I call my lawyer.

What state do you live in Smunkeeville?

I don't. If truant officers or CPS are called by a neighbor or the school, they will come to your house and try to get you to let them enter (I never do), if you let them in, they can use anything they see or believe to build a case of abuse or neglect. They can often say your children are being "educationally neglected" and they have the legal standing to take your kids away, they then have time to "prove their case" and investigate more. While your children are in foster care they will be strip searched for bruises, questioned about possible abuse and they will ask everyone you contact how you "treat the children". You have to go to court to try to get your children back, even though they were removed for "educational neglect" they may change the charge, to fit with the evidence they have found. It's happened to a few of my friends. I've had the truant officer called about 3 times and CPS has been called twice. I just tell them to go away and I call my lawyer.

Conversely, I know CPS workers who have tried to prove educational neglect on kids who were being "homeschooled" -- in other words, mom and dad were too lazy and wanted to keep the older kids around to babysit the little ones -- and the courts did nothing.

Let's not bash CPS workers any more than we should be bashing homeschoolers.

What state do you live in Smunkeeville?

Oklahoma, land of the authoritarian busy bodies. One woman called CPS on me because I wouldn't let her give my kid a cookie. She told them I wasn't feeding her. They demanded to come in and see my kitchen, I told them that my daughter eats and that she can't have cookies and to go away. They called the police to try to intimidate me into letting them in. I said "no warrant, no entry". They left, and didn't come back. I guess not having a cookie is not abuse.

Conversely, I know CPS workers who have tried to prove educational neglect on kids who were being "homeschooled" -- in other words, mom and dad were too lazy and wanted to keep the older kids around to babysit the little ones -- and the courts did nothing.

Let's not bash CPS workers any more than we should be bashing homeschoolers.
I'm sorry, of course all CPS isn't like that, the CPS in my area has been lately.

I'm sorry, of course all CPS isn't like that, the CPS in my area has been lately.

CPS isn't like that, just like most homeschoolers aren't trying to hide their physically, emotionally abused kids in their home.

They don't break down doors to steal children out of the arms of their crying parents. They don't strip search and interrogate children and cajole them into testifying against their parents. They work very hard to ensure that children are being cared for in safe environments and have access to the childhood they rightly deserve. You should not let your bias against people wanting to make sure that children are safe taint the facts about how these departments operate.

CPS isn't like that, just like most homeschoolers aren't trying to hide their physically, emotionally abused kids in their home.

They don't break down doors to steal children out of the arms of their crying parents. They don't strip search and interrogate children and cajole them into testifying against their parents. They work very hard to ensure that children are being cared for in safe environments and have access to the childhood they rightly deserve. You should not let your bias against people wanting to make sure that children are safe taint the facts about how these departments operate.

I agree. I'm sorry. I know 99.9% of the people who work for CPS are there because they care for children. I know that the .1% who I have had to deal with were only doing their job (who wouldn't investigate when someone says a child isn't being fed). I guess I'm frustrated with people who make fraudulent reports. I know there are abused kids who need help who don't get it because nobody says anything (I was one of them), it's just frustrating to have to deal with truant officers on my porch because some busy body doesn't like them reading in the front yard during the afternoon.

Oklahoma, land of the authoritarian busy bodies. One woman called CPS on me because I wouldn't let her give my kid a cookie. She told them I wasn't feeding her. They demanded to come in and see my kitchen, I told them that my daughter eats and that she can't have cookies and to go away. They called the police to try to intimidate me into letting them in. I said "no warrant, no entry". They left, and didn't come back. I guess not having a cookie is not abuse.

I would have called the police on you if you didn't give me a cookie.

I agree. I'm sorry. I know 99.9% of the people who work for CPS are there because they care for children. I know that the .1% who I have had to deal with were only doing their job (who wouldn't investigate when someone says a child isn't being fed). I guess I'm frustrated with people who make fraudulent reports. I know there are abused kids who need help who don't get it because nobody says anything (I was one of them), it's just frustrating to have to deal with truant officers on my porch because some busy body doesn't like them reading in the front yard during the afternoon.

Then to make this more dispassionate -- do you think that parents ought to be held accountable for educational neglect (regardless of their schooling choices)?

If so, (and I'll venture a guess that you do) how do you propose to offer proof that children's educational needs are being accounted for in homeschooling? Do you think the states should mandate curriculum and regular testing for homeschooled children? You've said that you do it as a choice...what should be mandatory, and who should validate that?

What do you think about homeschooling?
I was homeschooled from 5th grade through graduation. Although I've been a bit of an oddball ever since, I think it was, overall, a good thing. Certainly no worse (and possibly a lot better) than public schooling.

As for regulations, a simple standardized test every year should do the trick. Let the homeschool students take the same end-of-year tests the public school students are taking. If they are failing, then the state can step in.

California's proposed new law, requiring parents to be certified, is ridiculous. It essentially ends the option to homeschool.

Homeschooling is a bad idea.
cf. Smunkeeville :rolleyes:

Homeschooling is a bad idea.
cf. Smunkeeville :rolleyes:

And yet another uninformed post.

Then to make this more dispassionate -- do you think that parents ought to be held accountable for educational neglect (regardless of their schooling choices)?
I think a child who is being educationally neglected deserves help. I don't know if I would hold the parents criminally liable.

If so, (and I'll venture a guess that you do) how do you propose to offer proof that children's educational needs are being accounted for in homeschooling?
The same way they are in public school kids, through testing, I know of no other "fair" way to do it.
Do you think the states should mandate curriculum and regular testing for homeschooled children?
I don't think the states should mandate the curriculum, but I do agree with regular testing.

You've said that you do it as a choice...what should be mandatory, and who should validate that?
I don't particularly think any one thing should be mandatory. I wouldn't mind testing being mandatory, if the same rules are applied as public schools have regarding testing. I would have a problem with the state mandating specific curriculum. I think that independent testing companies can grade the standardized tests in the same way that they are graded for public school children. It shouldn't be too much of a financial burden since I would be paying the same taxes were my children enrolled in school as I do now. Private school children in my state are also not subjected to testing like the public school kids are, maybe they should be too if it's decided to require testing to prove proficiency. The only problem I would have is if the law was applied unfairly.

And yet another uninformed post.

Not to mention unintelligent.

I think this is an important point.

Well thankyou. Those get fewer and further between after the midnight hour. :)

I'm a "big city" kind of personality. I've always liked being in places with lots of people and lots going on. I enjoyed going to a relatively large public school with tons of different people to interact with, and I functioned well in that environment.

My kid brother is more a "small town" sort. He's more introverted and doesn't feel comfortable in large groups. He enjoys having a small, close group to work and play with. He also has several learning disabilities and neurological issues that limit how well he can function in the standard classroom setting.

I don't exactly have learning disabilities but I can really relate to that.

It's a question of duration for me. I can cope with noise (in the broad sense) for a while -- longer if I'm really engaged with something, shorter if I'm not that interested in what I'm doing. Six hours, though, is out of the question even on a good day.

In school, it seemed to me that kids were deliberately distracting each other from the lesson, and being grateful for each others' distractions. That used to make me quite angry.

If it had been possible for us to do so, it probably would have been a bit better to home-school my brother, though our public school district has done some great things to help him out. He would have been happy in that kind of setting.

I got some personalized treatment from my schools, too. It wasn't formalized, in fact they were probably breaking rules by letting me out of classes for a bit of alone-time. Probably the most valuable thing was teachers taking time out of their lunch or prep periods to talk with me. We'd just chat, really, but I needed to interact with stable minds, adult minds with a bit of inertia to them.

Me, on the other hand? Oh hell no. Home schooling would have been a nightmare for me.

I think it's rather silly to insist that either option is flat-out BETTER than the other, since kids have different needs and wants.

Agreed. Discovering those needs or wants should probably involve trying out the options, particularly if the first option tried isn't working out too well.

Still, continuity is important. Kids who change schools a lot don't do so well as a rule -- and that's about where I give up understanding it. HOw the hell do parents tell what their kid "really" wants? I find it hard to tell what adults really want, though you'd think that assertiveness and a full grasp of the language would sort that out.

Not to mention unintelligent.

Well it is UB.

Not to mention unintelligent.

What, you demand that posts think for themselves?

Heaven forfend!

What, you demand that posts think for themselves?

Heaven forfend!

Mine do.

They even talk to me every now and then.

*gets dragged away in restraints, mumbling about the voices*

What state do you live in Smunkeeville?Denial.

Denial.

You really have no clue as to what you are talking about do you? No I can see that you don't.

And yet another uninformed post.She is a christian fundamentalist. That says it all.

This is one of the best posts I have seen on this thread. I would have to agree with you and is what I have been saying that there are bad teachers out there due to the shortage they don't get dismissed. While Kat pointed out to me that they do require a degree in Education and do get assessed, they will still remain while some may change schools they are never fired and the problem continues.

I don't know if all school systems follow the same model as the one I grew up in, but it seemed as if the crappy teachers all taught the remedial and general classes, while we had really good teachers for the advanced classes.

As for merit-based pay, it's a good idea - if you can come up with a way to actually measure merit.

She is a christian fundamentalist. That says it all.

You've been off in your own delusional land for a little too long.

She's an atheist now.

She is a christian fundamentalist. That says it all.

Um yea...ok. You're a nut.

Homeschooling is a bad idea.
cf. Smunkeeville :rolleyes:

Here's a thought. Start your own thread.

On your own forum.

On your own internet.

On a small rock orbiting the most distant star in the known universe!

Really? How long does it take to get rid of a parent whose teaching isn't up to scratch?

Apparantly not long. Not keeping up with current events in Texas I take it.

I would have called the police on you if you didn’t give me a cookie.
Exactly.

What sort of evil regime are Smunkee’s kid(s?) living under? Let the Mums and Dads tremble at a kiddie revolution. The kids have nothing to lose but their dinner.

And possibly being sent to their room under the stern gaze of a Smunkee...

UB, either start making informed posts, or get the hell out of this thread.

I don't. If truant officers or CPS are called by a neighbor or the school, they will come to your house and try to get you to let them enter (I never do), if you let them in, they can use anything they see or believe to build a case of abuse or neglect. They can often say your children are being "educationally neglected" and they have the legal standing to take your kids away, they then have time to "prove their case" and investigate more. While your children are in foster care they will be strip searched for bruises, questioned about possible abuse and they will ask everyone you contact how you "treat the children". You have to go to court to try to get your children back, even though they were removed for "educational neglect" they may change the charge, to fit with the evidence they have found. It's happened to a few of my friends. I've had the truant officer called about 3 times and CPS has been called twice. I just tell them to go away and I call my lawyer.

Yes, sad but true. Perhaps when no evidence of such is found the CPS idiot should be strip searched, tarred and feathered.

Conversely, I know CPS workers who have tried to prove educational neglect on kids who were being "homeschooled" -- in other words, mom and dad were too lazy and wanted to keep the older kids around to babysit the little ones -- and the courts did nothing.

Let's not bash CPS workers any more than we should be bashing homeschoolers.

Even if said bashing is well deserved on the CPS part.

CPS isn't like that, just like most homeschoolers aren't trying to hide their physically, emotionally abused kids in their home.

They don't break down doors to steal children out of the arms of their crying parents. They don't strip search and interrogate children and cajole them into testifying against their parents. They work very hard to ensure that children are being cared for in safe environments and have access to the childhood they rightly deserve. You should not let your bias against people wanting to make sure that children are safe taint the facts about how these departments operate.

Have to call bullshit here. They go to the schools and interrogate children to try and find morsels to investigate. The schools won't 'interfere' with CPS. They give them an office and allow them to interrogate any child. They demand to come into your home without a warrant and lie.

When there is clearly abuse, they refuse to investigate. It is a typical scheme to get children away from parents because they do not know what they *might* be teaching the child.

No, Texas is proof that the government will go to any lengths to appropriate children into foster care.

She is a christian fundamentalist. That says it all.

Isn't bigotry fun!?


No, Texas is proof that the government will go to any lengths to appropriate children into foster care.

So they should leave them to be sexually molested instead?

Have to call bullshit here. They go to the schools and interrogate children to try and find morsels to investigate. The schools won't 'interfere' with CPS. They give them an office and allow them to interrogate any child. They demand to come into your home without a warrant and lie.

When there is clearly abuse, they refuse to investigate. It is a typical scheme to get children away from parents because they do not know what they *might* be teaching the child.

No, Texas is proof that the government will go to any lengths to appropriate children into foster care.

You can call 'bullshit' all you like. I know that your perception of CPS is not true.

But since we'd moved beyond that to return to the real conversation about homeschooling, your posts are increasingly irrelevant.

I think a child who is being educationally neglected deserves help. I don't know if I would hold the parents criminally liable.


The same way they are in public school kids, through testing, I know of no other "fair" way to do it.

I don't think the states should mandate the curriculum, but I do agree with regular testing.


I don't particularly think any one thing should be mandatory. I wouldn't mind testing being mandatory, if the same rules are applied as public schools have regarding testing. I would have a problem with the state mandating specific curriculum. I think that independent testing companies can grade the standardized tests in the same way that they are graded for public school children. It shouldn't be too much of a financial burden since I would be paying the same taxes were my children enrolled in school as I do now. Private school children in my state are also not subjected to testing like the public school kids are, maybe they should be too if it's decided to require testing to prove proficiency. The only problem I would have is if the law was applied unfairly.
I think that's the problem a lot of people have with homeschooling (and I'm not saying I'm necessarily one of them) is that the law is applied unfairly right now. Standardized testing, for all it's faults and problems is a benchmark to ensure things are happening to a generally accepted standard. Teaching qualifications, for whatever faults they have, and again set to ensure that a base curriculum is achieved in instruction.

I'd have to have a master's degree and 20(?) hours of CEUs every 3 years to teach a kid at a school, but to teach my own kids, or someone else's kids in a homeschool collective, I need no qualifications whatsoever? I understand the free market nature of these things, (tho' I don't agree with them) but going back to my question -- how do we assure that kids are getting a fair shake at getting a good education? How long do we wait to see the outcomes of what is working or what is not?

No answers here, just more questions, but surely you can see why some people question it.

I think that's the problem a lot of people have with homeschooling (and I'm not saying I'm necessarily one of them) is that the law is applied unfairly right now. Standardized testing, for all it's faults and problems is a benchmark to ensure things are happening to a generally accepted standard. Teaching qualifications, for whatever faults they have, and again set to ensure that a base curriculum is achieved in instruction.

I'd have to have a master's degree and 20(?) hours of CEUs every 3 years to teach a kid at a school, but to teach my own kids, or someone else's kids in a homeschool collective, I need no qualifications whatsoever? I understand the free market nature of these things, (tho' I don't agree with them) but going back to my question -- how do we assure that kids are getting a fair shake at getting a good education? How long do we wait to see the outcomes of what is working or what is not?

No answers here, just more questions, but surely you can see why some people question it.

I can understand completely why people question it, I can understand the wanting of testing to ensure things are going well. I don't understand people who say it should be illegal. I don't understand people who base their opinion of it being "bad" on their "feelings" about it.

Studies have shown that a parent without a teaching certificate does not adversely affect homeschool students, they still perform on average 1 to 3 grade levels ahead of their public school peers. FWIW you don't even need a BA to teach in the public schools here, you just have to pass the certification test (I did, without studying) and have a background check. They do prefer a BA but they are so short they don't care anymore.

I support a parent's right to find alternative means of education for their child. I don't have a problem with some regulation, as long as it's fair regulation. If a child in public school consistently tests below grade level, what happens? nothing. I wonder if a homeschool child would be cut so much slack?

You've been off in your own delusional land for a little too long.
She's an atheist now.Oh yeah, as if someone could just shake off a conviction like hers. And she only claims to be an atheist because she does not want to be associated with gay-hating christians. From the messages she had sent me a while ago I conclude that she is a rather labile person and I really would not want her to teach anything to anyone, least of all to kids. I really don't see why she is so popular around here.

And as for the homeschooling: which parent knows all the fields of science and arts and whatnot to give a kid what it would otherwise get from people who are experts in their respective area?

Home schooling produces better academic then public education.
However in universities most home schoolers have difficulties the first few years.
the causes of these difficulties is not academic but social.
Reason being is that during the adolescent years the parents were too involved, in whom their child met ,yes and i am aware home school groups set up sports teams and the like, specifically so that their kids interact with other kids. However these interactions are limited because odds say mom and dad are near by and there is likely to be some geographic limitations due to the distance between home schoolers. This leads to limited experience for home school children in sex and alcohol. So when they do get away from home they don't know how to control themselves. I have know 10 home school girls and about 5 home school guys so far in my career. 4 of the girls got knocked up (2 dont know who the dads are) and another 2 failed out from basically drinking and parting too much, of the 5 guys 3 have failed out from drinking too much.

In my opinion home school sets the kid up for failure later on down the line.

Oh yeah, as if someone could just shake off a conviction like hers. And she only claims to be an atheist because she does not want to be associated with gay-hating christians. From the messages she had sent me a while ago I conclude that she is a rather labile person and I really would not want her to teach anything to anyone, least of all to kids. I really don't see why she is so popular around here.

And as for the homeschooling: which parent knows all the fields of science and arts and whatnot to give a kid what it would otherwise get from people who are experts in their respective area?

To take your second point - she doesn't teach all subjects to her children. Some are taught by other parents; others they go to local colleges for (I think).

Smunkee, could you explain your kids' curriculum to UB?

Home schooling produces better academic then public education.
Bit of a sweeping statement. The parents might be more interested in forcing their own ideology down their children's throats than anything of real value, or they might be really pretty superior as tutors, aye.
Reason being is that during the adolescent years the parents were too involved, in whom their child met ,yes and i am aware home school groups set up sports teams and the like, specifically so that their kids interact with other kids. However these interactions are limited because odds say mom and dad are near by and there is likely to be some geographic limitations due to the distance between home schoolers. This leads to limited experience for home school children in sex and alcohol. So when they do get away from home they don't know how to control themselves. I have know 10 home school girls and about 5 home school guys so far in my career. 4 of the girls got knocked up (2 dont know who the dads are) and another 2 failed out from basically drinking and parting too much, of the 5 guys 3 have failed out from drinking too much.
15 is not a particularly large sample, and I reckon that about half of the people that I know from college have fucked themselves completely due to substance abuse, and I have been with a couple of lasses to family planning pish for emotional support when they get a morning-after pill.

To take your second point - she doesn't teach all subjects to her children. Some are taught by other parents; others they go to local colleges for (I think).

Smunkee, could you explain your kids' curriculum to UB?

I teach them literature and spelling, because that is my background. They take science from a friend who is a former highschool science teacher. The oldest takes math and computing at the local college, the youngest takes math from a tutor (even though she is still within my realm of experience, she doesn't like the way I explain it). They both take foreign language from native speakers and have computer programs that supplement. They take history and other electives from the local co-op where most everyone who is teaching has at least a BA in the subject they teach and 80% of them are former teachers.

I have a teaching certificate and often substitute teach junior high and high school English, I feel competent to teach literature to my children, but if they didn't want me to, I would hire someone else to do it.

Apparantly not long. Not keeping up with current events in Texas I take it.

Took them 5 years, apparently. The first investigation into unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old was started against a member of that particular bunch in 2003...

Have been teaching private music lessons for 28 years (primarily brasses). I've had approximately 140 home schooled students in that time. I ask the students and their parents to set aside 30 minutes per day, 5 days per week for music practice which consists of playing songs and exercises with a book and CD. (More details available if you wish). Private lessons are given once per week and count as one of the practices.
Home schoolers will typically make 1 or 2 lessons per month. None have ever done the scheduled 30 minutes of practice per day. It's an extremely rare ocurrence for them to have practiced at all. The parents always have a good excuse like field trips to the creationist museum or something. Of course they tell me that they're extremely concientious about the important academic and religious studies....uh-huh.:rolleyes:

Isn't bigotry fun!?



So they should leave them to be sexually molested instead?

Here is the problem, and there really is no way around it. THERE WAS NO ABUSE!

The woman who 'phoned in' was a kook in colorado springs! She has been arrested many times before for EXACTLY THE SAME LIE!

So since there is no abuse, and you are ASSUMING they will be 'sexually molested' should we now start removing catholic children because of the priests?

You can call 'bullshit' all you like. I know that your perception of CPS is not true.

But since we'd moved beyond that to return to the real conversation about homeschooling, your posts are increasingly irrelevant.

Yours were relevant? Hey, stop reading my posts then. You have closed your mind anyway.

Took them 5 years, apparently. The first investigation into unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old was started against a member of that particular bunch in 2003...

'That bunch' LOL. Isn't it nice to be stereotypical! Rather cavalier about the destroyed families.

Here is the problem, and there really is no way around it. THERE WAS NO ABUSE!

So there were multiple cases of immaculate conception, then?

We can't stand anyone who doesn't use the default font, spelling or grammar (the only accepted exceptions being l33t and lolcatz talk, of course).

And we certainly don't like noobs. :D

What's wrong with different fonts?
:D

So there were multiple cases of immaculate conception, then?

There has ever been a case of it in human history? Astounding proclamation.
I would say, no, there has never been one. And your point?

There has ever been a case of it in human history? Astounding proclamation.
I would say, no, there has never been one. And your point?

You're apparently using a much different version of the word abuse than Texas then, given that there were at least 10 girls under the age of consent taken who are currently pregnant. While it isn't really clear at this point (given the lack of cooperation given by the sect in determining familial relationships), there are apparently likely cases of other underage girls who have already given birth to children. It's possible, of course, that all of the fathers are underage as well, but highly unlikely given the rules of the sect.

You're apparently using a much different version of the word abuse than Texas then, given that there were at least 10 girls under the age of consent taken who are currently pregnant. While it isn't really clear at this point (given the lack of cooperation given by the sect in determining familial relationships), there are apparently likely cases of other underage girls who have already given birth to children. It's possible, of course, that all of the fathers are underage as well, but highly unlikely given the rules of the sect.

Well the age of consent in Texas is 17. There are also statutory provisions that allow less if the actor is within x number of years of the other. That being said, with no probable cause for search, since the woman who reported it has been identified and proven to have no ties to this enclave, I would say that kind of sums up the defense's case at this point. You can allege abuse as you choose, however there appears to be no proof at this point.

Which has very little to do with reality. The normal CPS playbook says remove the children while we 'investigate'. Guilty until proven innocent. My point is and always will be, no probable cause, no prosecution. What the state of Texas did is subversion of rights. If you do not stand up for your rights, before long, no one will have any.

There has ever been a case of it in human history? Astounding proclamation.
I would say, no, there has never been one. And your point?

You really are an idiot! :rolleyes:

United Beleriand, your personal comments on another player are (1) off-topic and (2} flamebait. Cut it out.

Corneliu, argument-not-poster, right?

All and sundry, comments on the Texas situation are, at best, only marginally relevant to home-schooling. If you want to discuss it in detail, seek out the thread on the topic that already exists.

Kids should not be bullied at school. And homeschooled kids should not be deliberately isolated from other kids.

Neither of us are parents, right? Perhaps neither of us should be so sure about what we would or wouldn't do if we were.

Just out of curiosity, is the school day really 8 hours long where you live? Here it's a little over six hours.

8:30 - 3:00... 6.5 hours. I suppose I was exaggerating unintentionally.

Kids shouldn't be bullied at school, but the harsh reality is that they are.

I suppose if a parent was an ideal home teacher, they would be able to make sure their kids were not isolated, therefore perhaps in an ideal homeschool situation, it would be a better option, especially for kids who are (typically) targets for bullying.

I know I'm not a parent, but I guess, as a woman who loves kids, I think about this kind of thing a lot. I've already made a desicion that there is no school in this city currently that I would send my children to, except perhaps the new creative academy.



Just like being drunk and all uninhibited. There are consequences, like waking up naked and cufflinked to a sheep at a major railway station in rush hour.

But those consequences aren't as... intense.. as they are in real life. They simply aren't.


Well, I'm saying that school interaction is probably good for some kids, so good luck to them. Six hours at a time in a large group of people has never been good for me, and I'm very dubious about imposing it on any kid. "Sink or swim" is fine if you learn to swim, but ...

My thoughts are:

School interaction was awful for me. I was bullied, treated like dirt, argued all of the time etc ect.

However, I still don't regret the fact that I experienced interaction on a daily basis, because it's made me a stronger person.

While I certainly don't consider myself to have good social skills, those who I do socialise with assume I'm a social butterfly, and I think by having bad experiences it still teaches you how to interact. But, if a parent made sure the kid did interact daily, it probably wouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately I wasn't so lucky. I had some home schooled friends but they opted to go to public school instead about 2nd grade (they were a grade below me). Personally I feel home schooling is a little better, as each can learn at their own pace. I amazed my teachers when I did enter public school, due to the fact my scores were higher then those that had been taught in public schools.

I didn´t understand kids my own age for a while.
Is understanding kids your own age important?

Is understanding kids your own age important?

In order to relate, yes. Of course, at a young age you don´t call it understanding.

Unfortunately I wasn't so lucky. I had some home schooled friends but they opted to go to public school instead about 2nd grade (they were a grade below me). Personally I feel home schooling is a little better, as each can learn at their own pace. I amazed my teachers when I did enter public school, due to the fact my scores were higher then those that had been taught in public schools.
It really depends, if your parents don't know dick about biology or math, how do they suppose to properly home-school you? My God if I would've been home-schooled...the horror! Really, my parents are oblivious about craploads of véry important things. I have to explain why the latest product from Oil Of Olaz or something is complete bullcrap (amino-peptides...I mean, zomg). If parents have proven themselfs to be able to teach everything wich is needed, then I don't see a problem here. Problem is, something like that isn't really around, and it's wildely abused by religious nutjobs who just want to shield there kids from reality.

It really depends, if your parents don't know dick about biology or math, how do they suppose to properly home-school you? My God if I would've been home-schooled...the horror! Really, my parents are oblivious about craploads of véry important things. I have to explain why the latest product from Oil Of Olaz or something is complete bullcrap (amino-peptides...I mean, zomg). If parents have proven themselfs to be able to teach everything wich is needed, then I don't see a problem here. Problem is, something like that isn't really around, and it's wildely abused by religious nutjobs who just want to shield there kids from reality.

Do you believe you got an adequate education in public school?

Also, if you read the posts before, very few of the homeschoolers I know have their parent as a primary teacher. Think of it less like parent as teacher and more as parent as school board. The only difference between my kids going to public school and being homeschooled is I am the one who directs their curriculum and employs their teachers.

It's okay. Homeschool kids get to do all those things though.

How does the prom thing work? Do they just go to the local public school's prom? And if so, who do they ask? They have to go alone, don't they? That's cruel. Making them outcasts like that. You should be ashamed of that. Making them outcasts again. That's not properly socialized is it? Not that I'm implying Socialism is the way to go, Capitalism has worked fine for me over the years. Oh, don't get me wrong, the U.S.S.R. was a nice idea but I think we can all agree that the management mishandled the whole affair. You know, I knew a guy who had an affair once. It wasn't pretty.


...What the hell was I talking about?

Oh, definitetly. Cause all us geeks on NSG and elsewhere have such brilliant social skills...

'Scuse me? I max out my Diplomacy skill every level thank'you.

You really have no clue as to what you are talking about do you? No I can see that you don't.

Call it.

UB, either start making informed posts, or get the hell out of this thread.

UB only shows up in a thread to

A. Insult religious people (particularly of the Abrahamic heritage)
B. Insult Israel
C. Insult anyone who disagrees with him.
And
D. All of the above.

When you boil him down to his component parts, he's really just a different flavor of fundie.

'That bunch' LOL. Isn't it nice to be stereotypical! Rather cavalier about the destroyed families.

I daresay if a family had its first case of sexual misconduct with minors by a family member 5 years ago, and the children are only effectively removed now, there wasn't much family to destroy in the first place.

What do you think about homeschooling?

I don't think it should be illegal, but should there be any regulations?

What about the kids? Do you think they receive inferior academic or social training?

It doesn't matter, we're all going to die anyway.

Oklahoma, land of the authoritarian busy bodies. One woman called CPS on me because I wouldn't let her give my kid a cookie. She told them I wasn't feeding her. They demanded to come in and see my kitchen, I told them that my daughter eats and that she can't have cookies and to go away. They called the police to try to intimidate me into letting them in. I said "no warrant, no entry". They left, and didn't come back. I guess not having a cookie is not abuse.

Apparently in Oklahoma some people think that cookies must always be enabled. :)

Kudos to you, Smunkeeville, for overseeing an excellent education for your children. Homeschooling is not for everyone, but everyone should at least consider it. Thank you for taking the time to answer and defend your position articulately and intelligently.

Even if every teacher in a public school was a good teacher, we'd still need more because class sizes need to get smaller yet. Thirty kids is way too many for most subjects (yes, 'lectures' are a component of education -- but shouldn't be the mainstay of it.) We should be aiming for something more like 6 in primary school, 10 in high school.

IN NYC, there is a cap of 34 students per high school class; if it is an elective in which there is only one section offered, it can go to 50. Music and phys ed classes are at 50.

Special Education classes have a cap of 15 students per teacher.

If we were to get class sizes down even to 20 per teacher (but optimally 15), a lot more could be done. I've got 170 students to take care of, and it's a lot.

Should the state be running schools?

No.

Do you think it's just random that people with the money send their kids to private school?

Funny, my parents had the money to have sent me to private schools, and I was educated entirely in the public schools.

Graduated college with honors and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.

And then I became a public school teacher; imagine that.

source?

Well, I often put my students in groups to work on creating and acting out skits, or creating a newspaper based on the book they've read. I also run my class more like a seminar than the strict "You listen, I talk and write, leave questions for the end of the period" type of situation. My students have classroom conversations where one might make an observation and another disagree and bring proof, and a third... well, you get the drift.

In school, it seemed to me that kids were deliberately distracting each other from the lesson, and being grateful for each others' distractions. That used to make me quite angry.

I should own up: I was probably one of those kids at one point or another.

I got a great education in public school, but there were also lots of times when I was bored, or finished early, or just felt like being a punk, and I would be distracting in class or would happily participate when somebody else was distracting the class.


I got some personalized treatment from my schools, too. It wasn't formalized, in fact they were probably breaking rules by letting me out of classes for a bit of alone-time. Probably the most valuable thing was teachers taking time out of their lunch or prep periods to talk with me. We'd just chat, really, but I needed to interact with stable minds, adult minds with a bit of inertia to them.

The teachers are the key. I lucked out and had some absolutely wonderful teachers. I think it's great for a kid to have many, many adult mentors and role models in life. Home schooling doesn't preclude that, of course, but it can sometimes be harder to set up.


Agreed. Discovering those needs or wants should probably involve trying out the options, particularly if the first option tried isn't working out too well.

Still, continuity is important. Kids who change schools a lot don't do so well as a rule -- and that's about where I give up understanding it. HOw the hell do parents tell what their kid "really" wants? I find it hard to tell what adults really want, though you'd think that assertiveness and a full grasp of the language would sort that out.
Again, you're absolutely right.

My parents AGONIZED over schooling choices for my brother and I. When they bought their first house, the #1 issue for them was the quality of the school district. They could have gotten a larger, newer home, but it was in a lousy school district so they passed on it.

But getting to know what's best for your child is hard, and since your child changes over time it gets even harder. My parents later told me that every year they'd debate sending me to a private school where I could receive more attention and more challenges. They debate what to do about my brother's education on an almost weekly basis! :P

I really stick by my assertion that parental involvement is key. If you've got parents who are paying attention, and who really prioritize making sure their kids get a good education, then choosing public school, private school, or home school can all be terrific choices. If you have parents who are out to lunch, any of the above can suck.

I don't understand how home schooling automaticaly means no contact with other children.

Because obviously, their parents LOCK THEM IN THE CLOSET AND DON'T EVER LET THEM OUT, NOT EVEN FOR PINEWOOD DERBY!!!!

:D:D:D


Right Smunkee?

My homeschooling period lasted for the first seven years, and since I started public schools the only thing I have really learned a lot from was sciences(that was because I was learning from christian cirriculum and they excluded a lot of the information from astromony, biology, and etc.).

Public schooling is a complete waste of time.

Your own previous statement would tend to contradict you.

Excuse me, did I blame the teachers union? All I said was that union members came in and told the student teachers "the facts", which were misleading and many of these student teachers will not listen to any counter arguments. One day one of my friends came up to me and said that it will be terrible if I vote Liberal because they had a plan to introduce a national cirriculum and why a national cirriculum was a terrible thing to have, what the union forgot to tell them was the Labor government also has a plan to introduce a national cirriculum. I had to pull out a flyer posted to me by our local labor member and show her that what I was saying was true, I still don't think she believed me. I have not yet blamed the education union for the problems with the education system

Sorry, this is driving me mad. It's curriculum.

I was homeschooled myself and I learned so much more than when I went to public. My homeschooling period lasted for the first seven years, and since I started public schools the only thing I have really learned a lot from was sciences(that was because I was learning from christian cirriculum and they excluded a lot of the information from astromony, biology, and etc.).

Funny...I had a Christian based cirriculum and I had astronomy, biology, etc. What cirriculum did you use?

Homeschooling is a bad idea.
cf. Smunkeeville :rolleyes:

Flamebaiting is a bad idea.
cf. United Beleriand.

Oh yeah, as if someone could just shake off a conviction like hers. And she only claims to be an atheist because she does not want to be associated with gay-hating christians. From the messages she had sent me a while ago I conclude that she is a rather labile person and I really would not want her to teach anything to anyone, least of all to kids. I really don't see why she is so popular around here.

You know, all you ever seem to do is attack people when you're here.
Have a nice two day vacation.

Or not. When Mods Collide!

Sorry, this is driving me mad. It's curriculum.

haha oops, I did it every time to.

haha oops, I did it every time to.

*smacks own hand* Bad Kat, bad!

;)

Two = a number that shall be one more than "one" and one less than "three"
Too = also, or in excess
To = a preposition indicating a direction or a recipient


*runs away before she corrects grammar again*

Do you believe you got an adequate education in public school?

Also, if you read the posts before, very few of the homeschoolers I know have their parent as a primary teacher. Think of it less like parent as teacher and more as parent as school board. The only difference between my kids going to public school and being homeschooled is I am the one who directs their curriculum and employs their teachers.
In high school, I think I did on some parts, and didn't on others. In primary school, I think I did although I missed certain things. Public school needs a whole lot of work, in wich parents do need a spot bigger then today's. The problem I have with home-schooling, is that it feels kinda like censorship. Like some parents don't like (yeap, this age old example again) evolution, thus they hide it from there kids ore even worse, teach them lies about it. Those things are my fears with home-schooling. I think science (not just physics and biology ofcourse, but also history, geography, etc etc) in general should work more closely with education to ensure the people who teach children are experts.

*smacks own hand* Bad Kat, bad!

;)

Two = a number that shall be one more than "one" and one less than "three"
Too = also, or in excess
To = a preposition indicating a direction or a recipient


*runs away before she corrects grammar again*

haha, I don't mind my grammar being corrected constructively, and you do it well. It might have to do with all that training and experience you have had :)

Yes I see where I made the mistake, one which I do unfortuantly sometimes make, although I don't think I have ever made a mistake with two, only with to and too.

haha, I don't mind my grammar being corrected constructively, and you do it well. It might have to do with all that training and experience you have had :)

Yes I see where I made the mistake, one which I do unfortuantly sometimes make, although I don't think I have ever made a mistake with two, only with to and too.

Don't worry -- I see all KINDS of mistakes that I make when I am typing here in the forums, and sometimes I DON'T catch them until they're pointed out to me.

Pobody's nerfect, after all.

Bit of a sweeping statement. The parents might be more interested in forcing their own ideology down their children's throats than anything of real value, or they might be really pretty superior as tutors, aye.

15 is not a particularly large sample, and I reckon that about half of the people that I know from college have fucked themselves completely due to substance abuse, and I have been with a couple of lasses to family planning pish for emotional support when they get a morning-after pill.

well the first i think i saw a comparison of standardized test results some where i forgot.


The second yeah... though the public ed girls you knew had the common sense to get the morning after pill.

How does the prom thing work? Do they just go to the local public school's prom? And if so, who do they ask? They have to go alone, don't they? That's cruel. Making them outcasts like that. You should be ashamed of that. Making them outcasts again. That's not properly socialized is it? Not that I'm implying Socialism is the way to go, Capitalism has worked fine for me over the years. Oh, don't get me wrong, the U.S.S.R. was a nice idea but I think we can all agree that the management mishandled the whole affair. You know, I knew a guy who had an affair once. It wasn't pretty.


...What the hell was I talking about?
There are about 20K homeschoolers in my state, there is a homeschool prom, I chaperoned last year, we had about 190 seniors, everyone had dates that weren't their cousins, siblings, mothers or neighbors. There were a few small groups of girls who went together as friends, which is what I did at my public school prom, I showed up to prom without a date, but I left with one;). There were at least 5 homosexual couples, nobody gave them any crap that I saw.




In high school, I think I did on some parts, and didn't on others. In primary school, I think I did although I missed certain things. Public school needs a whole lot of work, in wich parents do need a spot bigger then today's.
I am glad you feel you got a good education, that's important. I agree that public schools need some work and that parents need to help out more.

The problem I have with home-schooling, is that it feels kinda like censorship. Like some parents don't like (yeap, this age old example again) evolution, thus they hide it from there kids ore even worse, teach them lies about it. Those things are my fears with home-schooling. I think science (not just physics and biology ofcourse, but also history, geography, etc etc) in general should work more closely with education to ensure the people who teach children are experts.
I agree with everything you have said. I don't think the majority are doing it to censor anything though. In my experience the majority are doing it because they think it's a better educational environment for their specific child. I know many homeschooling families that have more than one child attending public or charter schools while they homeschool the one that needs homeschooling. Homeschooled kids do not live in a vacuum though, if there are dissenting views, they hear about them, as much as you do. There are some bad parents, but that's true in public school too.

You really are an idiot! :rolleyes:

Roll away. Nice flame BTW.

I daresay if a family had its first case of sexual misconduct with minors by a family member 5 years ago, and the children are only effectively removed now, there wasn't much family to destroy in the first place.

Ah but you assume there was abuse. You have no proof of it. So your speculation would be invalid and what you consider to be an unimportant family....

In order to relate, yes. Of course, at a young age you don´t call it understanding.
But if you're not in school with them, you don't need to relate to other kids your age.

You're making a circular argument, where the skills gained by going to public school make you better at going to public school, and thus they're important so you can go to public school.

But if you're not in school with them, you don't need to relate to other kids your age.

You're making a circular argument, where the skills gained by going to public school make you better at going to public school, and thus they're important so you can go to public school.

What about when the child is out in the playground of its neighborhood. Wouldn´t relating to other kids help it to play with them? This is not something that you only deal with in school. Relating is something that happens in all fields in life. And I never mentioned the public school system. I don´t know how it is. At least in the US and in Spain I´ve heard it´s very good. But I was sent to private school all my life.

Anyway, my questions were already answered by Smunkee. It so happens that home schooled children engage in the same activities kids in normal school do. No need for me to argue the matter anymore.

IN NYC, there is a cap of 34 students per high school class; if it is an elective in which there is only one section offered, it can go to 50. Music and phys ed classes are at 50.

Special Education classes have a cap of 15 students per teacher.

If we were to get class sizes down even to 20 per teacher (but optimally 15), a lot more could be done. I've got 170 students to take care of, and it's a lot.


Wow, that's a lot. I don't know what the official cap was, but when I was at school our class sizes were generally 20-24, and I remember we always got less done when we had all 24 there than if a couple of people were off sick.

Anyway, my questions were already answered by Smunkee. It so happens that home schooled children engage in the same activities kids in normal school do. No need for me to argue the matter anymore.
Except that I disagree with your initial objection to Smunkee. I recognise that she rendered it moot by pointing out it didn't apply, but I don't think it would be valid even if it did.

Relating to children is only a useful skill for people who spend a lot of time with children. Relating to adults is something very nearly everyone needs to do, however, so if the children only interact with adults, and only learn to interact with adults, then there's no downside. They've learned the skill they need as adults, and their childhood, like a kidney stone, will pass.

Except that I disagree with your initial objection to Smunkee. I recognise that she rendered it moot by pointing out it didn't apply, but I don't think it would be valid even if it did.

Relating to children is only a useful skill for people who spend a lot of time with children. Relating to adults is something very nearly everyone needs to do, however, so if the children only interact with adults, and only learn to interact with adults, then there's no downside. They've learned the skill they need as adults, and their childhood, like a kidney stone, will pass.

I never objected to Smunkee´s point. When I made my initial argument, I never said that home schooling was bad. On the contrary, if I were a parent, with the world we´re living in today, I would seriously consider home schooling for my kids. My sole concern was, and Smunkee already clarified it, the lack of interaction I thought was present between the home schooled child and children of his/her own age. But I don´t have a problem with home schooling at all.

Childhood passes, true, but we might as well let a child enjoy it. Of course, home schooled kids do interact with kids their own age.

this needs a poll.

To me, Homeschooling and Public/Private Schooling both have their pros and cons.

what makes either work is the quality of the teachers. as some homeschool teachers are not er... up to snuff... so are some public and private teachers.
so yeah, Homeschooling is a good idea. the same as having public and private schools are good ideas.

but it's the elements within all three that determines whether or not it "works".

It really depends, if your parents don't know dick about biology or math, how do they suppose to properly home-school you? My God if I would've been home-schooled...the horror! Really, my parents are oblivious about craploads of véry important things. I have to explain why the latest product from Oil Of Olaz or something is complete bullcrap (amino-peptides...I mean, zomg). If parents have proven themselfs to be able to teach everything wich is needed, then I don't see a problem here. Problem is, something like that isn't really around, and it's wildely abused by religious nutjobs who just want to shield there kids from reality.
True, my mom use to teach, so I guess I was lucky in that.

To be done right, they really ought to have a cooperative arrangement with other homeschool parents -- if one is a wiz at teaching maths and one not so much, guess who the kids should learn maths from?

That's how schools started... :P

You might just as well say that adults are socializing when they're working in the factory. Would they turn up and operate the metal-press for no money ... just for the social opportunity?

To me, the school rules which apply AS THE KIDS ARE SOCIALIZING distort that socializing in a very negative way. Interacting with peers is cast into the mold of an extraneous, non-core activity, a compensation for BOREDOM.

Except that by the time the adults are working in the factory, they should have had enough time to work on their social skills that they wouldn't need the practice.

The schools obviously realize that the kids are going to be socializing while they are at school, which is why they set up things like recess and lunch and don't hit kids for talking to one another in the hallways (at least they didn't at my school), when they could theoretically be thinking about their schoolwork. The fact that schools frown on the social interactions while in class is because the stated and primary goals of those schools is to teach the kids, which is hard to do at the same time as their socializing. It's not a perfect system obviously, but neither is homeschooling.

Except that I disagree with your initial objection to Smunkee. I recognise that she rendered it moot by pointing out it didn't apply, but I don't think it would be valid even if it did.

Relating to children is only a useful skill for people who spend a lot of time with children. Relating to adults is something very nearly everyone needs to do, however, so if the children only interact with adults, and only learn to interact with adults, then there's no downside. They've learned the skill they need as adults, and their childhood, like a kidney stone, will pass.

I don't think you really understand the concept of socialisation. There's a totally different dynamic at work between a child and an adult and a child and his or her peers.

I don't think you really understand the concept of socialisation. There's a totally different dynamic at work between a child and an adult and a child and his or her peers.

I haven't noticed a difference.

That's how schools started... :P

If that were true, then what of the one-room schoolhouse model that still exists today in some small communities, where ALL subjects are taught to ALL age groups by one person?

I haven't noticed a difference.

Really? Because it was always fairly evident to me. Interacting with adults was (until relatively recently in life) never quite the same as relating to my peers regardless of whether the adult had any formal authority over me or not.

Naturally this started to change once my peers and I became closer to being adults.

As biased as it may be, children learning to interact with their peers is something that, I feel personally, is invaluable. Homeschool doesn't prevent this interaction, so I take no issue with it. I actually know a homeschooled kid (his sister went to my school, and he started going last year) and he's probably one of the most socially adept people I know.

Interesting about the dances though.

I haven't noticed a difference.
Kids to adults is different from kids to kids, a great part of which has to do with the adults themselves as we've grown up as it were and we're far, far more aware of adult dignity than children are.

Or to put it another way, when is the last time you saw adults chasing each other in unorganized play (Sex play excepted of course. :D )?

I'm homschooled. Have been since 9th grade, finishing tenth now.
I hate it. It's horrible. It shouldn't be allowed.
I actually go to one of those virtual schools, and without the structure of a real school, I'm a mess and my grades are crap.
I'm going to real school next year, as soon as I'm old enough to enroll in Lifeskills, because that's the only option I have.
Home schooling fucked me royally because since I was homeschooled my mom moved to a horrid school district that I won't attend because I really don't want to get shot. And now I have to wait until I'm 16 to enroll in a different school.
The internet school only works for those who are highly highly motivated.

Allthough, I will take the blame and say it is my fault I'm flunking. But, hey, when you were 15 how well would you have done if your schooling was completely up to you?

Kids to adults is different from kids to kids, a great part of which has to do with the adults themselves as we've grown up as it were and we're far, far more aware of adult dignity than children are.

I'm not really across this question yet, but it seems interesting.
Growing up is not just a question of learning more stuff. Nor is it just a question of "learning responsibility" as though that was a subject ... it's an interactive process in which a growing person changes largely by their own acts (decisions if you will)

Or to put it another way, when is the last time you saw adults chasing each other in unorganized play (Sex play excepted of course. :D )?

*Throws pie at NERVUN* <--- Actually a serious point. Sure we play, just differently.

More replies coming. I lost the thread for a while.

Homeschooling is responsible for Eragon. I say we outlaw it before it causes more damage.

Homeschooling is responsible for Eragon. I say we outlaw it before it causes more damage.

I hated ¨Eragon¨, the movie and the book. But I´ve read good things about ¨Eldest¨ though. So, I´m not ruling Home schooling right away.;)

Homeschooling is responsible for Eragon. I say we outlaw it before it causes more damage.

Could you have published a book at his age? Give the kid some slack. It was an interesting concept marred by a not-yet-mature writing style.

I'm homschooled. Have been since 9th grade, finishing tenth now.
I hate it. It's horrible. It shouldn't be allowed.

So based on your one experience a possibly great learning environment should be banned?

I actually go to one of those virtual schools, and without the structure of a real school, I'm a mess and my grades are crap.
Not all homeschooling is set up based on a virtual school. Some parents actively teach their kids, others join co-ops, etc. And do you seriously expect me to believe that 2 years of homeschooling destroyed your life and learning? Nah. Perhaps it was the 8 years of public schooling before then that killed your ability to independently learn.

Home schooling fucked me royally because since I was homeschooled my mom moved to a horrid school district that I won't attend because I really don't want to get shot. And now I have to wait until I'm 16 to enroll in a different school.
Oh, so it's homeschooling's fault your mother moved. Evil homeschool.
And have you considered the fact that hundreds of other kids go to this school where they might get shot? Sounds like you have it pretty soft, kid. You have a choice many of those kids never got. Looks like you squandered it on a pity party.


Allthough, I will take the blame and say it is my fault I'm flunking. But, hey, when you were 15 how well would you have done if your schooling was completely up to you?

Yeah. It is your fault. Sure, you could have used more support, but when it comes down to it, did you make the decision to play video games over your math homework? That's a decision even public schoolers have to make.

And for the record, a lot of 15 year olds are very motivated to ensure their proper eduacation.

I should own up: I was probably one of those kids at one point or another.

I got a great education in public school, but there were also lots of times when I was bored, or finished early, or just felt like being a punk, and I would be distracting in class or would happily participate when somebody else was distracting the class.

Don't feel bad about it. A level of distraction most kids could easily cope with, and the teacher was probably quite happy with, would drive me barmy. But no-one was doing it to deliberately drive me barmy.

In high school, with streamed classes, it actually motivated me to get good enough marks to stay in the top class. I spent half a year in the bottom english class of four, it was an absolute nightmare and I suddenly started taking English a LOT more seriously.

(It occurs to me that a lot of the things I've been saying about my own schooling really only apply to high school. I had a lot less trouble in primary, except one year I had an ignorant bully for a teacher and was always trying to take him on.)

The teachers are the key. I lucked out and had some absolutely wonderful teachers. I think it's great for a kid to have many, many adult mentors and role models in life. Home schooling doesn't preclude that, of course, but it can sometimes be harder to set up.

I agree. . . . . . . . . (We'll find a subject we DON'T agree on some day, and have a proper ol' barny like NSG is meant to be)
The kids who need more adults the most are precisely the kids we're worrying about in the context of home-schooling, those with over-protective parents, or those whose parents are trying to form their kids in a very narrow way and see all outsiders as bad influences.

I guess we don't completely agree there. You have a tendency to see malicious intent in ignorance, where I just see personal failure with consequences for others.

My parents AGONIZED over schooling choices for my brother and I. When they bought their first house, the #1 issue for them was the quality of the school district. They could have gotten a larger, newer home, but it was in a lousy school district so they passed on it.

Brilliant.

But getting to know what's best for your child is hard, and since your child changes over time it gets even harder. My parents later told me that every year they'd debate sending me to a private school where I could receive more attention and more challenges. They debate what to do about my brother's education on an almost weekly basis! :P

I really stick by my assertion that parental involvement is key. If you've got parents who are paying attention, and who really prioritize making sure their kids get a good education, then choosing public school, private school, or home school can all be terrific choices. If you have parents who are out to lunch, any of the above can suck.

I agree so much with you it feels like my head will explode!

Kids arrive in pre-school already showing the signs of success or failure at school. If I had to choose between good parenting (with bad schooling) or good schooling (with bad parenting) ... I'd choose the bad schooling, it's easier to fix later.

And that is the danger in home-schooling. Getting both wrong and not even knowing there's an alternative.

I'm homschooled. Have been since 9th grade, finishing tenth now.
I hate it. It's horrible.

I'm sorry to hear that.

It shouldn't be allowed.

From inside your own bad experience, I can see why you'd say that.
I don't agree though.

I actually go to one of those virtual schools, and without the structure of a real school, I'm a mess and my grades are crap.
I'm going to real school next year, as soon as I'm old enough to enroll in Lifeskills, because that's the only option I have.
Home schooling fucked me royally because since I was homeschooled my mom moved to a horrid school district that I won't attend because I really don't want to get shot. And now I have to wait until I'm 16 to enroll in a different school.
The internet school only works for those who are highly highly motivated.

"Internet school" doesn't sound like it suits you at all. Have you had ANY flesh-and-blood teachers?

Allthough, I will take the blame and say it is my fault I'm flunking. But, hey, when you were 15 how well would you have done if your schooling was completely up to you?

We all "own" our experiences. When something is forced on a person, it's self-defence to experience it as a choice ... I don't think I'm explaining this well and should probably think it through more.

Just wanted to hop in and say something a bit more sympathetic than Ugopherit came up with.

EDIT: If your account suddenly disappears, it might have something to do with a certain four letter in your screen-name ... you could maybe ask a mod if it's OK before getting too many more posts under your belt. ;)

More replies coming.

Could you have published a book at his age? Give the kid some slack. It was an interesting concept marred by a not-yet-mature writing style.



So based on your one experience a possibly great learning environment should be banned?


Not all homeschooling is set up based on a virtual school. Some parents actively teach their kids, others join co-ops, etc. And do you seriously expect me to believe that 2 years of homeschooling destroyed your life and learning? Nah. Perhaps it was the 8 years of public schooling before then that killed your ability to independently learn.


Oh, so it's homeschooling's fault your mother moved. Evil homeschool.
And have you considered the fact that hundreds of other kids go to this school where they might get shot? Sounds like you have it pretty soft, kid. You have a choice many of those kids never got. Looks like you squandered it on a pity party.




Yeah. It is your fault. Sure, you could have used more support, but when it comes down to it, did you make the decision to play video games over your math homework? That's a decision even public schoolers have to make.

And for the record, a lot of 15 year olds are very motivated to ensure their proper eduacation.



The fact of the matter is, most parents I've seen don't actually make sure their kids do anything and the kids don't do anything and half the kids enrolled in the Unlimited Classroom are expelled within a year for not doing anything.
I mean, I suppose it could work, if people made sure parents were capable of providing structure first.
But teachers go to college for a reason.

Ah but you assume there was abuse. You have no proof of it. So your speculation would be invalid and what you consider to be an unimportant family....

There were people convicted for abuse, so unless the US court system is inherently flawed and sentences people without evidence I think it's fair to assume that there was in fact abuse.

I'm not really across this question yet, but it seems interesting.
Growing up is not just a question of learning more stuff. Nor is it just a question of "learning responsibility" as though that was a subject ... it's an interactive process in which a growing person changes largely by their own acts (decisions if you will)
But it is a process of change where we, if I may paraphrase, become an adult and put away childish things. The interactions I see between my students and other kids and my students and adults (Be it teacher, parent, or stranger) are very different, and a lot has to do with how the adults respond to the kids.

*Throws pie at NERVUN* <--- Actually a serious point. Sure we play, just differently.
Adults DO play, don't get me wrong, but our play is usually far more structured than childhood play. When was the last time you just called up a friend to go play and made up a game as you went along like you did in childhood? When adults play, it's usually along the lines of a sport, structured and with rules enforced, than the more free-for-all that kids do.

Yeah, some adults DO play as randomly as kids, and we call them either childish, immature, or clowns *Looks around suspiciously for LG or mud being thrown in my general direction*. Usually adults just don't go for that anymore.

Except that by the time the adults are working in the factory, they should have had enough time to work on their social skills that they wouldn't need the practice.

You seem to get my point a bit later in the post. The primary purpose of school is education, just as that of the factory is productive work.

If the primary purpose of school was learning to interact well with others, it would have to be structured very differently ... as a complete society in fact. It would have an economy, it would support itself and the kids would have no other society.

Because that is what adult society is like.

I think maybe I'm using the word "socialization" differently from some people. I view society outwards from the individual ... in a sense, no two people live in the same society. So socialization is the building, outwards, of a society from the individual. It starts in childhood ... perhaps even in babyhood.

I think some people use the term to mean "leisure time spent with friends." I didn't mean it that way.

The schools obviously realize that the kids are going to be socializing while they are at school, which is why they set up things like recess and lunch

It wouldn't have anything to do with eating or avoiding deep vein thrombosis? :eek:

and don't hit kids for talking to one another in the hallways (at least they didn't at my school), when they could theoretically be thinking about their schoolwork. The fact that schools frown on the social interactions while in class is because the stated and primary goals of those schools is to teach the kids, which is hard to do at the same time as they're socializing.

There's that word!

If a school is succeeding in its mission to educate, it's educating with the kids' consent and with a good proportion of them actually enthusiastic about learning. If they're switching off the moment the bell rings (let alone during class) then it's failing in its mission.

And in the process, building a society where work is expected to be boring and only done for the money, and "leisure time spent with friends" purely about fun not learning or achieving anything together.

Sure, you can say that school is "preparing kids for adult society" but I could equally well say that after centuries of compulsory education, adult society is that way because of the structure of school.

It's not a perfect system obviously, but neither is homeschooling.

I'm not dismissing either on principle. A diversity of methods is great because each person learns differently. There should be different approaches taken (not just streaming the kids into the pleasure-to-teach, happy learners, the middle classes, and the class-from-hell junkpile, then trying to teach each of those the same way) ... and so that this is available to all kids, that should be done within each school district.

Really hard to do in a publicly funded school, not least because it would cost a lot in teacher wages and practical research. Perhaps easier in a home-school.

Bad home schooling has the potential to be as bad as the worst public school, and bad home schooling enjoys the protection from government interference provided by families. Not complete protection, obviously, but more than a public school gets.

Sorry if I strayed wide of your point there. Anyone else can reply if they like.

But it is a process of change where we, if I may paraphrase, become an adult and put away childish things. ...

The exact same quote occurred to me as I was writing. It deserves to be put out in full:

9. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Reading this (1 Cor xiii) and dividing out the religious meaning, it is ignorance which a person "puts away" in becoming an adult. Childhood as a partial existence, a subset of "perfection" ie adulthood.

(Note, I do not quote this as religious authority to an opinion, it's just a very pretty passage, particularly in the King James version)

The interactions I see between my students and other kids and my students and adults (Be it teacher, parent, or stranger) are very different, and a lot has to do with how the adults respond to the kids.

So if the adult were to behave more like a kid themselves, the interaction would be more like that between two kids?

Adults DO play, don't get me wrong, but our play is usually far more structured than childhood play. When was the last time you just called up a friend to go play and made up a game as you went along like you did in childhood? When adults play, it's usually along the lines of a sport, structured and with rules enforced, than the more free-for-all that kids do.

So it's just me who finds an enjoyable conversation to be "play"? At 44 years old, I'm proud to say I can still be very childish, and not just when drunk. It can irritate adults ... but I love to change the rules of games. It takes some of the competitiveness out of it, while keeping the challenge and the fun.

The physical aspect (OMG, I just realized you actually referred to this in the previous post, and just how you referred to it. Very telling.) ... The physical aspect of play in adults in directly inhibited by sexuality. It might be fun, but it's not just play if the body is involved because for us there is a sexual aspect, either stimulatory or inhibitory.

Is this the "adult dignity" you spoke of? Or is the dignity because we're too big to take the risk of falling over? Or ... anyway. I think adult dignity might not just be tiredness of playing, it may be the direct result of sexuality.

So we play in words. And to some extent we play "big games" ... taking risks on the stock market, getting into fads and fashions. Travel, moving to new jobs "for the change."

We are playing now! Do our debates lead to policy? Do they have real consequences? Not unless one of us breaks a rule, and there's far more permitted here than banned.

Yeah, some adults DO play as randomly as kids, and we call them either childish, immature, or clowns *Looks around suspiciously for LG or mud being thrown in my general direction*. Usually adults just don't go for that anymore.

I've said what I think the reason for that might be. I very well might come back and delete it again, 'cos my brain is getting well tired and I need food. I think I'm babbling and I'm certainly posting too long-windedly... I have never called LG a clown, even his silliest jokes satisfy my mind, they're more than entertainment. They're wise play.

The exact same quote occurred to me as I was writing. It deserves to be put out in full:

9. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Reading this (1 Cor xiii) and dividing out the religious meaning, it is ignorance which a person "puts away" in becoming an adult. Childhood as a partial existence, a subset of "perfection" ie adulthood.

(Note, I do not quote this as religious authority to an opinion, it's just a very pretty passage, particularly in the King James version)
Quoted again because I really do like the passage and it is one that has great meaning for me right now.

So if the adult were to behave more like a kid themselves, the interaction would be more like that between two kids?
Partly, but not completely. Kids don't tend to treat adults as if they were bigger kids (Even ones that play with them) after all. But in terms of change, yes, I see adults treat kids, like, er, well, kids. The talking-to-children tone comes into their voice, we keep from using our normal expressions, over act our feelings, and so on, if not just outright hide what we really think and feel in order to provide a sunnier and more simplistic face for them. I've taught high school, junior high, and elementary school and I have to admit, I do not approach any of my students as I would, say, you.

So it's just me who finds an enjoyable conversation to be "play"? At 44 years old, I'm proud to say I can still be very childish, and not just when drunk. It can irritate adults ... but I love to change the rules of games. It takes some of the competitiveness out of it, while keeping the challenge and the fun.
Conversations can also be quite fun, yes. But, then again, what do kids talk about verses what do we adults talk and joke about? USUALLY you don't see adults getting into animated discussions about which bug is the grossest after all and you usually don't see a child talking about the ramifications of homeschooling verses public schooling (To get back to the topic of this thread ;)).

The physical aspect (OMG, I just realized you actually referred to this in the previous post, and just how you referred to it. Very telling.) ... The physical aspect of play in adults in directly inhibited by sexuality. It might be fun, but it's not just play if the body is involved because for us there is a sexual aspect, either stimulatory or inhibitory.
Could be, I hadn't thought about it quite that way before. I was referring more to games of tag or just chasing each other around (A game that my students seem to love. Up till about 4th grade they need no excuse to do so, just an area large enough to run around in, and large teachers to hide behind :D). Saying that however conjured up the phrase "Chasing each other around the bedroom" and I couldn't let that one slide. :p

Is this the "adult dignity" you spoke of? Or is the dignity because we're too big to take the risk of falling over? Or ... anyway. I think adult dignity might not just be tiredness of playing, it may be the direct result of sexuality.
The adult dignity I spoke of is a combination of knowledge of social expectations (Meaning most adults, Paris Hilton excepted, know not to throw a hissy fit in public when they can't have a slice of cake) and following them, along with, yes, more restraints on getting physical.

Edit: And there is also adult responsibilities mixed into that as well. As adults we are far more responsible for our actions as well as for others than we were as children, I think feeling those also adds into the adult dignity.

So we play in words. And to some extent we play "big games" ... taking risks on the stock market, getting into fads and fashions. Travel, moving to new jobs "for the change."

We are playing now! Do our debates lead to policy? Do they have real consequences? Not unless one of us breaks a rule, and there's far more permitted here than banned.
All very true, but, again, our debates here are FAR more structured than children who are talking about things. We don't have a lot of rules, but there are expectations that we all follow, showing proof, quality of sources, and so on. A child does not concern him or her self with that because to them it is so because someone in authority SAID it was so, questioning that is next to impossible for most kids (And please note I am well aware that there are indeed exceptions, but I am using Piaget's model in cognitive development for my base).

So, like I said, adults really do play, and we keep on playing in many ways, but our games have grown far, far beyond what we did as children and sometimes I think it's very hard to relate back to that age when our games were cops and robbers (Or what have you) vs. debating ABOUT current police tactics in combating the rising crime rate.

I've said what I think the reason for that might be. I very well might come back and delete it again, 'cos my brain is getting well tired and I need food. I think I'm babbling and I'm certainly posting too long-windedly... I have never called LG a clown, even his silliest jokes satisfy my mind, they're more than entertainment. They're wise play.
Sorry, clown as a derogative term, not Clown as the actor. Clowning is very much a well thought out series of actions, a physical comedy skit, which, again, is a lot more structured than simply being silly for the sake of being silly.

I think maybe I'm using the word "socialization" differently from some people. I view society outwards from the individual ... in a sense, no two people live in the same society. So socialization is the building, outwards, of a society from the individual. It starts in childhood ... perhaps even in babyhood.

I think some people use the term to mean "leisure time spent with friends." I didn't mean it that way.


In the technical definition of the word (as used by sociologists, psychologists and other -ists) socialization is the process by which we internalise societies rules, conventions and culture. Which I believe is what you mean?

Allthough, I will take the blame and say it is my fault I'm flunking. But, hey, when you were 15 how well would you have done if your schooling was completely up to you?


I was homeschooled from the Middle of 6th Grade till the day I graduated from High School. So in answer, I did better than I would otherwise in school because I'm the type of person that you teach it, test it, and move on. Not spend two weeks on one thing before testing on it. I got bored really fast.

The fact of the matter is, most parents I've seen don't actually make sure their kids do anything and the kids don't do anything and half the kids enrolled in the Unlimited Classroom are expelled within a year for not doing anything.

Their loss and good for the Unlimited Classroom for expelling deadbeats.

I mean, I suppose it could work, if people made sure parents were capable of providing structure first.
But teachers go to college for a reason.

You really do not know what you are talking about do you? You want to know something right now? My fiance is studying Elementary Education in college and she said that she would consider homeschooling. Now what does that say?

My mother homeschooled me and she had 2 years of college under her belt and none of them were teacher classes and taught me all the core subjects. Just because you're a deadbeat does not mean that homeschooling should be illegal. Shape up son.

Kids to adults is different from kids to kids, a great part of which has to do with the adults themselves as we've grown up as it were and we're far, far more aware of adult dignity than children are.

Or to put it another way, when is the last time you saw adults chasing each other in unorganized play (Sex play excepted of course. :D )?

Last night actually. We were playing tag in the grocery store. The kids were soooo embarrassed.

Their loss and good for the Unlimited Classroom for expelling deadbeats.



You really do not know what you are talking about do you? You want to know something right now? My fiance is studying Elementary Education in college and she said that she would consider homeschooling. Now what does that say?

My mother homeschooled me and she had 2 years of college under her belt and none of them were teacher classes and taught me all the core subjects. Just because you're a deadbeat does not mean that homeschooling should be illegal. Shape up son.


Not saying it should be illegal, but I think it would be a good idea to at least make sure that the parents are capable of teaching their kids (there are parents out there who can harldy read and write themselves. The analphabetism numbers are still staggeringly high, even in first world countries), and that they do in fact teach their kids, rather than just keeping them round the house and making them watch the discovery channel for two hours each day...

Not saying it should be illegal, but I think it would be a good idea to at least make sure that the parents are capable of teaching their kids (there are parents out there who can harldy read and write themselves. The analphabetism numbers are still staggeringly high, even in first world countries), and that they do in fact teach their kids, rather than just keeping them round the house and making them watch the discovery channel for two hours each day...

I do agree and I like the system that Pennsylvania has come up with. Also considering the fact that Homeschoolers can participate in their district's extracurricular activities like plays, chorus, and sports.

I do agree and I like the system that Pennsylvania has come up with. Also considering the fact that Homeschoolers can participate in their district's extracurricular activities like plays, chorus, and sports.

Ah I was wondering about things like sports etc.. This sounds like a sensible system.

Ah I was wondering about things like sports etc.. This sounds like a sensible system.

In Michigan the homeschooling laws are (or at least were) very lax. There was no testing necessary, although the MEAPS were highly encouraged.

Schools were required to allow homeschoolers in their school district the chance to participate in extracurricular activities or classes. For sports, however, it was a little murkier. You could try out for the team and make it, but you weren't allowed to compete. So it rather defeated the purpose. A lot of homeschooling leagues started up and they played against private schools.

I don't think you really understand the concept of socialisation. There's a totally different dynamic at work between a child and an adult and a child and his or her peers.
Even if I concede that point (and Smunkee has shown that's probably not necessary), it doesn't matter. The dynamic at work between a child and his peers may well be something a home-schooled child doesn't develop, but so what? When the home-schooling is done, the child can go out into the world and interact with adults, having never needed to interact with childhood peers, thus rendering the socialisation process a waste of effort.

You're only a child for a short time. Afterward, it simply doesn't matter if you can interact with childhood peers because you no longer have any.

Even if I concede that point (and Smunkee has shown that's probably not necessary), it doesn't matter.

Also, that point really is moot since most homeschoolers get ample opportunity to socialize with their peers.

And, as a general observation, most homeschoolers tend not to be only children.

In the technical definition of the word (as used by sociologists, psychologists and other -ists) socialization is the process by which we internalise societies rules, conventions and culture. Which I believe is what you mean?

Thankyou, yes.

Certainly that sense, not "leisure time spent with friends" (play?)

Then I got carried away and started adding my personal sociology to it. Still talking about the same process, but describing it the other way around, because in this context the idea of society forming the individual in a completely one-way process is quite unhelpful.

Some posters used the expression "learning social skills" which isn't bad. There is at least a shred of personal empowerment, of control over the process, in having a "skill."

==============

EDIT: As regards the post two down (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13642897): Honsria, I'm fine with that. "schools help to standardize how we perceive [the world] so that we can relate to each other easier" is a good argument for universal education, which I obviously endorse.

This in an edit, because I'm not going to bump the thread again unless someone else posts. I have the feeling the thread is done. :)

In the technical definition of the word (as used by sociologists, psychologists and other -ists) socialization is the process by which we internalise societies rules, conventions and culture.
It would help if someone would just write down those rules, because otherwise I'm not sure they're learnable.

*snip* ok, I'll try to incorporate that definition.


It wouldn't have anything to do with eating or avoiding deep vein thrombosis? :eek: Well hopefully there would still be a gym class, should be able to take care of that problem. Not everybody runs around at recess.



*snip*
And in the process, building a society where work is expected to be boring and only done for the money, and "leisure time spent with friends" purely about fun not learning or achieving anything together.

Sure, you can say that school is "preparing kids for adult society" but I could equally well say that after centuries of compulsory education, adult society is that way because of the structure of school.

aand *snip*

Most people consider what time they spend with people they like to be much more enjoyable than time they spend working. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, even if they would have much more enjoyable lives if they had fun doing both, it's really up to the individual.

While schools have undoubtedly affected how people interact with each other in certain situations, it certainly doesn't have the impact that the other thousands of years of genetic conditioning have on human interactions.

While each person might have their own particular view of the world, the world is still the same for everyone, and schools help to standardize how we perceive it so that we can relate to each other easier. This effect probably isn't very great, and I would imagine that it differs from person to person, but as long as it makes solving problems easier for people from different backgrounds, one could argue that it is worth the effort.