Homeschoolers who aren't fundy whackjobs [Archive]

BryanLower

11th April 2006, 09:42 AM

I homeschooled my oldest son for one year. School is not a great fit for every child and its not always the fault of the student and parents. Schools are designed to maximize effectiveness for the greatest number of students and sometimes children fall through the cracks. Too smart (according to standardized tests) and too normal (according the psychologists) to get any help at school. But the problem isn't at home, its at school and so regardless of what the parent does at home, the problem still exists.

Homeschooling didn't fix his schooling problems, but it did help fix our family relationship that was disintegrating after years of the school telling me he was just lazy.

So. That's one reason someone who's not a religious whackjob might homeschool.

This the best explaination I've read for why some kids should be homeschooled. Thank you. I'm not quite ready to indict all public schools for the failures of some. But you are quite correct... public schools have to try to educate everybody, but not every kid learns in the same way. My nefew is a prime example. Homeschooling may help them.

I was homeschooled for part of my youth, and not for the good reason stated above. My parents were religious fundies. They spent a lot of time and energy trying to keep me out of the "system" that they saw as evil simply because it was secular. Now, as an adult, I find myself needing to work within that system, and I find it very difficult to maneuver in it. I really lost a lot because of homeschooling, and as an adult I have not entirely made up for it.

There's more to be gained from traditional school than just book learning.

drkitten

11th April 2006, 10:09 AM

I'm reading this ebook called the Underground History of American Education.
While it is sort of a conspiracy theory, yet considering the state of our school system, and the number of adults lacking basic skills - it has sparked my curiosity.

Military literacy tests for draft candidates, for example. There was a time when nearly every American was literate, when learning to read was considered easy, something taken for granted.

I would want to see a lot more evidence for this particular assertion. The claim of a prior "golden age" of literacy that has somehow been sullied by the public school system is one that is often made and seldom supported.

In particular, there's a perniciously shifting definition of "literacy" here. I'm not sure what time you are referring to when "nearly every American was literate," but the muster books of the US Navy are pretty clear for the Federalist period and immediately thereafter that a substantial fraction of a typical crew were unable to read and write well enough to sign their names in the those books. But a more serious problem is that many of the officially "literate" members of the crew weren't able to do much more than to sign their names. (According to the Smithsonian (http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/letterwriting/lw02.html), for example, the literacy rate among women was about 55%, and that was only because women were expected to be able to read the Bible to their children.) Reading at what we today consider to be a fourth-grade level was an accomplishment to be proud of, in part because it meant that you had sufficient command of the written language to be able to get a relatively "good" job (for example, keeping books for a store). These "good" jobs simply don't exist any more -- the level of proficiency necessary in modern society is much greater than simply "sign your name and read he Bible."

Piscivore

11th April 2006, 10:50 AM

too normal (according the psychologists) to get any help at school.

Please explain this.

I less than three logic

11th April 2006, 11:01 AM

I think it may mean that the student doesn’t have a condition too allow for any alterative education programs.

Like students diagnosed with ADD or some other learning disorder being placed in a class with more individual attention compared to other classes.

Achán hiNidráne

11th April 2006, 11:05 AM

To be honest, I think I would have been a lot better off if I had been homeschooled. Because of my experiences, I don't buy into the "socialization" arguement for schools. The only thing I got out of "socializing" with my peers was how to take physical and mental abuse. I'm 31 years old and I still have nightmares about how I was treated by my classmates while the apathetic teachers stood by. (They were, as they told my parents, "educators, not security guards.")

I can think of only one institution that just as hellish as school: prison. Therefore, unlike some, I do not smuggly look down my nose at any family who wants to keep their kids out of those holes, even the fundie whackjobs. It's what I would have wanted.

Piscivore

11th April 2006, 11:23 AM

Thanks, <3.

glsunder

11th April 2006, 11:55 AM

Please explain this.

Normal = kids who don't fit into an existing "disabled" category.

BlackCat

11th April 2006, 01:34 PM

I really lost a lot because of homeschooling, and as an adult I have not entirely made up for it.

There's more to be gained from traditional school than just book learning.

As someone who has seriously thought about homeschooling any children I might have, I am very interested in what you think you lost. I ask because the only argument against homeschooling that I hear is "they won't be socialized properly" which I think is incorrect, if you expose them to people other than their immediate family.

Of course, I realize anything you say will come from the religious standpoint that your parents had, but I'm still curious nonetheless.

BlackCat

BryanLower

11th April 2006, 02:31 PM

The only thing I got out of "socializing" with my peers was how to take physical and mental abuse.

I feel very sorry that you had those bad experiences. They are inexcusable.

With respect, I don't think those experiences trump the socialization argument. After all, as an adult you'll have to deal with people in social settings and formal and informal organizations every day. It's better to learn the ups and downs of social interaction when the stakes are lower.

But as I said before, homeschooling is better for certain students. And I wouldn't want to deny those students the benefit they would get from it. But parents who choose to homeschool have some pitfalls that they have to avoid, and the socialization aspect is a biggie.

With my background, I have known a lot of kids (well, they're adults now) who were homeschooled. Some of them are awkward in social settings, others are not. But those who are not usually had some other kind of social interaction-- usually church, but sometimes homeschooling clubs or sports or something like that. Their parents made an effort to put them in social settings with their peers. I understand this is anecdotal evidence, but it's the best evidence that I have, and I'm open to anything more solid.

Unfortunately, I grew up as one of the awkward ones.

BryanLower

11th April 2006, 02:50 PM

As someone who has seriously thought about homeschooling any children I might have, I am very interested in what you think you lost. I ask because the only argument against homeschooling that I hear is "they won't be socialized properly" which I think is incorrect, if you expose them to people other than their immediate family.

Of course, I realize anything you say will come from the religious standpoint that your parents had, but I'm still curious nonetheless.

BlackCat

BlackCat, I think I may have partially answered you in my previous post, particularly to the "if you expose them to people other than their immediate family" part.

As for what I lost, it was both academic and social. I know we hear stories about these brilliant homeschooled kids who excel academically because their parents drill them all day and they don't have social distractions... but I suspect they are the exception rather than the rule. We didn't have any real measuring stick to judge how well we were doing compared to other kids our age. After a while, when we got used to our parents methods, we figured out how to get through the day without learning very much. An experienced teacher wouldn't have let us get away with the crap we regularly got away with. In the end, I discovered a passion for reading, so I started learning on my own. That made up for it somewhat, but it was unstructured and incomplete.

Socially, we would see other kids at church, but they weren't really "friends". We lost touch with our school-attending friends because, frankly, we no longer had very much in common. I didn't have to deal with bullies, but I had to wait until later in life to discover how terrible some people can be. I would rather have learned it earlier. We were reclusive. We didn't trust the government. We didn't trust our neighbors. We didn't trust "the system".

This lifestyle led directly to my rather extreme rebellion during my 20's. It did get a little out of hand. ;) I just wanted to experience the world that I had missed all those years. I also felt that I needed to learn a few hard lessons, to toughen up, and to grow up. Boy, did I ever. The hard way.

If you'll forgive my oversimplifying... some people see the world as a magnificent, complex, exciting thing that is to be experienced, savored, and-- in a way-- conquered. Others see the world as something dangerous to be feared, avoided, sheltered from, and distrusted. My childhood conditioned my to be the latter, but by sheer force if will I am tring to become the former.

Sorry, used a lot of words and probably didn't completely answer your question.

roger

11th April 2006, 02:51 PM

With respect, I don't think those experiences trump the socialization argument. After all, as an adult you'll have to deal with people in social settings and formal and informal organizations every day. It's better to learn the ups and downs of social interaction when the stakes are lower. The stakes are lower? I seriously contemplated suicide under the abuse I received. I seriously consided going postal. It was unremitting torture. There were a few kids who had been held back a year, were phsically gifted (natural atheletes), and beat the snot out of people at will. There was no such thing as fighting back, and there was no such thing as them getting in trouble for it at the principal's office, at least not enough to curtail or change the behavior.

None of my adult interactions have anything to do with the social interactions I "learned" in school. OTOH, I learned plenty of socialization skills from my family and non school related activities. I think I was probably less effected than Mark was, but removal from that environment would have only been a good thing.

Interestingly, a neighboring town came to our junior high school to save costs (they covered K-6). Not a single one of those kids exhibited that kind of bullying behavior that I can recall. There were a few kids that were troublemakers, but that was all aimed at disruption of classes, skipping classes, not bullying. One can only assume that the other school did a much better job at socializing the children, so that bullying was never really consided as an acceptable behavior by them. This strange split in behavior was not just true for my class, but for all the classes I was aware of at the time (several years worth of students).

gfunkusarelius

11th April 2006, 03:00 PM

i have had friends and family go the homeschooling route. overall i hate to generalize, but from my observations it has usually been about the parents' desire to control every aspect of their children. and my uncle who is homeschooling his kids is a creationist. in fact he was my introduction to creationists- i gre up going to church (lutheran) and i thought creationists were extinct. i mean i guess i knew some people still believed that, but i thought it was limited to extremely sheltered "country folk" but my uncle was very intelligent, so it was a reality check that people were still believing this by denying their intelligence.

BryanLower

11th April 2006, 03:05 PM

The stakes are lower? I seriously contemplated suicide under the abuse I received. I seriously consided going postal. It was unremitting torture. There were a few kids who had been held back a year, were phsically gifted (natural atheletes), and beat the snot out of people at will. There was no such thing as fighting back, and there was no such thing as them getting in trouble for it at the principal's office, at least not enough to curtail or change the behavior.

Yes, the stakes are lower. Sorry, that is not intended to downplay what happened to you. It's just a comparison. There are plenty of bullies in adult life. But imagine facing those bullies with your house, your job, your very means of surviving on the line. Yes, I do beleive that adult stakes are higher.

I think I was probably less effected than Mark was, but removal from that environment would have only been a good thing.

Then, by all means, you should have been removed. I wouldn't deny any avenue that would benefit an individual student. I have a nephew who would probably benefit from homeschooling. If it were my kid, I would pull him out. But this is not a panacea. It's a solution that has its own set of problems, and I think anybody who makes the decision to homeschool has to be aware of them.

Interestingly, a neighboring town came to our junior high school to save costs (they covered K-6). Not a single one of those kids exhibited that kind of bullying behavior that I can recall. There were a few kids that were troublemakers, but that was all aimed at disruption of classes, skipping classes, not bullying. One can only assume that the other school did a much better job at socializing the children, so that bullying was never really consided as an acceptable behavior by them. This strange split in behavior was not just true for my class, but for all the classes I was aware of at the time (several years worth of students).

That's a very important observation, and it's exactly why I think people are a little too quick to condemn the public school system.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

11th April 2006, 04:25 PM

I see no reason it shouldn’t be that way now. It should never be taken for granted, but reading should be easy. I would love to see the day when illiteracy is a trait attributed only to those that willfully choose to possess it.
You appear to be forgetting various handicaps that make reading difficult.

~~ Paul

Gravy

11th April 2006, 05:41 PM

I'm reading this ebook called the Underground History of American Education.
While it is sort of a conspiracy theory, yet considering the state of our school system, and the number of adults lacking basic skills - it has sparked my curiosity.

It's a good book, by John Taylor Gatto, former New York City (3 times) and State (once) Teacher of the Year honoree. His case against compulsory schooling is passionately – even angrily – argued but with lots of historical and contemporary examples of what's wrong with the American system of public primary schools, and how it got that way. Much of that corresponds with my own experience in school. And the chapters about the intent of the influential people who started the public school system are pretty terrifying. These thinkers had no qualms about coming right out and saying that most Americans should be educated just enough to make them productive factory workers.

So, definitely worth reading. My main issue with Gatto is that, to my recollection, he doesn't propose any way of getting to a system (or non-system) that would work better, and I don't think he was calling for everyone to be home schooled.

(edited for clarity)

gethane

11th April 2006, 06:53 PM

Please explain this.

I think it may mean that the student doesn’t have a condition too allow for any alterative education programs.

Like students diagnosed with ADD or some other learning disorder being placed in a class with more individual attention compared to other classes.

Normal = kids who don't fit into an existing "disabled" category.

Yes, sorry to post and then run :). This is what I meant. No diagnosed learning difficulties or ADD or anything that would force the school to come up with some sort of IEP (I think they are called). Individualized Education Plan?

I less than three logic

11th April 2006, 08:37 PM

You appear to be forgetting various handicaps that make reading difficult.

~~ Paul
You are quite right. Perhaps easy was not the correct word.

I admit my ignorance on the subject, but I thought most of the various handicaps with reading could be overcome with practice and proper tutoring. I’ll have to look more into the subject.

Reading is truly an invaluable skill, and without it many higher forms of learning and thinking are inaccessible. In The Demon-Haunted World Carl Sagan wrote:
For 99 percent of the tenure of humans on earth, nobody could read or write. The great invention had not yet been made. Except for firsthand experience, almost everything we knew was passed on by word of mouth. As in the children’s game “Telephone,” over tens and hundreds of generations, information would slowly be distorted and lost.

Books changed all that. Books, purchasable at low cost, permit us to interrogate the past with high accuracy; to tap the wisdoms of our species; to understand the point of view of others, and not just those in power; to contemplate – with the best teachers – the insights, painfully extracted from Nature, of the greatest minds that ever were, drawn from the entire planet and from all of our history. They allow people long dead to talk inside our heads. Books can accompany us everywhere. Books are patient where we are slow to understand, allow us to go over the hard parts as many times as we wish, and are never critical of our lapses. Books are the key to understanding the world and participating in a democratic society.
Guess my point was that I think every effort should be made to ensure that anyone that wants to read is able to. I see no reason not to allocate whatever resources are required to make this happen. I don’t mean just financial resources, but also time and energy from parents, teachers, tutors if needed, etc.

Reading skills, and education in general, should be a priority taken seriously by society. I sometimes get the feeling, especially when looking back at my experiences in school, that truly educating children is not a priority at school as much as preparing them for specific tests. I felt it was more just information regurgitation* than anything else. We were basically taught to memorize the exact questions on the standardized exams and not much else.

* - This was the phrase my high school Earth Science (mostly basic geology with a little meteorology, and one or two chapters of astronomy) teacher, Mr. Temple, used when describing the curriculum of the class. He said the class consisted of him writing a lot of terms and tables for us to copy and study so we could regurgitate them on the tests, because every time he attempted to do something entertaining and/or educational he was bombarded with various complaints. He was one of my favorite teachers and I learned a lot about science and thinking from him. However, very little was actually during the course of the class.

Wavicle

12th April 2006, 01:50 AM

I'm reading this ebook called the Underground History of American Education.
While it is sort of a conspiracy theory, yet considering the state of our school system, and the number of adults lacking basic skills - it has sparked my curiosity.
I stumbled across this book when I was trying to bolster my argument to homeschool my own children. However, my BS alarm was going off before I even got to the first chapter of Gatto's book. It was amazing to me that someone with accolades like his could write something with glaring errors like this:

The cost in New York State for building a well-schooled child in the year 2000 is $200,000 per body when lost interest is calculated. That capital sum invested in the child’s name over the past twelve years would have delivered a million dollars to each kid as a nest egg to compensate for having no school.
This is just in the introduction. He compares $200K over 12 years including lost interest, but not adjusted for inflation, to an up front cost of $200K and completely ignoring interest. Even without my 4 year math degree I think I could detect that, in terms of cost, his train of thought never left the station. This oblique suggestion would probably triple the cost of education. Furthermore, where are you going to get a gauranteed return of 14.5% annually for 12 years? That's the rate you need to get a 5 fold increase of your initial investment in 12 years. Please let me know because I am going to dump the entirety of my retirement into this awesome appreciation vehicle.

Military literacy tests for draft candidates, for example. There was a time when nearly every American was literate, when learning to read was considered easy, something taken for granted.
As others have said earlier, this is one of those statements 'dropped' without supporting evidence. I mean, everyone knows literacy was better in the good ol' days, right?

Gatto goes on to make some truly strange attacks. He attacks the "bell-curve" model of intelligence distribution, but my study in mathematical statistics suggests that nearly any biological 'potential' is going to be normally distributed or approximately normally distributed. He also depends on unsupported anecdote to bolster his essay and completely ignores things like: why don't kids in developing countries who do not attend school have similar literacy rates to kids in the same country who do attend school? In countries where girls generally don't attend school, there is always a high correlation to girls who can't read. This is exactly the opposite of what Gatto argues.

If you really want to see what he thinks of critical thinking, read the portion of chapter 14 where he talks about the scientific curriculum. Watch as he rails against the evil "science" encouraging unnatural tendencies such as being objective in your observation:

Second, the scientific curriculum asked for objectivity, for the suppression of human feelings which stand in the way of pursuing knowledge as the ultimate good. Thinking works best when everything is considered an equally lifeless object. Then things can be regarded with objectivity. Of course kids resist this deadening of nature and so have to be trained to see nature as mechanical. Have no feeling for the frog you dissect or the butterfly you kill for a school project—soon you may have no feeling for the humiliation of your classmates or the enfeeblement of your own parents. After all, humiliation constitutes the major tool of behavior control in schools, a tool used alike to control students, teachers, and administrators.

Let us count the argumentative fallacies...

pgwenthold

12th April 2006, 07:52 AM

Yes, the stakes are lower. Sorry, that is not intended to downplay what happened to you.

It's not just him.

High school is an AWFUL time for a lot of people. It may be more of a factor in smaller schools, like the one I attended, but I concur with the sentiment that it was torture. And I think there are a lot of people who feel that way.

At least in your adult life, you have much more opportunity to chose the people who who have to interact with. Heck, even if it is at work, you can even change your job.

You can chose your co-workers (and clients), but you can't chose your classmates.

There used to be a show on NBC called 'Freaks and Geeks.' It was about the high school experiences of the outcasts. It was a powerful show, but failed miserably for a very good reason. The people who weren't the outcasts couldn't relate to the show. OTOH, for the people who could relate to the show, including me, it was too painful to watch. Who wants to be reminded of the worst part of your life?

bluess

12th April 2006, 11:53 AM

We were going to homeschool Blue2, but decided against it for a variety of reasons. The biggest reason is that just a few weeks of interaction showed that she is competitive and would slack off into mindlessness if not provided with a living benchmark presented by her peers. We do supplement at home - we have been using the 'Comprehensive Curriculum' books. Her public elementary school is fine, but we're very concerned about the middle school she will be going to, and are seriously considering private school once she's out of fifth grade.

One acquaintance recommended the Abekah homeschool curriculum. This is how I found out that she is a fundamentalist Christian - Abekah is VERY 'fundy' in outlook. So the math portions of the curriculum are wonderful, but the science portions laughable.

In a couple of other threads, various wonderful members have suggested different books. I'm in a reading frenzy to devise some ongoing brain work this summer for Blue2.

BryanLower

12th April 2006, 12:09 PM

It's not just him.

High school is an AWFUL time for a lot of people. It may be more of a factor in smaller schools, like the one I attended, but I concur with the sentiment that it was torture. And I think there are a lot of people who feel that way.

I think there's a sliding scale for what people consider "torture". For some, high school was really bad, and they would have been better off if they were removed from it. Better yet, the school itself should have done a better job. Others, I think, just had a really hard time of it. That's not torture. Life is hard.

At least in your adult life, you have much more opportunity to chose the people who who have to interact with. Heck, even if it is at work, you can even change your job.

For most people, that kind of flexibility just doesn't exist. It's been a while since I've read about American class structure, mobility, and job security, but I've seen nothing to suggest that the situation now is any better. Most people can't just leave their jobs if they don't like the people they work with. What you say SHOULD be theoretically true, but I don't think it often is in practice.

There used to be a show on NBC called 'Freaks and Geeks.' It was about the high school experiences of the outcasts. It was a powerful show, but failed miserably for a very good reason. The people who weren't the outcasts couldn't relate to the show. OTOH, for the people who could relate to the show, including me, it was too painful to watch. Who wants to be reminded of the worst part of your life?

I have a question. This is just to sate my curiosity. It is not part of any argument or position that I have, so I promise I won't pounce on your answer as a "proof" of this or that. Did your experience, in the long run, make you tougher, wiser, more discerning of people's intentions and motives (or whatever other characteristic you may add), did it have little or no impact on your life, or did it make you weaker, thin-skinned, naive, and overly trusting?

... Or degree of the above. Don't want to create a false choice for you, I'm just trying to understand the long-term impact.

My experiences are different, so I can't properly answer the question. As I have said, my experiences made me timid, weak, and awkward, primarily because of my *lack* of good and bad social interaction. This made my early adult life hell, but I really needed to learn some coping skills.

Beth

12th April 2006, 12:56 PM

I think there's a sliding scale for what people consider "torture". For some, high school was really bad, and they would have been better off if they were removed from it. Better yet, the school itself should have done a better job. Others, I think, just had a really hard time of it. That's not torture. Life is hard.

For most people, that kind of flexibility just doesn't exist. It's been a while since I've read about American class structure, mobility, and job security, but I've seen nothing to suggest that the situation now is any better. Most people can't just leave their jobs if they don't like the people they work with. What you say SHOULD be theoretically true, but I don't think it often is in practice.

It can certainly create financial problems to leave a job without first finding another, but the choice is still there. You can choose to face the problems of unemployment rather than the problems of dealing with people who make your working life a living he11. Or you can choose to tolerate an unpleasant situation because the paycheck is worth it. School children do not have that option and that both makes it harder to tolerate the situation (you know you can't leave) and it makes the situation worse because those who bully and torment their classmates know that thier victim cannot escape. I think you have no concept of how miserable the school environment is for the outcasts. Torture is not, IMO, an inaccurate description for far too many children.

I have a question. This is just to sate my curiosity. It is not part of any argument or position that I have, so I promise I won't pounce on your answer as a "proof" of this or that. Did your experience, in the long run, make you tougher, wiser, more discerning of people's intentions and motives (or whatever other characteristic you may add), did it have little or no impact on your life, or did it make you weaker, thin-skinned, naive, and overly trusting?

Don't fool yourself into thinking you somehow missed developing social skills because you didn't go to school. School is not designed to help children learn social skills and it doesn't. Would you want your first grader to learn table manners from other first graders? Or do you think you might do a better job of teaching them such things.

The social interactions I experienced in school were unique to the school environment and thankfully I haven't had to use any of the coping skills I developed there elsewhere because I have not had to endure that sort of treatment since. However, my bad experiences in school did destroy my self-confidence. It took me many many years (and a few therapy sessions) to have a reasonably accurate self-image. (Turns out, I was neither stupid nor ugly :)) It did not make me over-trusting, but rather overly suspicious of others. It was a long time before I felt comfortable trusting in new friends. All in all, junior high and high school were the worst years of my life rather than, as most people feel, some of the best. All I can say about it is that 30 years later, I'm glad it's over and I hope I never have endure such treatment again.

pgwenthold

12th April 2006, 01:57 PM

I will address the question by responding to Beth.

The social interactions I experienced in school were unique to the school environment and thankfully I haven't had to use any of the coping skills I developed there elsewhere because I have not had to endure that sort of treatment since. However, my bad experiences in school did destroy my self-confidence. It took me many many years (and a few therapy sessions) to have a reasonably accurate self-image. (Turns out, I was neither stupid nor ugly :)) It did not make me over-trusting, but rather overly suspicious of others. It was a long time before I felt comfortable trusting in new friends.

I can't say it took therapy, but I had similar issues. The behavior that I developed through my high school years was actually fairly destructive, and it took me a long time (and a real kick in the head from a good friend) to realize that I had problems. I didn't always treat people very nicely back then. I try to do better now as an adult, but it takes a concious effort.

All in all, junior high and high school were the worst years of my life rather than, as most people feel, some of the best.

Do you really think most people consider high school and (especially) junior high as the best years of their life? I would be surprised.

I think of the scene in Revenge of the Nerds where Lewis says something like, "I have news for the beautiful people out there. There are a lot more of us (nerds) than there are of you." I don't think that is so far off the mark.

Similarly, in "Big" with Tom Hanks, his character asks the woman to go back to being a kid with him. She responds, "I've already done it once, I don't want to have to go through it again."

Ultimately, I don't think that high school is as peachy for most people as you make it out to be. OTOH, I could be wrong.

All I can say about it is that 30 years later, I'm glad it's over and I hope I never have endure such treatment again.

I feel your pain.

GreedyAlgorithm

12th April 2006, 02:00 PM

I'm in a reading frenzy to devise some ongoing brain work this summer for Blue2.
I have no idea what the actual effectiveness of these are, but the two summer learning activities my parents had me do that I still remember vividly are:

a) Read Great Expectations, write an essay on each chapter. This is probably a very situational activity - it was perfect for me since I loved to read, but until then had only read pulp.

b) We purchased a set of maybe 3cmx3cmx3cm cubes that could be snapped together. Beforehand, my mother made several constructions. My job was to first draw each based exactly and only on what I could see from a predefined angle, then try to draw each from the back, only looking at them from the front. This was a lot of fun, and may or may not have taught me a lot about concentration, noticing detail, spatial intuition, etc.

BryanLower

12th April 2006, 02:26 PM

It can certainly create financial problems to leave a job without first finding another, but the choice is still there. You can choose to face the problems of unemployment rather than the problems of dealing with people who make your working life a living he11.

The choice is there, but it doesn't really mean anything to most people. For your typical working class American, there isn't a line of jobs waiting for you if you leave your current one, and unemployment isn't really an option either if you have a family to support. This "choice" is about as realistic as giving them an option of moving to another planet if they don't like Earth. Works in theory, but the reality is different.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you somehow missed developing social skills because you didn't go to school.

Trust me, I am not fooling myself. I may not know much about anything, but I know myself pretty well. I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I missed out on important socialization because of my homeschool years. The situation was acute. It was not subtle. The difference between when I started homeschooling and when I finished was stark. So was the difference between my development and the development of my peers who attended regular school.

School is not designed to help children learn social skills and it doesn't.

As a parent of a young child, I'd have to say it impossible for school NOT to teach social skills. ANY social setting teaches kids how to behave in that setting-- good or bad. Not all the lessons are the "right" lessons, but there is definately much learned.

Would you want your first grader to learn table manners from other first graders? Or do you think you might do a better job of teaching them such things.

No, but that's not the point, is it? What I *would* want my daughter (who is almost in first grade, BTW) to learn from first-graders is how to talk and interact with first graders.

The social interactions I experienced in school were unique to the school environment and thankfully I haven't had to use any of the coping skills I developed there elsewhere because I have not had to endure that sort of treatment since. However, my bad experiences in school did destroy my self-confidence. It took me many many years (and a few therapy sessions) to have a reasonably accurate self-image. (Turns out, I was neither stupid nor ugly :))

I'm glad you got better.

It did not make me over-trusting, but rather overly suspicious of others. It was a long time before I felt comfortable trusting in new friends. All in all, junior high and high school were the worst years of my life rather than, as most people feel, some of the best. All I can say about it is that 30 years later, I'm glad it's over and I hope I never have endure such treatment again.

I also hope you never do. But if you do, you will have the tools to deal with it.

I hope nobody thinks I'm saying that all of you SHOULD have had terrible experiences in school. I have the greatest sympathy for all of you. I'm not even saying that some kids shouldn't be homeschooled. I am saying that school socialization is not worthless, it's perhaps more important than you think, even when it is not a lot of fun. Homeschooled kids will need to get this somehow.

psy kick

12th April 2006, 02:26 PM

I have homeschooled my child for this past year (just about over) and I am pretty sure I am a fundie.
Thats not why, though. He was bored, he wasn't taught math, there was no tutoring, and the harrassment by other kids was ignored. Theres nothing we can do about it, they said.
Public schools stink, really.
Ours is online, so I am hands off. If they are teaching evolution, well, my son knows how to answer questions with the answer the school expects.

supercorgi

12th April 2006, 02:30 PM

I have a question. This is just to sate my curiosity. It is not part of any argument or position that I have, so I promise I won't pounce on your answer as a "proof" of this or that. Did your experience, in the long run, make you tougher, wiser, more discerning of people's intentions and motives (or whatever other characteristic you may add), did it have little or no impact on your life, or did it make you weaker, thin-skinned, naive, and overly trusting?
I my experience, it didn't. In fact, the bullying that I was subjected to in elementary school shattered my self-esteem and led to a long history of psychological problems on my part. I think abuse like that, constant taunting and physical abuse, during the early formative years of personality development, can severely damage someone's personality. I remember all through grade school, every night I'd go to bed praying to God that I die in my sleep.
When the bullying took place (starting in 3rd grade), I hadn't built up a huge deal of confidence and what little I had got blown away. I often wonder what I would have been like had I not gone through that torture. I think that if I hadn't been subjected to that early bullying that I would be a lot better equipped as an adult to deal with conflict and confrontation. As it stands now, I usually avoid conflicts and getting into a confrontation can send me into a panic. Also, by the time you're an adult, most people have learned a little restraint and civility, on the other hand, little kids can just be like rabid pack animals scenting blood.

Beth

12th April 2006, 03:12 PM

Ultimately, I don't think that high school is as peachy for most people as you make it out to be. OTOH, I could be wrong. Well, you may be right about that. :) Sometimes, being an adolesent just sucks. Glad I'm through it.

Beth

12th April 2006, 03:40 PM

The choice is there, but it doesn't really mean anything to most people. For your typical working class American, there isn't a line of jobs waiting for you if you leave your current one, and unemployment isn't really an option either if you have a family to support. This "choice" is about as realistic as giving them an option of moving to another planet if they don't like Earth. Works in theory, but the reality is different.

No. This just isn't true. I've been in some bad work situations in my life. I've even, on occasion, left without another job lined up because I just couldn't take it anymore. Yes, it can be very difficult to find another job. Yes, your family may suffer from the lack of a paycheck. But, as my working class brother would put it "I was looking for a job when I found this one". You don't have to endure abuse, you can leave. The cost may high, but the option is there. A child doesn't have that option and just being aware that you do have the option to leave can relieve a lot of the stress associated with a bad situation.

Trust me, I am not fooling myself. I may not know much about anything, but I know myself pretty well. I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I missed out on important socialization because of my homeschool years. The situation was acute. It was not subtle. The difference between when I started homeschooling and when I finished was stark. So was the difference between my development and the development of my peers who attended regular school.

Well, I can't argue with that. What I'm saying is that the lack of socialization skills you suffered wasn't due to being homeschooled, but due to your parents choice to restrict your socialization opportunities. In fact, in the one study I'm aware of regarding socialization skills and homeschoolers, the homeschooled kids were rated as having better socialization skills than kids who attended traditional schools. My own experiences with homeschooled kids fit that conclusion as well.

As a parent of a young child, I'd have to say it impossible for school NOT to teach social skills. ANY social setting teaches kids how to behave in that setting-- good or bad. Not all the lessons are the "right" lessons, but there is definately much learned.

No disagreement there. Kids learn whereever they are and whatever they are doing. But my point is that schools are not teaching socialization skills, that simply isn't part of the curriculum. There is no guarantee or expectations regarding what social skills a child will learn when those skills are just expected to be picked up on through osmosis. Will they be the what the child needs as an adult? Whether your child is the victim or the bully, is this the socialization you want your child to have?

My opinion is the only environment where the social skills I learned in school would come into play are prison and the military because those are the only environments that adults cannot voluntary leave when abuse gets close to their personal breaking point.

No, but that's not the point, is it? What I *would* want my daughter (who is almost in first grade, BTW) to learn from first-graders is how to talk and interact with first graders. Your changing the bar here. I thought you wanted school to prepare kids to deal with social situations as an adult. As an adult, you just don't have to deal with the artifical social structure of the classroom - as least, not unless you choose to. So how will learning how to talk and interact with first graders from other first graders prepare your daughter for social situations as an adult?

I'm glad you got better.

Thanks. We all have our problems. I glad you did too.

[/quote]
I also hope you never do. But if you do, you will have the tools to deal with it. [/quote]

Yes, I think I do have the tools to deal with it now. But those skills are not the ones I learned in school, but the ones I have learned as an adult. In fact, I've spent a good deal of time as an adult trying to unlearn and stop doing the things I learned to do to cope with what I endured in school.

BryanLower

12th April 2006, 04:03 PM

Your changing the bar here. I thought you wanted school to prepare kids to deal with social situations as an adult. As an adult, you just don't have to deal with the artifical social structure of the classroom - as least, not unless you choose to. So how will learning how to talk and interact with first graders from other first graders prepare your daughter for social situations as an adult?

There's a lot here, and I promised I wouldn't use anybody's answers as part of an argument, so I'll just let it slide. But I would like to focus on this. I never said I expected kids to learn adult socialization in the first grade. I'm not changing any bar, your example was about the first grade, the whole school experience.

A first grader should learn how to interact with first graders. In the second grade, she should learn to interact with second graders. As a senior in high school, she should have experienced a pretty wide range of social situations, good and bad. In college and beyond, she should have a pretty good understanding about how people behave. Experience. Sometimes it can be painful, but there's no substitute for it.

By the way, the "artificial" environment of a classroom is no more artificial than jury duty, or an office, or any other adult situation in which our participation is less than voluntary.

meg

12th April 2006, 08:15 PM

A first grader should learn how to interact with first graders. In the second grade, she should learn to interact with second graders. As a senior in high school, she should have experienced a pretty wide range of social situations, good and bad. In college and beyond, she should have a pretty good understanding about how people behave. Experience. Sometimes it can be painful, but there's no substitute for it.

Personally, I see more bad than good in that scenario.

One of my favorite part time jobs (sometimes I get bored or lonely out here in the country, so I get a job) over the last few years was working at the local library putting away books. There are several active homeschooling groups in this area, and many of the homeschoolers were library regulars. I was very impressed by them. Most of them, at all ages, spoke to me intelligently and clearly. We discussed favorite books, projects they were working on, movies, all sorts of topics. I still crack up remembering a 7 yr old kid who got some stuff in that he'd ordered who shouted "OH COOL!! My gregorian chants are here!!!!!" and quickly shushed himself for talking too loud in the library.

In contrast, at 3:30 the public school kids would come in, snap up all the computers, giggle and throw things, hide in the corners and make out, and call me a b*tch behind my back for asking them nicely to turn their cell phones off. Nobody wanted to stop and chat with me. Obviously, it's not "cool" to yak with the library lady.

There a some ages of kids that I think it's really better if they DONT learn to mimic each other. Less unlearning to do when you grow up.

Meg

Dark Jaguar

12th April 2006, 09:55 PM

I have to say I myself would have much prefered being homeschooled as well. I too was one of those who gained no social skills whatsoever from going to school. I mean it, NONE. School bullies don't teach me anything about how to deal with adult bullies, because as an adult I actually had OPTIONS. If I worked with one, I could simply report the issue and the guy could be reprimanded in a way that mattered, not merely sent to detention and angry enough to come back at me the next week. If I wasn't forced into a situation, I could easily avoid the person, which isn't true of school, and most of all, adults for the most part are still far more mature than the so called "culture" I was in. I saw it as a mire of irresponsible people who THOUGHT they were in a social group but were just in a sort of mob rule. People convinced this is what society is like in the real world too and who thought they had a "lesson" to teach me at times (even though they themselves were in no position to be offering me anything like that).

I didn't contimplate going "postal" at any point, but I was depressed throughout school. I had to UNLEARN whatever societal things I did pick up in school to function as an adult. I don't deal with being locked somewhere or being physically threatened daily, or worse due to the mental nature, just constantly picked on every single day I was in school by this or that person who thinks that putting a scrap of paper in my hair or kicking the back of my seat or pouring some drink into my backpack will be funny. It was just childish, and what sort of lesson was I supposed to learn from that anyway? I'm just glad I made a few friends every now and then who were like-minded, the one positive social experience school had to offer. However, THAT can be gained without school, and you can actually introduce your kid to people who aren't jerks with values WORTH learning. There really isn't much to be said about learning by being stuck together with idiots, except how much you hate idiots. I really don't need to be stuck into an active combat zone to realize that if I am in such a situation I need to get out of it.

So no, I disagree with anyone who says that being bullied is a "learning experience". What exactly is there to learn aside from things that don't apply to life outside of school? I really am not out to learn self defense against morons. That said, I am fully aware that some people actually had a great time in school and miss it. I'm just not one of them. I much prefer the life I have now to what I had in school. Running through the door for the nth time crying isn't exactly good for development. I for one submit that teachers ARE in fact obligated to function as body guards. Someone has to.

RSLancastr

13th April 2006, 07:26 PM

There are several active homeschooling groups in this area, and many of the homeschoolers were library regulars. I was very impressed by them. Most of them, at all ages, spoke to me intelligently and clearly. We discussed favorite books, projects they were working on, movies, all sorts of topics.My ex-wife and I (mostly her, though) homeschooled our three children.

We pulled them out of school when they were in kindergarten, 2nd grade and 3rd grade, and homeschooled them until their sophomore years in high school, when each of them chose to go back to school (we gave them that choice at the beginning of each school year).

While the "socialization" issue is what most people worry about when they think of homeschoolers, most homeschooled kids that I've met are far more capable of talking with adults than traditionally-schooled kids are. They are also far better at talking with children of other ages. And better at talking with those of the opposite gender.

I think this is all largely due to:

1. They aren't forced by peers to think that talking to adults (and younger kids, and people of the opposite sex) is "uncool." They don't get mocked relentlessly for doing so.

2. They get exposed to people of a wide variety of ages, rather than spending the majkority of their time in a room full of 30 other people their age.

This is all based on my kids, and those of other homeschooling families with whom we met. Once or twice a week, our family would get together with the other like-minded homeschooling families in our area. Sometimes this was just for play, other times it was for fieldtrips and/or group projects.

Since there are as many ways of homeschooling as there are families who homeschool, this is obviously not true of all homeschoolers. But it was true of our kids, and, by and loarge, of the other homeschooled kids we met.

TQuilla

13th April 2006, 07:30 PM

My daughter is now 12 years old and has never been to school. We made the decision to home school early on because the schools in our area are abysmal. The "socialization" issue is something of a joke to most homeschoolers I know. In fact, two years ago we got behind in our academics because we were involved in so many social events. Home schooling children interact with adults and children of various ages and abilities. Because parents of children with learning disabilities or special needs often choose to home school, my daughter has learned to interact with and support children with some serious challenges.

Home schooling is not for everyone. It is another education option for those so inclined.

It has been my experience that the "fundies" are the most vocal and visible home schooling population. But there are many secular folks out there, too, home schooling for a variety of reasons. I didn't realize when I first started down this road that home shooling is actually a lifestyle, not just an education option. It's hard to say what a home schooling family "looks like," just as it is hard to say what a marriage looks like. The reasons for home schooling are as varied and complex as the reasons for getting married or having children.

gfunkusarelius

14th April 2006, 01:51 PM

its good to see several perspectives. like i said in an earlier post, i worry about my extended family who homeschools but that is mainly because they are fundamentalists who admittedly chose to homeschool their kids because they are control freaks and dont want their kids "mixing" with the "wrong" people and i am pretty sure they are creating kids who will rebel strongly or be really unprepared for life outside of their shelter, but i do have friends who homeschool for healthier reasons and since there are more and more people doing it, they have plenty of social opportunities. i think the socialization issue is a bit of a stigma from the past. i have a friend who was homeschooled for several years and he hated it because he didnt get to make friends and have the social pool of the public school kids, but i think that has changed now and the people i know who homeschool responsibly (imo) take turns hosting groups and going on events, etc.

Dark Jaguar

14th April 2006, 04:46 PM

I can say I wouldn't like it if the homeschooling environment was run in such a way that life revolved around scheduling. I place value, perhaps too much, on spontaneous events and scheduling "get togethers" with people my age wouldn't have sit well with me. Then again, part of that may have something to do with detesting pep rallies or something silly like that :D.

Godmode

17th April 2006, 02:04 AM

You might find this list helpful (or not). I only noticed one reason that even mentioned religion...
http://www.nhen.org/newhser/default.asp?id=228

http://www.mises.org/story/1167
This is also an interesting article

sistathinker

17th April 2006, 08:49 PM

Well, as an African American who is rather unimpressed with what the public schools are turning out, I REFUSE to subject any of my (future) children to US public schooling.

I didn't agree to marry Mistathinker unless he was on board with homeschooling until the littlethinkers are 10 or 12- then they can decide if they want to try traditional schools.

I was a debater in middle school and high school, and in my scholars classes as young as 2nd grade, there were opportunities to debate and "cross examine" our classmates about our opinions on things... The best schooling I had came every Friday when I was bussed two blocks from home to the scholars classes to learn science and computers and critical thinking skills. I recall the class being asked if we owned Cabbage Patch dolls. I was the only girl who didn't raise her hand. And I felt terrible. Then, Mister Pace (I still love that teacher to this day!) turned it into a discussion about blind consumerism. Except he called it "buying whatever toy the toy company says you should want... even if you don't want it until your friends get one."

Don't tell me a six or seven year old doesn't get that. I still remeber it decades later!

Skeptic

18th April 2006, 12:31 AM

I've been reading about homeschooling and the history of American education.

I've found many reasons why homeschooling would be beneficial. The problem is, a lot of homeschoolers writing online appear to be hardcore fundies. Young Earth Creationists who believe all modern culture is evil.

A sceptical homeschooler might be left with little support.

Many, if not most, homeschoolers are not fundamentalist Christians, but people who realized that the public school system runs the gamut from useless to dangerous and therefore do not want to put their children there.

kookbreaker

18th April 2006, 08:43 AM

I know California had a sort of 'homeschooling' program that managed to keep most of the elements of education at home, while keeping away from the taint of being creationist types, and still having some of the benefits of the education system.

My next door neighbor had his daugher in this program becuase he considered the nearby school to be too dangerous (note: this guy was former Special Forces). Her work had to be up to snuff by the review of the program standards, and she would go to classes/labs a few times a week where there were some excellent teachers who had been blackballed from the main education system because one test came back positive for THC. Most of the kids there were well behaved since they could toss anyone disruptive out of the program and their parents had a much greater involvement with their kids education.

He also had to videotape his daughter running a 100 yard dash (within a perscribed time) to ensure physical fitness, along with a load of other things to take care of. It was basicly school at home.

It seemed to be working. The program seemed decent as well.

Homeschooling does have a reputation since fundies not only celebrated it, they also hijacked any supporting literature. When I was with Scientifics I got to read lots of magazines covering homeschooling as well as lots of catalog companies specializing in catering homeschoolers.

Let's just say both were definately pandering to the fundie portion of the market.

BPScooter

19th April 2006, 01:51 AM

I think TQuilla said it very well, better than I can. There are lots of points of view, but for the most part people with a stake in their children's well being tend to look at a lot of options when they need to.

My experiences with homeschool philosophy and people did a lot to shatter some preconceptions I had. Maybe in the early days the only realy organized voice for a home-based alternative to public or private group schools, institutionalized schooling, were from religious motivations. I think there were also some old fashioned off-the-grid hippies that were really pushing the option. For some reason child stars in Hollywood or young Olympic athletes got to opt out of the institutional schools, but since they were so rich and cool they got away with it. The rest of the regular folks had to lobby for laws that helped them do what they thought was best.

John Holt is a big name in this, his books are quite compelling. I got to hear John Taylor Gatto speak once, and have read several of his books. I'm impressed with the nuances of his thinking, he's very willing to talk about his background and his experiences teaching in the, shall we say challenging environment of the NYC public schools. I enjoyed his "Underground History" book quite a bit. He brings a lot of focused reading and insight to his point of view. He also has a very long bibliography and anyone with a decent library nearby will have fun tracking down some of his sources. There's also a lot about Summerhill, Montessori, other "alternatives" to the system that most of us take for granted. You might want to look at a UK website on informal education (www.infed.org) that has a lot of nice biographies and essays of how people have juggled all the pros and cons, constraints and opportunities, that go into the process of nurturing minds.

Wavicle

23rd April 2006, 07:42 PM

For some reason child stars in Hollywood or young Olympic athletes got to opt out of the institutional schools, but since they were so rich and cool they got away with it. The rest of the regular folks had to lobby for laws that helped them do what they thought was best.

Who told you this? What do you mean by this? Neither child stars in Hollywood nor young Olympic athletes are given a pass on minimum standards for education. They may have a private tutor, but anybody with enough money can have his or her child privately educated.

I got to hear John Taylor Gatto speak once, and have read several of his books. I'm impressed with the nuances of his thinking, he's very willing to talk about his background and his experiences teaching in the, shall we say challenging environment of the NYC public schools. I enjoyed his "Underground History" book quite a bit. He brings a lot of focused reading and insight to his point of view. He also has a very long bibliography and anyone with a decent library nearby will have fun tracking down some of his sources.

Ahh, now I suspect where you might have gotten some of those ideas. Mr. Gatto is, in my opinion, just this side of a nutjob. A well-written nutjob, but a nutjob none-the-less. See my earlier post. I don't know about the written incarnation of his book, but his online version seems to contain no formal bibliography whatsoever. Moreover, his writing is severely lacking in citations. I found the book highly sophomoric and sprinkled with too many appeals to emotion without a defensible claim. He relies on perceived awe of his qualifications as an 'expert' to prop him up beyond criticism. I will grant he's clearly skilled at pedagogy, but that does not somehow give him greater insight into the nuances of human development or the historical development of the American Education system.

bigred

26th April 2006, 01:57 PM

Military literacy tests for draft candidates, for example. There was a time when nearly every American was literate, when learning to read was considered easy, something taken for granted.
yeah right.

I think you need to examine/select your resources more carefully. :cool:

BPScooter

27th April 2006, 03:21 PM

FramerDave

28th April 2006, 03:34 PM

Edit: D'oh! Posted in the wrong thread.

Carry on.

Polaris

1st May 2006, 04:11 AM

I remember a girl who would have graduated from my class had she not been home-schooled. She wasn't a fundy. She was a hippy instead - her name, I kid you not, was Happy. I guess she cancels out some junior-Jimmy Swaggart somewhere.

I never learned any social skills in public school, after 12 years. I'm still a social mess. I learned if you don't play a sport, and you are nice to women, you're basically a hopeless loser and you'll be destined to kiss ass unless you are willing to screw someone along the line.

drkitten

1st May 2006, 09:54 AM

I wasn't talking about standards so much as the "double standard" that is applied when those with the wealth or social stature are allowed to privately tutor their children while other folks are not. This was the situation, I believe, before US homeschooling laws changed in the last few decades.

This is the same "double standard" that permits those with wealth to drive Cadillacs and fly first class, while the rest of us can't?

Private tutoring, even home schooling, costs money; public school is ostensibly free. This has always been the case, and remains so today. For example, one of the mandatory attendance laws of the early 1920s -- the laws you are saying were "changed" to permit easier homeschooling, read in part:

Section 1. That section 5259, Oregon Laws, be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows:

Sec. 5259. Children Between the Ages of Eight and Sixteen Years.-Any parent, guardian or other person in the state of Oregon, having control or charge or custody of a child under the age of sixteen years and of the age of eight years or over at the commencement of a term of public school of the district in which said child resides, who shall fail or neglect or refuse to send such child to a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year in said district, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and each day's failure to send such child to a public school shall constitute a separate offense; provided, that in the following cases, children shall not be required to attend public schools:

[...]

(d) Private Instruction.-Any child who is being taught for a like period of time by the parent or private teacher such subjects as are usually taught in the first eight years in the public school; but before such child can be taught by a parent or a private teacher, such parent or private teacher must receive written permission from the county superintendent, and such permission shall not extend longer than the end of the current school year. Such child must report to the county school superintendent or some person designated by him at least once every three months and take an examination in the work covered. If, after such examination, the county superintendent shall determine that such child is not being properly taught, then the county superintendent shall order the parent, guardian or other person, to send such child to the public school the remainder of the school year.

E.g. parents, of whatever income level, can home-school as long as the children are being properly taught.

BPScooter

2nd May 2006, 01:27 AM

Hi drkitten,

Yes, these Oregon laws seem to be just the sort of thing that has been substantially changed in the last 30 years or so, at least in some places. Between the lines, read all the coersion, control, and potential for petty bureaucratic abuse there-- count the "musts" and "only ifs" and "shall orders" and such. Some states used to say you couldn't home school, even kindergarteners, without being a certified teacher, or have a bachelor's degree. Some states still require that you test, but when you look into the cost and restrictions of adminstering the Iowa tests or the Stanford tests, it's pretty restrictive. Some states require umbrella groups (usually it's churches that form those) or portfolios, not tests, that are reviewed by school officials.

So maybe I'm out to lunch, but there must be some basis for the advocacy of modern homeschoolers (i.e. why "fight the man" if there never was a "man" to fight?) as well as the sense that there has been a renaissance of home-based learning. Perhaps an analogy might be like the voting laws of the Jim Crow era, they look OK on the surface perhaps but de facto keep people from voting.

Have you heard of "unschooling?" They tend to even question society's unquestioned demand that it tell us what "properly taught" consists of. I have to admit that that goes too far for me. The interesting thing is that I'm sure there are folks that make it work just fine.

Beth

2nd May 2006, 07:44 AM

Hi drkitten,
Have you heard of "unschooling?" They tend to even question society's unquestioned demand that it tell us what "properly taught" consists of. I have to admit that that goes too far for me. The interesting thing is that I'm sure there are folks that make it work just fine.

Yes, it worked great for our daughter. She's in college now and doing fine. However, our son seems to require a bit more structure.

drkitten

2nd May 2006, 09:46 AM

So maybe I'm out to lunch, but there must be some basis for the advocacy of modern homeschoolers (i.e. why "fight the man" if there never was a "man" to fight?)

Unfortunately, the fundy headjobs are great at imagining opponents to fight -- witness the well-publicized "war on Christmas" chestnut that gets trotted out in the United States every December as a rallying cry for the Christian right. The "homeschooling" movement is largely something similar; people are "fighting" for a right they've enjoyed for the past two hundred plus years.

as well as the sense that there has been a renaissance of home-based learning.

What has changed is the availability of home-schooling materials, and corresponding with that, a rise in the number and amount of homeschooling support groups. Parents have always had the right to have their children privately tutored, as long as the children receive an "acceptable" education, but in practice, this requires a degree of work that most parents are unable or unwilling to do. If nothing else, it's hard to design appropriate lesson plans to make sure that students are, in fact, learning enough. And to be quite frank, most parents don't have the necessary expertise -- when was the last time you studied English grammar or spelling? If you are like most people, even if you studied it in middle school, you've probably forgotten it by now. I was a top-flight student in mathematics, but I don't think I could remember what the procedure is to bisect an angle (or how to prove that it works). If you have enough money, you can hire a professional who does know these things, but if you're reduced only to your own resources, homeschooling isn't really a practical option.

What the recent "rennaissance" has done is created -- and distributed, via the Internet -- a large battery of canned materials that parents can use to teach stuff that exceeds their own knowledge and memory. Even if you never took physics in high school, you can buy or download a module that explains topics in chemistry at an appropriately professional level. Of course, this stuff has also been available for a long time for professional educators -- at some level, they're just called "textbooks" -- but the Internet makes it easier to find them and easier for small groups (we're back to the fundy headcases) to write the equivalent of small-press textbooks or modules and distribute them without spending a fortune they don't have.

So now it's possible to get acceptable-level materials and curricula on a much smaller budget. This means it's now possible for the middle-class to afford to homeschool. But the underlying principle remains the same. It's legally permissible to teach children however you like, as long as the children get an appropriate education.

Have you heard of "unschooling?"

I have. Like most stupid educational fads, it works great for a small number of kids, and then a number of highly brainwashed proponents thought it would work great for for the general public.

BPScooter

2nd May 2006, 05:01 PM

I'm curious now, so I went and googled "homeschool law history" and found this piece, by Kathleen McCurdy:

http://www.homestead.com/wahomeednet/LawHistory.html

A short quote:

"Here in Washington we had at that time one of the worst circumstances for homeschooling. Not only was there no loophole in the existing regulations, but we even had precedent-setting cases in the courts where in one case a public school teacher was found guilty of truancy for teaching his 8 year-old at home. In another case a mother with a college degree (but no certificate) managed to get away with teaching her kids for several years in the '50s and was able to show the court some test scores to prove they were up to grade level. Nevertheless, she was still found guilty and prosecuted for truancy."

So indeed, if this is correct, the laws were interpreted in such a way that it was apparently impossible to educate a child at home.

Back to the original subject, my experience has been that there are lots and lots of homeschoolers who are not motivated by religion. I've met some really cool people, and some great kids. Of course I'm not saying it's right for everybody but it seems like a viable option.

Czarzy

4th May 2006, 06:40 PM

Personal observation: if my parents had had the desire to home school me, I would have been better off. The socialization skills I learned in school have been of no importance in my adult life: the most useful socialization skills I have acquired are those from adult experiences. The skills learned in grade and high school were useful only there. Adult civilization was not what I experienced in school before age 18: only how to view yourself in the opinion of a lot of children of the same age. The sheer force of numbers of those immature individuals of your same age versus the much fewer adults that you spent the same time with.

The set of behaviors that you see the most are those that you most model. On the whole, adults have more knowledge than children and have more of a repertoire of past experiences that modify their behavior than do children.

I think that the more hours you spend with a higher proportion of adults versus children (more civilized on the whole than children: of course there are exceptions), the more knowledge valuable to adult behavior is learned.

Facts in a certain area of study that a certified teacher knows: in almost all cases (especially in high school)
more than a parent interested in home schooling. But the beneficial lessons of experiencing continued adult behavior versus the nonproductive and many times painful lessons of experiencing continued child behavior makes me wish that my parents had home-schooled me.

I am a high-school teacher in a public school. The most intelligent and/or thinking students in my classes: try to resist but are many times eroded by the constant peer-pressure - people of the same age in bodies that are becoming adult but whose minds still run the gamut of child through adult development and whose boundaries are not those of the adult world: no adult consequences yet.

Before the level of technology we have today, being bigger and stronger was an advantage to most individuals. Not nearly so much now. School culture is so artificial to adult life today. Its made so by the emphasis of athletic ability. Team playing is important in many jobs, as it is in sports. But in high school sports, it is the athletic ability of the individual that is more important than the cooperation necessary for being part of the team.

What is more important in any career: that you have the knowledge and will to carry out the responsibilities or that you have the athletic ability to do so? In my public school, the life for four years the is just as or more important than the former.

My son: Montessori through 3rd grade, after which it was no longer available. If I were not a divorced parent who had to work rather than one of a duo, one of which who could home-school, I definitely would have home-schooled. My son learned the same lessons taught by groups of children in school as I had learned by them: how to function as not-yet-adults, majorly, in addition to facts taught by adults, minorly.

A great deal of my classroom time is spent in just trying to mitigate the uncivilized behavior of a minority of a few students, during which time the rest of the students are viewing that uncivilized behavior and my response. It is a waste of their time and a modeling for those who do not constantly think. The immediate result of those behaviors is not severe; the long-term consequence of those behaviors cannot be expected to be realized by young people (one can say that this kind of behavior will have negative impact on college grades or on the job, but what do they know of that yet?)

Therefore, I think that if a parent has the desire to home-school, that their knowledge of facts of each subject is of less importance to their children’s ability to assimilate into society than that those children have more exposure to adult behavior than child behavior.

The majority of home-schooled people that I have experienced are those whose parents are creationists, whose scientific teachings I deplore. Yet, I prefer that home-schooling to both those creationist-thinking parents and those non-creationist-thinking parents who send their child to the free public school just because it is free-to-them and so a way to absolve their own responsibility for preparing their child to function successfully in our society.

Do you want your child to better be able to assimilate into a children’s society or that of the adult society?
The public school system is forced by a vocal minority of parents to cater to the former.

BPScooter

7th May 2006, 03:30 AM

Czarzy, your post is well-received and full of good things to think about. I also was a high school teacher, and your comments about adult vs. child norms make total sense to me.

The thing I still admire is how many of the young, pierced, baggy-pants youth still are seemingly curious and healthy. They love to talk about big ideas, exercise fantasy, and talk about arts, or crafts, or whatever. They aren't that different, after all, are they? The sad part about homeschooling is that it is not a model for a large scale. If it were, it wouldn't be homeschooling, now, would it?

I think our best efforts will be in the direction of helping the teachers of groups remember the original values of self-education-- interest, confidence, and the basic skills to find an answer when you are faced with a problem.

neil

18th May 2006, 07:34 PM

Parents have a wide variety of reasons for home schooling. If it is a religious reason, it may be wholesome. We should not assume that religious instruction has to interfer with character, productivity nor good citizenship. Non religious people are likely making more errors = poorer choices, than religious families. Let's be tolerant of the choices of others, unless the choices have potential for very bad results. Neil

mommyrex

23rd May 2006, 01:23 PM

About socialization:

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that formal education does a better job of "socializing" kids than homeschooling does. An individual child does not act exactly the same in school as he does at home with his parents, or at home with his siblings, or at play with his friends, or at an organized club meeting. Children learn in each environment, by observation, imitation, and trail-and-error, the appropriate behavior for various groups and settings, and the relationships and roles different people have. Unless a child is restricted to very few peer interactions, there is no reason to assume that the child will lack in socialization.

I have never seen evidence that the particular experiences of children in schoolyard society have a generally positive impact on their development or their adult lives. I'm inclined to claim a negative impact, but as my evidence is entirely anecdotal, I'll move on. Whether they are heros, equals, or victims to their peers, whatever they learn from those situations is either primarily applicable to the school setting, or is just as likely to be learned in another setting. Saying that that homeschoolers are at risk because they need the particular socialization of mainstream schooling begs the question (if I'm using that right).

About my personal schooling experiences:

I feel that schooling crowded the love of learning out of my life. To the peer-initiated contempt of academic success, I responded by trying to stay as quiet as possible. To the structure of constantly driving toward someone else's educational goals, I responded by resisting as much has possible and doing the least necessary to "get by". Despite my constant status as underachiever, I managed to make friends with teachers I liked, and even to enjoy bits and pieces of the curriculum. I didn't reach out to learning, though, not until my years of required schooling were long finished.

My mom now wishes she'd homeschooled me (and probably my other siblings as well, I guess), but she didn't see it as an option at the time. We I decided to homeschool our kids before we had any. I sent my oldest to kindergarten for half a year -- the school in our town is quite good, and I sitll think so. But, I didn't think he was getting as much out of school as he normally got out of home. He is happier being homeschooled, we are happier homeschooling, and we have yet to find a significant drawback to our decision.

bluess

23rd May 2006, 02:09 PM

Mommyrex, how do you structure your day to address homeschooling requirements? We are seriously considering homeschooling at this point. The school is fine; but we find that Blue2 is getting more information and understanding from a 20 minute session with Mom or Dad then two hours spent on the same material in school. This would obviously be a big lifestyle change, so I am looking for the how's and where's.

mommyrex

23rd May 2006, 04:11 PM

Mommyrex, how do you structure your day to address homeschooling requirements?
I'm not sure if you mean the requirements we impose, or the requirements the state imposes, so here goes both:

Right now, we're way out at the unschooling end of the spectrum. As a family, we're not big on structure and schedules. I imagine this may have to be overcome in the future, if we determine that we need to make a curricular push at some point. For now, we try to find something to learn in everything we do, and try to do a variety of things each week. "Requirements" don't really figure in to our daily routine.

Here in Kansas, mandatory attendance laws apply from ages 7 to 16. So technically, I'm not even required to have my 6-year-old in any school. But we are registered with the state Board of Ed as a private, non-accredited school. That, plus a "competent instructor" and a substantially equivalent amount of time spent on education is the sum total required of homeschoolers in Kansas. While I'm not keeping a record of our "school schedule" or a portfolio of work, I plan to make homeschool journalling a regular part of our curriculum before we hit the mandatory attendance age, just in case I'm ever challenged.

-mommyrex

Miss Anthrope

5th November 2006, 12:03 PM

I know this is an old thread, but I'm new to posting on JREF so I wanted to put my two cents in.

I homeschool my children. We are not religious, and I am far from a controlling parent.

I happen to live in area with thousands upon thousands of homeschoolers and lots of resources, both social and educational.

My 9 year old daughter is far from socially awkward. Because her social situation is not 30 plus kids of the same exact age, she's far less peer dependent, extremely confident, and is comfortable playing/hanging out with kids who are both older and younger. She's very bright, but we aren't trying to "super educate", far from it.

I have made this choice simply because, quite frankly, the social focus on popular culture and the PC versus critical thinking environment in the classroom is just not what I want for my kids. My kids get to focus lots of attention on subjects that interest them, while I still have a structured curriculum to make sure the basics are covered. My daughter scores in the 95th percentile in the CAT every year.

My son is only two, he knows his alphabet and can count to 15 in two languages. He not only understands these things by rote, he understands the concepts on a basic level.

My kids are very happy and well adjusted, and the last thing I want to do is control them. The most satisfying aspect of homeschooling is watching my kids truly find out who they are and become individuals. (Granted, my son is barely starting this adventure) The last thing I expected from my daughter was that she'd be a David Bowie fan (Ziggy era no doubt, I never even owned any Bowie), that she'd pursue fencing, wind up dragging me to the ren-faire or successfully debate people into a corner in such topics as current events and politics. (I'll take credit for the skepticism, though) No way I controlled or influenced that...this is all 100% her.

Because I also telecommute, my kids are able to see my work and learn from those real life situations first hand. They see me have to manage my time, I discuss a lot of my professional life with my eldest so that she can get some practical knowledge about how life in the adult world works.

I have seen some bad cases. I've met literally hundreds of families. There are kids doing well, and kids who I believe desperately need to be put into public or private school. Personally, I am not so closed minded that I have ruled out this eventuality for my kids should our situation or their needs change. I know many families who have some kids who choose to go to school while others remain home.

The worst part about homeschooling has been the sour faces of others. It's been surprising how often this doesn't happen, but when it does, it's fairly sad and makes my daughter uncomfortable. However, the fact that she converses as well with young kids as she does with adults can occasionally win someone over.

rachaella

5th November 2006, 11:35 PM

I left school when I was 15 because of a major illness and some health problems that didn't allow me to return to the 100+ year old building my high school was located in, and because of compromised immune system I couldn't handle being around other people for that much time each and every day in an enclosed environment. Also I just kept getting sick and it was so disruptive to continue the cycle of home and make-up work. Although the whole home-schooling thing didn't really work out in the way we had hoped, what I did learn about was home schoolers: I joined one of two groups of home-schoolers in my area. I and my family are atheists so we did not want to join LEAH, the Christian group in the area so we joined RAHA which had no sort of religious requirement to join. (to join LEAH you actually needed to sign a declaration of faith, since then we've learned that LEAH is a national organization and how picky they are about that varies from location to location) I am 22 now and have since had many more health problems and ended up meeting my educational needs through community college, but I really miss most of the people I met at the homeschooling group. For the most part, those were some of the most wonderful, friendly, welcoming children and teens one would ever want to meet. From the moment that I met them I felt instantly welcomed into the group and that although I was different (I wore make-up, watched movies and TV, chatted on the internet for heaven's sake!), I still got along with them completely. If any parent is considering homeschooling and worried about a lack of socialization for their kids, my advice would be: do your research and find out if you have a good group of homeschoolers in your area. Check them out. Are they great kids? Are they an ecclectic bunch, do you think your child will "fit in"? There were definitely a lot of "woo" beliefs going on in the group, but I always felt that the group I was in was so diverse that there was very little pressure and little judgment of those who didn't follow it. Although I was quite amazed that I was the only one who had heard of Oprah Winfrey.

greeng

6th November 2006, 12:24 AM

<Waves> I'm fresh meat (or new blood, whichever) so you'll have to take my word about the fundie whackjob bit. :)

I have been having a hellish time fighting my state's prejudicial rules regarding 'umbrella' schools (they are all Christian, & unless you have a Baccalaureate, are necessary for High School. I got around it for now by having my ex & his B.S. sign for my daughter. But so unfair! I know Buddhists that had to lie & sign 'Statements of Faith' to use even the most liberal umbrella school. Ridiculous.)

quixotecoyote

6th November 2006, 01:09 AM

RSLancastr

6th November 2006, 02:40 AM

Here's a question. How on Earth do you homeschooling parents afford it?I would say that you have to either be able to afford to be a one-income family, or one or both parents have flexible enough schedule (such as working from home) in order for it to work.

But either way, it requires a LOT of time. My income allowed my ex to stay home and be the one who worked hard at homeschooling our kids.

Miss Anthrope

6th November 2006, 11:56 AM

Here's a question. How on Earth do you homeschooling parents afford it? My girlfriend and I both work and I can't imagine having the time to give out potential children an appropriate education. We have a hard enough time keeping our ferrets trained and maintained.

Is this even a possibilty for anyone but the well-off (or unemployed I suppose). By well-off I mean making >$60k in an urban area. Our combined income is well under that and between two car payments and the rent, we make ends meet, tuck a little savings away, and that's it. If either of us quit, we'd have to move back to the little studio apt outside the ghetto here that I just got out of. And frankly, that seems like a worse option for raising children than public school.

We are by no means well off. I did this for a while without my telecommuting job, and I will be doing it again. We were in really dire straights a few years ago, including my diagnosis with a chronic illness, an unexpected pregnancy while my husband was out of work and we had no health insurance. Yet we still manage.

I know one parent households that homeschool! They made a babysitting arrangement with a number of other homeschoolers in the various co-ops and support orgs, and schooled when when she was off work.

How we do it? We reduced our spending, period. We have a strict budget. NO CREDIT CARD DEBT! If we can't buy it out of our checking account, we can't have it. I suppose if we cared about what the Jones thought, this might be hard. But we just aren't materialistic, we simply like to have some comforts, and as you see from my user name, we don't care much about what others thinK! We have only one vehicle (my husband commutes by public transportation) We have a modest home, one that we can afford to maintain. We don't have to have the latest and greatest anything. When we want a new gadget, we carefully research the best prices, sell the old gadget, and there you go.

Homeschooling materials are not all that expensive. In my state, we can get a curriculum free through alt-ed programs. A complete, accredited and quite well put together curriculum costs me $600 per school year. Buy a copier for $100 bucks and now that curriculum works for all your kids. Supplies, field trips and supplement classes (athletics, music and the like) are just worked into your existing budget.

We've moved a little further away from Seattle, and actually bought a nicer home for a lot less money. This helps a lot.