Structured curriculum vs. child-directed learning

[athon]

Roger makes some good points. The one thing that worries me is that math is something people NEED. So if a student doesn't have Roger's love of math, that doesn't mean they can ignore it; the same goes for grammar.

But, as Roger said, you can monitor a student for what type of learning they will be best with in different subjects.

Structured learning, as an ideal, supports this. Teachers are supposed to differentiate their teaching for a range of needs, and should understand the individual learning styles of their students. Many countries use something called an IEP (individual education program) for students who demonstrate a need to learn through alternative means.

'Ideally' is the key word. Many teachers have trouble implementing these measures due to large workloads and limited contact time with students. Hence, this is a limitation caused by resources and funding more than the nature of the system. I have had the pleasure of working in a school several years ago where I could successfully individualise classes for the students, and they worked brilliantly.

Athon

 

[Wavicle]

There is a very strong bias in our society toward educating children with a structured curriculum, including specific and distinct subject areas, and careful progression through each in parallel as the child grows from about 5 yeras old to about 17.
...
If it's possible, I want to ignore the question of "where and by whom should kids be taught?", and focus on "how should the material be presented to children, as a structured curriculum, as it comes in day-to-day living, by some combination of the two, or soem other way?" I want to talk method, not venue.

Structured education in the earlier years (say before about age 12) is entirely about economics and has nothing to do with research findings supporting its use. The structured method is the most cost-efficient way to teach young children when you have a 25:1 student-teacher ratio (or in most cases, more like 30:1).

I believe homeschooled children routinely beat the status quo because they are sharing their teacher with maybe one or two other siblings. I think children thrive better in these environments, but you can't very well convince the body politic that taxes need to be raised drastically to hire 5x as many teachers as they have now so that there is a 5:1 ratio.

Once children approach high school years and start taking more responsibility for their education, the structured method is then reasonably efficient. I would suppose that the better way to educate your children would be homeschooling or organic learning until they are ready for the structured subject matter presented in middle or high school.

I'm a bit doubtful about homeschooling through high school. It's possible for most parents to teach their kids enough to pass a high school equivalency test but honestly is that a worthy goal to strive for? The kid is probably better served letting the person who majored in mathematics teach them trigonometry and the person who majored in english teach them formal essay composition.

I majored in mathematics at a state university. Most of my classmates were training to be math teachers and one of my professors was one of those who wrote standards for certifying math teachers. His example of why math majors should teach mathematics went something like this: We're all taught to solve 3x + 7 = 22 for x and getting x=5. But what happens when one of the kids asks: "could x equal something else?" Well, could it? Are you sure? Can you prove it? Someone who has had focused study on mathematics should recognize that the student's question is, in fact, a very good question; it's the type of thing we ask in higher mathematics all the time. And they should know the answers to those questions. I'm sure there's an analogous argument for English, History, Health, Art, Music, Chemistry, Physics, Government and Biology.

 

[Skeptic]

The problem is that, INIDIVIDUALLY, every child would undoubtebly benefit from a personal curriculum as opposed to a general subject-based one... but IN GENERAL, unless society has virtually unlimited resources to spend on a child's education, a general subject-based curriculum is the best one can do.

 

[athon]

A note about homeschooling; few people really appreciate the vast amount of non-curricula education children get through social involvement at school. Learning how to deal with authority, with 'unfairness', with self-responsibility, peer pressure, diverse perspectives, significance in large groups, group play, timetables, bullying... (I could go on for pages)... is all a part of school education. Learning how to deal with this is essential for life, and is rarely acknowledged as part of an educational career. Nobody grades you on it and teachers are not expressly told to put it into a curriculum (even though many school programs do address most aspects of it in various guises).

If children are active in getting experience in these things in other ways, then I have no real problem with home-schooling in the early years.

Athon

 

[Wavicle]

A note about homeschooling; few people really appreciate the vast amount of non-curricula education children get through social involvement at school. Learning how to deal with authority, with 'unfairness', with self-responsibility, peer pressure, diverse perspectives, significance in large groups, group play, timetables, bullying... (I could go on for pages)... is all a part of school education. Learning how to deal with this is essential for life, and is rarely acknowledged as part of an educational career.

As a product of "normal schooling," that was the argument I used for years against homeschooling. The problem is that every study (I've seen) that has set out to measure how well "adjusted" homeschooled kids are compared to traditional kids shows no advantage to the traditional schooling. I'm aware of some studies that suggest they are essentially equal, and some other studies that suggest homeschoolers are better off. I haven't seen any research showing any advantage to the traditionally schooled kids.

There are some theories about why this is. One is that homeschooled children learn from an earlier age how to interact with adults, whereas most of the "non-curricula" taught in a traditional school environment is really just "how to interact with others in primary and secondary school." A lesson which has limited usefulness beyond high school. It appears that most of the "useful" interpersonal skills are just as readily acquired playing with neighbors around the child's age as playing on the schoolyard.

 

[infornography]

(a) Why do we think it is important for kids to follow a structured curriculum, with expected achievements/mastery tied to their age?

(b) Is it equally valid to approach childhood learning the way we approach adult learning ... as requiring self-motivation and resourcefulness? (Please don't read this to mean "without the help of grown-ups" - primarily resourcefulness is asking questions of someone who is likely to help find answers.)

(c) Have we as parents articulated our goals for our children's education, and if so, do our articulated goals fit the method of education we have chosen for them?

(a) It is far easier and cheaper to implement. That is I suppose the primary reason.

(b) I teach adults... let me tell you, there isn't that huge a difference. In fact, if anything, adults need more structure in order to keep it together. If you try to teach adults like you think adults would like to be treated, then they will not get anything done and they will not study as much as they should. Difference being that unlike children, they come up with much better excuses why they didn't do their homework.

(c)Largely yes. I would say that the public education system is fine as long as the parent cares and puts the effort forth to fill in the gaps so to speak. Two things that the public education system completely fails to deliver the students are 'self confidence/self esteem' and critical thinking skills. My mother worked hard at helping to develop my self confidence and she succeeded. My dad constantly encouraged me to ask questions and doubt things that seemed unlikely. I understood the principles of Occam's Razor long before I ever heard the term.

If the parents make themselves available and work on those two really important lessons, then the children will develop into happy adults.

If you want to home teach your kids then kudos to you. While all parents should be able to make the time to teach those two important lessons to their kids, very few have the luxury of being able to dedicate the time to teach them everything else as well, much less the inclination.

I have heard of some groups of home teachers working together to make "classrooms" so to speak. This makes time management easier and allows the parents to focus on teaching the topics with they know better. For instance if you are really good at math and chemistry but are weaker in biology and English (I don't think this is the case, just an example), then you can teach the math and chemistry and let your neighbor who is also home schooling teach the biology and English. Maybe you have another neighbor or friend who is home schooling who knows computers really well and enjoyed physics and history in school.

If you are going the home schooling route then you might want to find out if there is a group you can join of other home teachers. If not then you can try starting one. If you can get a group like this together then it will lead to more time for you AND a better education for your child/children. Just make sure you trust each other and all agree on using similar/same methodologies.

I highly suspect that the reason home schooled children do so well on average is because of parental involvement. Any parent that cares enough to home school their child obviously cares a great deal about their child and is willing to make the sacrifices necissary to help that child become a great adult. I wonder however if the child would do just as well, worse, or better in a public school with such caring parents supporting them... That would be a very hard thing to test for I would think.

 

[athon]

As a product of "normal schooling," that was the argument I used for years against homeschooling. The problem is that every study (I've seen) that has set out to measure how well "adjusted" homeschooled kids are compared to traditional kids shows no advantage to the traditional schooling. I'm aware of some studies that suggest they are essentially equal, and some other studies that suggest homeschoolers are better off. I haven't seen any research showing any advantage to the traditionally schooled kids.

There are some theories about why this is. One is that homeschooled children learn from an earlier age how to interact with adults, whereas most of the "non-curricula" taught in a traditional school environment is really just "how to interact with others in primary and secondary school." A lesson which has limited usefulness beyond high school. It appears that most of the "useful" interpersonal skills are just as readily acquired playing with neighbors around the child's age as playing on the schoolyard.

This might become a 'show me yours and I'll show you mine' thing with studies, unfortunately. Regrettably I'd have some big boxes to search through to find the ones I years ago during a similar debate, presented by a lecturer who wanted to show how balanced the debate was. One paper was for, the other against. This was when I was actually in full support of home-schooling, unlike now when I'm in the 'if it's done properly' square.

The supporting study was, IMO, flawed, in that the sample was admittedly taken from students of smaller communities, biasing the results (smaller communities can be argued to have stronger communal roles, negating many effects of hidden curricula in the process). Admittedly, the study in support of systemic education was biased as well, being a government paper. The problem I had to begin with was that the term 'adjusted' is difficult to define and needs measurable parameters that correlate with citizens coping well in their community.

Anyway, post up links to the studies, if you can.

There are many other effects to consider, as well. Those who are homeschooled tend to be from well adjusted backgrounds where parents have strong community ties. They are more likely to involve themselves with community events and attend organisations such as churches or clubs. (I'll need to find the texts I have on those again). This does not support homeschooling as much as be a correlation between it and the socioeconomic background who tend to select it.

Anecdotally, I've found that students who were homeschooled and then entered my classes at secondary school were intelligent and well mannered, however had great difficulty adjusting to a peer group, something that was a problem throughout their secondary school career. This could well have changed as they entered tertiary or the work force, however.

Athon

 

[mommyrex]

Sorry. What's unschooling?

Wikipedia has a fine entry on "unschooling", which I am not allowed to link to.

 

[mommyrex]

A note about homeschooling; few people really appreciate the vast amount of non-curricula education children get through social involvement at school. Learning how to deal with authority, with 'unfairness', with self-responsibility, peer pressure, diverse perspectives, significance in large groups, group play, timetables, bullying... (I could go on for pages)... is all a part of school education. Learning how to deal with this is essential for life, and is rarely acknowledged as part of an educational career. Nobody grades you on it and teachers are not expressly told to put it into a curriculum (even though many school programs do address most aspects of it in various guises).

Few people really appreciate the vast amount of non-curricula education children get through social involvement at the pool, in clubs, on sports teams, in families, in grocery stores, at the library, at parks, at campgrounds, in their own backyards ...

School is _one_ environment. The socialization that is unique to the school experience is, almost by definition, not universally applicable. The socialization that is not unique to the school experience can, by definition, be got elsewhere.

Yes, it's possible to keep your kids under a rock, and probably easier if you homeschool. And there are schooled kids who _don't_ learn how to be successful in the school social environment, or who are _too_ successful, with negative consequences to others (i.e., the bullies who don't ultimately receive discipline). I'm not saying they're in the majority, just that those kids' existence is at least as likely as the existence of homeschooled kids who fail to learn essential social lessons.

The socialization argument seems weak. And we're talking venue again ...

mommyrex

 

[Hindmost]

Here's the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling

I have only anecdotal evidence on homeschooling--so this may not add much.

I would really believe that homeschooling success would be directly related to the persons doing the homeschooling. If parents or tutors have a broad range of abilities...including the ability to teach...it could be successful. I know of some homeschooled kids that did well in their social development due to activities encountered with other students, but outside the homeschool environment: such as sports, church activities, etc.

I have had to tutor a student recently and I have not enjoyed the experience. I do not like the one to one contact overall--even if it is effective in teaching. It seems limiting from an instructional point of view. The dynamics of the my classes are much more fun to teach and allow for more voices in the mix of education. If homeschooling is too narrowly focused with only a single opinion being provided to the student, then I don't believe it would be effective overall.

After reading the "unschooling" link, It appears to be just another teaching method that is being tested on students. I am truly skeptical of such things as they seem more rhetoric than substance. However, I have no data. EDIT: However, it seems to be a variation on what is called the "teacher as a guide" approach I learned back at grad school.

glenn

 

[mommyrex]

athon and Skeptic bring up the major point I ignored (partly because it's very caught up in the origins of/reasons for/nature of public schooling ... and that's economics. We do education on this huge, public scale (I am not against this), which means we need efficiency, standards, and general applicability. Really, the mass production analogy is apt for the concept of curriculum-based learning. But the vast range of outcomes shows either a failure of the concept, or a failure of the many humans involved in the system to accept its premises and goals. I put my money on the latter, for both the positive and negative ends of the curve.

I persist in the conclusion (always changeable) that structured-curriculum schooling serves our needs as a society, and less structured, student-led learning (although not to the point of zero direction) may serve individual students better, but at too high a cost to be generally applicable. There are no guarantees on either side ... the other variables (parents, teachers, funding, personal goals) loom too large.

mommyrex

 

[infornography]

from the wikipedia article

The subject matter is less important than the child learning 'how' to learn. This ability to learn on one's own makes it more likely that later, when the child is an adult, he or she can return to any subject that they feel wasn't sufficiently covered and learn the material.

Interesting concept but... If the child learns how to learn with only minor direction, then they are likely to only learn one method of learning. I would be inclined to believe that most would learn congnitive learning (the type of learning where you go for concepts and then flesh out the ideas on the fly as you need them), but they would probably be weak on rote memory. Depending on approach they may alternately be strong on procedural learning but not on cognitive or memorization.

There are times, especially in college, when you will need to apply all the diferent types of learning, in particular memorization and cognitive.

One of my big gripes with public education is that they don't push congitive learning at all and they are light on procedural in favor of brute force rote memorization learning. This is probably the least interesting and least efficient form of learning, but it has its place. I would just worry that the kid wouldn't learn how it is done and have a hard time acclimating to a college environment.

Just another detail to keep in mind.

 

[athon]

But the vast range of outcomes shows either a failure of the concept, or a failure of the many humans involved in the system to accept its premises and goals. I put my money on the latter, for both the positive and negative ends of the curve.

mommyrex

To what end do you call it a failure? While I think numerous improvements could be made, I'd by no means call the education system a failure. If so, society itself would not function, as an education system is aimed at providing competent citizens. If this did not occur, the community could not be sustained.

If you are indeed referring to it as a comparitive failure (contrasted against homeschooling), I again think this is an unfair assessment. Homeschooling as an option has been taken by a limited number of individuals, and while it has a number of successes, by its very nature of being both optional and against the mainstream is biased to be successful.

To put it another way, parents who opt to homeschool tend to have the time and resources to devote to the choice, which is the challenge faced by systemised education.

Few people really appreciate the vast amount of non-curricula education children get through social involvement at the pool, in clubs, on sports teams, in families, in grocery stores, at the library, at parks, at campgrounds, in their own backyards ...

I agree. Community interaction has suffered massively this past century, to the detriment of society. Ideally I'd love to see schools become the centre of community interaction, for a number of reasons.

But your argument still does no support homeschooling or 'unschooling' (which I got around to reading; thanks). In supportive, well resourced environments, all children can succeed, regardless of the structure. Society is better served by a system to make better use of those resources.

We could all wish for a better world, for all the good it would do. If you have the time, money, and community support to be able to effectively homeschool your child while providing the aspects of the hidden curriculum a school environment would otherwise offer, then best of luck to you. I have no problem with that. In such a minority of circumstances, I have every confidence that the child will do well.

However if this became an option more people were to pursue, I believe we would see problems increase on a scale much larger than those purportedly described resulting from systemised education. It takes resourcing, dedication, knowledge and good social networks to effectively educate a child for today's world, which is something not available to all people.

Athon

 

[Wavicle]

The problem I had to begin with was that the term 'adjusted' is difficult to define and needs measurable parameters that correlate with citizens coping well in their community.

[...snip...]

Those who are homeschooled tend to be from well adjusted backgrounds where parents have strong community ties.

Ummm....

Anyway, post up links to the studies, if you can.

How about Richard G. Medlin (2000) "Home Schooling and the Question of Socialization" Peabody Journal of Education 75: 1&2, 107-123

This does not support homeschooling as much as be a correlation between it and the socioeconomic background who tend to select it.

Ummm... Some of these conclusions are difficult to follow. Do you mean that those who are homeschooled would be just as well 'adjusted' if they went through normal schooling? In other words: exposure to the good and bad at a normal school would not impact their probability of falling in with the wrong peer group?

I would conclude that those parents whom are willing and able to homeschool SHOULD do so since it is suggestive that the child is from a 'well adjusted' background and would have a successful homeschool experience. I don't think anybody is advocating that homeschooling is for everybody.

 

[Wavicle]

To what end do you call it a failure? While I think numerous improvements could be made, I'd by no means call the education system a failure. If so, society itself would not function, as an education system is aimed at providing competent citizens. If this did not occur, the community could not be sustained.

You do realize the number of hasty generalizations and strawmen you are using, yes? If a student does not pass a course, does this mean he or she received a 0 on every assignment handed in?

If you are indeed referring to it as a comparitive failure (contrasted against homeschooling), I again think this is an unfair assessment. Homeschooling as an option has been taken by a limited number of individuals, and while it has a number of successes, by its very nature of being both optional and against the mainstream is biased to be successful.

This is a strawman argument. You have not presented an argument which exposes a problem with homeschooling, you're arguing to sample size and selectiveness. I also don't see how being optional and against the mainstream is biased to be successful.

To put it another way, parents who opt to homeschool tend to have the time and resources to devote to the choice, which is the challenge faced by systemised education.

Could you expand on this? Which resources do parents have that the massive education system do not? (And don't list resources the system could not obtain, like a parent-child relationship or more hours in a day)

I agree. Community interaction has suffered massively this past century, to the detriment of society. Ideally I'd love to see schools become the centre of community interaction, for a number of reasons.

Such as? Many communities have community centers for this. A school's primary funded mission is educating children. It is hardly neutral territory for all members of the community.

But your argument still does no support homeschooling or 'unschooling' (which I got around to reading; thanks). In supportive, well resourced environments, all children can succeed, regardless of the structure. Society is better served by a system to make better use of those resources.

Hasty generalization, begging the question. Can a 'system' make better use of those resources? Is society better served by this? (It isn't clear which resources you are talking about. Is it the parent teaching their child at home resource? It certainly isn't money because 'the system' already has more money per pupil on average than homeschoolers)

We could all wish for a better world, for all the good it would do. If you have the time, money, and community support to be able to effectively homeschool your child while providing the aspects of the hidden curriculum a school environment would otherwise offer, then best of luck to you. I have no problem with that. In such a minority of circumstances, I have every confidence that the child will do well.

What are these 'hidden' curricula? The only supported thing I've seen is that homeschoolers have trouble interacting with school-based peer groups. What do you mean by 'community support'? Many homeschooling parents face ostracism from many quarters within the community but succeed anyway.

However if this became an option more people were to pursue, I believe we would see problems increase on a scale much larger than those purportedly described resulting from systemised education. It takes resourcing, dedication, knowledge and good social networks to effectively educate a child for today's world, which is something not available to all people.

Hasty generalization again. You're assuming those who would abandon traditional schooling would increasingly be from those whom are those lacking the necessary tools to perform homeschooling. I don't think anybody is advocating homeschooling for everybody. In fact I myself would depart from most homeschooling parents and argue that any homeschooled child should be subject to standardized testing and must score better than one standard deviation below the mean of the scores received in the local school district or else re-enter the traditional schooling system. Although based on my research a homeschooled child scoring below the mean is a rare bird indeed.

 

[infornography]

I do agree that Athon is using a bit of hyperbole but I do understand the points he is making.

I see home schooling as a challenge to the parents where if they are aware of the potential pitfalls then they are less likely to fall in them. The more questions provided about the advantages and disadvantages of this particular homeschooling method, the better.

It seems to me that is mommyrex's goal with this thread as well.

 

[mommyrex]

To what end do you call it a failure? While I think numerous improvements could be made, I'd by no means call the education system a failure.

Nor would I. I was trying to say that the concept of assembly line mass production fails in the real-world application to schooling, and the reason I think it does is that people are not as easy to can as tomatoes. I did not intend to say schooling is a failure. Merely that our approach is, of necessity, big and standardized, but our outcomes never will be (for better and for worse), because we are people. The approach doesn't fit the subjects, and we can't use factory-style quality management to make it fit -- the people teaching in, learning in, and supporting the system will always be individuals, so outcomes will never be standardized. Failure of concept, in its practical application, not failure of the system to produce a net benefit.

Sorry for the confusion -- the word failure is too loaded to stick in the middle of a dry and convoluted analysis.

I think we, as a society, are better off with the public schooling we have right now than we would be without public schooling. I admire the public schools in our town, and I would send my kids there under other circumstances (and I probably will, sometimes). I just choose differently for my kids right now.

mommyrex

[edited to fix typos - that should be my sig line]

 

[mommyrex]

I agree. Community interaction has suffered massively this past century, to the detriment of society. Ideally I'd love to see schools become the centre of community interaction, for a number of reasons.

I am very curious as to your number of reasons -- not the number itself, but the reasons .

Story time:
In our town, the school is very definitely the center of community interaction, with the church a close second (or maybe they're tied). We have a wonderful (and very small) school system, and I think that the community's identification with the schools (even the people who have no direct stake in them) is the driving force behind their excellence.

For my family, as homeschoolers who live miles outside of town and aren't Catholic, we have to make an extra effort to stay involved and relevant to our neighbors. But we are as expected at school and church activites as everyone else -- the school and church are seen as belonging to and benefitting from the entire community. And I'm darn glad we have something to bring us together.

But I can't see how you could have this community/school bond, and the mutual benefits, in more densely populated areas, like the one I grew up in. Would your ideal include a restructuring of public schooling to be more geographically community-based? Could we create jobs for parents that didn't require long commutes away from these school-centered communities? I could see how people would work toward that kind of ideal. But I still want to hear your reasons.

mommyrex

 

[BPScooter]

However if this became an option more people were to pursue, I believe we would see problems increase on a scale much larger than those purportedly described resulting from systemised education. It takes resourcing, dedication, knowledge and good social networks to effectively educate a child for today's world, which is something not available to all people.

Athon

Athon, are you saying that homeschool is a dangerous option? Do you feel the same about, say, private schools based on religion that have few state-mandated constraints? What do you think of France, where the idea of citizen was born? Could a parent raise a girl to be a young woman while wearing the head-garb, and still have her learn the math and science? How free is your thinking? In the US we are still exploring these questions. I think your posts sound very "state" and "society" oriented, what's best for the masses must be best for the nation. Please don't interpret my response as negative or aimed at you. These are big issues. Maybe it boils down to how much a society or government or nation trusts its citizens, or how much it wants to create citizens for its own purposes.

 

[athon]

Ummm....

Context is evident in this generalised case. Please, define a set of observable parameters that could be used to equivicate 'adjusted' for an individual. We know what it means; how would you objectively describe an adjusted individual? What observable descriptors would you look for?

How about Richard G. Medlin (2000) "Home Schooling and the Question of Socialization" Peabody Journal of Education 75: 1&2, 107-123

I'll try to find it at uni; otherwise, is there an online copy?

Ummm... Some of these conclusions are difficult to follow. Do you mean that those who are homeschooled would be just as well 'adjusted' if they went through normal schooling? In other words: exposure to the good and bad at a normal school would not impact their probability of falling in with the wrong peer group?

That's hard to support, but it's possible. I'm saying that the environment supporting homeschooled individuals would be of equal advantage in a systemised environment. Obviously many schools are underfunded and poorly resourced, with bad social environments. This is not a result of being a system, but of the administration itself. I argue that a homeschooled student if put into a properly resourced system-based educational facility would be just as successful, if not potentially more so.

I would conclude that those parents whom are willing and able to homeschool SHOULD do so since it is suggestive that the child is from a 'well adjusted' background and would have a successful homeschool experience. I don't think anybody is advocating that homeschooling is for everybody.

Who makes that decision? I'm not suggesting that homeschool cannot work, but rather the touted reasons for its superiority relate to resources and not the concept of systemised education.

Athon