In general this sounds reasonable, however your assumption is that the interaction with peers is 'effective.' To what end do you consider it effective? Is it more effective than say activities outside of class such as sports at the local parks & rec center? Scouting? Gymnastics? Ballet? Swimming?
When to homeschool?
- Thread starter Wavicle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeschooling
In general this sounds reasonable, however your assumption is that the interaction with peers is 'effective.' To what end do you consider it effective? Is it more effective than say activities outside of class such as sports at the local parks & rec center? Scouting? Gymnastics? Ballet? Swimming?
Godmode
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 490
Just out of curiosity, what are your daughter's thoughts on repeating? Is it something she wouldn't mind, or is it something that terrifies her?
If it's an option, I would seriously try finding a school that specializes in more individual attention. It doesn't sound like your daughter is immature, it sounds more like she won't benefit from the standard education offered by an overcrowded classroom, and WOULD benefit from a teaching environment with more flexability. The fact that she prefers to finish a project before going on to the next is frankly something I'd like to see encouraged. It sounds like a refreshing change from those kids who can't pay attention to one thing for even 10 minutes.
Homeschooling may be the answer, but I would look at optional schools first.
Above all, I do believe the teaching that goes on at home is more important then what goes on at school, so keep up with that.
If it's an option, I would seriously try finding a school that specializes in more individual attention. It doesn't sound like your daughter is immature, it sounds more like she won't benefit from the standard education offered by an overcrowded classroom, and WOULD benefit from a teaching environment with more flexability. The fact that she prefers to finish a project before going on to the next is frankly something I'd like to see encouraged. It sounds like a refreshing change from those kids who can't pay attention to one thing for even 10 minutes.
Homeschooling may be the answer, but I would look at optional schools first.
Above all, I do believe the teaching that goes on at home is more important then what goes on at school, so keep up with that.
! Wow somebody gets it.
And "but johnny plays soccer" isn't the same thing at all (not that it's bad by any means).
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
Kind of happens when you move 4 times in the space of 18 months.
Still, I would say relax... it is only kindergarten, wait until May before making a decision. In my experience kindergarten for myself, my younger son and my daughter had virtually no bearing on well we have all done in the following years. It was good for younger son not to start kindergarten the month he turned 5... his reports did constantly say "does not perform to his ability" up until the latter part of 6th grade, after that he started to become an honor student (I think the reason was that I explained the concept of "scholarship" to this money-loving child).
Edit to add: The importance of kindergarten is such that I was one of the last parents to insist on half day kindergarten (except for disabled older son). My daughter one of only five kids who went home before lunch. Twice a week I took her to the pool for kinder swim lessons, and the other days she had play dates with the other four kids (who were all boys... not a problem since she had two older brothers, one of the boys refused to call her a "girl", she was a "boygirl").
Last edited:
It's clear that you disagree with homeschooling, but what is your rationale? What objective indicators can we use to establish when lack of socialization in homeschool outweighs whatever negative influences exist in public schools?
I think the biggest condemnation this gives for public school is: Socialization is the best reason to go with public school, but that isn't a subject on their curriculum. It isn't taught, it isn't overseen, and therefore subject to the whims of the student body. More importantly there is no gaurantee that it models adult behavior therefore the social lessons from school may only be useful at school.
uhhhh run that by me again...they learn more socially hanging out at home with mommy and daddy vs being among their peers? yeah right...Correction: individualized instruction by a PARENT. Very few are teachers.
I'll grant you that. Although I would think (hope?) most teachers care about their student's success too.
So learn to be independent....by hanging at home w/mom n dad.
Sorry, as important and desirable as that is, this simply isn't true. Quality educational instruction is the single factor with the most impact on a child's eventual educational success. A parent's involvement can make a huge diff though, don't mean to say otherwise (and SOME parents can do both of course).
ah HAH the truth comes out
That's all well and fine but as you clearly stated, this is first and foremost about getting close to your kids...ie NOT about their education.That doesn't make it the way to go.
Anyway sorry for any offense and if it works for you...oops I mean for your kid(s)...great. Just not a fan of the homeschool thing generally. The lack of social interaction w/peers alone is enough to turn me off, although it's not the only thing.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
Yeah, right. The job of socializing children belongs to their parents, not their peers. Children do NOT do a good job of teaching socialization skills to other children.
Your bias is showing here. Are only folks employed by a school as a teacher deserving of the title? Or is anyone who is teaching someone else a teacher? I use the term in the latter sense, not the former.
I would hope so too, but the bottom line is that parents are much more motivated to see that their children become successful adults than are teachers who are only passing through a child's life for a year or two at most.
Parents have, as their ultimate goal, raising their child to be an independent adult. That is not the goal of a teacher in the school system and independence is not learned by sitting in a classroom.So learn to be independent....by hanging at home w/mom n dad.
I'm sorry, but unless you can provide some evidence that quality of educational instruction is more important than the quality of parental involvement, I will be skeptical of that claim. Among other things, the higher the level of the parental involvement, the more likely the parent is to seek and find high quality educational instruction. Keep in mind, homeschooling does not imply the parent is the child's sole teacher.
For us, we choose homeschooling because we wanted to provide a better education for our children. However, to my surprise, the greatest payoff has been not the better education, but the closer relationships that homeschooling has fostered in our family. It makes homeschooling truly a win-win option.ah HAH the truth comes out
Your stereotype of a child learning alone at home with his/her parent is pretty far off the reality for most homeschoolers. Homeschooling does not mean the child is isolated from peers nor does it mean that the parent is the sole teacher.
I have no problem restricting the term "teacher" to people with actual training and experience in pedagogy.
You probably give painkillers to your children, too --- but that doesn't make you a pediatrician.
I've seen far too many cases where homeschooling is to education as "Mummy kiss it better" is to medical practice.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
I tend not to be so hung up with insisting on professional credentials for general classifications. I would equate the term 'teacher' with 'scientist' in that I consider them very general classifications. I recall a thread regarding the title of 'scientist' some time ago. Opinions differ of course, but I don't think it's inappropriate to term anyone who teachs to be a teacher.
At this point I haven't discussed it with her. At barely 5 I'm not sure how well she would understand what I'm asking. Since we've pretty much committed to waiting until years end to make a decision, I don't see any reason to dump a burden on her right now. I have pretty much decided our choice is either going to be override the reccomendation and promote my daughter to 1st grade, or pull her out and homeschool her for a year.
I'm going to have to object to that definition as an uneccessary modern revisionist tool. Using a definition that strict would also exclude many private school teachers as they are not credentialed nor are they required to be. It matches neither the etymology of the word, nor the common definition.
I don't think that's a fair analogy. Unless you are going to argue that a teacher must have a Ph.D. in her subject I think you should compare a parent to a nurse, which arguably they are doing.
This we can work with. Most studies done regarding homeschooling say the opposite, however "most studies" is actually a very small number of studies (not much money in looking at the subject I suppose). Also those studies tend to be done by a few researchers with an apparent axe to grind. So what is their methodological error? I think that's the sceptical/critical issue I'm looking for in an argument against homeschooling.
Exactly.
In extremely broad terms and just for the sake of chat, yeah. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about actually presuming the role of teacher. And saying "anyone who teachs is a teacher" is like saying "anyone who distributes drugs is a doctor/pharmacist."
It's severely inappropriate. Doing something doesn't mean it's being done correctly or the person doing it knows what they're doing.
PS again a caveat that the sake of argument I concede you're doing a great job, that is not aimed at but in general.......
Very nice faulty analogy. If I end up teaching my children logic and rhetoric, maybe I'll keep that sentence around as an aid. Do you have any well reasoned, critically thought argument why a parent who teaches a child is NOT a teacher? Like what mental tool does a teacher have that specifically improves their ability to educate a children.
I'm not entirely sure where I sit with the un-theoretical question of homeschooling my own children, but I have a math degree from a college that primarily produces middle/high school math teachers. Having spent the four years when their core subject knowledge was bestowed, well I'm just not wowed enough to say that 'teacher' should be a protected title. It's a noun that is also some people's paid occupation.
Which is exactly why parents have such discontent with public schooling. A very strong teacher's union, with the intent of ensuring that principals do not terminate teachers for frivolous reasons, have made it impractically difficult to fire teachers at all. Those who aren't doing it correctly, and don't know what they're doing, just become one of those stains that the administration hopes doesn't screw up the kids before they leave.
I know I'm addressing a very small part of your problem, but the age isn't a problem: My birthday is today (16, yay!) and I'm in 11th grade, which means I'm even younger, grade-speaking, then your daughter. I turned out fine so far (I think 
), and, aside from my own, completely useless personal ancedote, I've seen several (yes, several!) studies showing that, despite what many administrators think, holding back doesn't help students over the long run at all. Personally I believe in public school (I don't know why... 
), but I know that doesn't help you... Good luck!
), and, aside from my own, completely useless personal ancedote, I've seen several (yes, several!) studies showing that, despite what many administrators think, holding back doesn't help students over the long run at all. Personally I believe in public school (I don't know why... ), but I know that doesn't help you... Good luck!lol @ the hissy and thank you for the pointless (and erroneous) personal attack. You certainly strengthened your point of view on this topic (not to mention your credibility).
I'd bother patiently re-explaining/slowly spelling out what I meant if I thought it was worth my time - or that you'd even bother to really listen.
Do your kids a favor and DON'T homeschool. I can just see them disagreeing with you and you having a hissy like this one due to either failing to understanding them or because - gasp - they disagreed with you. Yessirree, there's some serious social learnin to be had there.
Please show me where I state or imply that public education is in great shape. In fact IMO it's one of the very few (possible) valid justifications for homeschooling (in certain cases that is, not across the board).
The attack was on your argument. Notice the pronoun 'you' appears only once: in my third request for a rational argument against homeschooling. It should have been obvious that your analogy was problematic when your syllogism required two people (doctor/pharmacist) in one example to replace one person (teacher) in the other.
You've never offered more than a soundbite to bolster your position, and this is the first you've responded to my multiple requests for a reasoned argument against homeschooling. I have yet to see you apply either critical thinking or scientific methodology to this discussion.
I've re-read the whole thread. You never explained it in the first place. Is "yeah right" a well reasoned argument? Argument from incredulity does not cut it in my book. I'd hope nobody else here would find it persuasive either.
So I attack an argument you make, and you say it's a personal attack. You say "and you having a hissy like this one" and this is what exactly?
You've twisted the argument here. I showed that your statement of "Doing something doesn't mean it's being done correctly" is just as useful to the pro-homeschool argument, thus implying it is a useless argument. I made no statement about your claims regarding the shape of public education, but that is what you're refuting.
If you have a coherent, rational argument either for or against homeschooling, pulling out of kindergarten now, overriding retention in kindergarten, or retention in kindergarten - then why don't you make it?
Miss Anthrope
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,575
I would like to chime in that kids who are homeschooled are not removed from the social experience. Actually, homeschooled kids tend to adapt better as in the real world does not consist of 30-40 people exactly your age. My kids are busy every day of the week with loads of social activities supported my several homeschool networks and co-ops. My oldest daughter is not gossipy or clickish, she's no slave to fashion, but what she can do is converse happily with little kids, her age peers, teenagers and adults. Given the constant comments I get from all manner of people that she is so mature, well spoken and confident, I'd be hard pressed to say she's "sheltered".
Miss Anthrope
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,575
That's the HSLDA that did that study. I know first hand from the hundreds of homeschoolers I've met in Washington state alone that homeschooled kids are confident, well spoken and best of all, free from bullying and the constant peer pressure and conformity patrol.
Homeschooling is NOT for every parent, and I will say that I've seen plenty of kids who really should be put into schools. But the urban myths about socialization are just that: myths. Homeschooled kids who have good social support systems are very well adjusted and deal well with people from all age groups.
I have been teaching at private schools for 15 years and this may sound odd but I would strongly consider homeschooling. Schools do a great job of discouraging or even destroying a love of learning that all young people have by making them do trivial or boring tasks just to get a grade. The socialization that takes place at school is not always very good what with the cliques and the bullying. I am at a pretty high powered school and the kids are so stressed and annoyed that they don't have time to do the things that really interest them. Often the more talented kids have 3-4 hours of homework a night, most of it busy work. I recommend any book by John Holt, especially How Children Fail, and How Children Learn.
Well, the University of Sioux Falls offers a "teacher certification" one-year course that is supposed to bring someone like you -- someone with a non-teaching degree -- to the point of being able to get a state-issued licence.
The coursework includes:
- EDU 506 Foundations of Education
- EDU 514 Teaching & Learning w/ Technology
- EDU 508 Adolescent Psychology & Middle School Methods
- EDU 557 Literacy Across Disciplines
- EDU 505 Human Relations
- EDU 533 Native American Studies
- EDU 526 Educational Psychology & Evaluation
- EDU 515 Exceptional Students
- EDU 525 Secondary & Content Methods
- EDU 555 Research & Instructional Management
- EDU 556 Student Teaching
So the quick answer to your question is -- formal training in pegagogy, assessment, use of technology in teaching, psychology, evaluative methods, and how to deal with students who are different than your expectations, plus formal hands-on practice under the supervision of a recognized content expert.
Er, no. The core subject knowledge involved in being a middle school math teacher is teaching, not math. (That's arguably unfortunate, but it's a simple fact that you can confirm by looking at the certification requirements.)