When to homeschool?

[Miss Anthrope]

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.)

Did you know that a recent study by the American Institutes for Research showed that education majors had the lowest levels of practical literacy among college students?

So are you saying my MBA, and my years of training personnel from front line customer service to executive level are sub-standard to a teaching certificate?

I have a much more vested interest in providing a quality education for my child, as do the 50 or so parents I interact with regularly. These are chemists, biologists, PhD's, and GASP! I can rattle off five who are school teachers, active and retired.

The state of Washington feels that my college degree is fine. For those that don't have one, they can take a brief "qualifying course". After age 8 kids take standardized tests every year, and so far we're in the top 5% of the nation.......and we only spend about 2-3 hours per day on curriculum. How is it my oldest child is being taught by a non-certified teacher, performing better than 95% of kids her age, and only spending that amount of time in her books? (ETA) It is because somehow, I am able to tailor a highly effective teaching strategy that incorporates a 24/7 learning experience, rather than obtaining certification in learning to keep a class of 35 kids tame for 7 hours.

Our days are spent integrating education into our daily lives, activities, socializing, and allowing my kids the time to pursue their interests in art and science. (Or in my daughter's case, learning fashion design in the fourth grade so she can make period costumes for theatrical productions)

 

[drkitten]

So are you saying my MBA, and my years of training personnel from front line customer service to executive level are sub-standard to a teaching certificate?

No, but I'm saying that specialized training in one field does not transfer to another.

Are you suggesting that my Ph.D., multiple Masters' degrees, twenty years research experience, and nearly thirty years experience as a musician are inferior to a Red Cross first aid certificate? No? Which would you rather have treat a rattlesnake bite?

So, no, your MBA and corporate training experience aren't inferior to a teaching certificate. They're simply irrelevant to it.

What is relevant is your lack of understanding of their irrelevance. Which means you don't understand how to teach school-age children.

Given your demonstrable contempt for "education," I have no problem making a personal assessment that I do not want you educating anyone. You don't know and don't value what teachers demonstrably need to know, which makes you incompetent to teach.

 

[Wavicle]

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:

How much of that coursework is specific to a teaching environment in an "inclusive classroom setting", which is largely, if not completely, inapplicable to home? I would NOT say that a parent is equally prepared to teach in classroom, that would be just silly. (And what is EDU 533? It doesn't even appear in their catalog)

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.

Without picking these out one at a time, the one that really stood out to me is "formal hands-on practice under the supervision of a recognized content expert." Surely you aren't talking about student teaching? If so, could you expand on that?

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.)

Could you provide something more on this? I looked for my state (California) and it seems to disagree with what you just said. You need to pass a core competency exam in your single subject in order to be credentialed to teach that subject. Apparently the exam/credentialing requirements for math/science teachers were substantially upgraded in response the the No Child Left Behind Act.

 

[maddog]

In my experience as a college student, it is "common knowledge" (generally among engineering and grad school mgmt. students) that education majors are the least capable students in classes of any kind. As in "my history class is full of teachers" "Dude, that's gonna pad the curve!". Or as we arrogant engineers believe, business is for those who can't handle engineering/sciences, liberal arts is for those who can't handle business, education for those who can't handle LA.

As a teacher (community college statistics), I confirm -- education majors are generally my least able students, and frequently have to take "developmental" (aka remedial) algebra in order to prepare for my 100-level class.

Granted, this is anecdotal "evidence".

In elementary schools, the teachers are typically pure teachers -- BA/MA Education, little non-teaching experience, "skilled" in pedagogy and assorted other bullsugar. In high schools, they at least have to prove ability in the subject area they teach. In private high schools, they are more likely to be degreed (and maybe experienced) in their subject area instead of in education. Personally, I find this HIGHLY preferable.

However, personality has a LOT to do with the reality of teaching. Teaching requires 1) subject area mastery + 2) knowledge/experience at putting the material into cogent presentation at the appropriate level + 3) the personality to EARN students' respect and attention. Education in Education provides #2 [note to drkitten: so does corporate training!] Those who *really want* to teach usually have #3. Pure teachers sometimes lack #1; homeschoolers sometimes lack #2.

I think if you have the ability to homeschool, and the people involved have the temperament to make it work, DO IT! What you may lack in pedagogy skills, you will more than make up for with caring, common sense, and commitment to thorough preparation and planning (i.e. self-taught #2).

As for the social interaction, I believe what is generally available through homeschooling groups is superior to what kids get in school, at least for the first several years.

So who am I to so opinionated? Professional Engineer + Master of Project Mgmt, AND part-time community college teacher. Also, a parent: the MadPrincess was homeschooled through 3rd grade, then went to public -- skipped grades 5, 7, and 8, and is now a 15 yo college freshman Physics major. Stepson (with me since age ~9) public schools through 8th, private high school, now a senior. I STRONGLY believe that her homeschool experience was better for her both short-term and long-term than anything he experienced in schools, although his high school is considerably better than hers was.

Take what helps, leave the rest; worth what you paid for it.

 

[LostAngeles]

Oh great. I was about to pick up the Education minor since I decided that the current program I'm in, in which next year I'd get to do grad school work, would be really bad as I'm still trying to adjust to this amount of course work.

Now you tell me that my classes are going to make me bleed out my eyes with frustration at my classmates.

At least I'd finally feel like the smartest person in the class.

 

[drkitten]

In my experience as a college student, it is "common knowledge" (generally among engineering and grad school mgmt. students) that education majors are the least capable students in classes of any kind. As in "my history class is full of teachers" "Dude, that's gonna pad the curve!". Or as we arrogant engineers believe, business is for those who can't handle engineering/sciences, liberal arts is for those who can't handle business, education for those who can't handle LA.

As a teacher (community college statistics), I confirm -- education majors are generally my least able students, and frequently have to take "developmental" (aka remedial) algebra in order to prepare for my 100-level class.

Granted, this is anecdotal "evidence".

It's not purely "anedotal"; there's lots of publically available statistical evidence to support the
idea that education majors are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. Some of the most telling evidence is from the GRE score breakdown by major; here's an example. Notice how various education majors dominate the bottom ten ranks of both GRE verbal and GRE mathematical.

However,.... this doesn't mean that pedagogy isn't a skill. Driving a bus is also a job that doesn't require a tremendous amount of smarts, but it's also the sort of thing that you can't do without specialized training and experience. If you walk into the local trucking company and claim that because you have four Ph.D.'s and are therefore smarter than any three of drivers put together, you should be hired, they'll laugh at you. Especially if you tell them that you don't have an operator's licence....

Similarly, a dozen or so Ph.D.'s won't qualify you to be an emergeny medical technician or to work in an ambulance. An EMT course isn't that hard (a hundred hours or so, IIRC), and if you are capable of getting a dozen Ph.D.'s you shouldn't find the material taxing, but you do need to learn the material. You can't substitute Medieval French Literature, no matter how much you know about it, for the ability to find a brachial pulse. They're both useful, but hardly interchangeable.

Teaching requires 1) subject area mastery + 2) knowledge/experience at putting the material into cogent presentation at the appropriate level + 3) the personality to EARN students' respect and attention. Education in Education provides #2 [note to drkitten: so does corporate training!] Those who *really want* to teach usually have #3. Pure teachers sometimes lack #1; homeschoolers sometimes lack #2.

SImilarly, none of #1, #2, and #3 are interchangeable. And I'm sorry, but "corporate training" isn't interchangeable with "elementary school education," either -- that's why educational psychology and adolescent psychology are on the list of courses for the education certificate I listed above. Children are not just short adults; their cognitive and social development is quite different. The material and presentation appropriate to teaching an eight year old is often radically different from the material and presentation appropriate to teaching the exact same subject to a fourteen year old, and different again for a thirty-year old. If you don't believe me, look into the literature about the various stages of language acquisition, and about "age-appropriate" language teaching. My college French textbook would be terrible for teaching six year olds who don't understand the distinction between "nouns" and "verbs" in their native language, but six year olds will respond like sponges to an immersion-style approach.

Naturally, any schooling approach has pitfalls. The problem with homeschooling is that the people doing the schooling are often -- as this thread has amply illustrated -- almost entirely unaware of them. The problem isn't that good, skilled, well-educated, self-knowledgeable parents will homeschool badly. The problem is that well-intentioned but clueless parents do not recognize that they do not fall into the group above. There's some citation floating around on this forum that I don't have to hand about how hard it is for below-average students even to recognize that they are below average. This weakness isn't restricted just to students; it applies to everyone.

I know I'm an effective teacher. I self-assess myself as doing quite well.

More importantly, I know I'm an effective teacher because I undergo a regular "peer review" by my fellow faculty, and because I had a extremely stringent evaluation a few years ago when I applied or promotion and tenure, and they did everything but a blood test. Public school teachers don't have exactly the same system, but they have something close, often including an official mentoring system and a state-mandated process of continuing education to make sure their skills are up-to-date. (Heck, even college faculty don't have the continuing education mandate; I could have gotten my degree in 1967 and never opened a book again in my life. I used to teach with a few of them, but we don't tenure that type any more precisely because they aren't very good teacher.)

Tell me again about the evaluation process for homeschooling parents?

 

[jimlintott]

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".

My, public school educated daughter is exactly the same. I don't know if it is possible to say that home schooled kids do better at adapting or not. I can't say with any certainty that it doesn't. Some home schooled kids will be great others won't be which is just like regular school.

A social aspect I see them missing out on is exactly the spending time with 30 to 40 kids their own age. Particularly without adult supervision. This is where most of us do our growing up. Organised activities such as sports or arts are not a replacement (but are important) as the group all has a common interest and is usually with adult supervision. I thnk that spending all day with 30 or 40 of your peers is almost exactly like the regular world. Most of us go to work with such a group few of us actually work alone from home.

Generally I think home schooling is a bad idea but specifically it can work just fine. It can't be painted with a single brush.

 

[Beth]

Tell me again about the evaluation process for homeschooling parents?

The evaluation process for homeschooling parents is based entirely on the educational outcomes of their children. By that criteria, homeschooling parents are doing an outstanding job of teaching their kids as homeschooled children average around the 80th percentile on standarized tests. Now, since homeschoolers are a self-selected bunch, it doesn't really say anything about whether or not homeschooling is a better mode of education, but it does imply that parents teaching their children are the equal or better of professional teachers working in a classroom setting.

Further, the evidence available indicates that there is no statistically significant correlation between the credentials of the teacher and the educational outcomes of the children they teach.

Many researchers, politicians, and most Americans assume that more credentialing means better teachers, but the evidence suggests that it doesn't. One of the strongest and most consistent findings in the entire body of research on teacher quality is that teaching certificates and master's degrees in education are irrelevant to classroom performance.

From http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.19233/article_detail.asp

 

[maddog]

Well, what I presented was anecdotal... I didn't know there was formal research to back up my opinion.

However,.... this doesn't mean that pedagogy isn't a skill.

Sure it's a skill. However, it's a skill that the educational system thinks it is rocket science, when it is something easily figured out through OJT by many, if not most, parents. Most parents have a pretty good idea about the level their child is at, and can figure out pretty decent ways to communicate concepts to the child, whether or not they have had formal training in it.

SImilarly, none of #1, #2, and #3 are interchangeable. And I'm sorry, but "corporate training" isn't interchangeable with "elementary school education," either

Interchangeable, no. However, you learn a lot doing corporate training that does DIRECTLY apply to teaching children. If you don't believe that, try doing a corporate training session without providing donuts / coffee / snack!!! Seriously! You'll see tantrums that rival the worst 6-year-olds!

-- that's why educational psychology and adolescent psychology are on the list of courses for the education certificate I listed above. Children are not just short adults; their cognitive and social development is quite different. The material and presentation appropriate to teaching an eight year old is often radically different from the material and presentation appropriate to teaching the exact same subject to a fourteen year old, and different again for a thirty-year old. If you don't believe me, look into the literature about the various stages of language acquisition, and about "age-appropriate" language teaching. My college French textbook would be terrible for teaching six year olds who don't understand the distinction between "nouns" and "verbs" in their native language, but six year olds will respond like sponges to an immersion-style approach.

Well, duh!
A teacher needs to learn to present material in an age-appropriate fashion. And if you think the experience of corporate training has no value in learning that skill, you obviously have no idea what it's like to do corporate training. Try teaching an executive level person about computers! GAH!!! I'd rather teach statistics to fourth graders!!!

Naturally, any schooling approach has pitfalls. The problem with homeschooling is that the people doing the schooling are often -- as this thread has amply illustrated -- almost entirely unaware of them. The problem isn't that good, skilled, well-educated, self-knowledgeable parents will homeschool badly. The problem is that well-intentioned but clueless parents do not recognize that they do not fall into the group above. There's some citation floating around on this forum that I don't have to hand about how hard it is for below-average students even to recognize that they are below average. This weakness isn't restricted just to students; it applies to everyone.

This is true. However -- even those parents who are below average generally do not homeschool in a vacuum. The vast majority of homeschoolers work with published curricula and/or homeschooling networks / support groups. There is help available, and -- if we can assume, and I think it is fair to do so, that most homeschoolers are well-intentioned -- even if a parent cannot recognize himself as below average, he probably can recognize when another in his group is better, and will avail himself of that resource.

I know I'm an effective teacher. I self-assess myself as doing quite well.

More importantly, I know I'm an effective teacher because I undergo a regular "peer review" by my fellow faculty, and because I had a extremely stringent evaluation a few years ago when I applied or promotion and tenure, and they did everything but a blood test. Public school teachers don't have exactly the same system, but they have something close, often including an official mentoring system and a state-mandated process of continuing education to make sure their skills are up-to-date. (Heck, even college faculty don't have the continuing education mandate; I could have gotten my degree in 1967 and never opened a book again in my life. I used to teach with a few of them, but we don't tenure that type any more precisely because they aren't very good teacher.)

Up-to-date skills do not make a person an effective teacher. Frankly, if the evaluation system worked as well as you imply, then there would be no ineffective teachers in the public schools, and that is far from the truth. Particularly in bad neighborhoods, some school systems are begging for teachers, and the systems wouldn't consider cutting a teacher no matter how ineffective.

In really nice areas, such as my own Howard County, MD, teachers are begging for the opportunity to teach here, as opposed to going into, say, Baltimore City. The HoCo school system has much more opportunity to pick and choose teachers based on effectiveness, skills, and proper evaluation methods. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it is everywhere.

Tell me again about the evaluation process for homeschooling parents?

Well, it is mostly self-evaluation, and that can be problematic. On the other hand, it is easier to evaluate the students. Where I'm familiar with it, homeschoolers have to present a portfolio of work to a representative from the public school district to show that their child is making progress. If there is a problem with the child's progress, it (hopefully) becomes apparent. Then, presuming again that the parent is well-intentioned, they would reassess the situation -- not necessarily to find themselves below average as a teacher (the blind spot you mentioned), but at least to explore possibly better alternatives.

In any case, homeschooling isn't for everyone, but I think it is far far far less a problem than many people think it is. And I also think the educational system and many professional educators feel, unfortunately, threatened by homeschool successes, rather than happy for those kids.

 

[drkitten]

Well, it is mostly self-evaluation, and that can be problematic. On the other hand, it is easier to evaluate the students. Where I'm familiar with it, homeschoolers have to present a portfolio of work to a representative from the public school district to show that their child is making progress. If there is a problem with the child's progress, it (hopefully) becomes apparent. Then, presuming again that the parent is well-intentioned, they would reassess the situation -- not necessarily to find themselves below average as a teacher (the blind spot you mentioned), but at least to explore possibly better alternatives.

And herein lies the problem.

Parental involvement is arguably the single most important factor in educational performance among children. If you think about it, the teacher has the kids (in a group of thirty) for about thirty hours a week; the parents have them for well over a hundred. Helping your children with their homework and reading them bedtime stories are among the best things that you can do to help your children in school.

Parents who homeschool are almost by definition involved in their children's education, which is of course good. But that means that simply performing "better than average" is hardly an impressive achievement. A home-schooled child who is reading at grade level is underperforming; in a typical public school setting, a child with a high degree of parental involvement plus "normal" teaching would be expected to read above -- substantially above -- grade level. (This paper, which may unfortunately require a subscription, talks about the issue in some depth and provides some numbers.)

It also helps, demographically, that parents who homeschool tend to be those who can afford to homeschool (i.e. the low-performing low socioeconomic status families can't) and tend to be two-parent families (again, single working mothers typically can't afford the time.)

So any child who is in a position to be homeschooled should be doing substantially better than average even in an appallingly bad school district. Beth suggests that "homeschooled children average around the 80th percentile on standarized tests."

If their expected performance given all the other advantages that they have would put them at the 90th percentile, and instead they average at the 80th,.... I find it hard to see that as an accomplishment. And a parent who's child is "only" performing at the 60th percentile will probably not even realize the disservice they are doing to their kids.....

 

[EatatJoes]

OK, I skimmed through the responses and it seems that perhaps the subject got derailed just a bit. Anyway, IMHO, keep her home a year. I do believe that I read that you think she is emotionally immature and it's just because she is young. My mother kept my sister home for a year after pre-school because she was so shy. It was the best thing she could have done for her and my mother also thinks she should have kept my other sister home for an extra year also (both were born in the late spring/summer, so they were young compared to their peers). So, don't put her back in kindergarden, just keep her home (if that's fessible) and continue the education that you do with her (flash cards, reading, etc).

"Throwing her to the wolves" is an idiotic idea. If she is too young, she is too young. In a year she just may mature into a social butterfly. My sister never suffered a stigma from staying home, in fact I doubt that the kids will even notice that your daughter stayed home.

 

[Beth]

Reason 413 to Homeschool

Recieved this in my email today:

http://poststuff4.entensity.net/112706/ha.jpg

 

[jimlintott]

Parental involvement is arguably the single most important factor in educational performance among children. If you think about it, the teacher has the kids (in a group of thirty) for about thirty hours a week; the parents have them for well over a hundred. Helping your children with their homework and reading them bedtime stories are among the best things that you can do to help your children in school.

This is so very important. I often tell people that I do homeschool but they also go to regular school. I've taught my kids plenty, probably an equal amount to what they learned in school. They both accel, particularly in language arts. There are just some things I cannot teach them and some of these things can only be taught to them by a bully, a pregnant classmate or a drug dealer and I often see homeschooling as a way to avoid these things. So while they can be exceptionally well schooled they aren't necessarily being educated.

"Throwing her to the wolves" is an idiotic idea.

It may be the best idea. It could be the worst idea. The problem is that we can't see into the future for her to know for sure. Hopefully her parents have a good handle on what is best for her. Sometimes learning to swim because you have to is much better than learning that you can just cop out and quit.

 

[Wavicle]

There are just some things I cannot teach them and some of these things can only be taught to them by a bully, a pregnant classmate or a drug dealer and I often see homeschooling as a way to avoid these things. So while they can be exceptionally well schooled they aren't necessarily being educated.

This is the socialization argument again, and the problem with it, from the research I've been doing, is that it contains fundamental assumptions that are generally not be true. For example, let's take the case of bullying: You assume that learning to deal with a bully in school will be a life-long positive lesson. After having learned to send the bully packing the student will have greater confidence, respect among peers, a lesson that will stick with them for a lifetime. Having learned to deal with bullies in school means knowing how to deal with adult bullies. If this were true, the reasoning behind what you say would be well founded.

It's a wonderful ideal, but the reality of it is - it's rare. Nearly all lessons learned from a bully are anti-social: How to quietly accept being humiliated; how to avoid groups of people; how to pander to somebody out of fear; how to create your own fringe group unassociated with the majority of the student body where the bullies hang out; how to get your parents to pressure the school/police to do something about it.

The dominant mode of thinking is that eventually something is going to happen between bully and your child, and the child will come away with greater confidence and self esteem. If you can find any reliable research that comes to that conclusion, I'd love to read it.

The best chance for success after school is to not experience any bullying before graduation. Bullies are a great argument in favor of homeschooling.

 

[CardZeus]

... I've taught my kids plenty, probably an equal amount to what they learned in school. They both accel, particularly in language arts...

But they do particularly poorly in the spelling bee...?

 

[jimlintott]

But they do particularly poorly in the spelling bee...?

Heh, heh.

Well they didn't write that.

My son is an average speller my daughter is an excellent speller.

 

[jimlintott]

This is the socialization argument again, and the problem with it, from the research I've been doing, is that it contains fundamental assumptions that are generally not be true. For example, let's take the case of bullying: You assume that learning to deal with a bully in school will be a life-long positive lesson. After having learned to send the bully packing the student will have greater confidence, respect among peers, a lesson that will stick with them for a lifetime. Having learned to deal with bullies in school means knowing how to deal with adult bullies. If this were true, the reasoning behind what you say would be well founded.

It's a wonderful ideal, but the reality of it is - it's rare. Nearly all lessons learned from a bully are anti-social: How to quietly accept being humiliated; how to avoid groups of people; how to pander to somebody out of fear; how to create your own fringe group unassociated with the majority of the student body where the bullies hang out; how to get your parents to pressure the school/police to do something about it.

The dominant mode of thinking is that eventually something is going to happen between bully and your child, and the child will come away with greater confidence and self esteem. If you can find any reliable research that comes to that conclusion, I'd love to read it.

The best chance for success after school is to not experience any bullying before graduation. Bullies are a great argument in favor of homeschooling.

I never assumed that a bully episode is positive, you assumed that I assumed that. Are you saying that all of life's experiences should be positive? If all of life's experiences are positive how do you learn that you can turn a negative experience into a positive one?

It seems that many home school advocates are quick to dismiss any criticism which leads me to believe that they are fooling themselves. Home schooling like anything else must have some negative aspects. If it isn't academic then what is it? Why is socialization so often both the reason to home school and a common criticism of it?

We live in a society. What effect does pulling kids out of the system have on our society. It just seems anti-social to me and selfish.

I don't think regular school is some utopia why do home schoolers think they have found it?

 

[Ben Tilly]

One comment about teachers.

My mother and a sister are both teachers. A number of my friends either were teachers, or considered being so. It is exactly their reflections on what is involved in teaching and how poor most teachers are that makes me seriously consider the idea of homeschooling my son when he gets old enough.

Yes, there is definitely a skill to teaching. I have known people who have it. Including some who are teachers. But, unfortunately, most teachers do not have that skill. And most of the fads that sweep through teaching are really, really bad ideas. I find it hard to believe that my wife and I could do worse than that.

The socialization argument holds no weight with me. I remember school. It was hell. I know people who homeschool their kids. Between outings with other homeschoolers, soccer, baseball, chess and other activities, the kids have plenty of social experiences with people of all ages. (Including their own.) The kids seem to have no lack of social skills. And they face far less of the artificial cliques and bullies that kids in school face.

Plus what are the lessons that are really taught by schools? http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html does a pretty good job of summarizing the ones that I remember. (Note that the author is a good teacher. Most of the really good teachers that I know are disillusioned with the educational establishment.) Is that really what I want my son to learn?

Now I'd appreciate better research out there on homeschooling versus regular education. I acknowledge that there are some homeschoolers who really shouldn't. Furthermore I'm highly concerned that national statistics suggest that most homeschoolers are Christians who want to avoid exposing their kids to ideas like evolution. I'm not at all sure that we as a society should encourage homeschooling on such a large scale.

However if the option is available, I'm at least going to think very, very hard about it...

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Wavicle]

I never assumed that a bully episode is positive, you assumed that I assumed that. Are you saying that all of life's experiences should be positive? If all of life's experiences are positive how do you learn that you can turn a negative experience into a positive one?

I said

You assume that learning to deal with a bully in school will be a life-long positive lesson.

You said

If all of life's experiences are positive how do you learn that you can turn a negative experience into a positive one?

Sounds like the assumption was pretty darned close.

It seems that many home school advocates are quick to dismiss any criticism which leads me to believe that they are fooling themselves.

I haven't decided that I'm a home schooling advocate, but I have been very disturbed that opponents apply absolutely no objective measures to their argument and ignore any research that is in opposition to their claim. Maybe it's because I spent my college years pursing statistics, and this had made me dubious of trusting any unsubstantiated groupthink.

Home schooling like anything else must have some negative aspects. If it isn't academic then what is it?

What kind of neo-egalitarian argument is that? Since homeschoolers aren't behind academically they must be behind in something else? I suspect the problems with homeschooling are very nearly the same problems with normal schooling, only the severity is less.

Why is socialization so often both the reason to home school and a common criticism of it?

Because it seems reasonable that homeschooled kids won't get it. And because what 'seems' to be the case, after properly controlled studies, appears to be wrong. I reccomend reading "How we know what isn't so (the fallibility of human reason in everyday life)" by Thomas Gilovich. He has many examples of such reasonable things proving incorrect.

We live in a society. What effect does pulling kids out of the system have on our society. It just seems anti-social to me and selfish.

Can you find anything to support the argument that homeschooled kids are typically pulled out of society? Or that public schools really count as society?

I don't think regular school is some utopia why do home schoolers think they have found it?

I'm aware of homeschoolers who believe homeschooling is superior to regular school. Can you point to someone claiming it is perfect?

 

[jimlintott]

I said



You said



Sounds like the assumption was pretty darned close.

Close but not bang on. Negative experiences are very much part of life even if you never learn to learn from them.

I haven't decided that I'm a home schooling advocate, but I have been very disturbed that opponents apply absolutely no objective measures to their argument and ignore any research that is in opposition to their claim. Maybe it's because I spent my college years pursing statistics, and this had made me dubious of trusting any unsubstantiated groupthink.

I see this on both sides. Some home schol advocates dismiss some real concerns with hand waving and anecdotes. Its so controversial that it seems hard to find moderate objective information. I did find that some research shows that up until grade 8 the social development of home schooled children is the same as others. Once puberty hits the the home schooled children start to lose out. I will admit to having done little research myself and going on my gut feeling. I do realise that I may be wrong.

What kind of neo-egalitarian argument is that? Since homeschoolers aren't behind academically they must be behind in something else? I suspect the problems with homeschooling are very nearly the same problems with normal schooling, only the severity is less.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. I would agree with you until you said the severity is less. But, yeah I guess that was kind of a silly statement.



[snip]

Can you find anything to support the argument that homeschooled kids are typically pulled out of society? Or that public schools really count as society?

What concerns me is the long term impact on public education if the system gets abandoned. If too many people opt out will the public school system collapse? What effect will this have on the children whose parents don't have the means to home school? We still all have to live together.

I'm aware of homeschoolers who believe homeschooling is superior to regular school. Can you point to someone claiming it is perfect?

What, never encountered hyperbole before.

While I think we need to work on the public school system for the good of everyone as we know it has problems, many home school advocates don't seem to want to admit that home school also has problems. While browsing around on the topic it really seems that the academics are really a non-issue but socialization is, yet the advocates simply dismiss that. That concerrns me. Whether it is true or not it requires more research. Dismissing it outright without consideration could be a mistake.