Home School

Husker- I have never been involved in Home Schooling, but I do have some thoughts on the subject.

Besides learning their ABCs, there are other things that children learn in school, like getting along with other kids, and dealing with rules, regulations, and authority, among others. Although home schooling has certain advantages, I think that for most children, it is a too isolated existence.

In addition, unles the parent is an exceptionally devoted teacher, it is putting unnecessary stress on her. (It is usually the mother who home schools).

IMO, if I had a young child, I would Home School only under these circumstances:

The schools in my area are poor, and the children aren't learning.

My child has a disability, and/or finds it difficult to learn in a regular school setting.

What if your child is gifted and cannot fit in?

One can always provide ADDITIONAL instruction, without taking the child out of the (best possible) "regular" school.

That said, homeschooling is picking up steam, and there are lots of resources out there, from detailed curricula to local cooperatives who go on field trips together, have regularly scheduled playtimes, etc. This has a lot of info.

http://www.home-ed-magazine.com/

I really don't know what I think about it as a trend. The kids who are homeschooled have, by definition, the most invested/ involved parents, and those are the kinds of parents who make regular schools better. There's also the lunatic fringe -- the extremely religious, for example, who don't want their children's morals compromised.

there's about 3 million home schooled kids in the US right now, and I'll be learning more soon, my buddy his getting highly involved with 12k.com as we speak.

My brother is raising a very gifted son. (reads 9th grade level in 5th grade) They take the child everywhere; museums, concerts, lectures, etc. There is plenty that a parent can do AFTER regular school to enrich the child's educational experience!

Maybe Gezzy will be invited and join the group. I just know she will tell you it is a full time job and then some.

I was home schooled, I think it's a good way to teach young children but that it has big drawbacks.

It can protect your children from some bad elements in society but can also shelter your child too much. Your child will have to fit in eventually and school is the place most learn to do so.

I also think that few parents are qualified to teach past a certain age. My home schooling was superb till the age of about 6-7 after which I didn't learn anything.

There's "home schooling" and Home Schooling. Our neighbors "home schooled," which means they let the kids run free all day and didn't give a rat's behind about them. One pregnant at 15, the boy picked up for drugs, etc. not much of a success story there. Other kids I have seen in high were truly Home Schooled and run the gamut. There are four girls from a family who Home Schooled and then sent them to the high school. They are unnaturally quiet and withdrawn - strange, to say the least. There are also two boys who are among the top students in the school - leads in plays, etc.

What does all of this say? I have no idea. No matter the rule, there will always be exceptions. There are so many intangibles. Unless the public school is a loser school (I know what I mean), I suspect it's a better overall situation, but....

I have seen good academic results, and some horrid social results of home schooling. As Bermbits says, there must be exceptions to each rule, but I'd be very reluctant to go the home schooling route unless i was 100% sure that i was not going to cause problems for the child's social development. I do know that several of the families i know, and others that i know of, that have gone that route were odd, and socially isolated before they went the home schooling route. The children didn't have much chance to be socialized. Well and good that they did well on all sorts of uni entrance exams, but they are still socially awkward and isolated in their 30's, and that has caused them other employment-related problems.

The only direct experience I've had with any homeschooling was with a group that my neighbor in OK joined. This was a group of 12-15 religious zealots who refused to send their children to those "heathen" public schools but they basically established their own little school. While they were technically "home schooling" their kids, they did it as a collective so that each parent focused on one area (English, History, etc..). I think that probably helped reduce their drain as far as resources went and the kids seemed to all do well with basics (i.e. US History, Spelling, Math, etc..) but I suspect they got quite a bit of religious indoctrination too.

All in all I'd guess there are some valid reasons for people to go the home-schooling route but IMO, to many take that route for the wrong types of reasons.

So many of these responses ring odd in my ears--when our country was new, home schooling was the norm, people simply couldn't find a means of setting up a school in some areas, as well as being obliged to put their children to work. The earliest public document relating to Thomas Jackson ("Stonewall") was an invoice he sent to Lewis County, Virginia for having "schooled" five children in the county. He was about 16 or 17, the children ranged in age from 11-13, and he primarily used the old testament (these "facts" were gleaned by biographers from reminiscences of those with whom he grew up). It was quite common for those with some education, but little occupation, to provide tuition for other children. Winter was the season when this was most likely to occur (and the period covered in Jackson's invoice), as the children would not be needed for farm labor.

A serious objection to this which has been raised here is the lack of socialization. Among fundamentalist or charismatic communities, this is not likely to be the case, for precisely the same reason that it would not have been a problem 1840--they represent a true community, in which the interaction of individuals with the larger group is assured. I can see this at work in the Amish in Central Ohio where i presently live. This is not to say that i consider such communities to be superior, either because of the nature of the relationships--and surely anyone who is familiar with my views expressed of religion will know that i would never admire them for that aspect of their lives. But i would like to point out that so many families today, outside of such communities as fundamentalists or charismatics, do not have such social mechanisms in operation. It is not uncommon for people to know little or nothing of neighbors with whom they live in close proximity for decades.

Is there not a great similarity between the expectation that the school will provide socialization of the child as the expectation that the school will teach the child a system of ethics? Or that the school will teach the child consideration and courtesy?

I frankly don't know how we could expect to address such an issue, but i do strongly feel that a loving, competent parent who schools the child at home, could effectively address the issue of the social skills of the child.

Setanta, there's social skills (please, thank you) and there's social skills (little Timmy won't share but I want it.) I think it's really important that there be a large age-appropriate socialization component. I mean, adults could act like 6-year-olds, I guess, but that's not quite the same...

Secondly, there is a public school system in place -- a flawed one, but a system, and one that is quite inexorably bound in to our ideals of opportunity for all. What of the kids who don't have parents who are qualified to teach? Who have, in fact, lousy parents? A few homeschooled kids here and there don't mean much, but that's what I meant about my concerns about it as a trend -- take out the kids with the smart, committed, involved parents, and you impoverish the schools. You lessen the oppotunities for the kids with the lousy parents. (And I don't think we're going to be administering tests before people are allowed to conceive any time soon.)

This is a long-held belief of mine -- keep the good kids in the public schools for the good of all, rather than plucking 'em out and sending 'em to private schools -- but I am in fact running into the realities of yes, but what is best for MY child as she approaches school age. At this point I plan to go with public schools, best possible, (my hubby's in academe and we'll probably always be in college towns, and will probably have better options than most), with lots of supplemental "teaching" (in quotes because it will probably be our everyday exploration kinds of things, not desk and paper). If we are only faced with lousy public schools -- well, if we are only faced with lousy public schools, I'm probably more likely to agitate for an improvement and get involved than to take the sozlet out entirely.

Setanta,

I'm in the middle of a bunch of thing right now (I'm finally packing) so this will be short.

I think fishing touched on the reason for the social development angle.

Many people home school for the wrong reasons. They don't home school for the sake of better education but rather because of a view that the world in general is too <insert whatever adjective here> for them and their kids.

This usally goes hand in hand with other isolationist policy.

In my case it meant I was not allowed to watch TV, listen to outside music, read fiction, eat candy, drink Coke..... till I left as a young teen.

I'm not saying all home schoolers are like that, there are many who do a fine job and this is borne out in statistics (HSers do especially well in rote contests like Spelling Bees).

But I hold to my belief that at a certain age it's a rare parent who is qualified to be the child's teacher. Once the curriculum is at a certain level the kid will be getting a bum deal in most cases.

I am very thankful for the 3 (almost) years of school I attended, I learned many social graces like how to reply to a "Yo mamma" insult (I entered school without having heard many curse words and settled insults to my mother's honor with my fists till I learned the ropes).

My first year was very awkward and I blame the isolationism and sheltered life that often comes with home schooling rather than homeschooling itself.

I credit my short stints in school for the well balanced personality I have become.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Ya'll don't need to climb all over me on this socialization issue--i was tryin' to point out, an' no one seems to have gathered this, that school is not the only venue for children meeting members of the public. I also don't feel that there is anything wrong with the "please & thank you" school of socialization. As i look back over my life, the manners and forms of address and respect which i learned at home have stood me in good stead; the nasty little social games that kids play with each other simply bred in me resentments which it took years to rid myself of--in fact, on the subway last night, i saw a kid (about 11 or 12, maybe 13) who got on, and recognizing an acquaintance, he greeted him. His "friend" physically turned his back, and the crest-fallen kid suffered in that special way that only the adolescent can do. I noted above that i don't have an answer for this, but i don't think perpetuating the kids in front of the tv at home, and running with their mates in public is necessarily the answer. The neighborhoods of our cities have lost the character of communities, and now so many look to schools to provide everything. If we decry, as so many at this site have done, the expectation that schools will supply needed ethical instruction, which ought to be done at home--then i can't think why we should turn and say that the child can only be properly socialized in schools. I have not advocated the destruction of the public school system, nor touted the notion that anyone can be relied upon to do a good job of home schooling. I do think it odd, given both the history of our nation, and liberal notions of parental responsibilities, that we would flatly reject home schooling.

Oh, and, CdK, you might blame awkwardness and alienation on a stage of life, because adolescents suffer from this, no matter where they spent the first 12 years of their lives.

Craven and I happened to post at around the same time, I think; not sure if that qualified as "climbing all over".

Of course school isn't the only venue. But it gets much more complicated to get a large number of kids of the same age together for regular interaction if they are homeschooled by their parents.

To clarify the socialization thing -- "please and thank you" is ONE TYPE of socialization, "Timmy won't share but I want his toy, how do I get it?" is ANOTHER TYPE of socialization. I think parents should definitely have a big say in both, but since they cannot react as a 6-year-old, their practical usefulness is limited. Maybe a 6-year-old ought to give up the wanted toy immediately, but chances are he won't. So the child who wants the toy needs to learn how to make that social interaction work out in a satisfactory manner. And those skills get built on and built on until that child has the ability to smoothly maneuver in society.

I'm assuming that this:



Is a typo, but this goes both ways; you are saying that you don't think the public school system should be destroyed, but you have some concerns. (No?) We're saying we don't think homeschooling should be, like, outlawed, but we have some concerns. That's not "flatly rejecting" the concept of homeschooling.

Well, most Europeans (besides some British subjects) have never heart of home schooling.
Those, who have, mostly connect it witj "nobility" - since "private teachers at home" are only to be found in so-called (!) history novels.

So, I'm just following this thread.

HOME EDUCATORS AND THE LAW WITHIN EUROPE
http://www.worldzone.net/lifestyles/homeducation/kluwer.html

Yes, a bit of paranoia there in saying others were "climbing all over me" . . . i do advocate the destruction of the public school system, along with many other public institutions, but as that is a part of the program which will be instituted when i become benevolent dictator of the world, we will play like that was typo, for now . . .

I cannot understand why there is an emphasis on "children of the same age." Is there some magical benefit to accrue from such a grouping? I don't believe it. Old style country schools would mix children of all ages, and, effectively, the older students became teacher's aides. In small town communities, such as the one in which i lived in childhood, children's groups in the neighborhood were in an age range from yard ape to juvenile delinquent. I wonder what it is that the child is supposed to learn from his/her peers in a selective and exclusive age group. Better, i think, to have children of all ages about, and many more lessons to be taken. In addition, i came from a large, stair-step extended family, with children born between 1937 and 1962--you were always held responsible for the child younger than you, and those older were held responsible for you. In that extended family, and within the small town community as well, children were also constantly under adult supervision, even when they were unaware of it. I really can't be convinced that there is some sort of special value in socialization provided in the modern public school system. To me, these institutions are mills which manufacture ill-educated, ill-informed voters, who will be ripe for media manipulation. Any child matriculating at a university from a public school system who is well-informed, well-read, and possessed of discerning intellect almost certainly obtained those qualities at home--not in the public school system.

Good luck with that benevolent dictator of the world thing...

By kids of the same age, I don't necessarily mean 30 children aged 6 years 4 months to 6 years 8 months must be grouped together. But a dyad of a 6-year-old and a 36-year-old parent -- no.

I am perfectly willing to concede that my experience was anamalous, but I had a kick-ass public school education. My elementary school was a progressive, "Open" school, and I had two teachers in 6 years -- one class was 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade grouped together, one was 4th, 5th and 6th. There was a lot of the older kids helping the younger kids dynamic. And there were a LOT of kids, many of whom I'm still in contact with, who came from severely messed up family situations, and excelled. They credit our school with giving them the tools they need.

That's my bias, and what I'd hate to see impacted. (The school is still going strong today.)