Thread: Purgatory: Homeschooling Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001162
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
No Prophet said:
quote:
* have a sister who has children 10 and 15 years younger than mine. She homeschooled. My impression of homeschooling is not positive from that, and from additional research * 've done it as * 've watched utter nonsense be taught as fact and their socialization be crippled. Hopefully it can be corrected later.

My opinion on homeschooling aligns with the law in Germany. It is illegal there and simply not allowed. My opinion on narrow interests from the community imposing non-factual curricula on schools is that this should also not be allowed.
The homeschoolers * 've known have been concerned by (what they've perceived as) falling standards in public/state schools. And the kids * 've met as a result have been (as far as * can tell) well-adjusted and well-informed.

Despite this, my immediate emotional reaction to someone revealing that they're homeschooling their children is similar to the quote from No Prophet. Yet * 'm uncomfortable with the idea of banning it. * 'm not entirely ***** with the idea that the state has a monopoly on education, * guess. Despite being uncomfortable with the idea of private schools...

My (very cursory) scan for anthropological studies of the movement has suggested a gap in the literature...

Don't know quite what * 'm asking but, as a first approximation: homeschooling, good or bad?

[ 20. September 2014, 10:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
It may be falling standards in some of the English speaking world, but my understanding of the German ban has to do with extreme ideologies, mainly neo-Nazi. My take in western Canada is that homeschooling is ideologies based on some fortress mentality related to some narrow religious ideals, such as creationism, chosen people-ism, and the perceived dangers of those outside of the narrow view. -- I only talk to my sister about things other than her views on these things, and expect to drink soup from bowls without using spoons, and say gosh dang it secretly with her kids when they visit. We might also spit and burp.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Checks the board heading again. Yep, somehow this is in Hell. [Paranoid]

Our church organist homeschooled her daughters for several years when the public elementary school they had been attending was closed for budgetary reasons. The girls are now in middle school and high school and are attending a gifted/science oriented school (not sure if it is a private school or a public charter school). They are both excelling and have reached the state science fair finals two years running.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
/Hosting

Like Lyda*Rose suggests, this looks like a serious debate so I'm closing it while the Purgatory hosts consider whether to take it on.

Hosting off/

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
/hosting

A kind Purgatory host has agreed that that board is a better home for this thread, which looks way too reasonable for Hell.

Away you go!

hosting off/

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
Thread re-opened.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents. That's not to say that I don't agree with a state funded education system open to all, it's just that I believe that it is the parents' prerogative to educate their children as they choose.

[ 16. May 2014, 11:56: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
But against that, children have rights, including the right to a decent education. Rights are usually protected by the law, and laws are made by the state.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
My goddaughter was home schooled for a year after leaving primary school a year early before going to secondary school. Her parents just thought she would be happier than she was at the primary school.

Homeschooling should be a right. (I think it is a right under the Universal Declaration.) Many people do it for bad reasons. But as with many rights that's better than if the wrong people were in charge and forbade it.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents. That's not to say that I don't agree with a state funded education system open to all, it's just that I believe that it is the parents' prerogative to educate their children as they choose.
What if they're complete idiots?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But against that, children have rights, including the right to a decent education. Rights are usually protected by the law, and laws are made by the state.
But you can't just homeschool any old rubbish. So the state does regulate home schooling. That the state protects rights does not mean the state has to be the enforced provider of education. (As, in fact, independent schools prove.)

Schools just don't suit every child, and some parents don't want the limitations on their family life that school imposes. My kids aren't school age yet, but round where I live the home schooling community is mostly progressive liberal parents who find education in an institution too restrictive, and have formed a collective to cover the bases. I probably won't home school, but have great sympathy with their POV as some schools seem interested in nothing more than their results, and the kids are just a means to an end.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents. That's not to say that I don't agree with a state funded education system open to all, it's just that I believe that it is the parents' prerogative to educate their children as they choose.
What if they're complete idiots?
And what if, totally hypothetically, the guy in charge of the schools system is a complete idiot?
 
Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents. That's not to say that I don't agree with a state funded education system open to all, it's just that I believe that it is the parents' prerogative to educate their children as they choose.
What if they're complete idiots?
It's STILL better than Statist idiots wielding power.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents. That's not to say that I don't agree with a state funded education system open to all, it's just that I believe that it is the parents' prerogative to educate their children as they choose.
What if they're complete idiots?
What of it?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What if they're complete idiots?
I think one should hesitate before giving the state the right to declare people complete idiots. Giving powers to the state on the understanding that it won't abuse them is like putting pigs in a cage with a tiger on the understanding that the tiger won't eat them.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And what if, totally hypothetically, the guy in charge of the schools system is a complete idiot?
But there's not one guy doing it on his own. Obviously everyone from the Minister of Education on down to the local classroom teacher has some input into what gets taught and how. Sometimes good teachers are frustrated by bad curriculum and do their best to teach it in ways that work better for kids. Sometimes terrible teachers can do a lot of damage, but there are other teachers, principals, and school boards who can mitigate those effects. The system certainly doesn't work perfectly, but it IS a system, not one or at most two people making all the decisions that will affect the outcome of a child's education.

Homeschooling -- or unschooling, which is another interesting option -- can be well done and have wonderful results. It can also be horribly done and have terrible results (up to an including being a shield for abuse). I think it should be a right but it should be VERY tightly regulated. Society is abandoning its responsibility to children if government just turns a blind eye and says, "Oh well, whatever parents want to teach them in the privacy of their own home, that's their business."

I have some friends who homeschool (with varying degrees of success in my opinion, not that I get to judge them) and my understanding is that the regulations by which homeschoolers must abide, and the degree of interest the government takes in curriculum and outcomes, varies widely from one jurisdiction to another.

[ 16. May 2014, 12:41: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What if they're complete idiots?
I think one should hesitate before giving the state the right to declare people complete idiots. Giving powers to the state on the understanding that it won't abuse them is like putting pigs in a cage with a tiger on the understanding that the tiger won't eat them.
My understanding is that certain laws exist that have to be satisfied before people can be locked up for their own and others' protection. Judges get involved in these proceedings and that would seem the way to go about it.

In Britain, I believe that is the case, but IANAL nor in the education sector, merely a parent who has had five children go through the UK state education system.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And what if, totally hypothetically, the guy in charge of the schools system is a complete idiot?
But there's not one guy doing it on his own.
And yet, in the UK, when one raises concerns with teachers and their unions about the system it inevitably does come down to government policy as the problem. I'm not sure "systems" are ever good at raising children, I'm pretty sure the one we have at the moment is not suitable for educating every child, and to decide for their own child is a parents' prerogative.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents. That's not to say that I don't agree with a state funded education system open to all, it's just that I believe that it is the parents' prerogative to educate their children as they choose.
What if they're complete idiots?
What of it?
You're comfortable with children's life chances being fucked over because their parents are idiots?

I'm not.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents. That's not to say that I don't agree with a state funded education system open to all, it's just that I believe that it is the parents' prerogative to educate their children as they choose.
What if they're complete idiots?
What of it?
You're comfortable with children's life chances being fucked over because their parents are idiots?

I'm not.
Who decides whether or not they're "idiots"? Bollocks! The state doesn't get to decide that.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
What Sioni Sais said. The same people who decide if they're abusive and the children need taking into care. Judges. It's why we have them.

[ 16. May 2014, 13:11: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What if they're complete idiots?
I think one should hesitate before giving the state the right to declare people complete idiots. Giving powers to the state on the understanding that it won't abuse them is like putting pigs in a cage with a tiger on the understanding that the tiger won't eat them.
Why? Why the assumption that government can be compared to predators? They might be, but they might not be. Any power can be abused; what powers do we dare give the state if we can't give them any that they could abuse?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
In an ideal world all children would receive education at home to complement what goes on in school.

I know two families who've home-schooled with wildly varying results: one has produced lively young adults all of whom have got into Russell group universities and two of whom are now lecturing while working towards a D.Phil. Not only are they all bright but they have good social skills and a wide circle of friends. But the parents achieved this by (a) taking their offspring to many out-of-school activities - sports clubs and the like - so they met their peers, (b) both working from home and both having pretty stunning academic credentials, and (c) a house large enough to set aside a study room for the children and house an au pair so that mum and dad could take time off and the children learn practical language skils from a native speaker.

In stark contrast the other family have produced 2 (out of 3) under-achievers; the oldest and youngest are both very musical but mother's insistence on teaching them herself has severely limited this aspect of their life. In addition, they had limited social interaction with their peers and are socially gauche even now in their early 30s: both have difficulty forming friendships and neither has ever had a serious romantic friendship. The middle child (the only boy) took matters into his own hands at the age of 13 and - much against his mother's wishes - took himself off to school. He reckons it took him 2 years to catch up with his peers in general subjects and later got into a good university. He now lectures and his children go to school.

Home-schooling is so dependent on parents - usually the mother - and if undertaken to keep children separate can have devastating results.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
I went to university with several students who had been home schooled, and (not to toot my own horn) this is a globally recognized university that's pretty tough to get into.

I was reading by age 3 because my mother taught me, despite having a full-time job and my younger sibling to take care of. You'd be surprised what parents can achieve with their own children compared to a teacher who has to deal with 30+ children of varying abilities. Sure, not all parents are suited to home schooling but I think quite a lot of them could do as good a job as the local school.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
One of my nieces developed 'alternative' interests in her late teens and has become what you could only call a hippie. She and her young family are vegans, do not wear shoes, the babies don't wear nappies, they all live in a converted barn and now the children are being home schooled. They do have to follow a prescribed state curriculum but this can be ' bent' to suit. Unfortunately the children are completely feral with no social skills and are likely to stay that way if they don't get the chance to learn social norms at school.I find it quite disturbing that the mother's desire to be 'different' and trendy denies her children the right to a full education. She ascribes to something called Natural Parenting which she interprets as letting the children develop without interference from the parents or society - sound like anarchy to me.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
We hear less about homeschooling in the UK than we used to. Perhaps it's because the middle class families who might have wanted to give their children a highly personalised home education in the past now feel they need to have two salaries coming in to create the lifestyle they want. It's very hard to buy a nice home in a 'good area' if both parents aren't working full-time.

Homeschooling doesn't seem to have caught on among religious families in the UK. Despite the fact that many Muslim women are at home, we don't hear about them trying to homeschool. Even Christian parents with separationist tendencies don't seem enthralled by the idea of homeschooling. (No doubt there are many people who are rather relieved about that.)

Moreover, I suspect that most people feel unsure of their abilities. Education is increasingly left to the specialists - even some quite basic things. The state is expected to cope, or, if an individual has the money, education is just one more service they can pay for. Homeschooling is seen as a last solution if other options have failed, for whatever reason.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I went to university with several students who had been home schooled, and (not to toot my own horn) this is a globally recognized university that's pretty tough to get into.

I was reading by age 3 because my mother taught me, despite having a full-time job and my younger sibling to take care of. You'd be surprised what parents can achieve with their own children compared to a teacher who has to deal with 30+ children of varying abilities. Sure, not all parents are suited to home schooling but I think quite a lot of them could do as good a job as the local school.
You were reading at age 3 because you had the aptitude for it. We have three children, introduced them all to books at a young age, and one reads fluently at 7, one learnt to read fairly quickly, and one finds reading completely inscrutable.

The people you met at university are a self-selecting set. You won't meet the ones whose education was buggered by parents who thought they could home-school but made a pigs' ear of it because they obviously wouldn't be at your university.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I wish more people who homeschooled over here felt uncertain about their abilities. I do know homeschoolers who have the best will in the world, great dedication, and clearly love their kids, but I really doubt their academic ability and I feel this may disadvantage the kids more and more as they get older.

The two best homeschooling moms I know are both qualified teachers themselves who are teaching their own kids rather than taking a job in school. They are also very active in getting their kids involved in extracurricular things in the community -- sometimes as part of the local homeschooling group, other times just by signing them up for a soccer league or whatnot.

Even in those best cases, I wonder if the children's learning may be compromised if homeschooling continues through high school. I know if I wanted to quit work and teach my kids at home they'd have a wonderful English and Social Studies curriculum, probably far superior to what they'd get in school, but it's safe to say their Math and Science would be ... somewhat lacking.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We hear less about homeschooling in the UK than we used to. Perhaps it's because the middle class families who might have wanted to give their children a highly personalised home education in the past now feel they need to have two salaries coming in to survive It's very hard to afford accommodation at all if both parents aren't working full-time.

Fixed for reality.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You were reading at age 3 because you had the aptitude for it. We have three children, introduced them all to books at a young age, and one reads fluently at 7, one learnt to read fairly quickly, and one finds reading completely inscrutable.

The people you met at university are a self-selecting set. You won't meet the ones whose education was buggered by parents who thought they could home-school but made a pigs' ear of it because they obviously wouldn't be at your university.
What I said is that I think many parents are capable of producing a similar result to a local school. Some are not capable of this, some are capable of better. Do you disagree with this?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I disagree with the "many". I think it's closer to "a few, and few fewer than those who think they can". I have a degree, for example, but I'm at a loss to know how I'd teach A level standard German.

[ 16. May 2014, 13:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:


The people you met at university are a self-selecting set. You won't meet the ones whose education was buggered by parents who thought they could home-school but made a pigs' ear of it because they obviously wouldn't be at your university.
Or the ones whose education was buggered by crap local schools.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib
Unfortunately the children are completely feral with no social skills and are likely to stay that way if they don't get the chance to learn social norms at school.
School is not the only place where social norms can be learned. At school some children whose tastes and interests are very unusual are at risk of being rejected, and even bullied, by their fellow-pupils.

Moo
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
seekingsister:
quote:
You'd be surprised what parents can achieve with their own children compared to a teacher who has to deal with 30+ children of varying abilities. Sure, not all parents are suited to home schooling but I think quite a lot of them could do as good a job as the local school.
It's not an either/or situation. Good schools recognise the importance of parental support and encourage parents to be involved in their children's education. Children who are encouraged to learn at home as well as at school have the best of both worlds. That's why some children start school ready to learn to read (in some cases, already reading) and others are still struggling with which way to turn the pages.

I would consider homeschooling my daughter only as a last resort, for both selfish and unselfish reasons.

The selfish reason is that I'd like to have some time to do my own thing and we can't afford an au pair. If she was homeschooled we'd be in each other's pockets (and probably at each other's throats) all the time, and our family income would be even less than it is now because I wouldn't be able to do another job.

The unselfish reason is that I don't want her education to be limited to things that I can teach her. She is a person in her own right; our interests and talents are similar but not identical.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Homeschooling should be a right. (I think it is a right under the Universal Declaration.)
I don't think this is right. Most famously, homeschooling is illegal in Germany. This has been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights, and the law was upheld.

This family tried to claim asylum in the US on the grounds that not allowing them to homeschool is religious persecution. Their claim was rejected.

(Actually I think there’s some huge political game-playing going on here, and not in the children’s best interest. If they really wanted freedom to homeschool, they didn’t need to move to the US; as German citizens they could have freely moved to any other EU state that allows it and would have been able to do as they liked. They could also have pursued the question in the courts, but that’s been done, and the ECHR has already ruled against.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:


The people you met at university are a self-selecting set. You won't meet the ones whose education was buggered by parents who thought they could home-school but made a pigs' ear of it because they obviously wouldn't be at your university.
Or the ones whose education was buggered by crap local schools.
The solution to both is much the same - don't let crap local schools teach children, and don't let clueless parents do it either.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The solution to both is much the same - don't let crap local schools teach children, and don't let clueless parents do it either.
Exactly how would you go about preventing either situation?

Moo
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Observations.
If a school system is buggered? Who is at fault?
If a child is being educated by the state, are the parents forbidden to supplement this?
If your POV cannot stand exposure to other views, how solid is it?
If one, or two, people can do so much better at guiding, why do we not clamour for dictatorship?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The solution to both is much the same - don't let crap local schools teach children, and don't let clueless parents do it either.
Exactly how would you go about preventing either situation?

Moo
We have inspection regimes. Don't you inspect your schools in the USA?

They're not perfect, by any means. It doesn't seem unreasonable though that before you're given responsibility to educate a child, which has lifelong consequences, you demonstrate some competence to do so.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Karl: Liberal Backslider

In theory, I suppose a school should be better than a parent. But that won't necessarily be the case, because all children are different, and all adults have different skills, whether innate or taught. And sadly, not all schools are inevitably going to produce better results than the parents at home. The American education system seems to be fairly hit and miss, rather like the British one.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I disagree with the "many". I think it's closer to "a few, and few fewer than those who think they can". I have a degree, for example, but I'm at a loss to know how I'd teach A level standard German.
I guess it depends how literally one takes the term home school. I guess in the UK it is so rare that your view on it might be a bit inaccurate.

My university friends joined community groups or the local school for anything their parents could not offer - for example, violin lessons and sports. One also said they'd arrange field trips or special sessions with other home school families in the area. For example, one parent very good at science would both help the other parents and do group lessons now an again, as would the parent who was good at math, history, etc.

Maybe "non-traditional schooling" is more accurate. Certainly my friends did not spend all day trapped in a house only dealing with their own parents.

In the town where my school was, there was a commune - a traditional Catholic community - and they "home schooled" but it was essentially 20 children with several mothers doing the teaching and alternating houses. Again, not relying on one person only to manage everything.

I'm not saying it's better or that everyone should do it. However I don't accept that traditional state/public school is clearly superior to a group of dedicated parents.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I would suggest that for nearly all schools and nearly all parents the school is better. As I said before, how the hell would I teach German? Or Mandarin? Or English Lit (about which I know naff all)? Or History? (I got a grade D at O level, years ago).

Schools have different teachers for different subjects. They do this for a damned good reason. Few parents, IME, are polymaths.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
We know a couple of homeschooling families. Parents are evangelical Christians in both cases. They also come across (at least on Facebook) as insufferably arrogant and superior with FB status updates which shriek, "Look at us home-educating our children - they do the same things your kids do but better, plus they don't have those icky 'worldly' influences to deal with, whereas you let your kids be exposed to such influences, which is basically imperilling their immortal souls and might as well be child abuse"....to which my thoughts end in "off".
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I disagree with the "many". I think it's closer to "a few, and few fewer than those who think they can". I have a degree, for example, but I'm at a loss to know how I'd teach A level standard German.
I guess it depends how literally one takes the term home school. I guess in the UK it is so rare that your view on it might be a bit inaccurate.

My university friends joined community groups or the local school for anything their parents could not offer - for example, violin lessons and sports. One also said they'd arrange field trips or special sessions with other home school families in the area. For example, one parent very good at science would both help the other parents and do group lessons now an again, as would the parent who was good at math, history, etc.

Maybe "non-traditional schooling" is more accurate. Certainly my friends did not spend all day trapped in a house only dealing with their own parents.

In the town where my school was, there was a commune - a traditional Catholic community - and they "home schooled" but it was essentially 20 children with several mothers doing the teaching and alternating houses. Again, not relying on one person only to manage everything.

I'm not saying it's better or that everyone should do it. However I don't accept that traditional state/public school is clearly superior to a group of dedicated parents.
As long as that group of dedicated parents is subjected to an inspection regime, that's fine. If not, then I ask what protection those children have from this group of parents being a bunch of berks. And then, in what sense is this "group of dedicated parents" not a school?

[ 16. May 2014, 14:06: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Just to throw another perspective on home schooling into the mix. I live with my family in North Africa where we work with a small development NGO. We are fortunate to live in the capital city where there are schooling options in both French and English available (at a price) as well as Arabic language schools. However for many of our colleagues working in other parts of the country the only option available is local schooling in Arabic. We know a few families who have successfully managed this but not many. It requires a high level of commitment from the parents to manage the challenges of language, alongside cultural differences in learning style (lots of rote learning, problem solving and independent thinking not really encouraged), very high pressure to achieve with shaming of those who don’t or are struggling and physical style discipline (which is supposed to be banned but is widely used).

In the light of this most choose to home school, usually using a curriculum from their home country. Some have clubbed together to form home school co-operatives, thereby sharing the teaching among the parents and using their different skills. But it is one of our biggest challenges when placing families in projects outside of the capital. How can they educate their children? And although many have done well academically by home schooling (these are a pretty motivated and able set of parents!) often when the children hit their teenage years the main problem is not the learning but the socialisation and peer relationships these youngsters need and the desire for a greater range of activities.

In the capital city there are also quite a lot of families who choose to home educate because they want a Christian curriculum, particularly among American families that we know. But I guess this probably also reflects the popularity of this as an option amongst such families in the USA as well.
And us? Well I think I could home school if I REALLY had to. But my experience of how quickly I run out of patience doing homework with our kids suggests that I’m not cut out to be a teacher and as an introvert I really value having everyone else out of the house for some of the day… Besides, I actually don’t want our kids to be in a purely Christian environment, I want them to learn to negotiate the reality of living life alongside all kinds of people who don’t necessarily believe or think the same as them. And I want them to experience the normalcy of ‘going to school’. So our kids are in French school, following the French curriculum in all its secular glory! At least they’ll be bilingual…
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My university friends joined community groups or the local school for anything their parents could not offer - for example, violin lessons and sports. One also said they'd arrange field trips or special sessions with other home school families in the area. For example, one parent very good at science would both help the other parents and do group lessons now an again, as would the parent who was good at math, history, etc.

Maybe "non-traditional schooling" is more accurate. Certainly my friends did not spend all day trapped in a house only dealing with their own parents.

In the town where my school was, there was a commune - a traditional Catholic community - and they "home schooled" but it was essentially 20 children with several mothers doing the teaching and alternating houses. Again, not relying on one person only to manage everything.
Which just goes to illustrate that "home schooling" is a term covering a range of models. But, once you get a community where there are children from several families, beign taught by parents of different families (according to ability of the parents) then what it seems you have is a school - it's a school without a building, it's a school where the teachers do not (necessarily) have formal qualifications, it's a school with (probably) smaller class sizes. But, it's a school nonetheless.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Schools have different teachers for different subjects. They do this for a damned good reason. Few parents, IME, are polymaths.
I will throw in this, most people suck at teaching. It is a skill that goes well beyond knowing a subject oneself. At least with a school system, there is a standard. Yes, that standard may have flaws. Once again I ask, whose fault is that?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I would suggest that for nearly all schools and nearly all parents the school is better.
This may be true, but since the vast majority of children in the West are taught in schools, I don't think homeschooling represents a significant problem. The more urgent problem involves disadvantaged children who've attended state schools all their lives yet have failed to achieve the appropriate skills and qualifications to help them progress in life.

I have a PGCE and have taught as a supply teacher in state schools. Most of these schools have been okay, but it's often struck me that these places aren't suitable for everyone.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents.
In the UK, it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children receive a full time education from age 5 to 16. The majority of parents exercise this responsibility by enrolling their children in a school. But, you can home school if yuo wish. In which case, the local authority has a responsibility to confirm that your children are receiving a suitable education, and they can provide assistance to home schooling. If they are not satisfied with the education you are providing they can enforce a school attendance order.

As far as I'm concerned that's a reasonable position. The parents have the responsibility, but the local government provides a safety net to catch the children of parents who fail that responsibility.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
From those I know who home school I think an important aspect is the curriculum that you use. There seem to be a good number of these that in effect mean that the parent is supervising the learning from the materials provided rather than actually doing the teaching as such. The lessons are all set out with the material to be learned. I know one family used a program where the lessons were on DVD. In some cases the work is submitted by post or internet to be marked by tutors associated with the program. I don't know whether people would count this as home schooling in the same way or more as a form of 'distance learning'? This would seem to reduce the problem of parents not having the knowledge of particular subjects to teach them.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which just goes to illustrate that "home schooling" is a term covering a range of models.
It goes to illustrate that several of the people commenting here have no familiarity with home schooling and how it actually functions.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[The more urgent problem involves disadvantaged children who've attended state schools all their lives yet have failed to achieve the appropriate skills and qualifications to help them progress in life.
Homeschooling changes this not one whit.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I would suggest that for nearly all schools and nearly all parents the school is better.
This may be true, but since the vast majority of children in the West are taught in schools, I don't think homeschooling represents a significant problem. The more urgent problem involves disadvantaged children who've attended state schools all their lives yet have failed to achieve the appropriate skills and qualifications to help them progress in life.

I have a PGCE and have taught as a supply teacher in state schools. Most of these schools have been okay, but it's often struck me that these places aren't suitable for everyone.
This is certainly true, but it doesn't follow that the parents of the children least suited to traditional schooling are the ones actually capable of, or in a position to, educate them themselves.

The solution to this one is to rethink how we do school, rather than to drop such children on parents who may or may not be able to home-school them.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[The more urgent problem involves disadvantaged children who've attended state schools all their lives yet have failed to achieve the appropriate skills and qualifications to help them progress in life.
Homeschooling changes this not one whit.
Actually, I think it does change it just one whit, in that the more popular homeschooling becomes, the more middle-class families with engaged, involved parents are removed from the public-school system, which I believe is to the detriment of the public school and the children left behind in those schools.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which just goes to illustrate that "home schooling" is a term covering a range of models.
It goes to illustrate that several of the people commenting here have no familiarity with home schooling and how it actually functions.
Because people are describing different types of homeschooling that they have personally experienced or observed, this translates to them having no familiarity with how it actually functions?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
lilBuddha

That raises an interesting point. If you're a disadvantaged parent in an area with a poor school, are you really hurting your child by deciding to give it a go yourself, with the help of professional materials and guides? What if the alternative is a school with serious discipline problems, and low levels of achievement?

Maybe most American homeschoolers are rejecting perfectly nice suburban schools in favour of something that's personalised but substandard; but ISTM that homeschooling really ought to be promoted among parents whose other choices are actually quite poor.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Actually, I think it does change it just one whit, in that the more popular homeschooling becomes, the more middle-class families with engaged, involved parents are removed from the public-school system, which I believe is to the detriment of the public school and the children left behind in those schools.
In the US, there's no school choice in the public sector (or limited school choice if you are in a city). Middle class kids go to the school in their middle class town. Poor kids go to the school in their poor town. Rarely do the twain meet.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Homeschooling should be a right. (I think it is a right under the Universal Declaration.)
I don't think this is right. Most famously, homeschooling is illegal in Germany. This has been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights, and the law was upheld.
I'm surprised. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, point 3:
quote:
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Does 'prior right' have a technical meaning that I'm misunderstanding? I would have assumed it meant that the right is more basic that the earlier point in the article about how children are educated.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I understand your point, Trudy. And I agree that the potential for class divide becomes greater. One already sees this within school systems, it will only get worse.
Though I was addressing individual issues. I have seen homeschool children whose personal challenges were hidden by homeschooling. With no one to force parents to realise their little angel is not perfect, they are so far down the road before it is noticed, helping the child is much more difficult.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Because people are describing different types of homeschooling that they have personally experienced or observed, this translates to them having no familiarity with how it actually functions?
No, because it's clear some people are not aware that home schooling just means that - home schooling. You could have private tutors come teach your child and that would also be home schooling. Similarly as I have seen, they often have external and pooled resources to cover the range of subjects. There are several comments saying "Well how could I teach my child X subject that I do not know" as if getting someone else to do it or buying DVD lessons somehow means it is no longer home schooling.

That's why I get the sense there is a misunderstanding here.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
lilBuddha

That raises an interesting point. If you're a disadvantaged parent in an area with a poor school, are you really hurting your child by deciding to give it a go yourself, with the help of professional materials and guides? What if the alternative is a school with serious discipline problems, and low levels of achievement?

Maybe most American homeschoolers are rejecting perfectly nice suburban schools in favour of something that's personalised but substandard; but ISTM that homeschooling really ought to be promoted among parents whose other choices are actually quite poor.
It is a very mixed bag. To me the solution is to fix the broken schools. But this means money. And it means people with money being content on spending it in areas which they do not live. And it means paying more attention than just whinging in editorials and comments sections.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Seekingsister,

You are correct in that homeschooling can be varied. It also has greater potential for problems.
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I was home schooled until I was ten. I know the plural of anecdote is not data and that my situation was exceptional but it was dreadful.

Fundamentally home schooling was used as a cover for abuse. The abuse itself is irrelevant to the issues here but it is an issue that should be considered in such situations.

I was utterly inadequately socialised. The only people I knew were my family and the thirty or so members of the church I went to at the time. I had no idea how to interact with other children as most of the people I knew were adults.

Secondly, and this was a part of the religious environment in which I was raised, it left me terribly, terribly afraid of the 'world'. Home schooling could justify that we were 'in the world but not of the world' and any interaction with anyone outside that wee world was terrifying. Would I go to hell when I went and bought a loaf of bread from someone in the world?

Thirdly, being home schooled means that one has all ones emotional eggs in one basket. Part of a child's development is breaking rules in whatever a minor fashion that entails. If you're at school and you do that, you get a bollocking from the teacher and move on. If you're home schooled there is no separation between parent and teacher and that then screws up both aspects of the relationship. Unless a parent is very skilled in appropriately compartmentalising the 'parent' side and the 'teacher' side it can get very emotionally confusing.

Fourthly, inevitably my education was biased towards things my parents were interested in and knew about. I am grateful that they passed their love of reading and literature on to me. I am less grateful for the struggle I had to catch up with my peers in subjects such as maths and science. For example my parents never taught me to tell the time on a clock and when I got to school it was assumed that I knew. It wasn't until about four years ago that I overcame my enormous embarrassment to ask a friend to teach me.

When I finally did go to school (as a result of social services intervention) it was terrifying as I didn't know how to talk to people my own age. I was to put in mildly a fucked up zealot who thought every conversation had to lead to a conversion or I'd go to hell. I struggled hugely with some subjects and was way ahead in others, leaving it again difficult to fit in with others. I didn't know how to fit in in basic ways - what to wear, what to eat, what to think. It is only in retrospect that I realise that my going to school was the equivalent of dropping an alien into an environment and demanding it coped immediately.

As a result I lost a lot of education as my inability to cope meant I stopped going. I also gained a lot of education as my love of books meant the library was my favourite place to skive off in. It wasn't til I sat my exams that I realised that I was actually relatively intelligent and that, and the support of a good teacher, meant I completed my education and went to university.

I know that the vast majority of home schooling situations will not be like mine was but I think there is a grain of truth in each of these issues that has to be raised in a home schooling environment:


[ 16. May 2014, 15:18: Message edited by: chive ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
lilBuddha

That raises an interesting point. If you're a disadvantaged parent in an area with a poor school, are you really hurting your child by deciding to give it a go yourself, with the help of professional materials and guides? What if the alternative is a school with serious discipline problems, and low levels of achievement?

Maybe most American homeschoolers are rejecting perfectly nice suburban schools in favour of something that's personalised but substandard; but ISTM that homeschooling really ought to be promoted among parents whose other choices are actually quite poor.
It is a very mixed bag. To me the solution is to fix the broken schools. But this means money. And it means people with money being content on spending it in areas which they do not live. And it means paying more attention than just whinging in editorials and comments sections.
And to me that's the biggest problem with homeschooling. Homeschooling is very much an elitist proposition. One cannot engage in it unless, as has been noted, one has a well-educated parent who nonetheless has the financial resources to take considerable time off of work to devote to the process, even if all they are doing is supervising children using DVD (or internet) based curriculum. Those are resources not available to most working-class parents.

So when *we* choose homeschooling we are choosing to take those resources out of our communities and devote them entirely to our own kids. It can be great for our own kids (as noted, results vary widely) but, at the very least, it diminishes the resources, both financial and personnel (parental volunteers) available to the broader community. In the end, the kids who need those resources the most (e.g. those whose parents are least involved in their education, whether thru necessity or apathy) will suffer the most.


*I say "we" because my own reluctant but eventual choice to send my kids to private schools has similar community implications.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
lilBuddha


Yeah, dream on. Do those burgeoning African American gang members in the ghettoes have anyone fighting to turn their sink schools into beacons of excellence? If I lived there and had kids I'd almost definitely want to homeschool. What would we have to lose? Not much.

[ 16. May 2014, 15:24: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I was home schooled until I was ten. I know the plural of anecdote is not data and that my situation was exceptional but it was dreadful...

I know that the vast majority of home schooling situations will not be like mine was but I think there is a grain of truth in each of these issues that has to be raised in a home schooling environment:
Very helpful questions to frame the conversation IMHO. Would that every homeschooling parent was forced to stop and address each of them honestly.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I know that the vast majority of home schooling situations will not be like mine was but I think there is a grain of truth in each of these issues that has to be raised in a home schooling environment:
I absolutely do not with to diminish your experience, which I am quite sorry you had to endure.

I do have a feeling however that an abusive or controlling family will be so whether or not the child attends school.

Additionally some of the things you mention happen to people who are sent by their parents to religious private schools as well. There are many ways to mess up a child unfortunately.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
lilBuddha


Yeah, dream on. Do those burgeoning African American gang members in the ghettoes have anyone fighting to turn their sink schools into beacons of excellence? If I lived there and had kids I'd almost definitely want to homeschool. What would we have to lose? Not much.
Though I think there exist more disparity in America, it is not only America.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
lilBuddha


Yeah, dream on. Do those burgeoning African American gang members in the ghettoes have anyone fighting to turn their sink schools into beacons of excellence? If I lived there and had kids I'd almost definitely want to homeschool. What would we have to lose? Not much.
Well, those ghettos could have you championing them. Unless of course you don't, you homeschool, and you leave them to sink. Rather proving Trudy's point.

Of course, any parent'd do the same thing. There's the rub.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
lilBuddha


Yeah, dream on. Do those burgeoning African American gang members in the ghettoes have anyone fighting to turn their sink schools into beacons of excellence? If I lived there and had kids I'd almost definitely want to homeschool. What would we have to lose? Not much.
I'm sure I would too (and in fact, as noted above, made a similar choice). But that then becomes an excuse for the crappy schools. The highly motivated parents who make huge sacrifices (which it will be for a working-class parent, less so for the upper classes) to homeschool their kids will be exalted and co-opted to "prove" the point that we don't need to invest in decaying urban schools because it's really all about the parents. Overlooking the fact that 99% of those working-class parents won't make that choice-- whether thru apathy or thru necessity (lacking either the education or the time off work). The kids with those highly motivated, sacrificing parents probably would do well anywhere-- if they were in public schools, those same parents would be the ones running the PTA and volunteering in the classroom and fund-raising for field trips. But without those crusading parents, the kids with uninvolved parents, who might have thrived in a more enriching environment, face even more dismal odds.

Again, regretfully acknowledging my own complicity in this.
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I do have a feeling however that an abusive or controlling family will be so whether or not the child attends school.

Additionally some of the things you mention happen to people who are sent by their parents to religious private schools as well. There are many ways to mess up a child unfortunately.
I agree but in a closed environment there is no escape, you are there 24/7. If a child is going to school they are away from that environment at least part of the time and they can learn from other outside influences.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:


My own reluctant but eventual choice to send my kids to private schools has similar community implications.
In the UK elitism in education is often a debate about private v. state schools. It also involves selective v. non-selective state schools, and church state schools v. non-denominational state schools. Homeschooling isn't on the radar in this debate, for the reasons I've mentioned above.

Middle class, non-fanatical parents who homeschool healthy, happy kids probably benefit from particularly fortunate circumstances (e.g. not being part of the rat race, perhaps living in a charming but isolated rural setting). Most of the population would think of them as rather eccentric, I'm sure. There'd be worries about socialising the youngsters, but on a crowded island like ours many people frequently dream of escaping from the ever-present hordes, so the worries of outsiders would probably be tempered by jealousy!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Because people are describing different types of homeschooling that they have personally experienced or observed, this translates to them having no familiarity with how it actually functions?
No, because it's clear some people are not aware that home schooling just means that - home schooling. You could have private tutors come teach your child and that would also be home schooling. Similarly as I have seen, they often have external and pooled resources to cover the range of subjects. There are several comments saying "Well how could I teach my child X subject that I do not know" as if getting someone else to do it or buying DVD lessons somehow means it is no longer home schooling.

That's why I get the sense there is a misunderstanding here.
Which proves the point that there is considerable variety in home schooling. Some parents club together, others don't. Some buy DVD lessons, others don't. Some send their children to school for specific lessons, others don't. Some home school through primary (basic literacy, numeracy etc) and then enroll children in school as they get older, some home school through to 16 or older. Some hire private tutors, others don't.

Of course, there's a lot of variety in other types of schooling too. Some parents help with homework, some don't. Some set extra work, others don't. Some hire tutors to supplement school lessons, others don't. Some use breakfast/after school clubs, others don't.

And, in both cases there are a whole range of reasons why parents make the choices they make. A good parent tries their best with what they have - if you can afford to hire tutors, or move to an area where the school is "better" (which, IMO, can often be a matter of perception, or a judgement on too few parameters, and the education provided at a "poorer" school may be excellent - even if it doesn't score as highly in exam grade based league tables) then you have options those with less resources.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Schools have different teachers for different subjects. They do this for a damned good reason. Few parents, IME, are polymaths.
I will throw in this, most people suck at teaching. It is a skill that goes well beyond knowing a subject oneself. At least with a school system, there is a standard. Yes, that standard may have flaws. Once again I ask, whose fault is that?
I think the fundamental assumption here that the state knows enough about every child to satisfactorily set the standard for every child is wrong. Some parents know this better, dare I even say it, many parents. There are quite a lot of unusual children out there, and a significant number of rubbish teachers.

For goodness sake, I don't think anyone's suggesting closing schools. But for some children being educated at home is a better option. What's so wrong with that?

[ 16. May 2014, 15:47: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Nothing in itself. The problem is that there's no guarantee that those children who'd be better taught at home actually can be. Or that the children taught at home are the ones who are better off there. I'd sooner see a range of provision available that means that children can be provided with a suitable environment regardless of their parents' abilities to provide it. School was a terrible ordeal for me, but I don't for a second imagine that my parents could have educated me; they'd both left school at 15 with one O level between them.

[ 16. May 2014, 15:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
I had written a long post outlining how terrible my experience was at my local school, inspected and approved, was, but it was getting a bit grim so I cut it down to this: I barely survived. I don't believe in perfect schools. I think it more probable that state employees will mess up at their duty than parents at theirs, and thus lean towards leaving the parents as the decision-makers for what the children are better off from.

With that said, Chive: [Votive]

I have no idea how we will ever completely avoid cases like yours and mine, but I think cutting down the school options will hurt children more. I am sorry to hear of all the suffering caused by this.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
JFH - that's pretty insulting to the "state employees" who are dedicated teachers, and my friends, if you don't mind me saying so.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

For goodness sake, I don't think anyone's suggesting closing schools. But for some children being educated at home is a better option. What's so wrong with that?
I think it comes down to, as with so many things, individual benefit vs. communal good.

On an individual level, many children would probably be better off if homeschooled. The problem is that homeschooling is incredibly resource dependent-- very expensive in it's use of time, to the point that it cannot be replicated on a broad scale. So what happens is that the children who are the most privileged (those whose parents are educated and have some discretionary time) are even more advantaged, at the expense of those children who are least advantaged (those whose parents aren't able or willing to invest in their education). If there were no homeschooling those same highly motivated parents would no doubt be investing heavily in their local schools-- to the benefit not only of their own children, but other, less advantaged children as well. Their kids would lose something, the other kids would gain something.

So again, individual benefit vs. communal good. Most of us, myself included, end up choosing the individual benefit for our own kids.

[ 16. May 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I took my class to a small theatre the other week. 35 8 to 9 year olds. It was a fabulous presentation about wildlife - really riveting. My class were fascinated and asked lots of questions afterwards, they were polite and well behaved - a credit to our school, which is on a large Council estate.

On the front row were five homeschooled children - of similar ages to my class. They mauled around, didn't watch the play, whined to their parents for food and generally spoiled things for the rest of the audience. During the question time afterwards they didn't engage at all and continued to chat to each other and the adults as if they were at home!

If that is homeschooling you can keep it!
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
Karl, I'm not sure I see how that's insulting. I think there are many more bad eggs in the average batch of teachers than in that of parents. I'd also suspect there is a selection error in your friendship circle - I don't think bright people like yourself find much enjoyment in the personalities behind subpar teachers. [Biased]

(I should probably also note that Swedish education is currently going through a crisis and thus Anglo-Saxon mileage may vary on some of these issues.)
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Giving powers to the state on the understanding that it won't abuse them is like putting pigs in a cage with a tiger on the understanding that the tiger won't eat them.
Why the assumption that government can be compared to predators? They might be, but they might not be. Any power can be abused; what powers do we dare give the state if we can't give them any that they could abuse?
The modern nation state is by definition the organisation that claims a monopoly on the use of violence to get what it wants within a certain territory. The natural default of the state is a bunch of armed men acting at the behest of the people with lots of money. Anything else it does, and any limits on its powers, are there because the people have united and marched and fought and campaigned.
If the state looks like a tame tiger, it's because the people have fought to tame it. It's still a tiger. (And ever since 1979 it's been getting steadily more feral.)

This has been brought to you by the Anarchist tendency. Your normal liberal democratic socialist discourse may now resume.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
lilBuddha


Yeah, dream on. Do those burgeoning African American gang members in the ghettoes have anyone fighting to turn their sink schools into beacons of excellence? If I lived there and had kids I'd almost definitely want to homeschool. What would we have to lose? Not much.
Well, those ghettos could have you championing them. Unless of course you don't, you homeschool, and you leave them to sink. Rather proving Trudy's point.

Of course, any parent'd do the same thing. There's the rub.
I suppose if you were a powerful and acknowledged presence in such a community then you might do some good in helping to change a school. But if you were just an ordinary parent with a bit of education, some moral standards but very little money or status, it would probably be a constant battle to prevent your children from being swallowed up by the general negative atmosphere in such an environment. It would depend on exactly how bad the school and the surrounding area were - and I hear that some of these places in the USA can be very dangerous.

In the British case, I'm not thinking so much about bad schools, but rather the lack of diversity that schools seem to offer. The National Curriculum is a bit of a straight -jacket, I feel. Children in private schools don't have to stick to it, so why should other children have to do so? Once you've covered some basics, why not be free to follow something you have a passion or gifting for?

Of course, this is a pipe dream, because most kids just have to attend the most convenient school that has a place, regardless of anything else.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
When I visited Essex, Montana (which is quite literally a whistle-stop), I learned that in that region, many parents home-school their children because the population density is low and it's a long way to reach a public school. I suspect the same is true in some other parts of the western United States. I also suspect that some of the people who live there would home-school their children in any case for reasons involving religion and stubborn independence.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Is home schooling by its very nature anti-intellectual? Why wouldn't any parent want someone professional educated about teaching, child development, and the relevant topic areas teach their child.

If there is home schooling, why isn't there home surgery or medical examination. Oh wait, I guess there is that too. [Confused]
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
No prophet, I started correcting my Swedish teacher's spelling when I was 9. It ain't rocket surgery.

(Again, YMMV when it comes to teacher levels, but as long as you don't pay teachers dentist salaries, I don't think you'll get the same quality personnel or respect for them.)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Which brings us to the schools of the air in Australia...

The internet has made life much easier for children in remote stations and settlements but these began in 1951 and used radio transmissions, as well as the services of the Flying Doctor service. But the children who are schooled like this follow a set curriculum and the opportunity is there for meetings at hubs.

I know of some home-school groupings in the UK which brings about co-operation so that parents with particular gifts or knowledge - particularly for subjects such as Maths, the sciences and music - will take children from the whole group.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Leprechaun:
quote:
I think there are many more bad eggs in the average batch of teachers than in that of parents.
If you really cannot see how this comment might be considered insulting, then there is no point in trying to explain it to you.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is home schooling by its very nature anti-intellectual? Why wouldn't any parent want someone professional educated about teaching, child development, and the relevant topic areas teach their child.

If there is home schooling, why isn't there home surgery or medical examination. Oh wait, I guess there is that too. [Confused]
Ever heard of Teach for America? Or Teach First? You know, programs that throw recent college graduates with no teacher training into the classroom?

My home state has just raised the requirements for teachers in public schools to have a 3.0 GPA from university (somewhere between a 2.1 and a 2.2 for UK people). It used to be 2.5 which is between a B- and C+. And this is higher than in most of the US.

No one with a 2.5 GPA will be accepted into medical school in the US. So that's the difference.
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
Jane R, that would be my comment, not Leprechaun's. I stand by it. You can take it to Hell if you want to and if you really think it's insulting more than it's wrong (and that that is a greater problem for debate than it being wrong). You're more than welcome to provide statistical proof for another opinion. I have already hedged my statement by saying I rely on the Swedish situation, in which, I can add, teachers get accepted to the teachers' program with a lower average score on the SAT's than the perfectly randomized answer sheet.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
It is hard to see how teaching your child when the public schools give an abysmal education is anti-intellectual.


There are crappy public schools and crappy home schooling, and excellent examples of both as well. One danger is that there aren't a lot of safeguards on the Home Schooling. In general, the state isn't that excited about investigating families to make sure that standards are met and this has wound into the politics/faith divide as well.

Home School Apostates describes some cases where the children do not feel they benefited from Home Schooling.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
seekingsister:
quote:
No, because it's clear some people are not aware that home schooling just means that - home schooling. You could have private tutors come teach your child and that would also be home schooling.
Actually some of us are perfectly well aware of the different types of home schooling. And it's still a lot more effort and costs more than sending your child to the local school (unless the local school is Eton). In our case, we would not be able to afford home tutors if we were home schooling because I would have to give up my job.

If a bunch of home schooling parents get together and organise a collaborative programme, it's not that much different from a school without a building, as Alan says. Except that it doesn't get inspected as rigorously as a state school, the parents don't have formal teaching qualifications and - probably - don't have a CRB check done before being left in charge of a bunch of other people's children.

Yes, we do know about Teach First - we have a similar scheme here, run by people who think that a good grasp of your subject and a certain amount of intelligence are all that is needed to become a good teacher. It's not. Even if you're quite good at imparting knowledge to small groups of highly motivated learners, managing a class of 30+ surly adolescents is a whole different ballgame.

The worst science teacher I ever had, had a PhD in his subject. Brilliant mind. Lousy communication skills.

[ 16. May 2014, 16:56: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leprechaun:
quote:
I think there are many more bad eggs in the average batch of teachers than in that of parents.
If you really cannot see how this comment might be considered insulting, then there is no point in trying to explain it to you.
Not to mention a HUGE, GAPING, HOLE in logic.
Parents are better teachers than teachers ignores the fact that many teachers are parents.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

The worst science teacher I ever had, had a PhD in his subject. Brilliant mind. Lousy communication skills.
Teaching is a skill. People should really let go the notion that proficiency in a field confers the ability to teach in it. Or that the desire to teach confers ability.
Teaching. Is. A. Skill.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The worst science teacher I ever had, had a PhD in his subject. Brilliant mind. Lousy communication skills.
Most PhD students have teaching responsibilities alongside their research. So if he was a bad teacher it's probably because he was a bad teacher, not because he hadn't been trained for it.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Even if you're quite good at imparting knowledge to small groups of highly motivated learners, managing a class of 30+ surly adolescents is a whole different ballgame.
This is one reason why homeschool is different from school school. Teaching a class of 30 is not at all the same as tutoring one or two. Certainly there's some overlap in required skills - if you can't explain something satisfactorily to one person, you won't be able to explain it to a roomful of people - but there are more differences than similarities.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I think it is common in academia for doctoral students in some fields to receive no training at all in teaching (other than grading papers as a teaching assistant, and sometimes not even that). Indeed, such training may not even be available in some cases. I have known a professor to express utter contempt for schools of education. I have also known faculty who were brilliant teacher of graduate courses but would have been incompetent to teach beginners. At the university level, the teacher's motivation tends to be the interaction with the subject matter, not a love of teaching for itself.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Most PhD students have teaching responsibilities alongside their research. So if he was a bad teacher it's probably because he was a bad teacher, not because he hadn't been trained for it.
Most PhD students have teaching responsibilities, but that doesn't actually mean that they have had any training in how to teach. In my experience, the training offered to PhD students before they are let loose on unsuspecting undergraduates - as TAs, tutors or lab demonstrators - ranges between zero and a single one hour lecture.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
We have an outstanding school system here. My children had dedicated teachers who knew their stuff. That said, we ran into 2 teachers in elementary school who were less than inspiring and motivated. All it takes here is a meeting with the school admin (principal, asst-principals) followed by meeting with the director of education for the school board, which manages some 60 schools. Action occurs. The teachers are also answerable to their professional association, which sets standards for teacher conduct, and the provincial department of education, which sets standards for the curricula.

Maybe these sorts of structures and accountability don't exist elsewhere? Notable is that parents specifically do not have input on curriculum, nor do boards. The dept of educ rolls them out and gets feedback and discussion, the issues are discussed and consulted and then put in place.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
homeschooling parent here.

the reasons to school your child at home are myriad, as are the results. I see a lot of judgements here, but let's all try to remember that one or two (or, even, the majority) examples do not represent every situation.

We have a great school, here. There are problems, but our previous school system had much more worrying problems. My child, however, has a severe social phobia that has gotten really crippling since he hit puberty. Therefore, this over achieving brainiac took to skipping school. We tried everything, and even the psych agreed that for now, homeschooling is the best option until we can get his phobia under control.

I'm not a teacher. I know lots of stuff but I don't know how best to teach. My mother is a teacher, and an award winning one at that. So we tag-team. I do the day to day teaching while she tutors me in how to put together lesson plans, how best to get skills across, and she does the fun science labs with him. (there's been a lot of explosions lately, and he has become a chemistry freak)

Home schooling is hard work, a huge sacrifice. if a parent doesn't take the commitment seriously, I'm not surprised it would not go well for the children. and I knew a lot of homeschooled kids when I was growing up who were in that situation by necessity - their families lived at remote traplines or goldmines or hunting camps. And while they all seemed uniformly ahead of the rest of us, academically, they were socially weird. it's one bitch of a balancing act.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I totally wanted to teach my very bright kid at home--partly because he needs stretching, the little wretch is coasting in a lot of his classes--and partly because we could get in to so many more interesting subjects.

Life skewered that idea. I couldn't afford to stay home, and we couldn't afford any daycare arrangement to cover him when I was at work. So it had to be school.

His own personality also skewered it, because he's Mr. Social, just like his father, and if he doesn't see 100 faces a day, he goes stir-crazy.

So now we do a combo--he goes to public school, and I lob random weird but cool subjects at him after hours. Which makes us both geeks, but hey. And he gets his socializing in.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:

We have a great school, here. There are problems, but our previous school system had much more worrying problems. My child, however, has a severe social phobia that has gotten really crippling since he hit puberty. Therefore, this over achieving brainiac took to skipping school. We tried everything, and even the psych agreed that for now, homeschooling is the best option until we can get his phobia under control..
That's somewhat similar to our situation. As anyone reading this thread can tell, I'm a huge advocate of public schools, and our local one is excellent. But, for some reason, our son just wasn't thriving. It wasn't even as well defined as "social phobia." He just wasn't thriving-- at all. He was doing well academically-- ahead of grade level, described as a "genius" by his teachers. Yet he was so desperately unhappy and constantly anxious-- not sleeping because of it-- that it was obvious to teachers, administrators, everyone. It looked a lot like what you'd see if bullying was going on, and perhaps it was, but he would not admit to such and teachers & administrators (who were as concerned as I was) could see no evidence. When I dropped him off or picked him up, his peers would greet him in what appeared to be a friendly fashion, and invited him to birthday parties, etc. Yet he seemed to feel isolated, anxious and unhappy-- all the time.

We were desperately afraid and so tried private school only because we had to do something. In his case, even though he resisted the move, it worked. Within weeks of the move he was a different kid. I still don't know why. The new school was far from perfect. But he was able to be happy, and after years of desperate fearful unhappiness and anxiety, that was enough.

I was grateful to have options. Not every parent does.


quote:
Originally posted by comet:

it's one bitch of a balancing act.
this.

[ 16. May 2014, 18:23: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Most PhD students have teaching responsibilities alongside their research. So if he was a bad teacher it's probably because he was a bad teacher, not because he hadn't been trained for it.
Things may be a little different now than when I was a PhD student, but probably not much.

My "teaching responsibilities" consisted of lab demonstration 1/2 day per week during term time - ie: about 20-25 such sessions per year. That was marking submitted scripts, helping with students having difficulty getting equipment to work or analyse data (and, in case of equipment it was sometimes just the magic touch to get it going, because the same connector came loose every week). Some of the other students had tutorial classes, also about 3h per week. None of us stood in front of a class and taught anything - we were helping students learn as they figured things out themselves, with occasional nudges if needed. We certainly didn't have any instruction on how to teach, we were lucky if the lecturers gave us model solutions for the questions the tutorial group were set or how to get the experiment to work (in the month or so before the start of term we did get a chance to do the lab experiments ourselves).

And, besides which any instruction we would have had would have been for university teaching, which is different from school teaching.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
One reason for homeschooling is that schools waste a tremendous amount of time.

The first time I heard of homeschooling was in the 1950s, long before most people had thought of it. There were parents who were both professional musicians who had five musically gifted children. The children were committed to their music and accepted the fact that if they wanted to be good, they had to practice several hours a day. If they had attended school, they would have had to do their practice in their after-school time.

They were all bright, and they could finish their school-work and their practicing by the time the neighborhood kids got home.

A friend of my daughter's, who did not live in the same town that we do, asked her parents to homeschool her because she was bored out of her mind in school. Her parents agreed; she finished her schoolwork every day in about three hours. This left her lots of time to read, and her parents kept her supplied with good books.

If she had stayed in school, I don't think it would have benefited anyone. Schools tend to ignore bored students as long as they are not disruptive.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One reason for homeschooling is that schools waste a tremendous amount of time.
They waste a lot of the student's time, as you demonstrated.

But they are enormously efficient in terms of the teacher's time-- and therefore, the community resources. A single teacher, working 40 hours a week, can do what it would take 40 parents at least 15 or 20 hours a week to do on a more individualized basis, even if they form some sort of co-op.

Which is why, as noted above, homeschooling tends to be a rather elite option-- it's simply not something that is possible for single parents or most working class parents. Which means that it tends to exasperate the inequalities already prevalent in our society.
 
Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If they are not satisfied with the education you are providing they can enforce a school attendance order.

As far as I'm concerned that's a reasonable position.
Alan: do you still believe in global warming?

Idly curious.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Karl, I'm not sure I see how that's insulting. I think there are many more bad eggs in the average batch of teachers than in that of parents.
I think your experience of the full range of parents is fairly limited. I'm a teacher, and I've known a few teachers who have limited knowledge outside their own subject, and some who aren't that bright. Many of them are good teachers of what they're trained and employed to teach.

I've also known many, many parents who (variously):
a) haven't mastered the word "no"
b) think that 3 cans of red bull and a packet of crisps make a decent breakfast
c) when their child is taken out of school for a week for a holiday expect teachers to run around making sure they're caught up and then complain that they don't understand the work that is given
d) say "I was rubbish at x when I was at school" when their child hasn't bothered to do their homework
e) have a go at the school when their child has been misbehaving

I could go on but I think the point is made.
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A single teacher, working 40 hours a week,
[Killing me]

But yes, that is a very important point.

Before large group teaching and schools were 'invented', the children of the poor and working class simply weren't educated at all.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If they are not satisfied with the education you are providing they can enforce a school attendance order.

As far as I'm concerned that's a reasonable position.
Alan: do you still believe in global warming?

Idly curious.
I've no idea why that's relevant. But, to satisfy your idle curiosity, nothing has happened to change my views on what was scientifically obvious 20 years ago.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Which brings us to the schools of the air in Australia...

The internet has made life much easier for children in remote stations and settlements but these began in 1951 and used radio transmissions, as well as the services of the Flying Doctor service. But the children who are schooled like this follow a set curriculum and the opportunity is there for meetings at hubs.

I know of some home-school groupings in the UK which brings about co-operation so that parents with particular gifts or knowledge - particularly for subjects such as Maths, the sciences and music - will take children from the whole group.
There's something like a score of these schools, providing education to children in very remote regions. But I would not call this "homeschooling" but rather "schooling at home" - or a tiny local hub, in some cases. While there is a need for parental supervision, much of the teaching is done by qualified teachers in what would now be called a virtual classroom. Pupils are able to talk to each other and to their teachers, much as if they were physically together, for a fair slab of the day.

There are alternatives. In my state (and probably others, I don't know), there is a large number of 1 or 2 teacher schools, where there are combined classes in the one room. In past years, there was the correspondence school, where parents and children at home would receive and return assignments by post. Again, that is more in the schooling at home mould.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I do have a feeling however that an abusive or controlling family will be so whether or not the child attends school.

Additionally some of the things you mention happen to people who are sent by their parents to religious private schools as well. There are many ways to mess up a child unfortunately.
I agree but in a closed environment there is no escape, you are there 24/7. If a child is going to school they are away from that environment at least part of the time and they can learn from other outside influences.
Can I just second, and third, the above? I was homeschooled from age 10 to 16, and although I would not say my home environment was abusive, I don't have happy memories of the time. Mostly I remember an undercurrent of dread sort of throbbing there, all the time, in the background, because there was no escape, there was nowhere else to go - there was no-one else to talk to, no other perspectives to get on any situation. I had a LOT of questions to ask, but all my audiences were very carefully selected. They were all Christians, and pretty much all adults.

I am in my late thirties now, and I'm still a very poorly socialised individual. I met and married my husband young, and he, and his large family, basically form my social circle. I don't think people find me off-putting or weird, particularly, but they don't seem drawn to me, either, and I don't know how to...be the active party in forging a friendship. Maybe all of this would have happened anyway, even if I had gone to school and been able to form peer relationships in that crucial adolescent period. But at least then I would have known that the problem was inherent to me - as it stands, I will never be sure whether things could have been different.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Karl, I'm not sure I see how that's insulting. I think there are many more bad eggs in the average batch of teachers than in that of parents. I'd also suspect there is a selection error in your friendship circle - I don't think bright people like yourself find much enjoyment in the personalities behind subpar teachers. [Biased]

(I should probably also note that Swedish education is currently going through a crisis and thus Anglo-Saxon mileage may vary on some of these issues.)
This despite the fact that most children who are abused, are abused by their parents ? (Deliberately or otherwise.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One reason for homeschooling is that schools waste a tremendous amount of time.
They waste a lot of the student's time, as you demonstrated.

But they are enormously efficient in terms of the teacher's time-- and therefore, the community resources. A single teacher, working 40 hours a week, can do what it would take 40 parents at least 15 or 20 hours a week to do on a more individualized basis, even if they form some sort of co-op.

Which is why, as noted above, homeschooling tends to be a rather elite option-- it's simply not something that is possible for single parents or most working class parents. Which means that it tends to exasperate the inequalities already prevalent in our society.
One option, of course, if you have enough spare time to consider home-schooling, is to offer ones services at the struggling local school as a teaching assistant, listening to children read, working one-to-one with children with specific needs. As this is done under the supervision of the qualified class teacher teaching qualifications are not required.

May not work for everyone; worth considering.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One option, of course, if you have enough spare time to consider home-schooling, is to offer ones services at the struggling local school as a teaching assistant, listening to children read, working one-to-one with children with specific needs. As this is done under the supervision of the qualified class teacher teaching qualifications are not required.

May not work for everyone; worth considering.
I did it for 9 years (left last September). Well worth it.
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leprechaun:
quote:
I think there are many more bad eggs in the average batch of teachers than in that of parents.
If you really cannot see how this comment might be considered insulting, then there is no point in trying to explain it to you.
Not to mention a HUGE, GAPING, HOLE in logic.
Parents are better teachers than teachers ignores the fact that many teachers are parents.
What I said was that parents on average are better at their duties than teachers and other state-employed education-related staff at theirs. Not that parents are better teachers. What I'm saying is I'd rather leave the options at the parents' end of the table than the distant state bureaucrat and the teachers, because I think parents are more dedicated to the well-being of the individuals in question.

Comet, when it comes to kids turning out socially weird, I'd say the average school in the school system I've seen has at least as negative an impact, be it different in kind, on kids socially.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think your experience of the full range of parents is fairly limited. I'm a teacher, and I've known a few teachers who have limited knowledge outside their own subject, and some who aren't that bright. Many of them are good teachers of what they're trained and employed to teach.
I've studied with teacher students, and my mother was for a long time one of the dedicated teachers. Yet, and it may be that national borders make great difference here, the Swedish teacher corps is not the same as the one you talk of. I've been asked to correct my teachers' spelling starting when I was 10. I've already raised the fact that the intake to teachers programs here let in people scoring below the expected average randomized score sheet. I could of course mention the massive complicitness in bullying and hierarchical structures as well. Most of all, many are just unsuitable for school and teaching.

As for the parents, I honestly doubt that those you list would be the same as those who homeschool their kids. At the same time, I ask myself whether we're more likely to reach a perfect school system or perfect parents. A better school system might lead to better parents of course, as might the reverse. (Let's also not forget the class aspect in both.) It still seems to me though, until that utopian day, that the group of school teachers and just as importantly other staff like principals, administrators and for that matter, governmental education authorities are more likely to make bad decisions with worse consequences for the kids than the parents.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Being dedicated to children's welfare does not grant the competence to teach. I'm dedicated to the welfare of my children, but if one of them needed an operation I'd sooner have a surgeon do it than get the stanley knife out myself, because that dedication does not equate to surgical expertise. Why is teaching so different? Isn't your Swedish problem that teaching is being given insufficient prominence as a skill so the appropriate people are not being attracted to it?
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I know quite a few families who HomeEd. My circle of friends over the years has included lots of friends from internet parenting boards. We've all tended towards the hippy end of things I suppose - breastfed for years, shared beds with children, etc. Some of us now have kids at school, and some HE. There is a definite aura, as MattBlack hinted at on p1, of "my children are far to special and sensitive to mix with scruffy little oiks like the ones you get at school." Said scruffy little oiks include my children, ofc, and so I tend to get a bit sensitive about it all.

There are a couple of situations in which I'd give HE serious thought (primarily for a child with certain types of special needs, or if the situation was dictated by geography) but for our family in our current situation, no way. There are good schools locally & my kids are doing well there. I work & I love my job. I'm an extroverted type & love working with people. I wouldn't be able to work if we HEdded, and I factor in the desires of the whole family, including me (especially me, sometimes!) in the decisions we make about important stuff like schooling.

The mothers I know who HE - and in almost all cases, it's the mothers who stay at home with the children, whilst Daddy goes out to work & earns quite a fair amount of money, are all highly educated - at least first degrees, usually postgrads, intelligent, thoughtful, articulate & talented women. I can understand why they would want to stay home & give their children the benefit of that, but I do think that the wider community is missing out on their gifts.

Different families do things differently, of course, but the comment of one of my online friends that she was surprised to hear another voice (I think one of her children had answered the door to a delivery or something) because "we aren't used to voices other than our own" made my blood run cold. Yay for them if that's what they want, but I couldn't handle the isolation.

There is also a fair amount of banding together among families to cover some subjects, but I would agree with Alan and others that this is schooling by any other name, it's just that you get to exclude the scruffy little oiks you're not so keen on.

[ 17. May 2014, 10:11: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Being dedicated to children's welfare does not grant the competence to teach. I'm dedicated to the welfare of my children, but if one of them needed an operation I'd sooner have a surgeon do it than get the stanley knife out myself, because that dedication does not equate to surgical expertise. Why is teaching so different?
And also, this.
There is stuff I can teach my children - I can help with reading, writing, science, maths, history up to a point. There's also stuff I can share my enthusiasm for with them - or as my children call it, "Oh God, Mum's going to drag us round a museum again". [Biased] But also, music, history, gardening, literature, art, religion....

But I can do these things as a complement to what they learn at school. Their teachers & classmates often have better ways to discuss & communicate ideas on these subjects than I do.

And some of what they will learn is just an unknown quantity to me. Geography? [Help]
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Here in the UK, most families, most of the time, educate their children in main stream schools. However lots of families who have a considerably higher income send their children to be educated privately (in what we confusingly call public schools)

The UK also has a strong historical connection between the provision of education and the Church of England or the Catholic Education Service (CES). A quick peek at the CES website tells me that Catholic schools make up 10% of the national total of schools in England and Wales. While the Church of England (C/E) website tells me that 25% of UK's children attend a C/E primary or middle school while 6% attend a C/E secondary school.

I think although i don't know...that this option is not available to families who live in the USA and maybe that might go some way to explaining why Some families there educate at home as a Reaction Against something...instead of a Choice For?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Slight pedant tangent //

Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:
Before large group teaching and schools were 'invented', the children of the poor and working class simply weren't educated at all.
Not necessarily; Scotland's school system was based on the First Book of Discipline (1560) which states:
"Seeing that God has determined that his church here in earth shall be taught not by angels but by men; and seeing that men are born ignorant of all godliness; and seeing, also, God now ceases to illuminate men miraculously, suddenly changing them, as that he did his apostles and others in the primitive church: of necessity it is that your honours be most careful for the virtuous education and godly upbringing of the youth of this realm, if either ye now thirst unfeignedly [for] the advancement of Christ's glory, or yet desire the continuance of his benefits to the generation following. For as the youth must succeed to us, so we ought to be careful that they have the knowledge and erudition to profit and comfort that which ought to be most dear to us-to wit, the church and spouse of the Lord Jesus.....The children of the poor must be supported and sustained on the charge of the church, till trial is taken whether the spirit of docility is found in them or not. If they are found apt to letters and learning, then may they (we mean neither the sons of the rich, nor yet the sons of the poor) not be permitted to reject learning; but must be charged to continue their study, so that the commonwealth may have some comfort by them. And for this purpose must discreet, learned, and grave men be appointed to visit all schools for the trial of their exercise, profit, and continuance: to wit, the ministers and elders, with the best learned in every town, shall every quarter take examination how the youth have profited."

In other words, children were seen as a potential resource for the state, and to be educated as such. The intelligent poor were not to be permitted to "reject learning" as that would deprive the state of an asset.

The Education Act 1646 and then the Education Act 1696 stated that there should be a school in every parish, and whilst this did not always happen, provision for the education of at least some poor children was made from the late C16th on.

//End pedant tangent
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
Having thought this over over dinner, I should confess two mistakes.

The first is one of underestimating the powers of elision. I wasn't clear enough when I meant to say that I think parents are more seldom poor parents than teachers and other education-branch staff are poor teachers or administrators/decision-makers.

The second is of underestimating the vast impact of the isolation effect and abuse patterns. I have no answer for that. I don't know how to construct an inspection mechanism or how to avoid the problems that isolation can lead to. I personally think schools of today are toxic environments (especially in my home country) but my personal experience should not get to influence me so much as to risk an increase in abuse just in order to save others from my own fate. (I also think we should treat mental care like dental care and send kids to free regular check-ups with professional psychologists, once every year or so.) (Furthermore, I'm skeptical as to whether schools as we know them are an optimal solution in a post-industrial, middle-classed state.) In conclusion, I am not sure how to create options from local schools when they just don't function, which we must have because they just won't always do so, but home schooling seems to be an unfeasible solution due to the great risks that come along with it.

As for teachers and their skills, all credit to dedicated teachers, but I'd also recognize that I've seen far more uneducated great teachers than uneducated great surgeons. Not everyone is suited for this of course, and not every kid is suited for home schooling, but that in itself is not an argument because that's no reason to remove choice for those who are (if we could make sure, say through compulsory annual national tests of the kids' improvement, who are). Furthermore, my own dedicated teacher friends, as well as less dedicated ones, all agree on one thing: that the Swedish teaching education (pedagogy), as opposed to subject education (e.g. history, geography), is absolutely rubbish. It's strange but appears true, across several different universities. YMMV.

But yeah, I'm now leaning towards that I've been overly focussed on my own story of school-induced suffering, and that homeschooling might be unfeasible for reasons of isolation and risk of abuse.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Does the recent introduction of Small Schools and Academies have anything to add to the choices for UK parents who may otherwise be thinking about home schooling?

Or is it too early days yet?

[ 17. May 2014, 11:02: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Does the recent introduction of Small Schools and Academies have anything to add to the choices for UK parents who may otherwise be thinking about home schooling?

Or is it too early days yet?
There isn't a "UK" system of education; Scotland has always had a separate educational system. Most children go to the local state comprehensive; a system which I like very much.

I live in Aberdeenshire which has 16 standard state comprehensives, one state comprehensive which is a centre for excellence in music, one small fee-paying Montessori school, and a fee paying International School for families who are only in Scotland for a year or so, and who want their children to follow the curriculum of their home country, to minimise disruption when they return.

We had to give precisely zero thought to which school our children would attend; they went to the nearest state comprehensive.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Parents are not teachers, therefore they shouldn't be able to teach children just because they happen to be related to them. Teachers have to be trained before they can legally teach, why should those requirements just disappear when it comes to their own children? It's nonsense.

Homeschooling, except in cases of special educational needs/disability, should absolutely be banned. It's an appallingly bad idea, and puts children at so much risk of brainwashing and abuse a la Victoria Climbie.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
For clarity's sake - I mean it should be banned in the UK. There are places eg parts of the US, Australia etc which are so rural that homeschooling is a more realistic choice. However it should be strictly regulated.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
For clarity's sake - I mean it should be banned in the UK. There are places eg parts of the US, Australia etc which are so rural that homeschooling is a more realistic choice. However it should be strictly regulated.
There are places in the UK that are sufficiently rural that home schooling seems a reasonable alternative to having to spend most of every week from the age of 11 in a school hostel and a fair chunk of the weekend getting home and contending with the vagaries of the winter weather. We're very fortunate on this particular island to have a full secondary school but there are at least 4 other islands in this area that have enough population to support a primary school but not a secondary and so children have to board in Oban.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One reason for homeschooling is that schools waste a tremendous amount of time.
They waste a lot of the student's time, as you demonstrated.

But they are enormously efficient in terms of the teacher's time-- and therefore, the community resources. A single teacher, working 40 hours a week, can do what it would take 40 parents at least 15 or 20 hours a week to do on a more individualized basis, even if they form some sort of co-op.

Which is why, as noted above, homeschooling tends to be a rather elite option-- it's simply not something that is possible for single parents or most working class parents. Which means that it tends to exasperate the inequalities already prevalent in our society.
One option, of course, if you have enough spare time to consider home-schooling, is to offer ones services at the struggling local school as a teaching assistant, listening to children read, working one-to-one with children with specific needs. As this is done under the supervision of the qualified class teacher teaching qualifications are not required.

May not work for everyone; worth considering.
Yes, this is the sort of thing I was thinking of when I posted earlier that the trade-off is between the individual benefit to one's own child and the maximum benefit to the community as a whole.

If you take those resources of time, education, and energy and devote them singularly to your own child, assuming there's no underlying abuse and you take care to avoid the socialization and other problems mentioned here, your child will probably benefit significantly. But the local community will be disadvantaged because those resources that would ordinarily be distributed to the entire community through volunteering at the local school will be withdrawn. I believe this is a significant factor in the decline in public education in the US-- far more than teacher's unions or school boards or any other of the usual suspects. When you take out so many of the very families that would in years past have been the ones "making things happen"-- organizing field trips and tutoring and all sorts of educational enhancement-- the children who are most at need (the ones with parents who are unable or unwilling to contribute to their education) are the most impacted.

But that sort of payoff of your own child's benefit vs. the benefit to the entire community is obviously a hard sell, as my own confession upthread demonstrates.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
There are obviously national differences in reasons and issues re homeschooling. It is not an elite option here in Canada, typically it is about a peculiar and narrow religious view, often creationist and antiscience.

For students outside of the norm on eithed end, there are additional, including Actal (academically talented), farm schools, module schools where 1 subject is the focus, life skills programs, use of educational assistants, among many other things. The law is that schools have an obligation to educate. This also means children whose parents want them at school get EAs coming to their home if the child cannot attend.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
For clarity's sake - I mean it should be banned in the UK. There are places eg parts of the US, Australia etc which are so rural that homeschooling is a more realistic choice. However it should be strictly regulated.
There are places in the UK that are sufficiently rural that home schooling seems a reasonable alternative to having to spend most of every week from the age of 11 in a school hostel and a fair chunk of the weekend getting home and contending with the vagaries of the winter weather. We're very fortunate on this particular island to have a full secondary school but there are at least 4 other islands in this area that have enough population to support a primary school but not a secondary and so children have to board in Oban.
Ahh of course - forgive me for not remembering areas like the Hebrides! Of course, when areas area as rural as Scottish islands (for instance), that is a legitimate reason for homeschooling.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There are obviously national differences in reasons and issues re homeschooling. It is not an elite option here in Canada, typically it is about a peculiar and narrow religious view, often creationist and antiscience.
You say it is not an elite option, but I don't see how it cannot be, other than possibly in a rural context where the entire family runs the family business and lessons are integrated into that. Otherwise, homeschooling requires that at least one parent has both the education to teach the required subjects, but also has the financial resources to be able to forgo paid employment. I would say those two requirements places most homeschoolers in a very elite class.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Otherwise, homeschooling requires that at least one parent has both the education to teach the required subjects,
Oooh, are you not meeting the full gamut of homeschool parents. No such competence is required.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

but also has the financial resources to be able to forgo paid employment. I would say those two requirements places most homeschoolers in a very elite class.
there are those also willing to forgo much comfort in order to have a parent, most often mother, home. For schooling or otherwise.

[ 17. May 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... but also has the financial resources to be able to forgo paid employment.
We're not all elite, nor can all homeschool parents afford to not work.

my work is seasonal and in the afternoon/evening, so I work with my son in the morning, he has an afternoon break, and my mother helps in the evening. I know another homeschool family where both parents work full-time and their daughter gets her schooling on evenings and weekends. it's exhausting, honestly. but if you have to do it, sometimes you have no choice and you just suck it up.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Otherwise, homeschooling requires that at least one parent has both the education to teach the required subjects,
[QB]
Oooh, are you not meeting the full gamut of homeschool parents. No such competence is required.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QB]
but also has the financial resources to be able to forgo paid employment. I would say those two requirements places most homeschoolers in a very elite class.
there are those also willing to forgo much comfort in order to have a parent, most often mother, home. For schooling or otherwise.
I understand that homeschooling parents often make extraordinary financial sacrifices to have a parent available to provide this service, and indeed know personally many many families who have made this choice. And since I've confessed to making a similar choice, I'm certainly not meaning to denigrate that choice. However, the primary defining characteristic of wealth is precisely that-- options. The elite/wealthy have
options, They can choose where and how to live, where and how to educate their children. It's not that those choices don't require sacrifices, it's that they have those choices. The defining characteristic of poverty, conversely, is limited choices. Homeschooling is not generally going to be even an option for a working-class single parent.

[ 17. May 2014, 15:19: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I am perhaps unusual having been at various times in my life, at an american international school, homeschooled by my mother (together with my sister), taught by a tutor at home, at state primary school (elementary/junior), at secondary traditional single sex public boarding school (UK private school) and an international scholarship boarding mixed-sex sixth form college (16-18yrs) and a state FE college.

The biggest things that effected me were; whether I was bullied or not, the disadvantage of home and school being the same place (whether via homeschool or boarding school), the extent to which the curriculum met my needs, the extent to which I felt I (and my parents) had a choice about where I went and whether I felt over controlled - though that last is probably a general teenage thing.

I hated boarding school, but I knew there was no realistic alternative - save my father dumping his entire career or my parents choosing to live apart, or living with another part of my family. (I knew other students who felt very rejected by being sent away, especially when parents were going through a divorce.) I got to choose my sixth form which really helped and was a much better experience. Coming into state primary after being homeschooled was a very difficult transition and I got bullied a lot.

When we were homeschooled first my mother, then the wife of of a colleague who had trained as teacher, taught us from the PNEU scheme. My mum is bright, but at that point she just had alevels she was not a graduate (She got her degree after my dad retired) - but for primary level education that didn't seem to be much of an issue. I think she would have felt less confident teaching a secondary syllabus.

Educationally, the outcome was successful, I have a doctorate and a good career. Socially, not so much. I have friends but I have been single all my adult life. I really think parents would benefit from reading about, and understanding, the psychology of attachment before making their choices. A lot of what formal education does is teach about relating to others, not just peers, and seeing how people other than your close family do that.

If you are going to do something alternative, you really need a good idea of how to fulfil that function. In the same way a single mother would need to make sure their child has access to good, safe, experiences of relationships with men. It not that you can't do it, and do it well, it is that school does a lot more than it says on the label and you need to think it through.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Parents are not teachers, therefore they shouldn't be able to teach children just because they happen to be related to them. Teachers have to be trained before they can legally teach, why should those requirements just disappear when it comes to their own children? It's nonsense.
I have written a few furious responses to the nasty statist arrogance contained in your statements here, and deleted them all as insufficiently temperate for Purgatory. I'll have another go later.

For now, let's just correct your facts. The requirement to train as a teacher and achieve Qualified Teacher Status in the UK is specific to the maintained (state) sector. There is no legal requirement to have any training at all as a teacher in order to be employed as a teacher in a UK public school (recall UK public school ~= US private school), nor are there any legal training requirements before you can advertise yourself as a private tutor.
 
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

For now, let's just correct your facts. The requirement to train as a teacher and achieve Qualified Teacher Status in the UK is specific to the maintained (state) sector. There is no legal requirement to have any training at all as a teacher in order to be employed as a teacher in a UK public school (recall UK public school ~= US private school), nor are there any legal training requirements before you can advertise yourself as a private tutor.
Thanks to reforms by the Secretary of State, you don't need to be a qualified teacher to work in state schools in the UK either.

Free schools and academies can employ whoever they want, QTS or not, and the entire premise of Teach First is that the 'teachers' don't have to spend forty weeks studying and demonstrating that they have acquired the necessary professional skills - just a quick summer school and they're chucked in at the deep end.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Homeschooling, except in cases of special educational needs/disability, should absolutely be banned. It's an appallingly bad idea, and puts children at so much risk of brainwashing and abuse a la Victoria Climbie.
I'd have thought that SEN/ disabled kids might be more generally vulnerable and therefore particularly at risk of brainwashing and abuse, especially at home and so out of public view. Or are you talking about teachers coming into the home setting? Perhaps it doesn't matter because I see by your subsequent posts that you've backpedalled on this a bit.
 
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Homeschooling, except in cases of special educational needs/disability, should absolutely be banned. It's an appallingly bad idea, and puts children at so much risk of brainwashing and abuse a la Victoria Climbie.
I'd have thought that SEN/ disabled kids might be more generally vulnerable and therefore particularly at risk of brainwashing and abuse, especially at home and so out of public view. Or are you talking about teachers coming into the home setting? Perhaps it doesn't matter because I see by your subsequent posts that you've backpedalled on this a bit.
Ordinarily I'm opposed to homeschooling, for some reasons already stated and others not.

But I've spent the last decade or so helping parents and carers of disabled children trying to get the UK education system to give their children the provision and support that the various Acts of Parliament say SEN and disabled kids are entitled to.

And it's a fight. Local authorities and schools are frequently guilty of ignoring, distracting, intimidating, deliberately obstructing, delaying, and even bare-faced lying in order to prevent these children from getting the support and provision they need for one simple reason: it is expensive.

The first line of the Lamb Enquiry report says,
"In talking with parents of disabled children and children with special educational needs (SEN), we met some of the happiest parents in the country and some of the angriest."
That is the reason why so many SEND parents home educate.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Parents are not teachers, therefore they shouldn't be able to teach children just because they happen to be related to them. Teachers have to be trained before they can legally teach, why should those requirements just disappear when it comes to their own children? It's nonsense.

Homeschooling, except in cases of special educational needs/disability, should absolutely be banned. It's an appallingly bad idea, and puts children at so much risk of brainwashing and abuse a la Victoria Climbie.
And statism like this is why I usually hold my nose and vote Republican.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:

The first is one of underestimating the powers of elision. I wasn't clear enough when I meant to say that I think parents are more seldom poor parents than teachers and other education-branch staff are poor teachers or administrators/decision-makers.
Becoming a parent confers no skill upon a person. Even if we concede most parents wish the best for their children, this does not make them good parents. Being a parent is a result of a basic, biological function. Being a successful parent is no more than raising your child to the age at which it can reproduce.
"Successful Parenting" as it is commonly used is a very difficult thing to quantify in our species.
A parent who is wonderful by practical and societal standards might indeed be a horrible instructor. Desire is not all.
Take a well known example, Theodor Geisel; AKA Dr.Seuss. By the accounts I've read, he had no particular affinity for actual children.
quote:
The Geisels had no children and, Ted Geisel himself was not particularly fond of spending time with them. "He was afraid of children to a degree," Audrey Geisel says.

Oddly for the creator of things illogical and unusual, the unpredictability of children unnerved him. "What might they do next? What might they ask next?" she says her husband would muse.
And yet his books resonate with children. He understood how to successfully teach children without ever having his own. Without being even
comfortable with them.

As to your assertion that more parents are better parents than instructors are instructors, do you have any research to back this? ISTM, the statements thus far are anecdotal.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
North East Quine...my apologies and you are quite right.

Most homeschoolers that i know (we live in a major uk city and i do know quite a few) are not homeschooling completely on their own, they are part of a larger collective. In practice it works on a better-together basis and the overall results at A level and university stage are v encouraging. Maybe because of smaller classes and a willingness to have one's education in an alternative way? Most of those collective groupings also insist on the families involved having a breadth of social/ extra cirricular activities going on as well (and yes i do mean a tad more than going to the church youth group, that doesn't count in and of itself)

But the push towards small schools, academies and alternative independant schooling is having a big effect in our city. Some families who were home schooling are opting for one of the alternatives available. And overall i have noted for a while now that far more families are no longer just opting for the nearest school, choosing instead to seriously consider the new choices available to them.

Some homeschoolers home school for appalling reasons, they should be and rightly are stopped. Sadly some teachers teach for appalling reasons and they too should be and righhtly are stopped.
But in our country we have a tradition of allowing parents to decide how their children are educated.

[ 17. May 2014, 17:18: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Thanks to reforms by the Secretary of State, you don't need to be a qualified teacher to work in state schools in the UK either.

Free schools and academies can employ whoever they want, QTS or not, and the entire premise of Teach First is that the 'teachers' don't have to spend forty weeks studying and demonstrating that they have acquired the necessary professional skills - just a quick summer school and they're chucked in at the deep end.
Can we please bear in mind that England (the remit of Pob) does not equal the UK? State school teachers in Scotland must be graduates with a proper teaching qualification (teach first, GTP et al don't count) and, if secondary degree level studies in their subject(s).
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Parents are not teachers, therefore they shouldn't be able to teach children just because they happen to be related to them. Teachers have to be trained before they can legally teach, why should those requirements just disappear when it comes to their own children? It's nonsense.
I have written a few furious responses to the nasty statist arrogance contained in your statements here, and deleted them all as insufficiently temperate for Purgatory. I'll have another go later.

For now, let's just correct your facts. The requirement to train as a teacher and achieve Qualified Teacher Status in the UK is specific to the maintained (state) sector. There is no legal requirement to have any training at all as a teacher in order to be employed as a teacher in a UK public school (recall UK public school ~= US private school), nor are there any legal training requirements before you can advertise yourself as a private tutor.
It's a little thing called making sure that ALL children, no matter their parents' whims, have access to a fair and free education taught by qualified professionals. If that constitutes 'statism' then I think it's something we could do with more of.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There are obviously national differences in reasons and issues re homeschooling. It is not an elite option here in Canada, typically it is about a peculiar and narrow religious view, often creationist and antiscience.
You say it is not an elite option, but I don't see how it cannot be, other than possibly in a rural context where the entire family runs the family business and lessons are integrated into that. Otherwise, homeschooling requires that at least one parent has both the education to teach the required subjects, but also has the financial resources to be able to forgo paid employment. I would say those two requirements places most homeschoolers in a very elite class.
These parents, here, are already committed, within their religious view and adherence to have mother stay home and "educate" the children. The lifestyle of the family fits the income level. With our booming economy and increased costs (we have not had any hint of recession), dad will come home and mom may do a shift of work in the evening when he comes home if they live in a city or within commuting distance. In more rural areas, it's not a problem. Housing ranges from $10,000+ to buy a house, though up to $100K is a reasonable amount (~£56K). example 1, example 2 - this is also why we have a lots immigration currently to the Canadian west.

As for the parent having the education level required to teach, it is not required. Here, parents simply register with the local school board, which receives money from the provincial gov't for all students whether in school or not, and is required to see the curriculum, and home schooling parents have access to the funds to buy the curriculum they want. The most commonly-referenced one is ACE, which probably provides reasonable education in some areas, but not at all in science.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Homeschooling, except in cases of special educational needs/disability, should absolutely be banned. It's an appallingly bad idea, and puts children at so much risk of brainwashing and abuse a la Victoria Climbie.
I'd have thought that SEN/ disabled kids might be more generally vulnerable and therefore particularly at risk of brainwashing and abuse, especially at home and so out of public view. Or are you talking about teachers coming into the home setting? Perhaps it doesn't matter because I see by your subsequent posts that you've backpedalled on this a bit.
Please explain where I backpedalled? I haven't, I just forgot that very remote areas where homeschooling can be helpful exist in the UK too.

While SEN doesn't equal vulnerable and disabled doesn't equal SEN, certainly some intellectually disabled children are at risk of brainwashing/abuse. However, it is often extremely difficult for parents of children with SEN to get their local authority to give the child proper state school provision. I know some of these parents go to the private sector but that's not available to everyone. But there would have to be extremely rigorous oversight from the LEA [local education authority] for these instances, as there would have to be for remote areas. Some kind of homeschooling network parents would have to be part of would be ideal too. Isolation is a huge risk with homeschooling, even when homeschooling is really the only option.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
By that logic, children should be taken from the parents as soon the mother gives birth and put in the hands of people trained by the state to raise them. Why should the State trust parents to raise children just because they are related to them? A stopgap measure until Aldous Huxley's Brave New World can be realized but the technology to construct a baby factory to mass produce humans just doesn't exist yet.

You worry about parents brainwashing their own children?

I'll see you that example of the one girl you gave and raise you the entire nation of North Korea.

[ 17. May 2014, 18:38: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There are obviously national differences in reasons and issues re homeschooling. It is not an elite option here in Canada, typically it is about a peculiar and narrow religious view, often creationist and antiscience.
You say it is not an elite option, but I don't see how it cannot be, other than possibly in a rural context where the entire family runs the family business and lessons are integrated into that. Otherwise, homeschooling requires that at least one parent has both the education to teach the required subjects, but also has the financial resources to be able to forgo paid employment. I would say those two requirements places most homeschoolers in a very elite class.
These parents, here, are already committed, within their religious view and adherence to have mother stay home and "educate" the children. The lifestyle of the family fits the income level. With our booming economy and increased costs (we have not had any hint of recession), dad will come home and mom may do a shift of work in the evening when he comes home if they live in a city or within commuting distance. In more rural areas, it's not a problem. Housing ranges from $10,000+ to buy a house, though up to $100K is a reasonable amount (~£56K). example 1, example 2 - this is also why we have a lots immigration currently to the Canadian west.
I don't see how any of that differs from what I said. Perhaps it is the word "elite" that is bristling to you. I don't mean "elite" in the 1%, obscenely wealthy sense of the term. I include myself in the category. I'm simply saying that the option of homeschooling is not available to many, many parents for entirely economic reasons. The percentage of parents that would apply to varies according to local economic situations, as your example illustrates, as well as the particular family situation and resources available to them (e.g., as with Comet's example, the availability of extended family to help out, the availability of flex hours or part-time work, etc.) And again, not meaning in any way to minimize the huge sacrifices are very often required and willingly given to make this happen.

I am simply noting, again, that having options is itself an elite distinctive. The single most defining characteristic of poverty is limited options, including options for your child's education. As one who has benefited from having a wealth of options for my child's education, it behoves me to recognize that inequality when arguing for the superiority of any one particular option.

[ 17. May 2014, 18:43: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
By that logic, children should be taken from the parents as soon the mother gives birth and put in the hands of people trained by the state to raise them. Why should the State trust parents to raise children just because they are related to them? A stopgap measure until Aldous Huxley's Brave New World can be realized but the technology to construct a baby factory to mass produce humans just doesn't exist yet.

You worry about parents brainwashing their own children?

I'll see you that example of the one girl you gave and raise you the entire nation of North Korea.
But that's very different to on the one hand, the government insisting that state school teachers should be properly qualified, and then saying that actually it's fine for children who attend private school or are homeschooled to not have properly qualified teachers. Why are children at private school or homeschooled children not entitled to the right to have properly qualified, professional teachers? It devalues teachers by suggesting that anyone could do it, when that's very much not the case. It devalues children by suggesting that their education is not worth proper training.

I have dyscalculia, the maths equivalent of dyslexia. If I had a child I could homeschool them in maths/physics/other maths-heavy subjects, with absolutely no legal problem. That would be appalling neglect of that child's education - why would that example be acceptable to you?

Homeschooling parents can teach their children creationism, New World Order conspiracy theories, eugenics etc. That is surely not acceptable? Insisting on proper trained teachers is not the equivalent of North Korea. There are homeschooling success stories, but the fact remains that teaching is a profession and it is wrong to devalue those professional teachers by suggesting that having a child automatically makes you a qualified teacher. It does not and parenting alone does not make a parent qualified to teach.

[ 17. May 2014, 19:10: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'll see you that example of the one girl you gave and raise you the entire nation of North Korea.
That's excellent hyperbole, but an utter straw man, unless you have schools that literally do what you suggest and take the children away from the parents (and knowing some boarding school survivors, indoctrination far less likely that rebelliousness).

My kids' school has them from 8.30am to 3.00pm. I have them the rest of the time, weekends and holidays. They are under my 'control' for far longer than the school's, and certainly far, far more than any individual teacher's. And unsurprisingly, I talk to my kids, take them to sporting clubs and youth groups, help them with their homework, and do all the other things a stay-at-home parent does.

The idea that I'm derogating my duty to the state is laughable.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I refused to homeschool for quite different reasons. My daughter needs professional schooling. She is smarter than both her parents, and she knew it. (And she proved it, with SAT scores. The day that she produced irrefutable numerical proof was a dark one around here, lemme tell ya.)
The only hope was to send her to the most academically demanding school in the region. That and a stringent commitment to sports kept her busy through high school. And safe -- if I homeschooled her I do not doubt she would be a crime lord today, one of those people you see combating Spider-Man on the big screen. With a death ray.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
But that's very different to on the one hand, the government insisting that state school teachers should be properly qualified, and then saying that actually it's fine for children who attend private school or are homeschooled to not have properly qualified teachers. Why are children at private school or homeschooled children not entitled to the right to have properly qualified, professional teachers? It devalues teachers by suggesting that anyone could do it, when that's very much not the case. It devalues children by suggesting that their education is not worth proper training.
The state decides what constitutes a properly qualified teacher under the guidance of properly qualified teachers. And properly qualified to do what? Best I can tell they are properly qualified to teach a couple of dozen kids in a classroom setting. Parents who homeschool are only teaching a few children at a time tops. I'd say it would be far easier for them to figure out what works for one or more children and give them far more attention that one teacher in a classroom of children.

Besides, how are we supposed to determine if these properly qualified teachers are effective at their job? Can we use a standardized test? No, the properly qualified teachers object to that method of evaluating them. Can students judge effectively who was a good teacher and not a good teacher? No say the properly qualified teachers because we don't know what goes into being a teacher just because we were students. No the only ones capable of judging the effectiveness of teachers are other teachers or so they tell us.

quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have dyscalculia, the maths equivalent of dyslexia. If I had a child I could homeschool them in maths/physics/other maths-heavy subjects, with absolutely no legal problem. That would be appalling neglect of that child's education - why would that example be acceptable to you?
I wouldn't suggest parents try to teach every subject without assistance. I wasn't homeschooled. I had a teacher who told the class that Richard Nixon was president during the Great Depression. Granted, he was a world history teacher so apparently US history was out of his expertise. Let's see. We had another history teacher tell us Shakespeare was a leader of the Protestant Reformation. Social studies teacher told us Greenland was one of the 7 continents. These are different teachers in different schools in different states by the way. Are teachers OK passing a test every few years proving that they remain competent in their subject area? Hell no

quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
Homeschooling parents can teach their children creationism, New World Order conspiracy theories, eugenics etc. That is surely not acceptable?
An Episcopal school close to where I lived is going to close. My wife and I aren't terribly thrilled with the local schools in the area. My organist works for the local school as an assistant. He tells me half jokingly that he doesn't want to pay property taxes to support such a substandard school. My senior warden, a teacher in another district, sent all three of her kids to a parochial school at the LCMS church. My organist tells me that's the thing to do. Don't they teach young earth creationism, I asked? Yeah, but their students can read, he replied.

I don't care if parents teach young earth creationism or conspiracy theories. My high school history teacher taught us about eugenics. Children should learn to read, write, and do basic math. Everything else they learn is gravy. I took 4 years of math in high school. I remember very little of it because I use very little of it. As a matter of fact, I never used most of it again after taking the SAT.
After the basics are taught, most schools can only offer a couple of one size fits all tracts. I can see homeschool parents possibly being able to tailor a curriculum that interests their child more than a public school. Most of what I remember from my high school years I learned on my own. Some of the teachers helped. Others didn't.

I'm not suggesting everybody homeschool their children. I doubt my wife and I will either. However, parents should have the opportunity to decide the best way to educate their children. In most cases, nobody cares about a child's education than the child's parents and that includes the teachers at the public schools.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
By that logic, children should be taken from the parents as soon the mother gives birth and put in the hands of people trained by the state to raise them. Why should the State trust parents to raise children just because they are related to them? A stopgap measure until Aldous Huxley's Brave New World can be realized but the technology to construct a baby factory to mass produce humans just doesn't exist yet.

You worry about parents brainwashing their own children?

I'll see you that example of the one girl you gave and raise you the entire nation of North Korea.
This and some of your other statements are hyperbole and create an extreme that no has argued. No one has suggested apprehending all children and brain washing except you.

Some parents probably can competently teach English, history, mathematics, algerbra, etc and have the competence of polymaths such that their children will gain requisite knowledge in all academic areas while never setting foot in a school.

When you cite the "state" the way you do, do I hear the usual incomprehensible (to the outsider) paranoia about government unique to the U. S. A. ? In fairness though, isn't it multinationals, vested interests/lobbyists, and international cartels which are trying to dictate to America? And steal the minds and hearts of its children?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QB} In most cases, nobody cares about a child's education than the child's parents and that includes the teachers at the public schools. [/QB]
Unless you've grown up and live in a bubble, I think you'll find that in most cases, the only people to care about a child's education are the teachers at the public school.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
When I spoke of schools wasting time, I was talking about the child's time. A great deal of the school day is taken up with matters other than instruction.

I spoke of my daughter's friend who was homeschooled. She had time to read many good books and pursue various interests because her time was not wasted in school with non-instructional matters.

Moo
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
When I spoke of schools wasting time, I was talking about the child's time. A great deal of the school day is taken up with matters other than instruction.
It depends on what you consider "matters other than instruction". If you mean that the school day consists of more than formal lessons, you are of course right. Children spend time in the playground, lunch and snack time together, sports days, school plays etc. IMO, those are all instructional in their way. Even time spent working through repetitive exercises in a class while the teacher spends time with other students who are struggling is instructional - as adults most people will spend a lot of working time doing stuff that's tedious, repetitive and not particularly interesting.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
Children spend time in the playground, lunch and snack time together, sports days, school plays etc. IMO, those are all instructional in their way. Even time spent working through repetitive exercises in a class while the teacher spends time with other students who are struggling is instructional - as adults most people will spend a lot of working time doing stuff that's tedious, repetitive and not particularly interesting.
I'm all in favor of time spent on the playground, at lunch, etc. (Unfortunately many American elementary schools have abolished recess.) My problem with the repetitive exercises is that if a child has already mastered the material, it's a pure waste of time and may make them rebellious.

Over the years I have seen detailed analyses, based on actual observation. of exactly how much time is spent on instruction and how much on such items as taking the roll and other administrative tasks. Unfortunately, I don't recall exact statistics and I can't find any on the internet.

Moo
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
This and some of your other statements are hyperbole and create an extreme that no has argued. No one has suggested apprehending all children and brain washing except you.

No, but take it to its logical extreme. If the state doesn't trust parents to make decisions about their children's education, why let them raise the child at all? Person can make it through life fine without learning the Pythagorean Theorem. Not so with the basic life skills taught by parents. Why entrust parents with that? Don't we need state certified experts?

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Some parents probably can competently teach English, history, mathematics, algerbra, etc and have the competence of polymaths such that their children will gain requisite knowledge in all academic areas while never setting foot in a school.

Doesn't require a polymath. Home school students manage to teach all of those subjects. How they do it varies from situation to situation. Yes, some homeschooled children don't do well. Public schools often fail to teach students as well. One of my history teachers knew more about history than I did. Two of my English teachers knew more about literature than I did. My 11th grade English teacher just assigned readings from the book, accompanied by busy work, and dumb projects. No parent could possibly do that! She was considered one of the better English teachers in the school.

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
When you cite the "state" the way you do, do I hear the usual incomprehensible (to the outsider) paranoia about government unique to the U. S. A. ? In fairness though, isn't it multinationals, vested interests/lobbyists, and international cartels which are trying to dictate to America? And steal the minds and hearts of its children?
No, I think most of those associated with the state have good enough intentions. But, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I do distrust both big government and large corporations. I make no bones about that.

Again, I'm not against public schools. Some are better than others. We may yet send our daughter to one. However, we have the right to consider all our options. If the local schools were really so superior to all the other options, then this debate wouldn't be necessary.

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
Unless you've grown up and live in a bubble, I think you'll find that in most cases, the only people to care about a child's education are the teachers at the public school.

I doubt its most cases. And the one's who don't care about their children's education send them to the free public school already. So what's the problem?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
But it's not about who gets to make decisions, it's about who gets to teach. Parents are not teachers. Some bad teachers existing does not mean devaluing teaching as a profession rather than something anyone can do is OK. Having children does not instil parents with teacher training and parenting should not be seen as a substitute for proper teacher training.

I certainly find the idea that schools are for the three Rs and nothing else matters to be appalling, and seriously lacking in understanding of education. Aside from anything else, those with SEN connected to literacy and numeracy (such as myself with numeracy) are excluded. A well-rounded education also including humanities, social sciences and languages is so important.

Sadly I am not surprised that such views come from the US, a country which is weirdly unconcerned about education and spends a criminally low amount of federal money on the education system, to mention nothing of school funds being dependent on local sales taxes. Just because children in the US are deprived of free, fair and equal education doesn't mean everyone has to suffer similarly.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
The conventional understanding is if something is written at grade 8 level in the USA, that it is grade 6 for Canadians. It is probly untrue but it is stated frequently.

If you do a search about education within the USA, like health care, Americans spend more and get less. Educational achievment in the USA is behind other countries. Thus, I am back to my understanding that while a Canadian parent is likely only to home school for reasons of fundamentalism or other unusual ideology, elsewhere it might be for reasons of substandard education. Though I would think private school would be better then than home schooling.

About community interest in children and their education, was it not your Ben Franklin who connected education to functioning democracy? If publicly funded education is broken so then also is democracy.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm all in favor of time spent on the playground, at lunch, etc. (Unfortunately many American elementary schools have abolished recess.) My problem with the repetitive exercises is that if a child has already mastered the material, it's a pure waste of time and may make them rebellious.
My anecdotal data suggests that UK primary schools handle differentiation much better than the US elementaries around here. My experience of UK schools is that it is common to have children working at three or four different levels within one classroom, and that setting work at an appropriate level for each child is a normal part of a teacher's job.

In these parts, schools are obsessed with "this is the third grade (or whatever) work". All schools within the school district teach exactly the same syllabus (to the extent that children from different schools bring home the same worksheets on the same days), and there is one standard set of work which is "grade appropriate". Slow kids get repeatedly rammed into a brick wall that they're not ready for yet, and whilst there are extension activities available for the brighter ones, they are still expected to complete all the "grade standard" work first.

This is a "good" school district - it gets great results, is well-funded, and has a large contingent of interested parents who come into read with the kids and so on.

And with all due respect to Dr. Cresswell, I don't accept that teaching children to expect pointless busywork is at all valuable. There is a difference between boring but useful and boring and pointless, and kids know it.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
Unless you've grown up and live in a bubble, I think you'll find that in most cases, the only people to care about a child's education are the teachers at the public school.

I doubt its most cases. And the one's who don't care about their children's education send them to the free public school already. So what's the problem?
I would agree with you that most parents do care about their kids' education, and that those who don't would most likely send them to public school as the cheapest/easiest option. Where I disagree is with your suggestion that there's no problem.

When the motivated parents take their kids out of the public schools, the ones who are left behind are, yes, the ones who's parents don't give a s***. iow, the kids most at risk, the kids who are already starting life with more that their share of obstacles. if the more motivated parents haven't all left the school, they will often end up volunteering-- helping run the PTA, or having fund-raisers to pay for field trips, tutoring math or reading. Those more disadvantaged kids will benefit from it.

So, again, it comes down to individual benefit (the benefit your own child gets by having all your volunteer efforts focused specifically on him/her) vs. the benefit to the entire community (if your volunteerism is directed more broadly toward the local school).
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]
And with all due respect to Dr. Cresswell, I don't accept that teaching children to expect pointless busywork is at all valuable. There is a difference between boring but useful and boring and pointless, and kids know it.
I agree, in part because of what kids are able to do when they don't have hours and hours of pointless busywork.

When we did reluctantly move our son to private school (see confession above), we were able to find a fabulous Mennonite school with this same philosophy. When his older siblings were in his grade level, they got out at 3:30 pm but brought home hours of homework every night-- often 5 or more hours worth-- most of it repetitive busywork. Worse, it was entirely unpredictable-- 7 hours one night, 2 the next-- so that you could never plan a family or church activity on a school night. The Mennonite school goes til 5 pm each night, but rarely has homework. When it does it's interesting long-term research projects, chosen by the student to match some passion or interest, assigned weeks in advance so they can budget their time and work around extracurricular activities. As a result, our son has been able to purse a number of creative and athletic pursuits, while being very involved in church and family life. Because they were his pursuits, not something imposed on him, he's been able to achieve a high level of proficiency at such arcane interests as designing complex origami works of art, learning Japanese, etc. None of this would have happened if he'd faced hours of meaningless homework each night.

[ 18. May 2014, 00:08: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
But it's not about who gets to make decisions, it's about who gets to teach. Parents are not teachers. Some bad teachers existing does not mean devaluing teaching as a profession rather than something anyone can do is OK. Having children does not instil parents with teacher training and parenting should not be seen as a substitute for proper teacher training.
Oh, I have no problem with public schools requiring a teaching certificate. Most teachers in public schools do an adequate job of teaching their subject matter to a diverse class of around 25 or so children. I do deny that only a person with a teaching certificate can teach. If public schools are really all that great, then they'll have no problems getting people to send their children to them. If they aren't, then parents who care about their child's education will look for alternatives.

quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
I certainly find the idea that schools are for the three Rs and nothing else matters to be appalling, and seriously lacking in understanding of education. Aside from anything else, those with SEN connected to literacy and numeracy (such as myself with numeracy) are excluded. A well-rounded education also including humanities, social sciences and languages is so important.
And that's the rub isn't it. What is the purpose of education and who decides? After about 8th grade, high school is basically about college prep. In other words, it prepares you to do well on the SAT/ACT and do advanced placement tests. Everybody else does enough to get their diploma learning subjects they'll never use the rest of their lives. They have no clue why they are learning the stuff they are learning. Frankly, I doubt most of the teachers know either but they are paid to do it. Some schools may provide education in practical skills that a person who has no desire to go to college might actually use. Give all the lip service to a well rounded education you want. I see no evidence public schools in the United States are about that at all. Heck, all colleges require general education courses based on the same principle. Well, if K-12 was about providing a well rounded education...then...

quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sadly I am not surprised that such views come from the US, a country which is weirdly unconcerned about education and spends a criminally low amount of federal money on the education system, to mention nothing of school funds being dependent on local sales taxes. Just because children in the US are deprived of free, fair and equal education doesn't mean everyone has to suffer similarly.
And this view is typical of knee jerk British left wing anti-Americanism. Unfortunately, it's just wrong. First, schools aren't funded by local sales takes they are funded by local property taxes. Second, local schools aren't just funded by local property taxes but a good chunk of the state budget as well. Third, the US spends more per student than the UK. Fourth, all students are entitled to a free education. Other than that spot on. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leprechaun:
quote:
I think there are many more bad eggs in the average batch of teachers than in that of parents.
If you really cannot see how this comment might be considered insulting, then there is no point in trying to explain it to you.
Not to mention a HUGE, GAPING, HOLE in logic.
Parents are better teachers than teachers ignores the fact that many teachers are parents.
I would just like to point out that this quote was attributed to me, but was not mine. This has been pointed out to Jane R, but she still hasn't corrected the situation.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And with all due respect to Dr. Cresswell, I don't accept that teaching children to expect pointless busywork is at all valuable. There is a difference between boring but useful and boring and pointless, and kids know it.
And, I never mentioned "pointless busywork". In a mixed ability class (ie: any class with more than one pupil) there will always be children struggling, and those who find that particular lesson easy to grasp. Teachers will inevitably, and quite correctly, spend more time helping those who are struggling. A decent teacher will also be aware of those who have sailed through that lesson. It's not unreasonable to have some additional problems available that test the same lesson but are a bit harder in some way than what everyone else is working through. It's even easier today with access to computer technology - my son is far ahead of his peers in maths, and his teachers regularly have him sitting with a computer working his way through a parallel maths syllabus (it's designed to support the curriculum in England and Wales) at his own pace (that particular package was bought because it provides a different approach that some of the pupils struggling with maths found helpful - finding it helpful for pupils at the other end of the maths ability spectrum was a bonus).

History lessons can be supplemented by providing additional books to read a bit more about the period being taught. English can be supplemented by additional reading or writing exercises. Language lessons where there is access to self-learning audio resources can also have the pupil working on something else in parallel.

Of course that's easier in well resourced schools, in particular where classes are not so large that the bright non-troublemakers go unnoticed and where IT resources and extra books are on hand.

Yes, that may all be tedious for the pupil. But, it's neither pointless nor busywork.
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

So, again, it comes down to individual benefit (the benefit your own child gets by having all your volunteer efforts focused specifically on him/her) vs. the benefit to the entire community (if your volunteerism is directed more broadly toward the local school).
Smug parents often like to say that they became less selfish when their kids were born. I think the opposite is true for many, many people. They may care more about their kids than themselves, but they certainly care more about their own kin way above everyone else. In the most simple example, everyday I see parent dropping their kids off right outside the school building despite being told they shouldn't. They would rather endanger all the other children who have to walk on the narrow driveway from the bus stop than make their poor darlings walk an extra 500 metres.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

So, again, it comes down to individual benefit (the benefit your own child gets by having all your volunteer efforts focused specifically on him/her) vs. the benefit to the entire community (if your volunteerism is directed more broadly toward the local school).
Smug parents often like to say that they became less selfish when their kids were born. I think the opposite is true for many, many people. They may care more about their kids than themselves, but they certainly care more about their own kin way above everyone else. In the most simple example, everyday I see parent dropping their kids off right outside the school building despite being told they shouldn't. They would rather endanger all the other children who have to walk on the narrow driveway from the bus stop than make their poor darlings walk an extra 500 metres.
As a parent, I think this is true. It's at least true of me. Becoming aware of it I think is key to mitigating the effect of this tunnel vision to invest in the community as a whole.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I don't have children, but I can understand this selfishness towards one's own. After all, if you don't love your children above all others, who will? But this isn't an excuse to be indifferent to the wider society; traditionally, strong families were the foundation of society.

Our political leaders don't really set the greatest example of utter selflessness. Politicians and intellectuals who declare themselves to be against (selective state-run) grammar schools often send their children to private schools; politicians who want to appear as 'one of the people' avoid private schools, but then send their children to the very best state schools they can find, thereby removing a place from a poorer child who could benefit.

All this being the case, I don't think the small number of home schooled children in the UK are a problem regarding either elitism or abuse. (Most of them are not abused and killed like Victoria Climbie - who in any case was well-known to the authorities.) But I agree that homeschooling should be monitored in some way, if only to establish some facts about what role it plays in society.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Children should learn to read, write, and do basic math. Everything else they learn is gravy.
What - no science? No culture? No ability to debate or learn right from wrong?

That's not education.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, but take it to its logical extreme.
Your logical extreme is not logical. There is no reason to go there.

The fact is that we have lots of laws which say "you must do this, you must not do this, but otherwise the field is yours and it's your choice".

And not just modern laws, either, I've seen the commandments in the Bible described in the same terms. It's not an exhaustive rule book covering each and every situation with detailed prescriptions. On some things, it has a clear yes or no. On a myriad other things, it allows you to do what you want.

Having SOME rules that limit what parents can do isn't some sign that the State is going to take away all choice. Only an anarchist could draw that conclusion. Because that's what anarchy is - completely free, unfettered choice.

And while you might be totally on board with anarchy, there are a great many nuances between anarchy on the one hand and totalitarian control on the other, which most of the world can comfortably sit in without gravitating towards either extreme.

You might as well complain that banning potentially deadly toys (choking hazards and so on) is preventing parents from making decisions about how best to entertain their child. Decisions that would be either based on a lack of information or just plain stupid. Or suggest that it's going to lead to the State issuing a set of standard toys to every child.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by leo:
What - no science? No culture? No ability to debate or learn right from wrong?

That's not education.
That's what a person needs to know to function effectively in society. All the rest is optional. A well rounded education could be different things to different people. The ways of learning are also diverse. Suppose my daughter takes a special interest in art. At best, she would get to take art as an elective or it might be covered as an elective. The other option is we could home school her. We have a friend who is an artist. She and her husband have a daughter who is the same age as ours. They are interested in homeschooling (way more interested than we are). Now, I could see my daughter, should she be interested in art, learning more from spending time with our friend than several hours a day at public school. I can see using field trips to regional art museums as ways of not only teaching art but literature and history and possibly other things as well. I think that would be better that sitting in class doing busy work or listening to a lecture that likely contains little more than the information she could have read in the book.

And, no, I certainly don't trust the local public schools to teach right from wrong outside of don't hurt each other. Public schools can't teach Christianity. Since they can't teach Christianity, in my opinion, they can't teach right from wrong as I understand right from wrong. A Christian parochial school I would trust to teach right from wrong.

quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
Having SOME rules that limit what parents can do isn't some sign that the State is going to take away all choice. Only an anarchist could draw that conclusion. Because that's what anarchy is - completely free, unfettered choice.
Taking away the right of the parents to decide on the best education for their children is the first step towards totalitarianism.

This article introducing the ideas of Robert Nisbet is the most concise explanation of my concerns I can find on the internet.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Taxation is a first step to totalitarianism too! So are immigration controls! And food hygiene regulations! Seriously, if you redefine totalitarianism to such an extent that you include things that at least one western democracy has been doing for some considerable time (Germany in this case) without collapsing into a fascist nightmare you're taking your slippery slope argument too far.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
What - no science? No culture? No ability to debate or learn right from wrong?

That's not education.
That's what a person needs to know to function effectively in society.
Absolutely. People need to have a good foundation in science to function in modern society. And, art appreciation, history, geography, language skills, philosophy, literature. Education is more than providing basic literacy and numeracy, those are essential but if that is all someone gets from education then they will be unable to function in society in any realistic sense.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
A Christian parochial school I would trust to teach right from wrong.
Riiiight.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
What - no science? No culture? No ability to debate or learn right from wrong?

That's not education.
That's what a person needs to know to function effectively in society.
Absolutely. People need to have a good foundation in science to function in modern society. And, art appreciation, history, geography, language skills, philosophy, literature. Education is more than providing basic literacy and numeracy, those are essential but if that is all someone gets from education then they will be unable to function in society in any realistic sense.
No, people don't need a good foundation in any of that to function in modern society. Did you never watch the Jay Walking segments on the Tonight Show? You could interpret a foundation very broadly and be right. However, the foundation needed to function would not be what they are getting in public school.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, people don't need a good foundation in any of that to function in modern society.
And, I strongly disagree.

Modern society is technical and cultural. Unless you live in the back of beyond with no contact with anyone else then your education needs more than basic literacy and numeracy if you are to function in society. And, if you do live in the back of beyond then you probably don't need to read or write anyway.

How do you decide who to vote for? How do you decide between the competing policies of political parties on the economy, environment, health, education? That takes more than basic literacy and numeracy.

How do you join in conversation at work or the pub about the issues of the day if you don't have some decent background knowledge of them? How do you make decisions about personal finance, choosing a new computer, deciding between performance and efficiency for a car, all the other stuff of modern life? That all needs more than basic literacy and numeracy.

quote:
Did you never watch the Jay Walking segments on the Tonight Show?
I've never watched the Tonight Show.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
What - no science? No culture? No ability to debate or learn right from wrong?

That's not education.
That's what a person needs to know to function effectively in society. All the rest is optional. A well rounded education could be different things to different people. The ways of learning are also diverse. Suppose my daughter takes a special interest in art.
How would you-- or she-- know that if she is never exposed to art? That's the problem with this lowest common denominator approach to education: the different ways you might nurture a budding talent or passion all sound quite fine, but how are you even going to know to pursue that path if the child is never exposed to the field in the first place?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
None of which requires a certified teacher or state school to learn. I admitted you could broadly define all those things in a way that a foundation in them necessary to function in modern society. You did. However, the foundation in those areas you mentioned can be acquired without any formal education at all.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
What - no science? No culture? No ability to debate or learn right from wrong?

That's not education.
That's what a person needs to know to function effectively in society. All the rest is optional. A well rounded education could be different things to different people. The ways of learning are also diverse. Suppose my daughter takes a special interest in art.
How would you-- or she-- know that if she is never exposed to art? That's the problem with this lowest common denominator approach to education: the different ways you might nurture a budding talent or passion all sound quite fine, but how are you even going to know to pursue that path if the child is never exposed to the field in the first place?
Because I'll expose her to art. No certified teacher or state funded school required. I question how much the local public school would expose her to art beyond a basic elective anyway.

And, before anybody says, "But can you just teach her everything," please read the entire post.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
However what if her talent is not art but something you do not think of?

For instance both my niece and nephew are above average when it comes to music. You should read that as decent amateurs, not going to be professionals. My sister is decent but not up to their standards. AFAIK her husband has no particular talent. If it was not for the fact that they were in school we would never really think to expose them to music apart from singing hymns on a Sunday and listening to it and maybe the odd choir. We would not be denying them it, it just would not occur to us.

Now swimming which is something they also excel at, goes back generations and of course we would get them to swim. That is culturally we will make sure they learnt to swim but equally for cultural reasons we would not stress learning to play an instrument.

Jengie
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Hmmmm...I'm an Episcopal priest. Where might she be exposed to music? Who might I get to teach her music? And, he would do a better job than the certified teacher at the public school. What kind of music do you think they'll be exposed to in the average local school? I remember mixed chorus in junior high. Yeah, we were really exposed to the Western canon of classical music (not).

I may not think of everything. The local school teaches less stuff than what I can think of. That's the point!
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
BA -- all I can say is that you must live in a hellishly awful school district among a bunch of people who couldn't tie their own shoelaces (do people still tie shoelaces?). And as you indicate that your own schooling was just as bad, I begin to think that you've had a life full of unreasonably bad luck.

The way you describe what you want to avoid would make me want to avoid it as well. It's just that what you describe is utterly foreign to my experience, to my children's experience and to the experience of my friends and their children in both Canada and the UK.

Your blanket statements and broad generalizations assume that everyone has experienced what you have -- and that's simply not true.

John
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Did you never watch the Jay Walking segments on the Tonight Show?
I've never watched the Tonight Show.
Jay Walking is a segment in which people on the street are asked general knowledge questions of the most basic level, such as "How many moons does the Earth have?" Most of the respondents shown answer incorrectly.
Of course, the producers of the show would never edit out correct answers or skew the percentages for comic effect.
The amusing thing about BA's using this as an example is that if it were truly representative, the sketch would not work.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
What - no science? No culture? No ability to debate or learn right from wrong?

That's not education.
That's what a person needs to know to function effectively in society. All the rest is optional. A well rounded education could be different things to different people. The ways of learning are also diverse. Suppose my daughter takes a special interest in art.
How would you-- or she-- know that if she is never exposed to art? That's the problem with this lowest common denominator approach to education: the different ways you might nurture a budding talent or passion all sound quite fine, but how are you even going to know to pursue that path if the child is never exposed to the field in the first place?
Because I'll expose her to art. No certified teacher or state funded school required. I question how much the local public school would expose her to art beyond a basic elective anyway.

And, before anybody says, "But can you just teach her everything," please read the entire post.
But it's my point is about exposure, not teaching. You might expose her to art, but you'll undoubtedly leave out quantum physics, or water polo, or bassoon playing, or whatever it is that's outside your own interest zone. We all do. And that's where a broader education is wonderful-- because she'll be exposed to things it would never occur to you to expose her to. For example, through similar random exposures that I never would have thought of, has developed a passion for highly complex origami-- which has led to an interest and proficiency for higher mathematics and for learning Japanese. None of those three are things I would have exposed him to if I were homeschooling-- it just never would have occurred to me. His proficiency in mathematics never came to light until the other interests took fire as a result a diverse educational experience.

[ 19. May 2014, 01:28: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
BA -- all I can say is that you must live in a hellishly awful school district among a bunch of people who couldn't tie their own shoelaces (do people still tie shoelaces?). And as you indicate that your own schooling was just as bad, I begin to think that you've had a life full of unreasonably bad luck.

The way you describe what you want to avoid would make me want to avoid it as well. It's just that what you describe is utterly foreign to my experience, to my children's experience and to the experience of my friends and their children in both Canada and the UK.

Your blanket statements and broad generalizations assume that everyone has experienced what you have -- and that's simply not true.

John
I went to school in two states and am familiar with the education systems in the three other states where I've lived. No, my education was fairly typical of education in the United States. My high school was ranked above average in the state. The school here is ranked in the middle of schools in the state where I currently live. Each department usually had a couple of good teachers that taught honors and advanced placement courses. Sometimes there wasn't a teacher smart enough to teach the honors classes. Then, it got ugly.

Now, the schools were good enough that you could get a decent education if you worked at it. By decent education, I mean you could acquire the knowledge required to get high scores on the SAT/ACT and make it through the intro classes at the state flagship schools which is what high schools try to do. It's what everybody else gets out of them and that's not much other than an opportunity to play sports and socialize with their friends.

Bigger cities usually have at least one good school everybody wants their children to attend. Parents who really care about their child's education do what it takes to get their children in that school. Usually, that's as easy and buying or renting a home in the district. Other states offer open enrollment. If we hadn't moved, we would have sent our daughter to the public school. In our current place, I'm not so sure we are willing to settle for that. We might not have a choice. If so, she will receive an education adequate enough to prepare her for the SAT/ACT...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Please explain where I backpedalled? I haven't, I just forgot that very remote areas where homeschooling can be helpful exist in the UK too.

Your original position:
quote:
Homeschooling, except in cases of special educational needs/disability, should absolutely be banned. It's an appallingly bad idea, and puts children at so much risk of brainwashing and abuse a la Victoria Climbie.
Note word 'absolutely'. Then you remember that there are areas in e.g. the USA which are so rural that it's a realistic option: then you acknowledge that there are some similar areas in the UK. So you shift to a position that says that home schooling may be acceptable in special circumstances if strictly regulated. That is quite a long way from saying that it is something that should absolutely be banned. Actually, though I'm no fan of home schooling and rather mistrust the motives of many who support it on ideological grounds, I think you're right to have backpedalled from that position.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
Having SOME rules that limit what parents can do isn't some sign that the State is going to take away all choice. Only an anarchist could draw that conclusion. Because that's what anarchy is - completely free, unfettered choice.
Taking away the right of the parents to decide on the best education for their children is the first step towards totalitarianism.

This article introducing the ideas of Robert Nisbet is the most concise explanation of my concerns I can find on the internet.
A fine article, with some interesting thoughts. Unfortunately none of them bear much resemblance to the content of your own posts. I fail to see how anything in that article supports an absence of any kind of authority. In fact it talks about local authority, and intermediate society. None of which squares up with 'parents should decide everything'.

[ 19. May 2014, 03:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
JFH:
quote:
Jane R, that would be my comment, not Leprechaun's. I stand by it. You can take it to Hell if you want to and if you really think it's insulting more than it's wrong (and that that is a greater problem for debate than it being wrong). You're more than welcome to provide statistical proof for another opinion. I have already hedged my statement by saying I rely on the Swedish situation, in which, I can add, teachers get accepted to the teachers' program with a lower average score on the SAT's than the perfectly randomized answer sheet.
Well, actually I thought it was so obviously wrong (based on my knowledge of the UK system; it was not clear from your comments that you were talking about the Swedish system, which I know nothing about) that it was simply insulting and did not require refutation. As lilBuddha has already pointed out, most teachers are also parents so your comment that the average teacher is more likely to be a "bad egg" than the average parent is illogical; the two classes are not mutually exclusive. Does a teacher magically become a Good Egg if she resigns from her job in order to homeschool her own children?

In a debate it is customary for the person making the accusation to provide evidence for it, so I would be interested to see a statistical justification for your wholesale condemnation of the Swedish system. In the meantime, if you want some statistics for the UK have a look at the OFSTED website , bearing in mind that their job is to find sticks for the politicians to beat teachers with and "Outstanding" means "We looked as hard as we could but failed to find anything to criticise." If you have a look at the Department for Education's website, it is also important to bear in mind that the Secretary of State for Education's job is to be seen to be Driving Up Standards - if standards are improving anyway without his interference then he simply moves the goalposts.

You may also find these reports of interest: Pearson global ranking and this test, both designed to compare national educational systems, rank the English/Welsh system highly, second only to Finland in Europe - although it is only fair to add that we didn't do so well in the PISA tests.

Which only goes to prove that you can prove anything with statistics, depending on what the original test was measuring and how the results are 'spun' by the media.

Leprechaun: I apologise for taking your name in vain on Friday. I didn't see JFH's reply to me; I must have been composing my message to seekingsister when s/he posted and I didn't look at this thread again until this morning.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Taking away the right of the parents to decide on the best education for their children is the first step towards totalitarianism.

This article introducing the ideas of Robert Nisbet is the most concise explanation of my concerns I can find on the internet.
A fine article, with some interesting thoughts. Unfortunately none of them bear much resemblance to the content of your own posts. I fail to see how anything in that article supports an absence of any kind of authority. In fact it talks about local authority, and intermediate society. None of which squares up with 'parents should decide everything'.
It's as if his 'devoted teachers' and 'well-stocked library' appeared out of nothing. There's nothing at all to indicate Nisbet was any kind of rugged individualist - a social conservative, yes, but holding the local and regional organisations as a bulwark against Statist tyranny.

Are you sure you didn't mean to quote some Ayn Rand?
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sadly I am not surprised that such views come from the US, a country which is weirdly unconcerned about education and spends a criminally low amount of federal money on the education system, to mention nothing of school funds being dependent on local sales taxes. Just because children in the US are deprived of free, fair and equal education doesn't mean everyone has to suffer similarly.
If one is going to insult an entire nation, it helps to at least have the facts right. Schools are funded by local property taxes, not sales taxes. All states fund their own schools, there are top-up funds made available by the federal government but schools outside of the direct responsibility of the federal government.

The US is a large country, I think you would struggle to describe it as "weirdly unconcerned with education" if you spent any time in a major population center. Publicly funded universities like the University of Virginia, University of California - Berkeley, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, University of Michigan, University of Texas - are among the best universities in the world. Hardly an indication of a country unconcerned.


And I can assure you there are home schooled students attending all of these fine institutions. Just like with public schools - there is a lot of diversity in a country of 310 million people.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Please explain where I backpedalled? I haven't, I just forgot that very remote areas where homeschooling can be helpful exist in the UK too.

Your original position:
quote:
Homeschooling, except in cases of special educational needs/disability, should absolutely be banned. It's an appallingly bad idea, and puts children at so much risk of brainwashing and abuse a la Victoria Climbie.
Note word 'absolutely'. Then you remember that there are areas in e.g. the USA which are so rural that it's a realistic option: then you acknowledge that there are some similar areas in the UK. So you shift to a position that says that home schooling may be acceptable in special circumstances if strictly regulated. That is quite a long way from saying that it is something that should absolutely be banned. Actually, though I'm no fan of home schooling and rather mistrust the motives of many who support it on ideological grounds, I think you're right to have backpedalled from that position.
Ah, sorry - I see where the confusion comes from. I wasn't using 'absolutely' in that sense. I meant it in the sense of 'definitely'.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sadly I am not surprised that such views come from the US, a country which is weirdly unconcerned about education and spends a criminally low amount of federal money on the education system, to mention nothing of school funds being dependent on local sales taxes. Just because children in the US are deprived of free, fair and equal education doesn't mean everyone has to suffer similarly.
If one is going to insult an entire nation, it helps to at least have the facts right. Schools are funded by local property taxes, not sales taxes. All states fund their own schools, there are top-up funds made available by the federal government but schools outside of the direct responsibility of the federal government.

The US is a large country, I think you would struggle to describe it as "weirdly unconcerned with education" if you spent any time in a major population center. Publicly funded universities like the University of Virginia, University of California - Berkeley, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, University of Michigan, University of Texas - are among the best universities in the world. Hardly an indication of a country unconcerned.


And I can assure you there are home schooled students attending all of these fine institutions. Just like with public schools - there is a lot of diversity in a country of 310 million people.
There are states who fund local schools from sales taxes, eg Alabama. Whether sales taxes or property taxes, it's still wrong to fund schools with such variable taxes.

And the US as a whole is weirdly unconcerned with education - university towns aside (which are only available to the rich anyway), the US education system is woefully underfunded and people seem to care more about whether the President is a Muslim than whether all children can access a free and fair and equal education.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You still seem to be assuming that a country as large as the European Union is some homogeneous unity. That doesn't seem a very firm position to argue a point.

I'm not an expert on US education funding. It certainly seems that the majority of funding is from local government rather than the Federal government. I don't see any particular problem with that. I don't know how local that is, is it State level or county? Funding that is exclusively from the most local level of government is always going to be highly spatially variable - some areas will be wealthier than others, and therefore have more money to spend - that is true for all areas of spending, not just education. But, this can be levelled out if State tax revenue is used to support the revenue of poorer counties and Federal revenue to support poorer States - I've no idea if that happens.

However things are organised, the resources available for schools per pupil would exceed the resources any individual family could provide, unless that family is richer (not just financially - but also in terms of time and abilities, family living locally to help out etc) than the average in that location, and probably quite significantly richer. Whether the resources allocated to schools are used optimally is another question, but there are big questions also about how parents allocate their resources.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You still seem to be assuming that a country as large as the European Union is some homogeneous unity. That doesn't seem a very firm position to argue a point.

I'm not an expert on US education funding. It certainly seems that the majority of funding is from local government rather than the Federal government. I don't see any particular problem with that. I don't know how local that is, is it State level or county? Funding that is exclusively from the most local level of government is always going to be highly spatially variable - some areas will be wealthier than others, and therefore have more money to spend - that is true for all areas of spending, not just education. But, this can be levelled out if State tax revenue is used to support the revenue of poorer counties and Federal revenue to support poorer States - I've no idea if that happens.

However things are organised, the resources available for schools per pupil would exceed the resources any individual family could provide, unless that family is richer (not just financially - but also in terms of time and abilities, family living locally to help out etc) than the average in that location, and probably quite significantly richer. Whether the resources allocated to schools are used optimally is another question, but there are big questions also about how parents allocate their resources.
It's organised at state level, and isn't levelled out. Children in poorer states eg Mississippi really suffer.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are states who fund local schools from sales taxes, eg Alabama. Whether sales taxes or property taxes, it's still wrong to fund schools with such variable taxes.

And the US as a whole is weirdly unconcerned with education - university towns aside (which are only available to the rich anyway), the US education system is woefully underfunded and people seem to care more about whether the President is a Muslim than whether all children can access a free and fair and equal education.
Jade, this contains series of assertions:

1. That it is wrong to funds schools with variable taxes. Why is this wrong? How does it differ to allocation of money by the UK government from general revenue, that being a revenue which varies from year to year. Why cannot a local government decide that it is better for that particular unit of government to raise revenue for education from property tax rather than sales tax, or indeed any other tax.

2. [T]he US as a whole is weirdly unconcerned with education I do not know of any evidence which remotely supports this proposition. What evidence do you have please?

3. [U]niversity towns aside (which are only available to the rich anyway) (My point 4 deals with the balance of this claim.) Are you aware of the number of universities in New York alone? New York is scarcely a university town, and I doubt very much if NY is available to the rich alone.

4. [T]he US education system is woefully underfunded I suppose that you can argue that about any education system. FWIW, in its listing of government expenditure on education, Wikipedia has the US coming in at 55, with the UK at 54. To that, it would be necessary to add the private spending. As a starter, the US, as Australia, has a substantial system of Catholic primary and secondary schools, and the money the Catholic Church spends would have to be added to obtain a more accurate figure.

5. [P]eople seem to care more about whether the President is a Muslim than whether all children can access a free and fair and equal education I wonder what your evidence in support of this may be.

To all this, I'd add what Alan Cresswell has said in his post.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
The variable tax thing is wrong because it disadvantages children in states with lower taxes. Surely that is quite obvious? It's not something that evens out with federal funding.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The variable tax thing is wrong because it disadvantages children in states with lower taxes. Surely that is quite obvious? It's not something that evens out with federal funding.
Except that is not what your post says.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The variable tax thing is wrong because it disadvantages children in states with lower taxes. Surely that is quite obvious? It's not something that evens out with federal funding.
But, it makes no difference what form of taxation that is. Taxes on income, spending, property, business ... they will all be lower in poorer states. And, if the Federal government was empowered to they could prop up poorer States by redistributing tax income from wealthier States (again, I don't know whether this happens already or not).
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, I could see my daughter, should she be interested in art, learning more from spending time with our friend than several hours a day at public school. I can see using field trips to regional art museums as ways of not only teaching art but literature and history and possibly other things as well. I think that would be better that sitting in class doing busy work or listening to a lecture that likely contains little more than the information she could have read in the book.
This has particularly caught my attention, as it is how my children are taught in the local state primary school. Each half term they have a theme and subjects are taught around that theme. For instance, year 4 once had a theme based on a painting from the sixteenth century on the Catholic uprising. From this they studied art (watercolours), history (Elizabethan politics and folklore), religion (Catholicism, Protestantism, Reformation), music (folk songs), Culture and Society (protest and persecution), as well as other subjects. Obviously this is taught alongside basics such as maths and literacy, though these can often be included in the theme. Different themes cover different subject areas so that the syllabus is wide-ranging, my younger son has just moved from a Tudor theme onto seeds and has spent most of the last month outdoors for his classes. The medieval theme included Agincourt, Shakespeare's Henry V and an archery lesson, Alice in Wonderland included chemistry. The children love this approach and really get involved in the theme. It is an approach that is common in homeschooling, ime, but is also effective in schools.
I know several homeschooling families who are doing a great job but I also know another not so good example. It really depends on the parents. My husband was homeschooled for 2 years in the UK after his family returned from several years in the US and he was found to be behind on the UK syllabus. He certainly found it beneficial and raves about it. But his childhood was probably quite unconventional anyway.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The variable tax thing is wrong because it disadvantages children in states with lower taxes. Surely that is quite obvious? It's not something that evens out with federal funding.
In both Virginia and New Hampshire, which are the states I am familiar with, education is funded primarily by counties, cities, or towns rather than the state. State contributions supplement this.

The amount of money a locality can raise depends less on the income level of its residents than on taxes paid by local industries and businesses.

Moo
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
My daughter's primary school uses the topic-based approach too, but even if they didn't there is nothing to stop me from taking her to museums and art galleries at weekends and in the school holidays.

Learning to read and write and do maths is just the start of it. You can't get very far in the modern world without these basic skills, but you need others as well. Problem-solving. Critical thinking. Teamwork. Self-discipline. These are all things that you learn whilst doing something else; building a raft to get you across a river, for example (an example of something Daughter has actually done on a school trip, just in case anyone was wondering).
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hmmmm...I'm an Episcopal priest. Where might she be exposed to music? Who might I get to teach her music? And, he would do a better job than the certified teacher at the public school. What kind of music do you think they'll be exposed to in the average local school? I remember mixed chorus in junior high. Yeah, we were really exposed to the Western canon of classical music (not).

I may not think of everything. The local school teaches less stuff than what I can think of. That's the point!
My niece and nephew got swimming because my sister started them on swimming at a young age. So there is nothing stopping you introducing them to things outside school even if they are in it. The only thing is there may be something you are blind to and if you are then the school just might expose the kid to it.


Put it crudely which is larger the set of home exposures alone or the set of home exposures and those of school. It should be obvious.

Jengie
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The variable tax thing is wrong because it disadvantages children in states with lower taxes. Surely that is quite obvious? It's not something that evens out with federal funding.
In both Virginia and New Hampshire, which are the states I am familiar with, education is funded primarily by counties, cities, or towns rather than the state. State contributions supplement this.

The amount of money a locality can raise depends less on the income level of its residents than on taxes paid by local industries and businesses.

Moo
Moo,

Thank you for confirming what I thought. From this side of the pond, having such small school districts, with clear disparities quite close to each other, seems odd. AIUI, our system is weighted so that schools in poorer areas should get more money than those in wealthier areas - but then we are a very much more centralised country.

Here, it seems right that the state should be so concerned in education and should right monitor homeschooling because, if somebody is so poorly educated that they cannot work in our modern society, it will be the state that pays the associated costs.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
Sorry - I am trying to multitask and doing it badly. My final paragraph should read:

Here, it seems right that the state should be so concerned in education and should monitor homeschooling because, if somebody is so poorly educated that they cannot work in our modern society, it will be the state that pays the associated costs.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, especially in the inner city, many children complete their schooling without having the necessary skills (e.g. literacy and numeracy) to make them employable. These are public schools I'm talking about.

Moo
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And the US as a whole is weirdly unconcerned with education - university towns aside (which are only available to the rich anyway), the US education system is woefully underfunded and people seem to care more about whether the President is a Muslim than whether all children can access a free and fair and equal education.
Yes you're right, because all Americans are rich white evangelical Republicans who hate Obama. Immigrants, ethnic minorities, non-Christians, and people who see education as a route to prosperity are figments of my imagination.

Anyway...for anyone who doesn't have hysterically incorrect views of the United States, there are problems with how local schools are funded, but I don't think this is a direct reason for home schooling for many families. The ones I knew were either hippy-types who felt school constricted the minds of children, or travelled a lot and decided to do it for practical reasons, or as mentioned that Catholic commune who had religious reasons for it.

You have to go to your local school in the US, and if it's not suitable for your child there's not much else other than private school or home schooling. I do not fault parents who make the choice to home school in these cases.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Which shows that, for those areas, the system is failing. There are examples in the UK (and probably every other country) where schools have failed.

I can see how when the school system is failing that alternatives, including home schooling, become very attractive for those parents with the means to use them. Which does leave the rest of the children stuck in failing schools. The UK government has put effort into trying to fix failing schools to various levels of success (sometimes that means closing the school and investing in improving facilities at other local schools), but it takes money and a political will for it to happen.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And the US as a whole is weirdly unconcerned with education - university towns aside (which are only available to the rich anyway), the US education system is woefully underfunded and people seem to care more about whether the President is a Muslim than whether all children can access a free and fair and equal education.
Yes you're right, because all Americans are rich white evangelical Republicans who hate Obama. Immigrants, ethnic minorities, non-Christians, and people who see education as a route to prosperity are figments of my imagination.

Anyway...for anyone who doesn't have hysterically incorrect views of the United States, there are problems with how local schools are funded, but I don't think this is a direct reason for home schooling for many families. The ones I knew were either hippy-types who felt school constricted the minds of children, or travelled a lot and decided to do it for practical reasons, or as mentioned that Catholic commune who had religious reasons for it.

You have to go to your local school in the US, and if it's not suitable for your child there's not much else other than private school or home schooling. I do not fault parents who make the choice to home school in these cases.
Actually I don't have a hysterically incorrect view of the US at all. But the time politics spends on education compared to other issues is tiny, much much smaller than it is in the UK. Education is a priority for people in the UK, it does not appear to be in the US.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually I don't have a hysterically incorrect view of the US at all. But the time politics spends on education compared to other issues is tiny, much much smaller than it is in the UK. Education is a priority for people in the UK, it does not appear to be in the US.
There's a time to admit you've exaggerated. Now is that time for you.

On a local level, education is THE main news topic after crime. Look at a local newspaper in the United States. Listen to a local radio station. I listen to public station WNYC at work sometimes, and they talk about public schools every. single. day.

You seem to think 5 min watching Fox News is enough to describe the continent-sized country that is the United States.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

Anyway...for anyone who doesn't have hysterically incorrect views of the United States, there are problems with how local schools are funded, but I don't think this is a direct reason for home schooling for many families. The ones I knew were either hippy-types who felt school constricted the minds of children, or travelled a lot and decided to do it for practical reasons, or as mentioned that Catholic commune who had religious reasons for it.

You have to go to your local school in the US, and if it's not suitable for your child there's not much else other than private school or home schooling. I do not fault parents who make the choice to home school in these cases.
Your topic sentence doesn't seem to fit with the data that follows, nor does it fit my experience of 40 some years of American public school & talking with my friends to homeschool.

As has been noted, there are a lot of various reasons, some good, some bad, why parents choose homeschooling. But I would say the way that public schools are funded is the most significant factor behind most of those decisions-- the fact that the majority of the funding is local, leading to tremendous variation, with schools in wealthy communities being excellent college-prep academies, and those in impoverished communities sometimes (not always) heartbreakingly abysmal. That is I believe the primary driver, as parents in those poorer communities seek alternatives to those substandard schools.

[ 19. May 2014, 14:42: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I'm not an expert on US education funding. It certainly seems that the majority of funding is from local government rather than the Federal government. I don't see any particular problem with that. I don't know how local that is, is it State level or county? Funding that is exclusively from the most local level of government is always going to be highly spatially variable - some areas will be wealthier than others, and therefore have more money to spend - that is true for all areas of spending, not just education. But, this can be levelled out if State tax revenue is used to support the revenue of poorer counties and Federal revenue to support poorer States - I've no idea if that happens.
Education is funded on all 3 levels (federal, state, and local) with various strings/ regulations attached to each (yes, dreaded No Child Left Behind, I'm looking at you). But the vast majority of it is local, which, yes, leads to tremendous inequality and variability. Where I live in the L.A. area we have public schools in wealthy neighborhoods that would rival the most prestigious prep school and crumbling public schools in the inner city that struggle to do anything more than contain gang violence. (I've been involved either as a parent or a volunteer tutor in both sorts of schools, both within a 20 min. drive from my home).
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As has been noted, there are a lot of various reasons, some good, some bad, why parents choose homeschooling. But I would say the way that public schools are funded is the most significant factor behind most of those decisions-- the fact that the majority of the funding is local, leading to tremendous variation, with schools in wealthy communities being excellent college-prep academies, and those in impoverished communities sometimes (not always) heartbreakingly abysmal. That is I believe the primary driver, as parents in those poorer communities seek alternatives to those substandard schools.
But that doesn't explain why most of the home schooled people I know are from middle class communities where schools are well-funded. The public school near that Catholic commune is one of the best in the state and sends many students to the Ivy Leagues each year. They were not concerned about funding but about values. And because in the US there is no choice in the public sector, they home schooled. In the UK you can send your children to state-funded Catholic schools. In my home area Catholic schools are all private and some are extremely expensive - including the school where our governor sent his children.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I would say the way that public schools are funded is the most significant factor behind most of those decisions-- the fact that the majority of the funding is local, leading to tremendous variation, with schools in wealthy communities being excellent college-prep academies, and those in impoverished communities sometimes (not always) heartbreakingly abysmal. That is I believe the primary driver, as parents in those poorer communities seek alternatives to those substandard schools.
In my experience, that is a major driver behind parental dissatisfaction. That is a major driver behind families moving. But I have a hard time thinking of anyone--and I know/have known a lot of home schoolers who homeschools because they think they can give their children a more broad-based varied education than the schools. Practically for those of us who are not both lit geeks AND equipped with a home science lab, it would be a hard claim to prove. (Let alone presumably wanting proper art instruction, and athletics.) It's possible with a large enough village--in the it takes a village sense of the word--but I don't know anyone who claims they can do it. No, all but one of the home-schoolers I know do it because of religious reasons. They're afraid their child will be contaminated with sex or non-biblical ideas or something. (The remaining one doesn't want to confine her child or her child's mind etc.)

Honestly, I don't think most people who are stuck in bad schools for money reasons (can't afford to move or send a child to a private school etc.) can afford to stay home to teach their child. Also if mom and dad didn't get much of an education in the same bad schools, they're not likely to be equipped to teach their child either no matter how much they care.

[ 19. May 2014, 15:15: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
A fine article, with some interesting thoughts. Unfortunately none of them bear much resemblance to the content of your own posts. I fail to see how anything in that article supports an absence of any kind of authority. In fact it talks about local authority, and intermediate society. None of which squares up with 'parents should decide everything'.
The family is the most important part of intermediate society. Nisbet wrote, “the surest sign of despotism in history is the state’s supersession of the family’s authority over its own.” Keep in mind that layers such as church, neighborhood, and civic clubs stood between the family and even local government. Parents don't necessarily need even the local public schools much less the state and federal mandates imposed on local school boards. All such mandates weaken the intermediate society and the defense it provides against totalitarianism.

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's as if his 'devoted teachers' and 'well-stocked library' appeared out of nothing. There's nothing at all to indicate Nisbet was any kind of rugged individualist - a social conservative, yes, but holding the local and regional organisations as a bulwark against Statist tyranny.

Are you sure you didn't mean to quote some Ayn Rand?
Obtaining a teaching certificate and position does not make one a devoted teacher. Devotion to teaching is not a requirement for a career as a public school teacher. One need only be competent at box checking and hoop jumping. The good public school teachers are devoted to teaching. Some public schools have more than others. It also doesn't follow that only certified teachers can be good teachers and be devoted to teaching.

Also, I'm not talking about rugged individualism. Private schools do as good and in many cases better job educating children than public schools. Some of them require teacher certification. Others do not. Again, homeschooling can take many forms other than a parent deciding to teach their children by themselves without assistance from anybody.

This is one of the big differences between the Left and the traditional/communitarian right. Barney Frank once said that government is simply those things we choose to do together. I think such a view is both asinine and dangerous.

quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are states who fund local schools from sales taxes, eg Alabama. Whether sales taxes or property taxes, it's still wrong to fund schools with such variable taxes.
All taxes are variable. The state of Alabama funds schools with a sales tax. How the state government funds education has nothing to do with local schools are funded because local government is different from state government which is different from federal government.

quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
And the US as a whole is weirdly unconcerned with education - university towns aside (which are only available to the rich anyway), the US education system is woefully underfunded and people seem to care more about whether the President is a Muslim than whether all children can access a free and fair and equal education.
And this is just more anti-American bigotry.

The state universities mentioned have student bodies numbering in the tens of thousands. Most of those students aren't even close to being rich. The rich opt for expensive private universities. Furthermore, most states have dozens of universities and colleges. Second, you've yet to back up your claim that American schools as a whole are underfunded. As a whole, the US spends more per student than the UK. None of the schools I've attended were considered underfunded. On the contrary, I graduated from a high school considered to be wealthy by the state. Mediocre schools aren't mediocre because of a lack of money. Americans are concerned with education. If we weren't concerned with education, everybody would be content to send their children to whatever school the government told them. We aren't. If the local school isn't up to our standards, we want other options be it a private/parochial school or some other alternate form of education.

quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
The variable tax thing is wrong because it disadvantages children in states with lower taxes. Surely that is quite obvious? It's not something that evens out with federal funding.
Not obvious at all.

quote:
originally posted by HeavenlyAnarchist:
I know several homeschooling families who are doing a great job but I also know another not so good example.
I can say the same thing about public schools.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

Honestly, I don't think most people who are stuck in bad schools for money reasons (can't afford to move or send a child to a private school etc.) can afford to stay home to teach their child. Also if mom and dad didn't get much of an education in the same bad schools, they're not likely to be equipped to teach their child either no matter how much they care.
Agreed. Which is why I've argued that for the most part this is a relatively elite discussion (simply because it is limited to those for whom it is even an option), and that it is an option that benefits one's own individual child at the expense of the wider community (who would no doubt have benefited from those motivated parent's volunteerism had they not left the public system). But again, in no position to condemn those choices, having made similar ones, just noting those factors.

[code]

[ 19. May 2014, 20:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This is one of the big differences between the Left and the traditional/communitarian right. Barney Frank once said that government is simply those things we choose to do together. I think such a view is both asinine and dangerous.
And I think the 'traditional/communitarian right' is an oxymoron.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
What - no science? No culture? No ability to debate or learn right from wrong?

That's not education.
That's what a person needs to know to function effectively in society. ......Public schools can't teach Christianity. Since they can't teach Christianity, in my opinion, they can't teach right from wrong as I understand right from wrong.
Education is not about 'function(ing) effectively in docility. That is training., We train dogs. We educate people to be well-rounded individuals who acquire a love of learning for its own sake.

Learning about right and wrong isn't the preserve of Christianity. Young people need exposure to Humanism and the great religions.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted Doc Tor:
And I think the 'traditional/communitarian right' is an oxymoron.
And I think you are wrong.

Well, that was fun. [Killing me]

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Education is not about 'function(ing) effectively in docility. That is training., We train dogs. We educate people to be well-rounded individuals who acquire a love of learning for its own sake.

Learning about right and wrong isn't the preserve of Christianity. Young people need exposure to Humanism and the great religions.
You are welcome to expose your children to any religion you like.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The family is the most important part of intermediate society. Nisbet wrote, “the surest sign of despotism in history is the state’s supersession of the family’s authority over its own.” Keep in mind that layers such as church, neighborhood, and civic clubs stood between the family and even local government. Parents don't necessarily need even the local public schools much less the state and federal mandates imposed on local school boards. All such mandates weaken the intermediate society and the defense it provides against totalitarianism.
"All ah need is muh gun, bible and kinfolk. The rest can go hang."
It is the blend, not the isolation that makes possible a civilised society. It is the concentration on a smaller and smaller family/community which allows for division and therefore control.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I see no reason to defend the strawman you've constructed. If you would like to address what I actually wrote, I'll be happy to respond. If not, you can carry on without me.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I could see my daughter, should she be interested in art, learning more from spending time with our friend than several hours a day at public school. I can see using field trips to regional art museums as ways of not only teaching art but literature and history and possibly other things as well. I think that would be better that sitting in class doing busy work or listening to a lecture that likely contains little more than the information she could have read in the book.
Lecturers? Information?

That isn't really education either.

Children need to evaluate and to think for themselves rather than being trapped in the views passed down by others, especially their own parents.

That there isn't RE in the USA may account for all the weird religious cults, the climate change deniers and the creationists.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Thank you, leo. You've just made my point for me. You've also explained very succinctly why parents who choose to homeschool choose to homeschool.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
That statement is incredibly ridiculous, BA.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted Doc Tor:
And I think the 'traditional/communitarian right' is an oxymoron.
And I think you are wrong.

Well, that was fun. [Killing me]

Nisbet's "compassionate conservatism" is dead on both sides of the Pond. Yours got hijacked by the Tea Party, ours died under Thatcher.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That statement is incredibly ridiculous, BA.
No, lilBuddha, it is not.

Well, that was fun. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
The irony here is of course that the curriculum in the UK is increasingly being driven by what employers want school-leavers to know and not what helps children become well-rounded citizens able to think for themselves.

Because the State agrees with Beeswax Altar: education is all very well up to a point, but the minute the worker-drones start thinking for themselves they might start to Question Authority. And where would the government be then, poor things?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That statement is incredibly ridiculous, BA.
No, lilBuddha, it is not.

Well, that was fun. [Killing me]
How very precious, care to actually engage?
Let us try this. Homeschooling is often about restricting a child's view of the world.

What you seem to be saying is that parents are ineffectual.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The irony here is of course that the curriculum in the UK is increasingly being driven by what employers want school-leavers to know and not what helps children become well-rounded citizens able to think for themselves.

Because the State agrees with Beeswax Altar: education is all very well up to a point, but the minute the worker-drones start thinking for themselves they might start to Question Authority. And where would the government be then, poor things?
Once again, can we stop talking about the UK when we mean England? The new curriculum in Scotland is pretty much the opposite of what you describe (and the jury is out on whether the touchy-feely-ness goes too far).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

Honestly, I don't think most people who are stuck in bad schools for money reasons (can't afford to move or send a child to a private school etc.) can afford to stay home to teach their child.
I wouldn't describe my local school as a bad school - it's well-funded and gets great results statewide. It just wasn't working for eldest Cnihtlet, and after several discussions with the teacher and principal, didn't look like it was going to change. I am generally in favour of public schools - had my child been reasonably happy there, but just a bit bored, we wouldn't have thought of homeschool - we'd have addressed the boredom with interesting supplemental activities etc.

When your child comes home from school as distressed as mine was every day, you have to do something.

I can't afford private school, but can afford to homeschool. How? Mrs. C is home with the younger ones anyway, so we don't give up her earning power by choosing to homeschool. Now, granted that's a choice that a lot of people don't have - but for us, given our particular circumstances, it makes sense - we can, just about, make ends meet with one income, and we couldn't purchase childcare of the quality of that provided by Mrs C from the take-home pay that she would command in the market, even given the tax benefits.

Jade's assertion is, in effect, that all education, in whatever circumstances, delivered by someone with a teaching qualification is better than any education delivered by someone without one. I flat out refuse to be constrained by that kind of idiocy. I will judge for myself how I can obtain the best education for my child. That is, in fact, my job as a parent.

(And obviously if Mrs C and I suffered from dyscalculia, "the best education" wouldn't include either of us teaching math!)

Note also that it isn't a one-way street. A couple of my homeschooling friends have just signed up for a year of middle school next year - they are making choices about their high school years, and want to investigate the grass on the other side of the fence. I don't know what they'll decide - that's up to them and their parents - but I'm pretty sure that they'll be making a rational and informed decision.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted Doc Tor:
And I think the 'traditional/communitarian right' is an oxymoron.
And I think you are wrong.

Well, that was fun. [Killing me]

Nisbet's "compassionate conservatism" is dead on both sides of the Pond. Yours got hijacked by the Tea Party, ours died under Thatcher.
This I can work with, Doc Tor. Thank you.

Nisbet admitted his version of conservatism was unlikely to take hold in the United States before terms like compassionate conservatism were invented or the Tea Party existed. The Tea Party didn't hijack it any more than any other faction within the conservative movement. In fact, to the extent that the Tea Party comes to realize that large corporations are as much a threat to liberty as big government and that a huge military is part of a big government, the Tea Party could become an organized force for my version of conservatism. I'm optimistic about Mike Lee. Don't agree with everything he says or does. But, I'm at least sort of optimistic.

As to the UK, you are probably right. I can see some similarities between one nation conservatism and Nisbet's conservatism. One nation conservatism apparently died with Thatcher. However, red toryism is really the closest UK equivalent to what Nisbet envisioned.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The irony here is of course that the curriculum in the UK is increasingly being driven by what employers want school-leavers to know and not what helps children become well-rounded citizens able to think for themselves.

Because the State agrees with Beeswax Altar: education is all very well up to a point, but the minute the worker-drones start thinking for themselves they might start to Question Authority. And where would the government be then, poor things?
Oh, please, like public schools at any level actually encourage children to think for themselves.
[Roll Eyes]

Those who worry about homeschooling aren't worried about critical thinking or children being exposed to a variety of ideas. They are worried homeschooled children won't be indoctrinated into their way of thinking. All this stuff about education in critical thinking and a broad education is simply nonsense with no basis in reality. And, yes, public schools limit children's exposure to ideas just as much as homeschoolers do.

[ 19. May 2014, 17:10: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And, yes, public schools limit children's exposure to ideas just as much as homeschoolers do.
Tosh. If nothing else students in state schools will encounter ideas and opinions from at least a dozen teachers over their time at school, and more likely twice that number; and if you've ever sat in a staff room you'll know that this encompasses quite a wide range of views. 2 parents will tend to exhibit much less diversity.

As an aside, how on earth do you measure whether someone is "thinking for themselves"?

[ 19. May 2014, 17:27: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Is code for "Believes what I do. "

[ 19. May 2014, 17:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
All the teachers won't be teaching the same thing. For instance, US History was taught in two parts. 8th grade history covered the Colonial Period to the Civil War. 10th grade covered Reconstruction to the Present. So, on US History, I got two views along with whatever textbook we had at the time. I didn't read the textbook. Now, I choose US History because both of my US History teachers were among the best teachers I had and completely different in nearly every way. What they taught was still one version of US History. They were limited by time and what the state required them to teach. In addition to that, their own personal views colored how they presented the material. Their views were likely influenced by how the material was presented where they went to college.

All those factors limited our exposure to ideas. Such limits are inevitable. The only question is who ultimately decides. I say it should be the parents of the children.

Now, my World History teacher was just an idiot. But he coached the golf team and defensive backs on the football team. Now, that was important. All that history stuff? Who cared?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Education is funded on all 3 levels (federal, state, and local) with various strings/ regulations attached to each (yes, dreaded No Child Left Behind, I'm looking at you). But the vast majority of it is local, which, yes, leads to tremendous inequality and variability.
Different states have different rules. Here is is almost all state funding, and some locales don't contribute at all - those that have no local government.

and the state funding is based on oil tax revenues. we have no income, sales, or prop tax on the state level. it's all riding on oil revenues.

the nice thing about this is that on the funding side, our schools throughout the state are pretty similar. the challenges are usually based on accessibility, community size, and language and culture challenges.

they are all locally'regionally administered, which can also lead to issues.

[ 19. May 2014, 18:14: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, please, like public schools at any level actually encourage children to think for themselves.
I would suggest that your experience of public schools is very limited if you have not encountered schools that encourage children to think. At my school a large part of our history curriculum (O level) related to assessing primary source material (in the exam we had a bunch of copies of newspaper reports and interviews on the Biafran conflict, with a couple of essay title options). In physics (A level) we had a short research project on a subject of of the students choice (I set up an experiment firing marbles into sand pits to investigate impact craters). I never joined the debating group, but there's another good exercise in thinking.

Just a bog standard comprehensive. Not even the school parents really wanted their children in (those would be the two "grammar" schools - in name only, they had been the town grammar schools and not changed name even though they were comprehensive).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
All the teachers won't be teaching the same thing.
Nor will they all have the same ability.
There are teachers good, bad and mediocre. In a state school, there will be a mix. In homeschool, you only have one type. It is a major fallacy to assume they will good.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:


All those factors limited our exposure to ideas. Such limits are inevitable. The only question is who ultimately decides. I say it should be the parents of the children.
You're creating a false dichotomy. If your children are learning about history, won't you talk about it with them around the dinner table? Won't you encourage them to read and/or watch more about it? Won't you take them to museums and ancient sites when the opportunity arises? How will this change from homeschooling other than that you get the benefit of the input of trained professionals on top of your own?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is code for "Believes what I do. "
Indeed

Now, let's back up a bit.

Leo posted.

quote:
Children need to evaluate and to think for themselves rather than being trapped in the views passed down by others, especially their own parents.
Decoded that should read

quote:
Children need to evaluate and believe as I do rather than being trapped in the views passed down by others, especially their own parents.
To which I posted

quote:
Thank you, leo. You've just made my point for me. You've also explained very succinctly why parents who choose to homeschool choose to homeschool.
Now, what is so ridiculous about parents wanting to teach their views to their own children rather than having them taught to believe what leo or any other teacher believes?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, what is so ridiculous about parents wanting to teach their views to their own children rather than having them taught to believe what leo or any other teacher believes?
You mean aside from the fact that a single view does not exist within traditional school? What prevents a parent from teaching their own POV to their child who attends a school?
A child with a single taught POV such as homeschooling is far more likely to have a limited POV themselves.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:


All those factors limited our exposure to ideas. Such limits are inevitable. The only question is who ultimately decides. I say it should be the parents of the children.
You're creating a false dichotomy. If your children are learning about history, won't you talk about it with them around the dinner table? Won't you encourage them to read and/or watch more about it? Won't you take them to museums and ancient sites when the opportunity arises? How will this change from homeschooling other than that you get the benefit of the input of trained professionals on top of your own?
Why would I necessarily want the input of the "trained professional"? I may. The history teachers at the public school may be better than average. Perhaps, we may live in Lake Wobegone where all the teachers are outstanding. In which case, we will send our daughter to the public school. Again, at this point, we are more likely to send our daughter to the public school rather than homeschool. Private or parochial is a more likely option. It will depend.

However, let's discuss just what it is these professional teachers are trained to do. One, a certified teacher demonstrated an adequate ability to manage (and I mean manage very broadly) a class of students. Two, the certified teacher passed enough college classes and a state exam in all of the subjects they are certified to teach. I'm only interested in the first skill if my child is in a classroom setting in or comparable to that in a public school. The second skill might mean more but it depends. Not all colleges are equal. Not all professors are equal. Anybody can pass a test if given enough chances. Also, how old is the certification? Why did the teacher choose to become certified in the subject in the first place? All questions I would like answered before I say for sure that I definitely want the input of the trained professional in question.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, what is so ridiculous about parents wanting to teach their views to their own children rather than having them taught to believe what leo or any other teacher believes?
Does that include cases where parents decide their children need no education?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Unless child abuse is a fact in their nonattendance, I don't think it matters one way or the other. Absent child abuse, you have children who don't want to attend school being enabled in their truancy by their parents. Best case scenario not scripted by Hollywood, the child forced to attend school will sit disengaged and not cause trouble until they are old enough to drop out of school. And if they do cause trouble? What are you going to do? Suspend them?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps, we may live in Lake Wobegone where all the teachers are outstanding. In which case, we will send our daughter to the public school. Again, at this point, we are more likely to send our daughter to the public school rather than homeschool. Private or parochial is a more likely option. It will depend.
We sent both of our boys to the local comp which had just failed its OFSTED and had a poor reputation, in a very deprived ward (3rd from the top 10 worst by all indicators) We chose it because it was 5 minutes walk from our house and we reckoned our two would cope.

They more than coped, one is now an airline pilot and the other a nurse, they are very well adjusted happy young men. They learned to deal with all sorts of people from many social and ethnic backgrounds and to concentrate even with disruptive oiks in the class. They learned to deal with aggro and defuse fights.

It sounds rather harsh written here in black and white, but it wasn't at all. We all have to live in the real world and wrapping them in cotton wool would have been no preparation for that at all imo.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We chose it because it was 5 minutes walk from our house and we reckoned our two would cope.
You know your children best, and you made what you thought was the best decision for their education.

Which is rather the point, really.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Exactly
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, for the vast majority of children the best will be the local school. Even a "bad school".
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And, yes, public schools limit children's exposure to ideas just as much as homeschoolers do.
But they don't.

The common complaint of those who are homeschooled is the lack of contact with other children. All they meet are either like-minded adults, or other homeschoolees. That's why they feel like they're poorly socialised compared with their peers.

The other effect is simply this: they're not exposed to the lives of children other than themselves. That's where they pick up the idea (for good or ill) that not everything their parents or their pastors or their teachers tell them is true. And being able to spot bullshit is the primary benefit of education.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They more than coped, one is now an airline pilot and the other a nurse, they are very well adjusted happy young men.
Another question that comes to mind is whether something like a career in medicine or aviation can be pursued without any kind formal training (i.e. a completely home-schooled pilot or nurse)? Do state requirements for training in these fields constitute a tyrannical attempt to stifle critical thinking? Or are things like drug interaction training or landing procedures the kind of thing where we want some conformity?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Tea Party didn't hijack it any more than any other faction within the conservative movement. In fact, to the extent that the Tea Party comes to realize that large corporations are as much a threat to liberty as big government and that a huge military is part of a big government, the Tea Party could become an organized force for my version of conservatism.
But this is errant bollocks. The Tea Party exists because it's bankrolled by big business to destroy the post-war social democratic consensus of business regulation and taxes. They are jackals, pure and simple, and there'll be nothing left of a publicly-funded school system by the time they're done: there won't be a publicly-funded anything.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
Education Otherwiseis a self-help organisation for UK home educating families. The website explains UK law
quote:
Though education is compulsory in the UK for children between the ages of five and sixteen, school is not. Many families prefer to educate their children otherwise than at school, and it is their right under UK law to do so. Home educating families do not have to follow the National Curriculum and there is no single 'right' way to educate a child at home.
quote:
In November 2009 the Department for Children Schools and Families introduced measures in the Children Schools and Families Bill that attempted to change the law on home education in England. The Government was not successful, and the Children Schools and Families Act 2010 received Royal Assent on April 8th without any of the home education clauses passing into law.

The current legal situation in the UK with regard to home education can be summarised in the phrase, "Education is compulsory, schooling is not".
Some of the arguments in this thread against home education are familiar - people were saying the same things in the 1980's when I withdrew my child from the school system. We joined EO and found that most home educating families had been told similar things: their children wouldn't have a good education or gain qualifications and wouldn't have the necessary social skills to hold down a job or form stable relationships. All of which was proved wrong.

[ 19. May 2014, 20:54: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They more than coped, one is now an airline pilot and the other a nurse, they are very well adjusted happy young men.
Another question that comes to mind is whether something like a career in medicine or aviation can be pursued without any kind formal training (i.e. a completely home-schooled pilot or nurse)? Do state requirements for training in these fields constitute a tyrannical attempt to stifle critical thinking? Or are things like drug interaction training or landing procedures the kind of thing where we want some conformity?
I'm sure the airline pilot and the nurse embarked on their chosen careers with the required training. They wouldn't have started this training until they were adults. Home-schooling doesn't prevent anyone gaining qualifications. My child and AFAIK most of his home educated contemporaries, have good jobs and all the necessary qualifications.People who are educated outside the school system learn how to learn and this helps them them to be successful.

[ 19. May 2014, 21:10: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Must you cease to responsible for your children's learning simply because they are in a school? Of course not.

Because Canada has more wilderness than civilization, we started camping with our eldest when she was 3 weeks old, tenting. Camping means tent, lighting fires to cook over, staying warm at cool temps (+3°C last night, this Victoria Day long weekend), travelling by canoe, dealing with discomfort like being wet, mosquito bitten etc. There are specific skills that are part of such activities, but more important are the general life skills like problem solving, and coping with adverse conditions.

Aren't there other general life lessons, aside from formal school that you impart to your children? -- I also think that schools impart life lessons, such as how to get along with others, solve conflicts, tolerate others' behaviour etc.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
The common complaint of those who are homeschooled is the lack of contact with other children.
What percentage of them complain? All the homeschooled children I know are completely satisfied with the arrangement.

They participate in organized sports, choirs and other music groups, drama groups, etc. They also have time to play with the kids in their neighborhood because they don't have to spend time on homework. What's not to like?

Moo
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
The common complaint of those who are homeschooled is the lack of contact with other children.
What percentage of them complain? All the homeschooled children I know are completely satisfied with the arrangement.
I don't know, and it would be impossible to find out. But it is the common complaint with those who became dissatisfied with their homeschooling when adults. Those who were satisfied, I guess, see no reason to complain.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Alan Creswell:
And, for the vast majority of children the best will be the local school. Even a "bad school".
Possibly

Again, the question is who gets to make that decision.

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
But this is errant bollocks. The Tea Party exists because it's bankrolled by big business to destroy the post-war social democratic consensus of business regulation and taxes. They are jackals, pure and simple, and there'll be nothing left of a publicly-funded school system by the time they're done: there won't be a publicly-funded anything.
One, I find the Huffington Post as credible as you do Fox News. Two, the Tea Party isn't a unified organization that can be bankrolled by anybody. It's a broad movement. Three, I think both business regulation and taxes need to be rethought. Fourth, the Tea Party is primarily concerned with the federal government and not local government. I'm obviously not opposed to the federal government getting much smaller. Five, I only said I was somewhat optimistic that the Tea Party could evolve into something better. It likely won't. I don't claim to be a Tea Partier.

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't know, and it would be impossible to find out. But it is the common complaint with those who became dissatisfied with their homeschooling when adults. Those who were satisfied, I guess, see no reason to complain.
You want to hear some of the common complaints of high school graduates about the "socialization" they experienced?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, I find the Huffington Post as credible as you do Fox News. Two, the Tea Party isn't a unified organization that can be bankrolled by anybody. It's a broad movement. Three, I think both business regulation and taxes need to be rethought. Fourth, the Tea Party is primarily concerned with the federal government and not local government. I'm obviously not opposed to the federal government getting much smaller. Five, I only said I was somewhat optimistic that the Tea Party could evolve into something better. It likely won't. I don't claim to be a Tea Partier.
Well, then. Tell me which news sources you do trust. It's not exactly secret that the Kochs are throwing money at the Tea Party like it's wedding rice.

As to the other bits? I have a couple of bridges that I need to get rid of, cheap. Interested?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, please, like public schools at any level actually encourage children to think for themselves.
[Roll Eyes]

Mine did.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Yeah the Left hates the Kochs. Conservatives don't like George Soros, Hollywood, and Sillocon Valley. I don't like any of them. So, it's all the same to me.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah the Left hates the Kochs. Conservatives don't like George Soros, Hollywood, and Sillocon Valley. I don't like any of them. So, it's all the same to me.
You do realise that when you say 'the Left', what you mean is 'the not-extreme Right'?

Most UK Tories are left of the Democrats. God only knows what that makes me.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I don't think I was 'socialised' particularly well by the state secondary schools I attended. I was a bit eccentric then, and I still am now, to my annoyance! It's hardly a guarantee that going to school makes for excellent social skills; and considering that many of our ancestors would have been homeschooled in some way is it really the case that most of them would have had poor social skills?

Moreover, despite having trained as a teacher, I think there's something slightly dated in the notion that 'teacher knows best'. Facilitating learner autonomy is often the ideal in modern education; and more importantly, we live in an age when authority figures are routinely challenged, respect must be earned rather than given automatically, and some young people who've experienced a regimented school environment almost all their lives still find it troublesome to obey rules set and policed by others when they leave. IOW, there are other factors in how children turn out.

I think school is simply the most convenient and cost-effective way to educate a large number of people who might otherwise miss out on some sort of education. But that's not the same as school being the best option for every individual child. It's just what most of us have to make do with.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
. . . considering that many of our ancestors would have been homeschooled in some way is it really the case that most of them would have had poor social skills?
A brief survey of history indicates that most of our ancestors "had issues", as it would be expressed today.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A brief survey of history indicates that most of our ancestors "had issues", as it would be expressed today.
More than we do today?

Moo
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
. . . considering that many of our ancestors would have been homeschooled in some way is it really the case that most of them would have had poor social skills?
A brief survey of history indicates that most of our ancestors "had issues", as it would be expressed today.
And you think those issues were due to inadequate socialisation in childhood? Interesting. I don't think I've ever come across that idea in a history book, but everything is possible!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
. . . considering that many of our ancestors would have been homeschooled in some way is it really the case that most of them would have had poor social skills?
A brief survey of history indicates that most of our ancestors "had issues", as it would be expressed today.
And you think those issues were due to inadequate socialisation in childhood? Interesting. I don't think I've ever come across that idea in a history book, but everything is possible!
Hey, it's your chosen metric.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah the Left hates the Kochs. Conservatives don't like George Soros, Hollywood, and Sillocon Valley. I don't like any of them. So, it's all the same to me.
You do realise that when you say 'the Left', what you mean is 'the not-extreme Right'?

Most UK Tories are left of the Democrats. God only knows what that makes me.
I'm not going to get into that pointless debate. Why the British think Americans care how they use the political terms is beyond me? There are 320 million Americans. Suffice to say that if the UK and USA merged most Democrats would still be on the Left. Your views would definitely be far left. But again that's a pointless debate.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Just to add actual experience to a discussion which has veered off into name-calling, I'll offer Homeschoolers Anonymous which, as might be expected, deals with the experience of home-schooling and some of the advantages/pitfalls/disasters.

[ 19. May 2014, 23:48: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Libby Anne was homeschooled in a fundamentalist community (she's now an atheist) and her blog offers a great deal of insight into the choice as well as many links concerning the practice in the U.S..
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
The common complaint of those who are homeschooled is the lack of contact with other children.
What percentage of them complain? All the homeschooled children I know are completely satisfied with the arrangement.

They participate in organized sports, choirs and other music groups, drama groups, etc. They also have time to play with the kids in their neighborhood because they don't have to spend time on homework. What's not to like?

Moo
I don't know what percentage of them complain - it would probably be pretty difficult to find out. But at least two people who were homeschooled have complained about the arrangement, on this very thread. Do we count?

I did not participate in organised sports, or choirs or other music groups, or drama groups, or other kind of etcetera. I got to go to church, once a week. I had a music lesson, by myself, with a teacher, once a week. I did have one sibling to play with, but no neighbourhood kids, partly because they were mostly at school, and partly because neighbourhoods are extremely spread out concepts in provincial New Zealand, and if you are not in possession of a car and a driver's license, you don't have much choice about who you hang out with. There were other kids in the locality, but not within reach - it's not like I could have just gone out and played marbles in the street with them when they were done yawning over their homework, or whatever.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What's not to like?
I think I pretty much covered that, above. But seeing as you ask, there's also the feeling of being 'different', the odd one out, of not actually being able to converse sensibly with your peers when you do happen to run into them, because you are not privy to whatever's hip at the moment. Then, I missed out on getting into the degree course I was interested in because it was an 'early entry' course, with selection before final high school exams (which I sat), based on marks for coursework from the penultimate school year. What coursework? My sister faced the same situation (with a different course) two years later. Same result.

You know, I do understand and acknowledge that my parents were genuinely trying to do what they thought was best for us, and they put a lot of themselves into the endeavour. Nonetheless, I have to say I wish they had decided otherwise.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Counts as anecdotal evidence that homeschooling isn't the best option for everybody. Nobody is arguing otherwise. My argument is that homeschooling should be an option. People with negative experiences of public high school are legion. I don't want to ban those either. Roman Catholics of a certain age often tell horrible stories about the nuns. Even elite boarding schools have their detractors. All should be options.

[ 20. May 2014, 03:17: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
BA, I'm not sure if you are responding to my post or to Art Dunce and Horseman Bree above me. If to me, thanks for the measured reply, it is appreciated. However - as far as 'nobody is arguing otherwise' goes - I posted what I did because I felt that Moo was indeed arguing otherwise. S/he pretty much stated that s/he could think of no reasons against homeschooling and nothing not to like about it. So I provided some. Of course they are only anecdotes, and those who want to ignore them will do so, or brush them off as exceptions which prove the rule. Which they may indeed be, I suppose - I have walked no road other than my own.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why the British think Americans care how they use the political terms is beyond me? There are 320 million Americans. Suffice to say that if the UK and USA merged most Democrats would still be on the Left.
You are, of course objectively wrong regarding the Democrats (though I like the cut of Elizabeth Warren's gib). And we care (at least, I do) because language is actually important to us, and painting extremists as moderates and vice versa gets our goat.

Your views from a British perspective are sailing over the eastern horizon. That alone may account to the reaction here to some of your views on schooling.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your views from a British perspective are sailing over the eastern horizon. That alone may account to the reaction here to some of your views on schooling.
BA's making a perfectly reasonable case for parental choice. You are painting this as extremism. Try and get out and about more. It is extremism to want to ban home schooling. It is extremism to think that the state should have a monopoly on education and always knows best.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Counts as anecdotal evidence that homeschooling isn't the best option for everybody.

No more anecdotal than your evidence that public schools fail to teach children to think and otherwise fail their pupils.
quote:
Nobody is arguing otherwise. My argument is that homeschooling should be an option.
What many of us are arguing is that home schooling should be an option. But, it should be an option that is only taken in exceptional cases - geographical isolation, particular educational needs that local schools can not meet. My argument is that for the vast majority of children local schools would be the best option. Yes, local schools could, in many cases, be improved - but I doubt that's contentious.

I would add that in relation to future education (eg: university entrance) or employment then it would be preferable that home schooling follows a recognised curriculum with recognised qualifications obtained - though, for example in England, that wouldn't need to be the National Curriculum and GCSE/A levels; children could follow the Scottish curriculum and sit standard/highers, or International Baccalaureate. I'm aware that argument doesn't hold in the US where nationally recognised curricula and qualifications don't exist at public school.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
If it's an option 'only taken in exceptional cases' then it isn't a genuine option. UK law gives parents the duty to ensure their children are educated - either by attendance at school, or otherwise. It is for parents to decide.

Home-education gives a freedom which isn't possible in most school systems. How people use that freedom will be influenced by their reasons for rejecting school. IME Christian fundamentalist parents saw schools as too liberal and their alternatives were therefore controlled to limit a child's access to anything that might contradict their beliefs. Most of the people I mixed with saw schools as too restrictive and regimented and we organised learning to fit around our children's interests. The most obvious difference was having no need for a rigid timetable with activities limited to one hour at a time like most school lessons. We used to go to the national residential gatherings as well as local group activities and got to know a wide mix of people.

Some families are able to arrange 'flexi-schooling' with the child attending school for some activities - this depends on the school being willing of course. For teenagers there's access to courses at FE colleges and other adult learning centres. It's discretionary access rather than a right but colleges receive the same funding for a 14 year old 'home-schooler' as they would for a post-16 student so they're often very willing to admit them. From the age of 14 my son and several of his contemporaries were learning through a mix of courses at FE college or other centres, home-based study and activities with other 'home-schoolers'. Most of them also had friendships and social activities with school students.

[ 20. May 2014, 08:10: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
If it's an option 'only taken in exceptional cases' then it isn't a genuine option.
Why not?

I can certainly think of examples where there is a default setting, and scope to depart from the default setting when the need to depart from it is demonstrable.

If you think the word 'option' only applies when there is a completely free, unfettered choice with no hoops to jump through, then the word is going to become redundant in a heck of a lot of situations.

Even your description of UK law is a little misleading, because it isn't the case that parents can just go "I feel like having home schooling". Parents have to show in some way that the home schooling is going to be adequate. Whereas in the school system, parents don't have to show the school is adequate. You can argue as much as you like about whether a given school IS adequate, but the point is that the parent's responsibility to demonstrate adequacy ends at the point of enrolment. With home schooling, the same kind of assumption of adequacy doesn't apply and the parent has the extra hoops to jump through to show that yes, home schooling is actually going to work.

[ 20. May 2014, 08:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your views from a British perspective are sailing over the eastern horizon. That alone may account to the reaction here to some of your views on schooling.
BA's making a perfectly reasonable case for parental choice.
Bzzt.

Only a couple of people here have suggested banning homeschooling. I am not one of them.

However, to suggest that BA's case is reasonable is misleading, since they've argued that a teaching degree/diploma is more or less worthless, that parents are better teachers of academic subjects than people who have actually studied those subjects, and that the vast majority of parents know what sort of schooling is best for their children and make those decisions based on high-minded, educated principles.

Since all those things are not just contentious, but in many cases demonstrably false, BA's case is not reasonable, but ideologically driven despite of the facts.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
If it's an option 'only taken in exceptional cases' then it isn't a genuine option.
Why not?

Because it would be a choice only to apply for permission. The real choice would be with whatever authority made the decision. It would be limited to whatever was deemed to be 'exceptional'.

It would be equally wrong to say that home educated children and teenagers have a choice of flexi-schooling and FE courses. There isn't a choice because there isn't a right. It's a discretion and therefore the choice is to apply for access.

Home education is a genuine choice because it is a right enshrined in law. Parents have the right because parents have the responsibility.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Home education is a genuine choice because it is a right enshrined in law. Parents have the right because parents have the responsibility.
The language of 'rights' is apt to mislead. You yourself have stated that a parent has a duty to ensure proper schooling. If a parent cannot deliver proper home schooling, the supposed 'right' to home schooling disappears.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Once again, can we stop talking about the UK when we mean England? The new curriculum in Scotland is pretty much the opposite of what you describe
Sorry. If you check my previous posts on this thread, it's the first time I did it. I am aware that the situation in Scotland is different, and also that you're to blame for the imposition of synthetic phonics... which some people now think is bad for children who can read when they start school. I could have told them that six years ago, whatever the research findings in Clackmannanshire were.

I was being sarcastic earlier, Beeswax Altar. There are plenty of teachers in our state (=public) schools who teach children to think for themselves. It's even in the National Curriculum requirements for spoken language: "articulate and justify answers, arguments and opinions."
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, to suggest that BA's case is reasonable is misleading, since they've argued that a teaching degree/diploma is more or less worthless, that parents are better teachers of academic subjects than people who have actually studied those subjects, and that the vast majority of parents know what sort of schooling is best for their children and make those decisions based on high-minded, educated principles.
Teaching degrees and diplomas do not make a teacher. PGCEs are often pretty worthless. However in-school training, placements and experience sometimes make PGCEs worthwhile. Some parents can teach better than teachers. And the state should not encroach on the territory and choices of families unless absolutely necessary for the welfare of children.

BTW, I'm married to a primary school teacher and I'm a school governor.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Arguments about what does not necessarily make a teacher tend to obscure the more pertinent question about what is more likely to make a teacher.

The fact that some women are taller than some men hardly makes it true that women are on average taller than men. Neither does an observation that some parents are better at teaching than some qualified teachers constitute any kind of proof that the overall odds are in favour of parents being better at teaching than qualified teachers.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
.... If a parent cannot deliver proper home schooling, the supposed 'right' to home schooling disappears.
Yes, but what constitutes 'proper home schooling' isn't defined. Education has to be in accordance with a child's age, aptitude and ability and with regard to the child's own wishes. This applies to schools too. Case law has established that home educated children should be making progress in literacy and numeracy and developing the skills they need to live in modern society. Education authorities have a duty to intervene if they have good reason to suspect that a child is not being educated in accordance with age, aptitude and ability. Very few legal challenges made by education authorities have been upheld.

One in four home educating parents are qualified teachers according to
this TES article
quote:
The stereotypical image of the middle-class, university-educated and slightly "alternative" parent contains only an element of truth. A two-year study by Paula Rothermel at the University of Durham in 2002 (see resources) found that around one in six home educators was a non-skilled or manual worker. Fewer than half had been to university. But despite the apparent variety of home educators, one statistic stands out: one in four is a teacher (see case study). "Teachers have confidence in their own ability to educate a child," says Roland Meighan. "But more to the point, they have insider knowledge. They know how bad schools are."


[ 20. May 2014, 08:59: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Spawn:
quote:
Some parents can teach better than teachers.
Once again, for those who didn't get it the first time: Teaching a single child or a small group of highly motivated pupils is A LOT EASIER than teaching a class of 30-35 with varying abilities and attitudes. You are comparing apples and oranges.

And some parents are teachers, as you yourself are obviously aware.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, to suggest that BA's case is reasonable is misleading, since they've argued that a teaching degree/diploma is more or less worthless, that parents are better teachers of academic subjects than people who have actually studied those subjects, and that the vast majority of parents know what sort of schooling is best for their children and make those decisions based on high-minded, educated principles.
Teaching degrees and diplomas do not make a teacher. PGCEs are often pretty worthless. However in-school training, placements and experience sometimes make PGCEs worthwhile. Some parents can teach better than teachers. And the state should not encroach on the territory and choices of families unless absolutely necessary for the welfare of children.

BTW, I'm married to a primary school teacher and I'm a school governor.
And I've taught in a state primary school for 8 years. Is that "out more" enough for you?

I'm well aware of the limitations of PGCEs: however, I've also had the very great pleasure of watching the vast majority of NQTs and teachers in training (designated training school) do an absolutely sterling job.

Again, like BA, your objections are ideologically driven, not based in fact. While I agree in principle that the state shouldn't encroach on the territory and choices of the family, in practice where their poor choices and boundary setting encroach on mine, I'd like the state to intervene rather than me.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Yes, but what constitutes 'proper home schooling' isn't defined.
Of course it isn't. It's difficult enough to precisely define what 'proper SCHOOL schooling' means in any legally sensible manner.

Nevertheless it's the education authority that has to be satisfied about the home schooling, not the parent. I'm not sure where you're getting a notion of legal challenges BY the authorities from, because section 437 of the Education Act 1996 (as read by me on the official UK legislation site) is pretty clear on this: if the local education authority has suspicions, the onus is on the parent to satisfy them that the education is suitable, and if they are not so satisfied they have the power to issue an order that the child attend school.

Administrative law principles mean that the education authority has to have some legitimate basis for not being satisfied, but when it comes to a difference of opinion, it's the education authority's satisfaction that matters, not the parent's.

[ 20. May 2014, 10:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It is extremism to want to ban home schooling. It is extremism to think that the state should have a monopoly on education and always knows best.
Banning homeschooling isn't giving the state a monopoly on education necessarily. It's giving the state a monopoly on the enforcement of education, which is a bit different.

As I said before, homeschooling is illegal in Germany. Legal challenges to this have failed (right up to the ECHR) partly because it is considered that families still have a variety of educational choices available to them. There are plenty of private schools, cooperatives etc that are available. What they are not allowed to do is educate their children at home.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What seems to pass many parents by is that schooling outside the home is as much about children socialising as it is about the imparting of knowledge. It is important that they start to build a network of friends and parents unable to see or accept this should ask themselves what they are afraid of.

As has been noted elsewhere, wishing to control the people one's children come into contact with to the extent of denying them a chance to mix with their peers is control freakery and to be resisted.

Looking at the adult life of hyper-bright child who was home-educated can be useful too: once they hit university (usually at least 3 or more years younger than other first years) they frequently go off the rails. Not only do they not make friends with their fellow students - likely to be down to the age gap - but having no group of friends of their own age they can be very susceptible to emotional and psychological problem which may be with them for the rest of their lives.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Yes, but what constitutes 'proper home schooling' isn't defined.
Of course it isn't. It's difficult enough to precisely define what 'proper SCHOOL schooling' means in any legally sensible manner.

Nevertheless it's the education authority that has to be satisfied about the home schooling, not the parent. I'm not sure where you're getting a notion of legal challenges BY the authorities from, because section 437 of the Education Act 1996 (as read by me on the official UK legislation site) is pretty clear on this: if the local education authority has suspicions, the onus is on the parent to satisfy them that the education is suitable, and if they are not so satisfied they have the power to issue an order that the child attend school.

Administrative law principles mean that the education authority has to have some legitimate basis for not being satisfied, but when it comes to a difference of opinion, it's the education authority's satisfaction that matters, not the parent's.
An education authority can issue a school attendance order but this can be challenged in court. Ultimately if there is such a dispute it for the courts to decide and all the cases I know of have been decided in favour of the parents choice. Such cases have also served to clarify what can be used as evidence of suitable education. The 'Harrison Case' was a landmark ruling.
quote:
Twenty five years ago Iris Harrison decided she was sick of being told that three of her children, who are now understood to be dyslexic, were "educationally sub-normal". She took them out of school and began teaching them from home.

The battle through the courts that followed was well publicised. The council threatened to take her children away, people in the street called her an anarchist and, at one point, she considered sending her children abroad to avoid the law. But her battle became a focus point for an increasing number of parents deciding to opt for home-based education for their children. "I believed that the world was changing and that schools were still giving the same kind of jumping-through-hoops education, and not preparing us for the real world, where problem-solving and self confidence matter most," said Mrs Harrison. "The court case meant that we won the right to autonomously educate children, so that the child would be in charge of its education. We, as parents, are the facilitators."
In fact the detailed judgement of the court did set a general principle that parents should take steps to ensure their children were making progress in literacy even if they were dyslexic as in the case of the Harrison children.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
So there are arguments that homeschooling either leads to overeducation or undereducation, but the main fear seems to be that it leads to social abnormality. In societies that supposedly champion individuality this is quite interesting. We're clearly not as free to be different as we'd like to claim. More specifically, the expectation seems to be that we become different from our parents, but we ought to fit in with our peers. This is the cultural norm.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
.....
Looking at the adult life of hyper-bright child who was home-educated can be useful too: once they hit university (usually at least 3 or more years younger than other first years) they frequently go off the rails. Not only do they not make friends with their fellow students - likely to be down to the age gap - but having no group of friends of their own age they can be very susceptible to emotional and psychological problem which may be with them for the rest of their lives.
If you look at the research very few home educated children go to university earlier than their peers - more often they take exams later. The 12 year olds taking A levels may be the ones who get a lot of publicity but they're not the norm.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
An education authority can issue a school attendance order but this can be challenged in court. Ultimately if there is such a dispute it for the courts to decide and all the cases I know of have been decided in favour of the parents choice.
Okay, I'm with you now.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
MY (anecdotal warning, just for BA) experience has been with home-schooled children who came to high school when the curriculum became too much for the parent(s).

The biggest problem was attention-seeking. The children had various abilities and achievements, but they all expected to be served FIRST since they were used to that at home. In large families, they were loud and demanding, presumably because that was how they got mother's attention (the fathers were "out working" and had little input on the school work)

And the standards varied all over the shop. On average, they were weaker in subjects that required connected reasoning - Math, for instance, or Physics.

TBF, despite most of them being HS for religious reasons, they did not attack evolution in Biology class or elsewhere.

On the whole, I would say that HS was of no significantly greater value than the public alternative, and the kids who lived through it had, on the whole, mildly weaker social skills.

But that is only the result of 50 years of public and private school teaching, which doesn't count against an ideological position which can ignore logic.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Spawn:
quote:
Some parents can teach better than teachers.
Once again, for those who didn't get it the first time: Teaching a single child or a small group of highly motivated pupils is A LOT EASIER than teaching a class of 30-35 with varying abilities and attitudes. You are comparing apples and oranges.

And some parents are teachers, as you yourself are obviously aware.
I get your point however many times you choose to make it. It tends to reinforce my view that children can be as well taught in the home by their untrained parents as they are in the classroom by a certificated teacher. Not all home schooling will be as good as classroom schooling.

Left wingers tend to argue that all teachers in the state school system should be trained. In my view, most teachers should enter the profession through formal training but some will crossover from private schools and other routes. They should not automatically be barred from teaching in state schools. My mild assertions are hardly rigidly ideological, as Doc Tor claims.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The biggest problem was attention-seeking. The children had various abilities and achievements, but they all expected to be served FIRST since they were used to that at home. In large families, they were loud and demanding, presumably because that was how they got mother's attention (the fathers were "out working" and had little input on the school work)
This goes to the point that many seem to be making - that the point of public schooling is largely socialization as defined by the current powers-that-be. That sort of attention seeking behavior can be very valuable in certain fields of work - sales or in the pit of a financial trading floor, for example. Interesting both are jobs that even these days you can find people who are exceptional at them while lacking in formal education.

So in sum, I'm not convinced that "they don't fit in" is a reasonable argument against home schooling, without discussing what the "fit" is and whether it's actually good for children in the first place.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
Mass state-provided education is a fairly recent development in the UK. It was originally intended to ensure a basic level of literacy, numeracy and work skills for the new industrial age and was organised to achieve this as cheaply as possible with large classes and rote learning. People who could pay for education have always had the option of schools or, especially for girls, home-based education with governesses and private tutors. Home education is just another form of private education.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
The common complaint of those who are homeschooled is the lack of contact with other children.
What percentage of them complain? All the homeschooled children I know are completely satisfied with the arrangement.

They participate in organized sports, choirs and other music groups, drama groups, etc. They also have time to play with the kids in their neighborhood because they don't have to spend time on homework. What's not to like?

Moo
I don't know what percentage of them complain - it would probably be pretty difficult to find out. But at least two people who were homeschooled have complained about the arrangement, on this very thread. Do we count?
Of course you count. However, my statement was about all the homeschooled children I knew. It was not meant to apply to every homeschooled child.

Moo
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
This goes to the point that many seem to be making - that the point of public schooling is largely socialization as defined by the current powers-that-be.
Indeed. And that's every bit as much of a "brainwash them into our own way of looking at things" situation as they're accusing homeschooling of being.

Of course, some go even further than that, and advocate for fully comprehensive (in the UK sense) education for all because they reason that if rich kids have to become friends with poor kids then maybe they'll grow up supporting socialist policies that help those poor kids. It's the ultimate in trying to use the education system to further your own political ends, and yet somehow they don't seem to have a problem with it...
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
You are, of course objectively wrong regarding the Democrats (though I like the cut of Elizabeth Warren's gib). And we care (at least, I do) because language is actually important to us, and painting extremists as moderates and vice versa gets our goat.
The political spectrum is relative. If the United States and the United Kingdom united country, your views would be on the fringe. Mine would be relatively mainstream. Lib-Dems, Democrat, and some Tories would make up the Left. Moderate Republicans, UKIP, and more conservative Tories would make up the Right. Labor would be the Far Left. The Conservative wing of the Republican Party would be the Far Right.

I say that for two reasons. Your claims about a objective political spectrum are nonsense. Two, I don't care how my views appear to British Lefties anymore than you care how your views appear to the Tea Party

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, to suggest that BA's case is reasonable is misleading, since they've argued that a teaching degree/diploma is more or less worthless, that parents are better teachers of academic subjects than people who have actually studied those subjects, and that the vast majority of parents know what sort of schooling is best for their children and make those decisions based on high-minded, educated principles.

Wow a post consisting entirely of strawmen and begging the question

I know many teachers including an aunt and sister who say education classes are mostly worthless. When I was training to be a teacher and substitute teaching, I took an informal poll of the teachers I met and the results surprised me. That said. Teacher education trains you to be a classroom teacher in a public school or it's private equivalent. I have no problem with public and private schools requiring certification before being put in that environment. Parents who homeschool aren't teaching multiple classes of 20 plus children. By the way, if know of an objective standard of evaluation acceptable to teachers, please let us know. The NEA goes batshit crazy every time the idea is mentioned.

What defines studying a subject? Yes, a parent could know more about a subject area than a teacher who formally studied the subject. That's just a fact. I've seen it.

Yes, I maintain parents are in the best position to make decisions about the education of their children. So far, I haven't seen any evidence to convince me otherwise. The arguments against homeschooling on this thread have seemed at times contradictory.

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
Since all those things are not just contentious, but in many cases demonstrably false, BA's case is not reasonable, but ideologically driven despite of the facts.
I missed the demonstration. [Roll Eyes]

Ideologically driven says the Socialist primary teacher. [Killing me]

Pot meet kettle. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
This goes to the point that many seem to be making - that the point of public schooling is largely socialization as defined by the current powers-that-be.
Indeed. And that's every bit as much of a "brainwash them into our own way of looking at things" situation as they're accusing homeschooling of being.

Of course, some go even further than that, and advocate for fully comprehensive (in the UK sense) education for all because they reason that if rich kids have to become friends with poor kids then maybe they'll grow up supporting socialist policies that help those poor kids. It's the ultimate in trying to use the education system to further your own political ends, and yet somehow they don't seem to have a problem with it...
It's certainly true that comprehensive schooling doesn't turn the children of the better off into socialists but staying amongst "your own kind" is poor preparation for life too. Meeting people from the elite public schools was quite a surprise to me but almost as much for those who had been to minor public schools.

Don't preparatory and fee-paying schools also use a different education system for political ends too?

[ 20. May 2014, 12:44: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
justlooking:
quote:
Mass state-provided education is a fairly recent development in the UK.
Mass state-provided education may be recent, but schooling isn't. There's a school just down the road from me that was founded in the 7th century. Grammar schools were originally run by the church; after the dissolution of the monasteries they continued as independent foundations and endowing a grammar school was a popular act of charity in the 16th and 17th century. For poorer people there were dame schools which (if you were lucky) taught the basic 'three Rs'; these were held in the teacher's house and at worst were simply childminding services with no education provided. The Church often ran elementary schools for children of the parish, which is why there are so many faith schools in England; when primary/elementary education was nationalised in the late 19th century the C of E retained influence over schools it had founded.

Public education in Scotland was and is a lot more egalitarian; the Church of Scotland ran most schools until 1872 when it turned its schools over to the state.

So you are correct in saying that compulsory, (mostly) state-provided education is a relatively recent innovation. But this does not mean that schools themselves are a recent innovation; far from it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's certainly true that comprehensive schooling doesn't turn the children of the better off into socialists but staying amongst "your own kind" is poor preparation for life too.
It depends on what you mean by "life", I guess. Ultra-expensive schools like Eton practically exist to make sure the students "stay amongst their own kind", yet a great many of their alumni do very well for themselves in life.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The political spectrum is relative. If the United States and the United Kingdom united country, your views would be on the fringe. Mine would be relatively mainstream. Lib-Dems, Democrat, and some Tories would make up the Left. Moderate Republicans, UKIP, and more conservative Tories would make up the Right. Labor would be the Far Left. The Conservative wing of the Republican Party would be the Far Right.
Keep telling yourself that... my political views are firmly in the mainstream European social democratic tradition. Your views barely make it to mainstream Conservative thought.

And yes, I am an ideologue. But I do let how the world actually is influence what's possible.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by JaneR:
So you are correct in saying that compulsory, (mostly) state-provided education is a relatively recent innovation. But this does not mean that schools themselves are a recent innovation; far from it.
That was her point. [Confused]
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

So you are correct in saying that compulsory, (mostly) state-provided education is a relatively recent innovation. But this does not mean that schools themselves are a recent innovation; far from it. [/QB]
I never said they were. This is what I said:
quote:
People who could pay for education have always had the option of schools or, especially for girls, home-based education with governesses and private tutors. Home education is just another form of private education.
Compulsory education and the mass provision of state funded schools is fairly recent. The original intention was to educate the masses up to an elementary level of competence. It wasn't to ensure every child would 'fulfil their potential' as schools now claim to do. The rhetoric's changed but the underlying principle is the same - process the masses through a regulated system as cheaply as possible.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The political spectrum is relative. If the United States and the United Kingdom united country, your views would be on the fringe. Mine would be relatively mainstream. Lib-Dems, Democrat, and some Tories would make up the Left. Moderate Republicans, UKIP, and more conservative Tories would make up the Right. Labor would be the Far Left. The Conservative wing of the Republican Party would be the Far Right.
Keep telling yourself that... my political views are firmly in the mainstream European social democratic tradition. Your views barely make it to mainstream Conservative thought.

And yes, I am an ideologue. But I do let how the world actually is influence what's possible.
Who cares if your views are in the mainstream of the European Social Democratic tradition? The United States isn't in Europe. Europe isn't the center of the world anymore. Get over it.

As to the second paragraph

I agree completely with your first sentence

The second...? [Killing me]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
justlooking: OK, I see what you're getting at now. But the rhetoric has changed partly because the 'basic level of competence' has changed. Back in 1880 you were considered literate if you could sign your own name and read simple documents, and most illiterates could function effectively in society (being innumerate was more of a handicap). Nowadays you have to be fluent in spoken and written language; able to evaluate the reliability of competing information sources; capable of using tools such as web browsers. The Scottish Government's current definition of literacy is "The ability to read, write and use numeracy, to handle information, to express ideas and opinions, to make decisions and solve problems, as family members, workers, citizens and lifelong learners." (full document here)

[ 20. May 2014, 13:27: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Don't preparatory and fee-paying schools also use a different education system for political ends too?
Mine didn't.

Our politics teacher was firmly on the left wing of the Labour party (as a member of which he had stood for local election). I remember the absolute, unconcealed delight with which he followed the events leading up to Thatcher's resignation.

Because he was an excellent teacher, he also encouraged us to form and express our own opinions, of course, but I'm sure I learned more about socialism, and had a more persuasive case for socialism presented to me, at a fee-paying school than I did from any other source (at least until I started reading ken on the Ship).
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
justlooking: OK, I see what you're getting at now. But the rhetoric has changed partly because the 'basic level of competence' has changed. Back in 1880 you were considered literate if you could sign your own name and read simple documents, and most illiterates could function effectively in society (being innumerate was more of a handicap). Nowadays you have to be fluent in spoken and written language; able to evaluate the reliability of competing information sources; capable of using tools such as web browsers. The Scottish Government's current definition of literacy is "The ability to read, write and use numeracy, to handle information, to express ideas and opinions, to make decisions and solve problems, as family members, workers, citizens and lifelong learners." (full document here)
I'm not sure what your point is. From the document linked it seems the Scottish Government has identified a problem with some of those who've 'benefited' from the school system
quote:
■ considers the scale and nature of
the problem:
– the majority of the population are satisfied
with their skills for the uses they
encounter
– up to 800,000 adults appear to have very
low skills
– 500,000 assess their own skills as poor or
moderate
– the importance of literacy and numeracy as
underpinning skills is invisible to employers
– many unemployed people do not know if
they have the literacy and numeracy skills
for their choice of job

 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
how on earth do you measure whether someone is "thinking for themselves"?
GCSE RE allocates at least a third of the marks to this. I requires the student to state various views, evaluate them and then say what they think.

History used to do the same though I am not sure how much it has changed since Gradgrind Gove took over. As he is a tory, I doubt that he wants anyone to think for themself.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are welcome to expose your children to any religion you like.
So does that mean that you don't want your children exposed to anything with which you disagree?

If so, that is exactly why children need to be rescued from families with closed minds and narrow opinions.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
One problem with this thread is that people have different ideas about what homeschooling is like. In fact, there are a huge number of styles of homeschooling, and a huge number of different motives for doing it.

I can't think of a single flat statement about homeschooling which would cover all situations.

Moo
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Thank you, leo. You've just made my point for me. You've also explained very succinctly why parents who choose to homeschool choose to homeschool.
In context, you are saying that parents have the right to deny children an education in order to stop them growing up into anything other than clones of their parents.

Though I should, perhaps, qualify that - as clones of their parents in whatever current fad they are following. (Since some posting on this thread have changed religious denominations of widely differing positions at least three times before the age of thirty - which makes me wonder whether they are stable enough to pass on anything other than their genes to their children.)
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
justlooking, I'm not sure what your point is either. Historically, equal education for girls is also an innovation, but presumably you are not suggesting we should ditch that.

The point I was trying to make (apparently not very successfully) is that the definition of 'basic competence' has changed considerably in the last 150-odd years.

The document I linked to is about adult education for adults with low literacy, so obviously it is concerned with people who did not do very well in the school system. The first part of the bit you quoted says that
quote:
... the majority of the population are satisfied with their skills for the uses they encounter...
I don't see how you get from there to a claim that all schools are bad and the only solution is to yank your child out of the state education system and do it yourself, which is what some people (notably Beeswax Altar) seem to be claiming.

As I said earlier: I myself would consider homeschooling only as a last resort. That doesn't mean I completely approve of the English education system as it is: there is always room for improvement. Reducing the number of ideologically-driven innovations such as the EBacc would be a good start. But sending your child to school doesn't mean abdicating responsibility for her (or his) education and leaving it all up to the school.

I prefer to work against the Powers that Be from inside the system...

[ 20. May 2014, 14:24: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
what is so ridiculous about parents wanting to teach their views to their own children
Not ridiculous. Sinful in my opinion since that is indoctrination, not education.

Your children don't belong to you. They are human beings in their own right who happen to be on load to you.

This bloke says it better.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are welcome to expose your children to any religion you like.
So does that mean that you don't want your children exposed to anything with which you disagree?

If so, that is exactly why children need to be rescued from families with closed minds and narrow opinions.
No, it means I think that I should be the one to decide what they are and aren't exposed to and in what manner.

Not you.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Though I should, perhaps, qualify that - as clones of their parents in whatever current fad they are following.
I doubt that will happen. If it does, they are their parents children. Your argument only works if I believe teachers such as yourself are doing anything other than indoctrinating them in their own views or at least those found acceptable by the state.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Not ridiculous. Sinful in my opinion since that is indoctrination, not education.

Your children don't belong to you. They are human beings in their own right who happen to be on load to you.

This bloke says it better.
Who loaned me my daugher? The state? [Killing me]

And, see this is why I wouldn't want a secular school educating my child in religion. The opinion of Kahlil Gibran (and I know he is beloved by lefties of a certain age)is completely irrelevant in a discussion about the Christian view of sin. Disagree though they may on any number of things, most Roman Catholics and all fundamentalists know that. Anybody teaching otherwise would be teaching their own understanding of Christianity while pretending to be impartial. I worry even more about my daughter being indoctrinated by teachers who arrogantly believe their views really are impartial.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
If you look at RE schemes of work, you will see that if they are NOT impartial they would be rejected by OFTED.

The greatest teacher of all didn't tell people want to think. he spoke in parables so that they could work it out for themselves.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
To your first point...I'll just take your word for it that OFTED is a good judged of impartiality. [Killing me]

As to your second point...yet another reasons why I wouldn't want my daughter taught religion at a secular school.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
what is so ridiculous about parents wanting to teach their views to their own children
Not ridiculous. Sinful in my opinion since that is indoctrination, not education.
I can only assume that if you had children you would deliberately leave Chick Tracts and BNP pamphlets lying around for them in order to make sure they didn't grow up merely parroting your own views?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Who loaned me my daugher? The state?
Well, as a Christian I would say God if I thought she had been loaned to me. But she is actually a person in her own right.

Children are not the property of their parents.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One problem with this thread is that people have different ideas about what homeschooling is like. In fact, there are a huge number of styles of homeschooling, and a huge number of different motives for doing it.

I can't think of a single flat statement about homeschooling which would cover all situations.

Moo
I would agree, with caveats however.
Yes, there are a potentially huge number of reasons, but three principal ones.
Quality of education, desire to emphasize personal world view and segregation (class/culture as well as race).
And even the best motives do not inherently provide the best results. Given that most here would agree not all teachers can teach well, and the homeschool proponents would seem to think this percentage is high, it directly follows that at least the same percentage of parents would fail as well.
The notion that fulfilling a biological imperative conveys expertise is ridiculous. If this were true, everyone who eats would be a good chef, nutritionist and farmer.

[ 20. May 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The notion that fulfilling a biological imperative conveys expertise is ridiculous. If this were true, everyone who eats would be a good chef, nutritionist and farmer.
On the other hand, very few people would argue that the State should have total control over the exact menu that each and every person should follow every day, to the extent that if it decrees sprouts to be the finest food in existence then every person will eat sprerouts at least once every week.

In the analogy, all the homeschoolers are saying is they don't like sprouts, they have no intention of eating them at any time, and the government shouldn't have the right to force them to do so if they don't want to.
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Fourth, the Tea Party is primarily concerned with the federal government and not local government.
Hah. I wish that were the case. In my state they have just succeeded in getting all our local libraries' budgets cut in half. Libraries are a tiny, tiny part of any tax structure- they cost way less than schools or public safety- but they always seem to be a target for anti-tax types.

Again, an anecdote, but the only tea partier I've spoken with recently was furious about state-level regulation of liquor licenses. Uncle Sugar this, gubmint-trying-to-steal-more-money-from-us that.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Who cares if your views are in the mainstream of the European Social Democratic tradition? The United States isn't in Europe. Europe isn't the center of the world anymore. Get over it.
This whole tangent developed because you seem to have forgotten there's a mass of land east of the Atlantic, and you're talking to some of the residents there. As a result, your 'mainstream for the US' views come over as Right-wing batshit crazy to some of us, as I was helpfully pointing out...

Of course, it's only old Europe that thinks state education with qualified teachers is a good thing. Oh, wait.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

Beeswax Altar and Doc Tor: further posts from either of you along recent lines will be construed as evidence you are trying to spark off a pond war. I strongly advise you (and everyone else) not to attempt to adduce any such evidence.

/hosting
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Who loaned me my daugher? The state?
Well, as a Christian I would say God if I thought she had been loaned to me. But she is actually a person in her own right.

Children are not the property of their parents.
I would agree. However, nothing in my understanding of Christianity implies that parents must allow the state to educate their children. Absolutely nothing at all. Frankly, I would move to another country before being forced to send my daughter to a state school where somebody who believes Christianity teaches that the state is more responsible than the family for educating children gets to teach as authoritative his or her rather eccentric view of Christianity.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Frankly, I would move to another country before being forced to send my daughter to a state school where somebody who believes Christianity teaches that the state is more responsible than the family for educating children gets to teach as authoritative his or her rather eccentric view of Christianity.
But, state schools wouldn't have someone teaching Christianity, certainly not as an authoritative source of information about Christianity. A good school would provide facts about major religions, because in our multi-cultural and multi-faith society we need to have some basic understanding of what others believe if we're to live together - otherwise you end up with people believing nonsense such as "all muslims want to be suicide bombers and enter paradise". So, you won't have a teacher proclaiming with authority "Christians believe x, y and z and it's absolutely true. If you suggest otherwise you'll fail the test". You should have "some Christians believe x, and this is why, others believe y. Jews believe z" and so on.

It's not the job of a teacher to indoctrinate pupils into a particular religion. That's the role of a pastor, minister or priest and parents.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
On the other hand, very few people would argue that the State should have total control over the exact menu that each and every person should follow every day, to the extent that if it decrees sprouts to be the finest food in existence then every person will eat sprerouts at least once every week.
But no one is arguing this. To continue the analogy, the State is attempting to provide a balanced meal.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

In the analogy, all the homeschoolers are saying is they don't like sprouts, they have no intention of eating them at any time, and the government shouldn't have the right to force them to do so if they don't want to.
I disagree. It is more akin to some saying the meal plan lacks in some desired element. Some think this element is more quality ingredients, some think this means a battenberg only menu.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
My response to that would probably be deemed a personal attack on a particular shipmate. A personal attack wouldn't be my intention. However, the hosts and administrators would probably have to interpret it that way.

So...

Having both taught and sat through presentations on religion, a neutral presentation of facts is very religion. My way of teaching Christianity was threefold. I tried to give a basic history of Christianity, taught the controversies that lead to the development of the Nicene Creed, and then answered the question about where all the denominations came from in the first place. I tried to present it all as impartially as possible. Would every Christian present think I gave their church proper consideration? Probably not

Take the Reformation as an example. I sat through several lectures on the Reformation during my academic career. It was only as an adult that I even considered the possibility that Martin Luther wasn't 100% in the right. Why? Because the way the story was always told from a Protestant prospective. The teacher's doing the teaching probably thought they were teaching the facts and nothing but the facts.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted lilBuddha:
I disagree. It is more akin to some saying the meal plan lacks in some desired element. Some think this element is more quality ingredients, some think this means a battenberg only menu.
For the record, I despise Michael Bloomberg as a politician.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The teacher's doing the teaching probably thought they were teaching the facts and nothing but the facts.
History is particularly problematic and not merely from a religious angle. However, to imply homeschooling would be less likely to be biased is foolish.

[ 20. May 2014, 16:47: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted lilBuddha:
I disagree. It is more akin to some saying the meal plan lacks in some desired element. Some think this element is more quality ingredients, some think this means a battenberg only menu.
For the record, I despise Michael Bloomberg as a politician.
For the record, that is an irrelevant non-sequitur.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I'm not implying that at all. I'm implying that bias being inevitable I can see parents wanting to choose the bias. Once the child becomes an adult, the child will be free to reject all they've been taught as children. So, it behooves parents who homeschool to make an attempt to see that all subjects are presented fairly. Still, I would prefer a school that affirmed not contradicted what I was trying to teach at home. Again, my preference would be a private/parochial school.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
It is not that we completely disagree in concept, but we likely disagree in practice.
I think school is not the place for religion, nor the extremes of ideology.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted lilBuddha:
I disagree. It is more akin to some saying the meal plan lacks in some desired element. Some think this element is more quality ingredients, some think this means a battenberg only menu.
For the record, I despise Michael Bloomberg as a politician.
For the record, that is an irrelevant non-sequitur.
I said it half jokingly. However, given the context, it makes perfect sense. Michael Bloomberg came off as an elitist jerk who wanted to micromanage the life of New Yorkers down to telling them how much soda they could purchase. Same goes with telling parents how they have to educate their children.

States do offer a GED in place of a high school diploma. All the homeschooled students I've met (even the least academically inclined among them) had not problem passing it. And, if homeschoolers don't pass the GED or graduate from an accredited program, how is that any different from the children who drop out of public school every day?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, there are a potentially huge number of reasons, but three principal ones.
Quality of education, desire to emphasize personal world view and segregation (class/culture as well as race).
No one I know who has homeschooled has done it for any of those reasons. They have all done it because the local school was not working out well for their particular child. In this post comet gives her reason for homeschooling.
quote:
We have a great school, here. There are problems, but our previous school system had much more worrying problems. My child, however, has a severe social phobia that has gotten really crippling since he hit puberty. Therefore, this over achieving brainiac took to skipping school. We tried everything, and even the psych agreed that for now, homeschooling is the best option until we can get his phobia under control.
I don't know what percentage of homeschooling parents do it for one of the reasons lilBuddha cited, or for the reason I have given. I don't think anyone knows. I don't like the assumption that homeschoolers' motives are necessarily bad.

Moo
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

And, if homeschoolers don't pass the GED or graduate from an accredited program
At least in these parts, if you homeschool, you are the school. You are, in fact, precisely a very small private school. This means that you decide the graduation requirements for your children, and you produce transcripts and grades to accompany your kids' college applications, just like any other school does.

The GED is for people who didn't complete high school. If you are a homeschooled high school student in good standing, you graduate from your (home) high school and get a high school diploma like anyone else.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't like the assumption that homeschoolers' motives are necessarily bad.

Moo
Moat of us are not saying this, I am certainly not. I am arguing against the supposition that homeschooling is inherently good.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
However, given the context, it makes perfect sense. Michael Bloomberg came off as an elitist jerk who wanted to micromanage the life of New Yorkers down to telling them how much soda they could purchase. Same goes with telling parents how they have to educate their children.
Slight difference. Bloomberg is trying to regulate the behaviour of adults. Our societies both accept a degree of regulation* and that it is acceptable to regulate children to a higher degree.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

States do offer a GED in place of a high school diploma. All the homeschooled students I've met (even the least academically inclined among them) had not problem passing it. And, if homeschoolers don't pass the GED or graduate from an accredited program, how is that any different from the children who drop out of public school every day?
Some universities look more sharply at GED, according to my friend Google. More is needed to gain acceptance. So, it would appear equally poor as compared to a more formal school.


*Though we argue as to the degree.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Many universities, even the Ivy League, are open to home schoolers.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your argument only works if I believe teachers such as yourself are doing anything other than indoctrinating them in their own views or at least those found acceptable by the state...... their own understanding of Christianity while pretending to be impartial.
My subject is not regulated by 'thye state'.

Each local authority has a SACRE which decides the syllabus - SACRE has four committees:

Church of England

Other denominations and religions

Teachers

Elected councillors across the 3 main parties

Additionally co-optations from Higher Ed.

Nothing may be taught unless all 4 committees are unanimous.

I have have sat on various SACREs for 35 years and they work very well.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Many universities, even the Ivy League, are open to home schoolers.
Yes, but they require more.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My way of teaching Christianity was threefold. I tried to give a basic history of Christianity, taught the controversies that lead to the development of the Nicene Creed, and then answered the question about where all the denominations came from in the first place. I tried to present it all as impartially as possible. Would every Christian present think I gave their church proper consideration? Probably not .....

teacher's doing the teaching probably thought they were teaching the facts and nothing but the facts.
The apostrophe in 'teacher's' renders this phrase difficult to understand but I am concerned about any teacher who merely teaches ';facts'. That is information. Education only starts when students can evaluate.

As for the Christianity description - nothing about Jesus. No discussion of theodicy, ethics, do miracles happen.

Woefully inadequate.

Which is why teaching should be done by teachers.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Many universities, even the Ivy League, are open to home schoolers.
Yes, but they require more.
No they don't. That just says there's more weight on standardized tests. We all took loads of SAT subject tests and got extra recommendations to apply to colleges like Yale, it's just as "suggested" for students who go to traditional schools.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by leo:
I have have sat on various SACREs for 35 years and they work very well
Oh, well, that proves it then.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Woefully inadequate.

Thank you leo. Knowing that you feel I did an inadequate job of teaching makes me feel much better about how I chose to teach the subject. I dare say it's one of the nicest compliments I've ever received. [Killing me]
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, there are a potentially huge number of reasons, but three principal ones.
Quality of education, desire to emphasize personal world view and segregation (class/culture as well as race).
No one I know who has homeschooled has done it for any of those reasons. They have all done it because the local school was not working out well for their particular child. In this post comet gives her reason for homeschooling.
quote:
We have a great school, here. There are problems, but our previous school system had much more worrying problems. My child, however, has a severe social phobia that has gotten really crippling since he hit puberty. Therefore, this over achieving brainiac took to skipping school. We tried everything, and even the psych agreed that for now, homeschooling is the best option until we can get his phobia under control.
I don't know what percentage of homeschooling parents do it for one of the reasons lilBuddha cited, or for the reason I have given. I don't think anyone knows. I don't like the assumption that homeschoolers' motives are necessarily bad.

Moo
My reasons for removing my child from the school system were to do with wanting to ensure that he understood what was important in life and what really mattered about people. I felt the school system with its emphasis on conformity, competitiveness and 'rules for the sake of rules' was diminishing to children and taught them to be judgemental about others. Also, the local schools where we lived at that time were, frankly, absolute shite, which had a strong bearing on our decision.

When it came to secondary school my son was very happy with the idea of home education and joining Education Otherwise. He gained a wider circle of friends than he would have had if he'd gone through the school system and a much broader education, which included experiences of acting and filming. Like many other home educated people he gained all the qualifications he needed to do what he wanted and is now a professional, 'middle-class' family man who goes to work in suits. During his teens he had long hair, ear piercings and dressed in 'heavy metal' clothes - none of which would have been tolerated in school. He set his own timetable and made his own decisions about what he wanted to learn. He's grown up confident and articulate with a strong work ethic and moral values - he's also a Christian.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Many universities, even the Ivy League, are open to home schoolers.
Yes, but they require more.
No they don't. That just says there's more weight on standardized tests. We all took loads of SAT subject tests and got extra recommendations to apply to colleges like Yale, it's just as "suggested" for students who go to traditional schools.
From my link:
quote:
Standardized test scores hold relatively more weight for home-schooled applicants. If you are a home-schooler and you feel confident about your ability to do well on the exams, we advise you to demonstrate your abilities in various areas by taking more than the required two SAT Subject Tests.

 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Before coming here to Kenya I taught in the UK state sector for 25 years. I remember being appalled during conversations with some acquaintances who were home-schooling but also with others who had started "Christian" schools, basically because of the appalling curriculum they all used.
When I first started teaching Reception (before graduating to key stage 3 SEBD boys [Ultra confused] ) the teaching methods and topics still had a strong child-centred ethos, so different from the old-fashioned prep school education I had received.
I was and remain passionate about teaching that encourages exploration and thinking and harnesses pupils' own interests as well as introducing them to a breadth of new ideas and skills.
Over the years, State education became more and more prescriptive in both its curriculum and approach so I was both sad and glad to leave and would have to be honest and say that I now understand how home-schooling could really work in quite a few situations that I can visualise.

All I hope is that wherever they are the children get the curriculum and the learning environment
that they deserve.
The shortcomings of any educational approach can be easily offset by parents who are committed to broadening their children's horizons.

[ 20. May 2014, 19:15: Message edited by: MrsBeaky ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From my link:
quote:
Standardized test scores hold relatively more weight for home-schooled applicants. If you are a home-schooler and you feel confident about your ability to do well on the exams, we advise you to demonstrate your abilities in various areas by taking more than the required two SAT Subject Tests.
In other words, we don't pay much attention to grades assigned by Mom and Dad - basically because it's difficult for parents to be objective about their child's college application.

In other news, your SAT scores, AP test results and the like are worth more than your high school teacher's opinion.

Similarly, the letters required of home school students are the same as those required of other applicants - there's just an extra indication that Mom and Dad might not be terribly unbiased referees.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Standardized test scores hold relatively more weight for home-schooled applicants. If you are a home-schooler and you feel confident about your ability to do well on the exams, we advise you to demonstrate your abilities in various areas by taking more than the required two SAT Subject Tests.
My bold for emphasis
Homeschool GED =/= highschool diploma.

There are jobs which require a university degree, rather than merely a demonstration of proficiency. Why? In part because it shows one has maintained a level of discipline for at least four years. This is an indication above merely taking a test.
ISTM, the same concept is in place here.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Standardized test scores hold relatively more weight for home-schooled applicants. If you are a home-schooler and you feel confident about your ability to do well on the exams, we advise you to demonstrate your abilities in various areas by taking more than the required two SAT Subject Tests.
My bold for emphasis
Homeschool GED =/= highschool diploma.

There are jobs which require a university degree, rather than merely a demonstration of proficiency. Why? In part because it shows one has maintained a level of discipline for at least four years. This is an indication above merely taking a test.
ISTM, the same concept is in place here.
I suspect it's actually a case of "I can't be bothered to wade through all the applications from every sixth-former with a bit of gumption who could actually do this job so I'll introduce some qualifications that have got to be achieved before I'll bother reading the application form."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Of course. If applications exceed available spots, requirements will become more rigorous. But notice that these are not applied to everyone, but to homeschoolers.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Homeschool GED =/= highschool diploma.
GED and Homeschool have nothing to do with each other. The GED is a test (tests) taken by high school dropouts. Homeschooled high schoolers who complete their education satisfactorily get diplomas from their (home) schools, like other high school students.

Occasionally, homeschool students take the GED tests. Most don't.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Whatever. The point is homeschoolers can expect a more rigourous look at their qualifications from at lest some universities.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course. If applications exceed available spots, requirements will become more rigorous. But notice that these are not applied to everyone, but to homeschoolers.
I'm not sure how getting your GCSE (UK 16+ qualification) from a public (state) school rather than as a homeschooled student was a big help in a situation where our latest "scan in the odd isbn" post had applications from several phd students...
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
Homeschoolers in England can take the same exams as school educated people. GCSEs can be taken as a private candidate or through a non-school establishment such as FE college or community centre. The qualification is exactly the same. Those homeschoolers who take 'post 16' courses at FE colleges sit exactly the same exams as the usual students, although they may be younger than the usual students.

[ 20. May 2014, 20:25: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
LC is in the US. There appears to be a difference.

Stepping away from the educational front for a moment, this article is interesting.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whatever. The point is homeschoolers can expect a more rigourous look at their qualifications from at lest some universities.
Well, sure. US universities know more or less what US public high schools look like. They don't need extra documentation to understand what Random Politician Memorial High School means by "Honors Chemistry".

They have less experience of Brian's Mom, so tend to ask Brian to go into a little more detail about exactly what was covered in his Chemistry course.

This has nothing at all to do with whether or not Brian has had a good education - it has to do with the fact that when Brian has a non-standard background, the university has more work to do to determine what education he has had, and so needs Brian to provide more documentation.

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Homeschoolers in England can take the same exams as school educated people.
Another pond difference. The US doesn't have public exams for school pupils - the qualification you get at the end of your school years is a "high school diploma", and is certified by the school itself.

Hence the existence of the SAT and ACT tests, in order to provide a common metric for college applicants.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What seems to pass many parents by is that schooling outside the home is as much about children socialising as it is about the imparting of knowledge. It is important that they start to build a network of friends and parents unable to see or accept this should ask themselves what they are afraid of.

As has been noted elsewhere, wishing to control the people one's children come into contact with to the extent of denying them a chance to mix with their peers is control freakery and to be resisted.

Looking at the adult life of hyper-bright child who was home-educated can be useful too: once they hit university (usually at least 3 or more years younger than other first years) they frequently go off the rails. Not only do they not make friends with their fellow students - likely to be down to the age gap - but having no group of friends of their own age they can be very susceptible to emotional and psychological problem which may be with them for the rest of their lives.
I'd like to comment on this with respect to my own experience. Again, I accept that I am offering only anecdotes, and again, I qualify that I was not raised in an abusive home, and indeed believe my parents made their decisions with the best of motives.

I've already talked about not having much access to people of my own age during adolescence, and how I yearned for it, but there is more to it than simply a lack of socialisation, I think. There is potentially a lack of the materials for social interaction. I'll try and unpack this below.

I went to University, to do a general BA, rather than the specialist course I had hoped for. I moved a long way from home in order to do this so was suddenly away from my family and amongst a lot of other young people. Now: I was able to socialise with them just fine, superficially. I speak English. I know how a conversation works, in back-and-forth terms. I can boil an egg, tie my shoelace, wash myself, hold a knife and fork correctly. All of this in addition to having sufficient educational attainment to get into university.

BUT, once there, I became gradually aware that there were some (quite a lot) of literary or socio-cultural zeitgeists which I had simply missed out on, as a result of being kept at home. Some (such as the lack of a TV and all that flows from that) were deliberate choices by my parents, because of concerns about evil influence. Others were, I think, simply omissions. There were a lot of things I was unaware of because they had never been mentioned or discussed in our house, because they didn't interest my parents. As a result, at the age of eighteen, not only had I not heard of Guns'n'Roses, Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Star Wars, Star Trek, or Monty Python, and had never seen an episode of the Simpsons (and boy do you miss out on a lot of jokes, side-snark, cultural references, shared memories, etc., there); I was also unaware of the Springbok tour, and all that went with that* - family not interested in rugby (not that it was really about rugby, per se). I was similarly unaware of the Underarm Bowling Incident.** Likewise the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior.*** I suspect that none of this concealment was intentional, but man did I feel the effects, when I was 'let loose'. And here is the thing. Twenty years later, I still haven't 'caught up' on this sort of knowledge, this cultural zeitgeist I missed. I doubt you ever can. There's an 'I guess you had to be there' aspect to it, and I wasn't there.


*May possibly be seen as irrelevant by the majority of the world, but was a 'big thing' here and is often referenced.

**As above, but this time we weren't the bad guys...

***Hopefully not seen as irrelevant by anyone, anywhere.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
And here is the thing. Twenty years later, I still haven't 'caught up' on this sort of knowledge, this cultural zeitgeist I missed. I doubt you ever can. There's an 'I guess you had to be there' aspect to it, and I wasn't there.
You're right. But looking back at my own childhood and that of my children, I think it's not just whether or not you are homeschooled but the degree of isolation from your peer culture (by things like no television)that is crucial.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
And here is the thing. Twenty years later, I still haven't 'caught up' on this sort of knowledge, this cultural zeitgeist I missed. I doubt you ever can. There's an 'I guess you had to be there' aspect to it, and I wasn't there.
You're right. But looking back at my own childhood and that of my children, I think it's not just whether or not you are homeschooled but the degree of isolation from your peer culture (by things like no television)that is crucial.
Isolation from peer culture can happen in many contexts, including schools. It can happen in some types of boarding school or private day schools. Even in a large state comprehensive there can be children from families with beliefs and lifestyles that isolate them.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Another pond difference. The US doesn't have public exams for school pupils - the qualification you get at the end of your school years is a "high school diploma", and is certified by the school itself.
based on required standards set by the state, not the individual school. districts can add further requirements on top of the state standards, but not change or decrease the state requirement.

to get a diploma, a home schooled student still needs to meet those state requirements. And in my state, they also need to pass the graduation qualifying exam. a diploma isn't issued willy-nilly by the parents or church group or crazy cat lady down the street.

[ 21. May 2014, 07:00: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Given Palin's comments about the disappearance of the MH 370, the crazy cat lady is not down the street, but in the State Governor's residence as well. Don't worry, we have plenty of nutters in our politics as well.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Who loaned me my daugher? The state?
Well, as a Christian I would say God if I thought she had been loaned to me. But she is actually a person in her own right.

Children are not the property of their parents.
But they are the prime responsibility of their parents. Unless you impose some kind of kibbutz system children will live with their parents and be provided for and cared for by them. Raising a child from the total dependence of babyhood to the total independence of adulthood is a process which involves teaching from the start. Parents are a child's first teachers and they remain teachers.

Parents also have the right to educate their children in accordance with their own religious and philosophical beliefs and to have those beliefs respected by any State school the child may attend.


quote:
Human Rights - Article 2 First Protocol
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
The UK Government entered a qualification in relation to the second sentence of this Article. The second sentence is accepted only insofar as it is compatible with the “…provision of efficient instruction and training, and with the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.”.

Schools must respect parents' wishes unless to do so would involve unreasonable expense or would interfere is some way with "efficient instruction and training".
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Parents also have the right to educate their children in accordance with their own religious and philosophical beliefs and to have those beliefs respected by any State school the child may attend.
What if - as in the case of Germany banning homeschooling, because, you know - those religious and philosophical beliefs are not just batshit crazy, but actively harmful to the rest of society?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What if - as in the case of Germany banning homeschooling, because, you know - those religious and philosophical beliefs are not just batshit crazy, but actively harmful to the rest of society?
That's a dangerous precedent to set though. What happens if society decides that Christianity is actively harmful? Are we supposed to just accept it and stop teaching our children about Christ?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What if - as in the case of Germany banning homeschooling, because, you know - those religious and philosophical beliefs are not just batshit crazy, but actively harmful to the rest of society?
That's a dangerous precedent to set though. What happens if society decides that Christianity is actively harmful? Are we supposed to just accept it and stop teaching our children about Christ?
Oh dear Lord. Homeschooling. Last time I looked my kids were only at their local comp for 5 days a week, 8.30-3.00.

Plenty of time for indoctrinating them into whatever we want outside of those times.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What if - as in the case of Germany banning homeschooling, because, you know - those religious and philosophical beliefs are not just batshit crazy, but actively harmful to the rest of society?
That's a dangerous precedent to set though. What happens if society decides that Christianity is actively harmful? Are we supposed to just accept it and stop teaching our children about Christ?
I guess it comes down to saying that the "formal education" we give children - whether at a state school, a private school, a cooperative of local parents teaching children, mum at home with a text book and DVD set - has to conform to certain standards to be considered an adequate education. And, it is possible for society to consider teaching of some ideas as "batshit crazy" and inappropriate as part of an education that attains that minimum standard.

Of course, you (and your church etc) can teach your children whatever batshit crazy ideas you want the rest of the time - evenings, weekends, holidays.

[which is more or less what Doc Tor said ...]

[ 21. May 2014, 10:16: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What if - as in the case of Germany banning homeschooling, because, you know - those religious and philosophical beliefs are not just batshit crazy, but actively harmful to the rest of society?
Germany also selects students into academic and vocational tracks at quite a young age. If a child is tracked into anything but the Gymnasium for secondary their ability to attend university is extremely limited as those schools do not prepare students for the Abitur, which is the A-Level equivalent and mandatory for university.

I'm not sure people want to hang their hats on the German education system as a point that home schooling is harmful. I think saying a child is not university material at age 10-12 is worse.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What you say about the German system is true but only up to a point: yes, there is selection at the age of 12 but into three different types of school (at least). The three main types of school - Hauptschule, Realschule and Gymnasium - mirror the system that the UK had (on paper at least) up to the almost universal abolition of selection.

Just as should have been the case in the UK pupils can move between schools so that a slow-starter can move up if they find the academic pace to slow, and a child who either struggles academically or who wishes to follow a more vocational path can move down a tier.

The most important thing is that home-schooling is almost unheard of except for children with serious medical problems - and they get visits from home tutors who follow the same curriculum as the child would if able to attend school.

As said above, children are only at school for a limited period so mum and dad have plenty of opportunity to indoctrinate/educate outside that: but equally it should be accepted that all of us can benefit from time apart and school gives us that, if nothing else.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What if - as in the case of Germany banning homeschooling, because, you know - those religious and philosophical beliefs are not just batshit crazy, but actively harmful to the rest of society?
That's a dangerous precedent to set though. What happens if society decides that Christianity is actively harmful? Are we supposed to just accept it and stop teaching our children about Christ?
Oh dear Lord. Homeschooling. Last time I looked my kids were only at their local comp for 5 days a week, 8.30-3.00.

Plenty of time for indoctrinating them into whatever we want outside of those times.
Indeed. My mother quite happily taught me about Christianity without any help from the secular public school system that I can recall.

Well, apart from the fact that our church happened to meet in the school hall for some years...

I even did this thing called 'Sunday school'. Remarkable, really. A whole session devoted to education in Christian matters, entirely unregulated by the government education department!

[ 21. May 2014, 10:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm not sure people want to hang their hats on the German education system as a point that home schooling is harmful. I think saying a child is not university material at age 10-12 is worse.
I'm not. But the Germans banning homeschooling for fears that neo-Nazis won't teach their kids about the Holocaust indicates that yes, there are some batshit crazy ideas that need to be challenged.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The most important thing is that home-schooling is almost unheard of except for children with serious medical problems - and they get visits from home tutors who follow the same curriculum as the child would if able to attend school.
But surely it's obvious that the German education system is oriented towards making productive citizens (that is workers)out of children and tracking them into their ability ranges at an early age. Therefore home schooling is banned because it does not serve the function of state education does in that regard.

There was a human rights investigation into Germany's school system as it turns out migrant children even 2-3 generations down the line are consistently tracked to the least academic schools.

I think freedom of choice for parents, including home schooling, is better than state-mandated control that is geared towards supplying the right number of plumbers to the market - which is what Germany does.
Education Discrimination in Germany
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well, then someone had better investigate my high school here in Australia because we streamed into different levels of Maths and English. By the the final couple of years of secondary education, there were different levels of subject available in just about everything.

Heck, back in primary school I got pulled out of my regular class once a week for special advanced classes.

It seems to me that singling out Germany places undue emphasis on whether the different streams of education occur in the same building or in different buildings.

[ 21. May 2014, 11:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, then someone had better investigate my high school here in Australia because we streamed into different levels of Maths and English. By the the final couple of years of secondary education, there were different levels of subject available in just about everything.
In Germany if you do not attend a Gymnasium, for which children are selected at age 12, you will not able to take the mandatory university entrance exam.

I don't know about Australia but in the UK and US the school you attend does not prevent you from going to university.

[ 21. May 2014, 11:15: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by seekingsister
quote:
In Germany if you do not attend a Gymnasium, for which children are selected at age 12, you will not able to take the mandatory university entrance exam.
That is not quite true SS: if you apply direct from the German school system you take exams at the Gym but that doesn't mean you started out there.

I know of two - British by birth - children who started off at the Hauptschule (lowest tier) who were transferred through the system as their language skills improved, both of whom ended up at the Gymnasium and then going to university. Their oldest sibling, who had good German but had already done GCSEs in the UK, took an International Bacc and then went on to university in Munich.

As for your bit about providing the requisite number of plumbers, etc: surely it is better for a child to proceed with academic work at a pace he/she finds able to keep up with, rather than sitting at the back of the class and floundering - which is what happens in UK comprehensive schools. And what is wrong with vocational training? Not everyone can cope with prolonged academic study and expecting them to put up with being bottom of the heap for a minimum of 5 years before they can start any vocational training is not only unrealistic but cruel.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There is a difference between streaming and setting.

The old UK Grammer/Technical Modern system was streaming, and the German system sounds similar. Students are assigned a school based on average academic performance across subjects - so someone who excels in science/math but is very poor in language/literature/history might be in a middle ranked school where he overachieves in science and struggles in history. It doesn't make a lot of difference if it's possible to move between streams, whether those are in the same school or different schools, a "one size fits all" approach of assuming academically able students are good in all subjects doesn't work.

Most comprehensive schools set, within the limitations of class sizes and number of teachers. So, someone good in maths and poor in language goes in a set for those good in maths and a set for those poor in language. This levels out some extent having pupils in classes that are more or less appropriate to their abilities.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
That is not quite true SS: if you apply direct from the German school system you take exams at the Gym but that doesn't mean you started out there.

[...]

As for your bit about providing the requisite number of plumbers, etc: surely it is better for a child to proceed with academic work at a pace he/she finds able to keep up with, rather than sitting at the back of the class and floundering - which is what happens in UK comprehensive schools. And what is wrong with vocational training? Not everyone can cope with prolonged academic study and expecting them to put up with being bottom of the heap for a minimum of 5 years before they can start any vocational training is not only unrealistic but cruel.
I'm going off memory from my German studies, but I remember that a small number of top students can transfer into Gyms after they finish at a Realschule. Hauptschule I'm surprised about, that was always described as quite low tier.

I have no problem with vocational training, but while it is possible to get into university with a poor high school/secondary qualification, it is impossible to get into university with none at all. So if you track students away from Abitur (or A-Level, or high school diploma/SATs) they will need to get them some other way at some later point in life if they decide to get a degree.

Anyway - my overall point is that Germany sees education in a quite different way to UK/US/etc and so to use it as an example of a country that has banned home schooling for some particularly noble reason is incorrect. Education in Germany is for selecting future workers based on the skills they display as children. Opting out of that system disrupts society, hence it is not allowed.

Any home schooled child in the UK can take A-Levels or GSCEs, they do not have to be enrolled in a college in order to do so. And in the US college exams (SATs/ACTs, and Advanced Placement) are completely detached from state education. So home schooling is not as much a disruption to future prospects as it would be in Germany, which is much more regimented.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Education in Germany is for selecting future workers based on the skills they display as children.
Even with my moderately touchy-feely left-wing tendencies, it's occurred to me more than once while reading this thread that ALL education is essentially about setting children up for work.

I mean, that's why we learn half of the stuff we do. Not for fun. Not because it's inherently interesting or entertaining. I suppose I'm the kind of freak weirdo who found maths quite interesting, but it still wasn't nearly as interesting as music or computer games or whatever.

And a couple of times I've felt that some advocacy of home schooling has missed the point that education isn't simply about parents getting to raise children who will be replicas of themselves as much as possible. Education is just as much about society getting new members who will be useful. That's half the reason why society agrees to pay for education. Employers have an eye on getting new employees with sufficient basic skills to be useful.

We've heard a heck of a lot more, it seems to me, about what parents want out of education than about what society wants out of education.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
It may be different in other States, but I'm aware of only 1 school in NSW which does not prepare students for university entrance. That school is a low fee Anglican school in Sydney's outer western suburbs, which tailors its Yr 11 and 12 classes for students who will be entering a trade - schooling and apprenticeships go together. Others may have a different opinion, but to me the idea at least is sensible, and helps fill a need for properly qualified tradespeople.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...it's occurred to me more than once while reading this thread that ALL education is essentially about setting children up for work.
{snip}
And a couple of times I've felt that some advocacy of home schooling has missed the point that education isn't simply about parents getting to raise children who will be replicas of themselves as much as possible. Education is just as much about society getting new members who will be useful. That's half the reason why society agrees to pay for education. Employers have an eye on getting new employees with sufficient basic skills to be useful.

We've heard a heck of a lot more, it seems to me, about what parents want out of education than about what society wants out of education.
Also, if someone who has just finished school has a marketable skill, he is much better off than someone who doesn't. It isn't just about what the parents or society want, it's about making the individual able to support himself.

Moo
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
To your first point...I'll just take your word for it that OFTED is a good judged of impartiality. [Killing me]

As to your second point...yet another reasons why I wouldn't want my daughter taught religion at a secular school.
The second point was about Jesus speaking in parables.

The principles and 'secular' education are concerned with not indoctrinating but helping students to work things out for themselves.

So are you saying that Jesus was wrong?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Over the years, State education became more and more prescriptive in both its curriculum and approach
That was the result in the tories meddling in and after the 1988 Education Act.

Some national curriculum documents were approaching a thousand pages per subject.

The tide has now turned. The current NC docs. coming on stream are more like 20 pages.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
I have have sat on various SACREs for 35 years and they work very well
Oh, well, that proves it then.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Woefully inadequate.

Thank you leo. Knowing that you feel I did an inadequate job of teaching makes me feel much better about how I chose to teach the subject. I dare say it's one of the nicest compliments I've ever received. [Killing me]
Priesthood is a vocation.

Teaching is a vocation.

Why should a priest teach children anymore than a teacher should celebrate the Eucharist?

Why should a parent, possible a non-graduate, be better able to teach children a clutch of subjects that a collection of teachers, with post-graduate qualifications in their specialist subjects?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Also, if someone who has just finished school has a marketable skill, he is much better off than someone who doesn't. It isn't just about what the parents or society want, it's about making the individual able to support himself.

Moo
This is also true.

It's also why, in my mind, there's at least some importance to the whole notion that it's right to prefer that teaching be done by qualified teachers and that we see to it that those qualifications really mean something.

In lots of areas we either require people to be qualified (the law forbids unqualified people from carrying out a task), or we as consumers look for qualified people as some kind of assurance that we're going to get someone who knows what they're doing. Yes, in the latter case we're free to do it ourselves or get our helpful neighbour to do it, but for important things we might want greater assurances.

Children are consumers of education, and education is pretty important. When adults get educated, they demand certain standards to get the result they want, like any other service. The only reason children aren't able to make similar demands is because, well, they're children.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
What if - as in the case of Germany banning homeschooling, because, you know - those religious and philosophical beliefs are not just batshit crazy, but actively harmful to the rest of society?
Ideas aren't harmful to society. Thoughts aren't a crime. Actions based on ideas are harmful. So, Neo-Nazi's deny the Holocaust? What's going to happen if they teach their children the holocaust didn't happen? The children of a fringe group will topple the German government and establish a Fourth Reich? That's as about as likely a scenario as the Turner Diaries. Neo-Nazis may commit acts of violence against Jews? Certainly a possibility. I fail to see how telling them Hitler killed 6 million Jews is going to convince Neo-Nazis not to kill Jews. Doesn't really make much sense.

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh dear Lord. Homeschooling. Last time I looked my kids were only at their local comp for 5 days a week, 8.30-3.00.

Plenty of time for indoctrinating them into whatever we want outside of those times.
This doesn't make any sense.

On one hand, you argue Germany has a right to ban all homeschooling because some Neo-Nazis may use homeschooling as an opportunity to deny the holocaust. Then, you say that if a government decides Christianity is the equivalent of Nazism that parents can still teach Christianity at home.

Now, if the government mandating that Christian parents send their children to a state run scool to be taught that Christianity is dangerous would not prevent Christians from teaching their children about Christianity then forcing NeoNazis to send their children to state run schools to learn about the holocaust won't prevent Neo Nazis from teaching their children to be Neo Nazis. You can't have it both ways. If the German plan to undermine Neo Nazi parents is successful, then it is proof that parents are right to be leery of the government deciding to undermine their ability to teach their values to their own children. If the German plan fails, then what legitimate interest does the German have to take away the prerogative of the parents to educate their children in a way they see fit? Punishing all parents who want to homeschool out of fear that some of them may be Neo Nazis but then claiming that the punishment really won't prevent the spread Nazism doesn't pass the sniff test.

quote:
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, it is possible for society to consider teaching of some ideas as "batshit crazy" and inappropriate as part of an education that attains that minimum standard.
Society is not a synonym for government. Society has the responsibility to challenge batshit crazy ideas when they are presented in the market place of ideas. When family, friends, or acquaintances present you with a batshit crazy idea, call it batshit crazy to their face. When you hear batshit crazy ideas a church, call them batshit crazy and act accordingly. Why politicians propose batshit crazy ideas, call them batshit crazy and act accordingly. That's how a true society handles batshit crazy ideas.

Batshit craziness is in the eye of the beholder. The government has no right to declare ideas batshit crazy. The government only has the right to intervene when those batshit crazy ideas lead to criminal activity.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This doesn't make any sense.

On one hand, you argue Germany has a right to ban all homeschooling because some Neo-Nazis may use homeschooling as an opportunity to deny the holocaust. Then, you say that if a government decides Christianity is the equivalent of Nazism that parents can still teach Christianity at home.
It makes perfect sense actually, because the whole point is that State schooling does NOT create a monopoly of input, but home schooling does.

They're not equal, opposite and thereby interchangeable positions.

A child goes to State school, learns certain things, and at the end of the school day goes home and can be taught a contrary position/different topics there.

A child goes to home school, learns certain things... and at the end of the school day stays in the same place.

[ 21. May 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your argument only works if I believe teachers such as yourself are doing anything other than indoctrinating them in their own views or at least those found acceptable by the state.
If I or any other teacher were indoctrinating students, we would be guilty of professional misconduct.

Do home schoolers indoctrinate their children? Is the content of their teaching (as opposed to SATs based on skills, not knowledge) open to scrutiny?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
It's also why, in my mind, there's at least some importance to the whole notion that it's right to prefer that teaching be done by qualified teachers and that we see to it that those qualifications really mean something.
High school graduates aren't qualified to do much of anything other than acquire more education. Jobs that require a high school diploma do so because a high school diploma insures that an individual is capable of getting up in the morning, going to a separate building, and doing the absolutely bare minimum. In many cases, the high school years could be spent learning a trade or vocation. Most high school teachers aren't qualified to do that. Homeschooling would certainly be the better way to go. The subjects taught in high school have very little to do with earning a living unless one needs them to do well on a test to get into a school where one will learn the skills to make a living.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your argument only works if I believe teachers such as yourself are doing anything other than indoctrinating them in their own views or at least those found acceptable by the state.
If I or any other teacher were indoctrinating students, we would be guilty of professional misconduct.

Do home schoolers indoctrinate their children? Is the content of their teaching (as opposed to SATs based on skills, not knowledge) open to scrutiny?
Who would decide if you are guilty of professional misconduct?

Why should I assume the ones responsible for policing your conduct are themselves impartial?

And, I find the way professional educators use the word "skills" to be rather dubious.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If I or any other teacher were indoctrinating students, we would be guilty of professional misconduct.
That reminds me...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
It's also why, in my mind, there's at least some importance to the whole notion that it's right to prefer that teaching be done by qualified teachers and that we see to it that those qualifications really mean something.
High school graduates aren't qualified to do much of anything other than acquire more education. Jobs that require a high school diploma do so because a high school diploma insures that an individual is capable of getting up in the morning, going to a separate building, and doing the absolutely bare minimum. In many cases, the high school years could be spent learning a trade or vocation. Most high school teachers aren't qualified to do that. Homeschooling would certainly be the better way to go. The subjects taught in high school have very little to do with earning a living unless one needs them to do well on a test to get into a school where one will learn the skills to make a living.
Given that description, I'm struggling to understand what high schools do. I'm going to assume that basic numeracy and literacy was taught prior to going to high school. So, those two essentials for employment aren't on the table. But, if high school doesn't teach other skills for employment, what is taught? Clearly no science or advanced math, because both of those are very useful in many jobs. No history, literature or anything that requires examining evidence, forming an opinion and expressing that in essays or presentations to the class, because those are useful employment skills (the actual facts of history, works of literature studied etc will rarely be useful in employment). No art, drama, music where pupils can learn to express their creativity; a much underrated employment skill. No team sports where pupils can learn to work with others, a vital skill for most jobs.

I'm certain I've seen all of those activities feature in TV shows and movies set in US High Schools. Does the TV/movie industry present a fantasy picture of high school that no real school is even close to being?

[ 21. May 2014, 14:26: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This doesn't make any sense.

On one hand, you argue Germany has a right to ban all homeschooling because some Neo-Nazis may use homeschooling as an opportunity to deny the holocaust. Then, you say that if a government decides Christianity is the equivalent of Nazism that parents can still teach Christianity at home.
It makes perfect sense actually, because the whole point is that State schooling does NOT create a monopoly of input, but home schooling does.

They're not equal, opposite and thereby interchangeable positions.

A child goes to State school, learns certain things, and at the end of the school day goes home and can be taught a contrary position/different topics there.

A child goes to home school, learns certain things... and at the end of the school day stays in the same place.
For the avoidance of doubt, what he said.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
It's also why, in my mind, there's at least some importance to the whole notion that it's right to prefer that teaching be done by qualified teachers and that we see to it that those qualifications really mean something.
High school graduates aren't qualified to do much of anything other than acquire more education. Jobs that require a high school diploma do so because a high school diploma insures that an individual is capable of getting up in the morning, going to a separate building, and doing the absolutely bare minimum. In many cases, the high school years could be spent learning a trade or vocation. Most high school teachers aren't qualified to do that. Homeschooling would certainly be the better way to go. The subjects taught in high school have very little to do with earning a living unless one needs them to do well on a test to get into a school where one will learn the skills to make a living.
Eh?

My high school had subjects like woodwork and metalwork and home economics and... oh hell, I can't remember half of them now because it was decades ago. But I can say with confidence that there was a whole bunch of practically-oriented stuff alongside the academic stuff.

In fact, the school system here in the ACT is well known for being successful at keeping kids going all the way to the end (past the age where it's compulsory) precisely because it offers vocational and trade-oriented subjects alongside the academic ones. Kids who are interested in that kind of route can start apprenticeship training and it counts towards getting their final school certificate.

If your high schooling was nothing but university preparation, then there definitely is something up with YOUR education system, but mine did a pretty good job of mixing together different sorts of subjects that were good for different parts of life.

[ 21. May 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your argument only works if I believe teachers such as yourself are doing anything other than indoctrinating them in their own views or at least those found acceptable by the state.
If I or any other teacher were indoctrinating students, we would be guilty of professional misconduct.

Do home schoolers indoctrinate their children? Is the content of their teaching (as opposed to SATs based on skills, not knowledge) open to scrutiny?
Who would decide if you are guilty of professional misconduct?

Why should I assume the ones responsible for policing your conduct are themselves impartial?.
Heads of Department sit in on lessons of those in there charge. They also do work sampling.

OFSTED does similar.

Inspection documents are in the public domain.

Unless you think that all teachers are somehow in some corrupt conspiracy and that you alone are impartial, then I fail to see why you are so distrustful of the professional expertise of others.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Most high school teachers aren't qualified to do that. Homeschooling would certainly be the better way to go.
Again with the magical ability to reach simply because one has children. Procreation and adoption do not convey teaching ability.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Why should a parent, possible a non-graduate, be better able to teach children a clutch of subjects that a collection of teachers, with post-graduate qualifications in their specialist subjects?
All other things being equal, there is no reason at all why this should be true in general, or even in anything other than extremely rare cases.

The other things aren't equal, though.

Teaching a class is not the same as teaching an individual child. The degree to which a child likes and trusts his teacher can be important. The degree to which the teacher knows and understands the child can be important. Moo has pointed out that individual tuition is much more time-efficient for the child than tuition in a class of 30, so the individually-tutored child has more time available to pursue other interests. In an individual learning environment, a child has more freedom for in-depth study of things that particularly interest him.

None of these things guarantee that homeschool will be better than school. Quite often, homeschool wouldn't be better than school. That's not the issue - nobody is claiming, I think, that homeschool is the right choice for all children, or all parents. But they do mean that the simplistic "I'm a teacher and you're just a mother, so my way must be better" argument doesn't tell the whole story.

But it does seem that some people in this discussion are claiming that homeschool can never be better than school, for any individual child, and that, I think, is false.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The subjects taught in high school have very little to do with earning a living unless one needs them to do well on a test to get into a school where one will learn the skills to make a living.
You said, elsewhere, that you distrusted 'skills'.

I do not regard education as primarily, if at all, concerned with 'earning a living' nor with passing tests. Such reductionism treats young people as economic units, not human beings made in the image of God and destined for eternity.

John Henry Newman's discourse on the purpose of university pretty much spells out the ideals and purpose of education here in the UK.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
High school graduates aren't qualified to do much of anything other than acquire more education. Jobs that require a high school diploma do so because a high school diploma insures that an individual is capable of getting up in the morning, going to a separate building, and doing the absolutely bare minimum. In many cases, the high school years could be spent learning a trade or vocation. Most high school teachers aren't qualified to do that. Homeschooling would certainly be the better way to go. The subjects taught in high school have very little to do with earning a living unless one needs them to do well on a test to get into a school where one will learn the skills to make a living.
High school isn't a job factory. However much corporations and governments have decided to characterise them such. People need basic skills in being together in groups, learning how to cooperate, interact socially, deal with human social and power structures. Education is about learning how to think. It is the basis for democracy. Your country of America specifically based itself on education as a factor in its democracy and governance.

I get the worry if you are a parent whose children have yet to start their education. It is wise to research the schools by talking to the school administration, parents etc. Most schools here have open houses and meetings, any one can attend parent-school council meetings etc. It pays to research teachers and to advocate for your child to be in a particular teacher's class. Schools run better with parent involvement.

When our children were children and in school, we took time from work to go on all field trips, attended all assemblies, all band concerts, many sports - all when our kids were participating. We also tried to go to all meetings about everything and served as parent reps when others wouldn't.

All teachers knew us by name, and I still run into some of them almost years after our last child graduated.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
But it does seem that some people in this discussion are claiming that homeschool can never be better than school, for any individual child, and that, I think, is false.
As far as I can remember there is one one person claiming this. Most of the thread is arguing the notion that homeschooling is inherently better.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

John Henry Newman's discourse on the purpose of university pretty much spells out the ideals and purpose of education here in the UK.
Ah leo, you beat me to it. Cardinal Newman is a fine prescription for the sort of educational utilitarian that talks too much about "employers", "training" and "skills".
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But it does seem that some people in this discussion are claiming that homeschool can never be better than school, for any individual child, and that, I think, is false.
Yes, I think this sums the thread up and the fact that some people would like to ban home schooling. The only reason I posted on it despite the fact that the only people I know involved in home schooling are batshit crazy.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Hang on - last mainstream comprehensive state secondary school I worked in, the year 10/11 classes were streamed to give:
Those streams also allowed setting for subjects within the streams so the students good a maths could go in that set. This is England, fairly well-known, televised school.

I've also worked/am working in alternative settings where the core subjects are taught, but also a lot of reintegration/social skills. Current student is effectively home educated, but the other students the team supports are working towards reintegration in one way or another - but some are on the sex register or are otherwise contraindicated for placement in a school setting. Now those kids' situations are mostly additionally complicated by their home settings, should they be at home not in care, and their families are not in a position to home educate their children. (We get these kids as this organisation is cheaper than sending the students to residential provision.)

I've also effectively home taught my own child when she was sick enough to be off school for two years. Medical provision is complicated. So too is sitting GCSE exams as an external candidate, so we worked within the school system so she could keep internal candidate status.

But I've known of situations where the child had a statement of special educational needs and the parents decided to take him off roll and educate otherwise - or basically not educate. That one, someone somewhere boobed and didn't check he had a statement as that would have ensured his education provision had a lot more supervision than he did. There are a lot of other quite bad stories around about home schooling.

It was also notoriously a way some local education welfare officers (the agency supposed to ensure attendance at school) dealt with their recalcitrant year 10 and 11 cases - by suggesting the parents withdrew them from the roll and educated them otherwise. I met a few of those - one brought himself along independently to be taught at one alternative setting, a couple of others were brought in by social care. However, when students have been taken off roll you have a funding can of worms to reopen. Parents don't get any funding for educating their child, the schools do.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
what is so ridiculous about parents wanting to teach their views to their own children
Not ridiculous. Sinful in my opinion since that is indoctrination, not education.
I can only assume that if you had children you would deliberately leave Chick Tracts and BNP pamphlets lying around for them in order to make sure they didn't grow up merely parroting your own views?
I suspect if would be a very brave teacher who used those as a resource. There would be complaints from parents (though I once taught in an area with a strong BNP presence so maybe not).

BNP ideas might belong in the Citizenship programmes of study where students are learning about different parties - immigration certainly gets discussed. Propaganda sources are certainly discussed in History.

The ideas in Chick tracts are certainly fodder for RE - is there an afterlife? does Hell exist? anti-Judaism, islamopbobia, homophobia, is the bible inerrant? etc.

So, yes, students should be exposed to a wide variety of views but not necessarily directly nor encompassing the lunatic fringe.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

John Henry Newman's discourse on the purpose of university pretty much spells out the ideals and purpose of education here in the UK.
Ah leo, you beat me to it. Cardinal Newman is a fine prescription for the sort of educational utilitarian that talks too much about "employers", "training" and "skills".
I'd like to know what BA and other home-schoolers' theology of education is. Also what their philosophy of education is? And on what basis do they select subjects and their content?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So, yes, students should be exposed to a wide variety of views but not necessarily directly nor encompassing the lunatic fringe.
The subtext of your post seems to be "students should be exposed to a wide variety of views as long as they're also taught that some of them are Wrong". Which is indoctrination, by your own definition.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But there are a few things that are taught, including in some UK academies, which most people would agree are factually wrong, The immediate examples that come to mind are dead horses, for example, creationism and some of misinformation about abortion from Pro-Life sources.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So, yes, students should be exposed to a wide variety of views but not necessarily directly nor encompassing the lunatic fringe.
The subtext of your post seems to be "students should be exposed to a wide variety of views as long as they're also taught that some of them are Wrong". Which is indoctrination, by your own definition.
Like lilBuddha said taught to think means believe like me.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
But it does seem that some people in this discussion are claiming that homeschool can never be better than school, for any individual child, and that, I think, is false.
As far as I can remember there is one one person claiming this. Most of the thread is arguing the notion that homeschooling is inherently better.
Well, then, let's put the argument to rest. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that parents should be allowed to choose the way their child gets educated.

What I'm not saying

1. Public schools shouldn't exist.
2. Public schools shouldn't be funded by taxes
3. Public schools shouldn't hire only certified teachers.
4. Most public schools don't offer an adequate education.
5. Homeschooling is the right option for everybody
6. Homeschooling doesn't have inherent difficulties that must be addressed.
7. Homeschooling means parents and only parents should teach their children anything.
8. Homeschooling is the only alternative to public schools.

Keep in mind on the Hell that spawned this, I said I had mixed feelings about home schooling. I do. And, I only got heavily involved in this thread when a couple of shipmates argued homeschooling should be banned entirely. Before that, I was prepared to have a reasonable discussion about the comparative merits of different ways of educating children.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Curiosity Killed...:
a university entry style stream - very academic, 14 academic GCSEs and high flying,
a middling stream - 10 GCSEs or more vocational courses on offer, such as engineering BTECs, leisure and tourism NVQ,
a purely vocational stream - 8 GCSEs or equivalent, life skills and additional support, vocational courses;
a small alternative group who had core lessons - maths, English, ICT, PSHE in school, maybe a day a week at college and a day or two in work experience.
Most US schools don't and likely can't offer all of that. Larger cities can but to what degree they do I don't know. The better public schools do offer vocational education that prepares you for an actual job. Many in the United States believe everybody should go to college. Teaching vocational programs in public school is seen as giving up on students.

For rural school districts providing vocational education would likely involve students receiving on the job training or an apprenticeship in the community. I wish for a whole host of reasons more of that was done. While the public school could facilitate such placements, I see no reason the public schools would be any better at finding such opportunities for children than their parents.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But there are a few things that are taught, including in some UK academies, which most people would agree are factually wrong, The immediate examples that come to mind are dead horses, for example, creationism and some of misinformation about abortion from Pro-Life sources.
So what, it's not indoctrination if most people agree with the views being taught? Is education about letting people make up their own minds or is it about getting them to agree with the most popular takes on all those dead horses?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
No, it is indoctrination if things that most people agree are untrue are taught as fact and truths that should be believed.

The problem with a lot of education is that you have to give children / people the tools to be able to decide for themselves - the skills of reading for comprehension, research, checking sources, understanding that there are other views ..., the basic arithmetical skills, some understanding of statistics. And some home schooling is not good at doing any of that. And some academies with a particular agenda are deliberately trying to indoctrinate.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But there are a few things that are taught, including in some UK academies, which most people would agree are factually wrong, The immediate examples that come to mind are dead horses, for example, creationism and some of misinformation about abortion from Pro-Life sources.
It is allowed that such things be taught? Is there a standard for UK schools? Here it's provincial, but curricula have to be approved. With rather wide latitude, so do home schooling curricula. I believe the term used is "learning plan" which has to be provided for home schooling.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So, yes, students should be exposed to a wide variety of views but not necessarily directly nor encompassing the lunatic fringe.
The subtext of your post seems to be "students should be exposed to a wide variety of views as long as they're also taught that some of them are Wrong". Which is indoctrination, by your own definition.
not 'taught' - only taught the ability to evaluate and make up their own minds.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

John Henry Newman's discourse on the purpose of university pretty much spells out the ideals and purpose of education here in the UK.
Ah leo, you beat me to it. Cardinal Newman is a fine prescription for the sort of educational utilitarian that talks too much about "employers", "training" and "skills".
I'd like to know what BA and other home-schoolers' theology of education is. Also what their philosophy of education is? And on what basis do they select subjects and their content?
I'd still like to know.

Also, what is this suspicion of 'the state'?

After all, the 'state' is the human community, those who democratically cast their vote.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Indoctrination doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Teaching one side of a controversial issue as truth is indoctrination. According to you, schools in the UK do just that. Therefore, UK schools, based on the actual definition of indoctrination, indoctrinate children. Now, indoctrination to some degree may be inevitable. You may want your children indoctrinated into the ideology taught by the local schools. You should have every right to send them to the local school to have them reinforce what you are teaching them at home. All I'm saying is that parents who disagree with you should have the same right.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indoctrination doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Teaching one side of a controversial issue as truth is indoctrination. According to you, schools in the UK do just that. Therefore, UK schools, based on the actual definition of indoctrination, indoctrinate children. Now, indoctrination to some degree may be inevitable. You may want your children indoctrinated into the ideology taught by the local schools. You should have every right to send them to the local school to have them reinforce what you are teaching them at home. All I'm saying is that parents who disagree with you should have the same right.
Who is the 'you' in that assertion?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by leo:
Also, what is this suspicion of 'the state'?

After all, the 'state' is the human community, those who democratically cast their vote.

[Projectile]

And I wouldn't want anybody who held that view teaching my children any subject that I thought was important.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
Also, what is this suspicion of 'the state'?

After all, the 'state' is the human community, those who democratically cast their vote.

[Projectile]

And I wouldn't want anybody who held that view teaching my children any subject that I thought was important.
So you are against democracy?

The sole expert and arbiter of your kids' destinies?

From whence do you get this superhuman wisdom.

And my other question, who is the 'you' mentioned above?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I'm against democracy as you apparently define it.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Given Palin's comments about the disappearance of the MH 370, the crazy cat lady is not down the street, but in the State Governor's residence as well. Don't worry, we have plenty of nutters in our politics as well.
Gee D - I've responded to this in Hell.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm against democracy as you apparently define it.
That says it all.

You know best.

Nobody else knows anything.

(Though I will grant you that the will of the majority can be wrong e.g. those who voted for Hitler.)
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indoctrination doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Teaching one side of a controversial issue as truth is indoctrination. According to you, schools in the UK do just that. Therefore, UK schools, based on the actual definition of indoctrination, indoctrinate children. Now, indoctrination to some degree may be inevitable. You may want your children indoctrinated into the ideology taught by the local schools. You should have every right to send them to the local school to have them reinforce what you are teaching them at home. All I'm saying is that parents who disagree with you should have the same right.
Who is the 'you' in that assertion?
You have not yet answered this - 3rd time of asking.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indoctrination doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Teaching one side of a controversial issue as truth is indoctrination. According to you, schools in the UK do just that. Therefore, UK schools, based on the actual definition of indoctrination, indoctrinate children. Now, indoctrination to some degree may be inevitable. You may want your children indoctrinated into the ideology taught by the local schools. You should have every right to send them to the local school to have them reinforce what you are teaching them at home. All I'm saying is that parents who disagree with you should have the same right.
Who is the 'you' in that assertion?
Have you an answer?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

John Henry Newman's discourse on the purpose of university pretty much spells out the ideals and purpose of education here in the UK.
Ah leo, you beat me to it. Cardinal Newman is a fine prescription for the sort of educational utilitarian that talks too much about "employers", "training" and "skills".
I'd like to know what BA and other home-schoolers' theology of education is. Also what their philosophy of education is? And on what basis do they select subjects and their content?
Have you an answer?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your argument only works if I believe teachers such as yourself are doing anything other than indoctrinating them in their own views or at least those found acceptable by the state.
If I or any other teacher were indoctrinating students, we would be guilty of professional misconduct.

Do home schoolers indoctrinate their children? Is the content of their teaching (as opposed to SATs based on skills, not knowledge) open to scrutiny?
Have you an answer?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
To your first point...I'll just take your word for it that OFTED is a good judged of impartiality. [Killing me]

As to your second point...yet another reasons why I wouldn't want my daughter taught religion at a secular school.
The second point was about Jesus speaking in parables.

The principles and 'secular' education are concerned with not indoctrinating but helping students to work things out for themselves.

So are you saying that Jesus was wrong?
Have you an answer?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But it does seem that some people in this discussion are claiming that homeschool can never be better than school, for any individual child, and that, I think, is false.
Yes, I think this sums the thread up and the fact that some people would like to ban home schooling. The only reason I posted on it despite the fact that the only people I know involved in home schooling are batshit crazy.
I agree with you on the crazy bit.

However, last time I read youy on education, you were denying my assertion that free schools detracted from children in schools.

This week, it was proven that Michael Gove had taken billions of pounds away from them to keep his free schools afloat.

Any comments?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm against democracy as you apparently define it.
That says it all.

You know best.

Nobody else knows anything.

(Though I will grant you that the will of the majority can be wrong e.g. those who voted for Hitler.)
Not wishing to get into this thread, which has become too confusing for me, but I would note that in the last free election (November, 1932) under the Weimar constitution, Adolf only managed 33% of the vote. This was down from the presidential election the previous spring, when he managed 37%. He never got a majority in his life, unless encouraged by what we would now call extra-democratic means.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Not wishing to get into this thread, which has become too confusing for me, but I would note that in the last free election (November, 1932) under the Weimar constitution, Adolf only managed 33% of the vote.
Is this the point when I mention that the last UK political party to achieve a majority of the popular vote was the Conservative Party under Stanley Baldwin in 1931?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm against democracy as you apparently define it.
That says it all.

You know best.

Nobody else knows anything.

(Though I will grant you that the will of the majority can be wrong e.g. those who voted for Hitler.)
Wow...that's quite the non sequitur

Hitler is the only time in history a bad leader was democratically chosen? [Ultra confused]

You'll find the answer to your two other questions by reading the thread a bit closer. [Biased]

[ 21. May 2014, 21:03: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

leo: find a better way of reminding people that you are waiting for an answer. Multiple sequential posts are bad form and besides, hardly anybody will read them.

/hosting
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Wait, so is this all about the right to teach your child things like 'there is a serious debate about whether climate change is true' and provide a 'balanced' view by giving equal time to the for and against arguments?

That's what some of this stuff about indoctrination sounds like.

In which case, we can ban homeschooling because the media will take care of that anyway. They think 'balance' means getting one person from each side of any argument, and ignoring the fact that on one side there are thousands upon thousands more people they could ask for a quote, and on the other side there's the same handful of people available every time.

Children SHOULD be taught that most people believe one thing, and very, very few people believe the other. That's not indoctrination, that's realism. That's preparing them for the fact that if they go out into the world spouting the rare view, it won't be accepted by everyone as a legitimate opinion but will be seen by many as lunatic ravings.

Heck, even if you're teaching your kid at home and teaching them fringe views, you should make sure they're aware that they ARE fringe views.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
High school isn't a job factory. However much corporations and governments have decided to characterise them such. People need basic skills in being together in groups, learning how to cooperate, interact socially, deal with human social and power structures.
{tangent alert}

In the school my daughters attended, the effort to teach the students to cooperate had the opposite effect. Teachers would assign group projects and decide which group each individual should belong to. AFAIK there was no wide range of mental ability in any group; if there had been, that would have been fine.

Unfortunately, each group included some students who were willing to work hard, and some who weren't. In the first meeting of a group, some members said they wouldn't have any time, so the others would have to do it all. They were completely matter-of-fact about this. They had no problem with the fact that the others would have to work extra hard. The teachers can't have been unaware of the problem; they had been teaching for many years. However, they chose to overlook the situation, and give the same grade to every student in the group no matter how much or how little work they had done. I assume the ones who refused to work got a nasty shock when they finished school and discovered they couldn't coast anymore.

This situation was not unique to my daughters' school. My friends whose children went to other schools reported the same situation.

{/tangent alert}

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
That's a known risk of group projects, on every grade/age level and in every sort of school. Most educators, myself included, feel the benefits of group learning outweigh that obvious problem. There are particular skills which can ONLY be learned in groups-- including some of the skills involved in negotiating fair work allocation-- which is precisely one of those real-life applications we've been talking about. This is, after all, a very common workplace challenge-- what to do when a co-worker isn't carrying their load making your whole dept. look bad.

Some educators will implement various schemes (I do) to try to measure and assess individual contributions to the group, but they are all awkward and only partly successful, so many will just give a group grade and let the chips fall where they may. If it makes you feel better, I have found that even though the slacker kids will benefit from the efforts of the go-getters on this one project, it generally doesn't make that much of a difference-- if they're a slacker on group projects generally they're a slacker on their individual work as well, which is what ends up reflected in their final grade.

And homeschooling wouldn't really change that. You either have some sort of cooperative scheme where you assign group projects, and find yourself in the same assessment difficulty, or you don't assign any group projects and the students never acquire the benefits of learning those group management skills.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
And homeschooling wouldn't really change that. You either have some sort of cooperative scheme where you assign group projects, and find yourself in the same assessment difficulty, or you don't assign any group projects and the students never acquire the benefits of learning those group management skills.
It appeared to me that no one involved learned any group management skills.

Moo
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
AFAIK no one ever talked to the students about group management skills and what to do if someone refuses to pull his weight.

Did they really believe that the students would figure it out on their own?

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
And homeschooling wouldn't really change that. You either have some sort of cooperative scheme where you assign group projects, and find yourself in the same assessment difficulty, or you don't assign any group projects and the students never acquire the benefits of learning those group management skills.
It appeared to me that no one involved learned any group management skills.

Moo
Really? Sounds to me like it did. At the very least, they learned that there's always someone in every group who doesn't contribute. They learned how to negotiate, and that even negotiation can only get you so far.

There are actually quite a few pedagogical reasons why we assign group projects-- learning group management skills is just one of them. I would never use it as the only assessed assignment, for the very reason you identify. But it is still a valid and useful educational technique.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
AFAIK there was no negotiation. Some group members announced that they had no intention of doing any work, and the others took their word for it.

Moo
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
High school isn't a job factory. However much corporations and governments have decided to characterise them such. People need basic skills in being together in groups, learning how to cooperate, interact socially, deal with human social and power structures.
{tangent alert}

In the school my daughters attended, the effort to teach the students to cooperate had the opposite effect. Teachers would assign group projects and decide which group each individual should belong to. AFAIK there was no wide range of mental ability in any group; if there had been, that would have been fine.

Unfortunately, each group included some students who were willing to work hard, and some who weren't. In the first meeting of a group, some members said they wouldn't have any time, so the others would have to do it all. They were completely matter-of-fact about this. They had no problem with the fact that the others would have to work extra hard. The teachers can't have been unaware of the problem; they had been teaching for many years. However, they chose to overlook the situation, and give the same grade to every student in the group no matter how much or how little work they had done. I assume the ones who refused to work got a nasty shock when they finished school and discovered they couldn't coast anymore.

This situation was not unique to my daughters' school. My friends whose children went to other schools reported the same situation.

{/tangent alert}

Moo
Which is precisely the point. This is what happens in the real world and children need to learn how to handle it. Good teaching involves teachers being willing to consult about it. Funnily enough, these are some of the "soft skills" companies rave about.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK there was no negotiation. Some group members announced that they had no intention of doing any work, and the others took their word for it.

Moo
Yep. That's not unusual-- at school, or in the workplace. Life is like that. And, as noted above, a good part of education is preparing you for what life is really like.

(cross-posted with no prophet-- we're on the same page. Or maybe I copied off his/her work...)

[ 22. May 2014, 00:53: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
Which is precisely the point. This is what happens in the real world and children need to learn how to handle it. Good teaching involves teachers being willing to consult about it.
None of the teachers said anything to the students about how to handle this. They appeared to think that the situation was satisfactory.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
Which is precisely the point. This is what happens in the real world and children need to learn how to handle it. Good teaching involves teachers being willing to consult about it.
None of the teachers said anything to the students about how to handle this. They appeared to think that the situation was satisfactory.

Moo
I think they thought the situation was normal-- because it is. Again, this happens in the world all the time. All the time. In the workplace: all the time. And, just like in the workplace, there's no one way to handle it. Sometimes you can negotiate, sometimes you can't. Sometimes it's a good strategy to appeal to the teacher/boss, sometimes that's unhelpful. Sometimes, the teacher/boss has some process to assess individual contributions, sometimes there isn't. As I said, in teaching, generally the slackers will get the grade they deserve in the end-- if they slack off on group projects, they slack off on individual assignments too, and that will be reflected in their final grade. Would that were so often true in the workplace.

And, just to reiterate-- the benefits of group projects are not limited to the real life application of group management skills. There are some real, proven pedagogical benefits as well. Those don't disappear just because some group members end up getting a free ride.

While this discussion seems like a tangent, it really is a good example of one of those real-life applications that would usually be missing from a homeschooling experience. (pause for Moo to say "thank God")

[ 22. May 2014, 01:33: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
What did the teacher teach the students who did absolutely nothing about the real world? Unless they are lucky to have a string of bosses like that teacher, they will get fired. When they do, I guess we can just blame that teacher for failing to teach them about the potential consequences of slacking off in the real world.
Plus, the teacher taught the kids who did work hard that slacking is perfectly acceptable in the real world. I just hope all of them can find jobs with bosses who tolerate slackers, fire the people who do the work, and still manage to stay in business.

And, please, everybody share your anecdotes about how common these jobs are. I'm serious. I want names of specific businesses. I know people who have trouble holding down a job. They need to know these places exist.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
If you've never had a job where someone in your department (often someone in a higher position) took credit for your work then I want to know where YOU work.
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
None of the teachers said anything to the students about how to handle this. They appeared to think that the situation was satisfactory.

Moo
I think they thought the situation was normal-- because it is. Again, this happens in the world all the time. All the time
I do agree with Moo that advanced social skills like this is one place where we fail to give kids enough guidance. It's a huge mess of complicated unwritten rules and all too often, unless the child has some socialization challenge like autism, we just expect them to work it out for themselves.

Even adults have difficulty relating to co-workers, and we expect children to do it without any advice?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What did the teacher teach the students who did absolutely nothing about the real world?
Why would you expect the student who didn't do the work to derive an educational benefit? Students who don't do the work gain the benefits, not the slackers.

Again, the benefits are not limited to group-building skills. Studies have shown that group work is one of the most effective educational methods. Even in a group where their hard work is exploited by underserving leeches, the go-getters will learn more about the actual subject than they would through most other instructional methods.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Who cares about finding a place to work where there are no slackers? I'm more interested in finding employment for people who can't keep a job mostly because they are slackers. I got Facebook friends who need to know.

The teacher who is trying to teach the group what it's like in the real world rewarded the slacker. So, the teacher taught the group that in the real world slacking is rewarded. The teacher obviously thought it was more important to teach the motivated kids to put up with slackers than teach the slackers not to slack. I can only conclude the teacher thinks slackers have an easy time in the real world.

OK

I just want to know where a slacker can get a long term and decent paying job.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
The world is not fair. Nice people sometimes finish last. People who don't actually work get paid more than people who do. Bankers who gamble and lose get bonuses. Boneheads without scruples do better as politicians than ethical bright people. People exploit each other. Welcome to the world.

School is not all of this, not all the time, not all at once.

Some proportion of people are decent, fair, just, and willing to work and give credit where it is due. I think this is the 80%. With the group of slackers and exploiters being about 1 in 4.

That's the world. And yes, we carry the slackers. It's the price of being human.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
One thing I always find fascinating about conversations about education is that everyone is always an expert. Apparently since we all went to school *cough* years ago, we all know everything there is to know about education today. Parents are capable and have enough information to accurately evaluate teachers and schools, and parents are capable of educating their children just as well or better. Really? Since most people aren't teachers, that means the vast majority of parents are not actually qualified to teach anyone else's children, and yet apparently they can magically teach their own kids better than anyone.

Now, of course parents have the right and the obligation to try to get their children a good education. I just cannot accept that this ultimate responsibility automatically confers superb judgment or great skill to deliver that education directly.

Do parents go through this same exercise with, oh, say, pediatricians? If parents thought that the local hospital was inadequate, could they just rely on home remedies for their children? Of course not. Nobody claims that since parents are ultimately responsible for their kids' health, they have the right to do their own tonsillectomies at home if they think their pediatrician isn't any good.

I'm going to hazard that his is because of a perception that teaching is actually something easy, something anyone can pick up, or worse, something anyone can fake their way through. Frankly, I'd feel a lot better about a lot of homeschooling if a) parents showed a bit more humility about their educational credentials, and b) didn't seem so terrified of exposing their children to the world the rest of us live in. Parents' egos and fears are not good reasons to homeschool, IMHO.

Disclaimer: For better and for worse, I was homeschooled for many years.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

And, please, everybody share your anecdotes about how common these jobs are. I'm serious. I want names of specific businesses. I know people who have trouble holding down a job. They need to know these places exist.
Well, then please share your anecdotes of jobs which everyone pulls their own weight. I would like specific businesses. Oh, yes, Social Security/National Insurance Numbers as well. Bank numbers, home address, etc.
Types of business that support the less-than-enthusiastic? Entertainment, government, Engineering, Design; any company large enough can, and typically does, support some slackers.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I'm hardly in a position to evaluate your distrust, since my mother was a teacher and my father a doctor. However I do note that the human race did manage to survive somehow before the invention of the teaching certificate.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
At a time when only a few were literate and the skills for a trade were passed down, father to son, mother to daughter, the lack of a teaching certificate was irrelevant. Not sure that model works so well now.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm hardly in a position to evaluate your distrust, since my mother was a teacher and my father a doctor. However I do note that the human race did manage to survive somehow before the invention of the teaching certificate.
We managed to survive before we had qualified surgeons and airline pilots as well.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
Sending children to school is no guarantee they'll be taught by people with a teaching qualification. In primary school they may be taught for much of the time by Teaching Assistants, especially those graded Higher Level. At secondary level unqualified teachers can be employed as 'Instructors' and absences can be covered by 'Cover Supervisors' who are supposed to give out work set by a teacher and then supervise the class. Even where qualified teachers are taking classes they may not necessarily be specialists in the subject they're teaching. I've worked in three comprehensives which had no specialist maths teacher. A lot of RE teaching is done by non-specialists. In many schools RE is treated as part of the PSHE/Citizenship provision which is shared out among most of the staff. 'Business Studies' and 'Health and Social Care' are IME rarely taught by anyone with specialist knowledge in those areas. Most qualified teachers will have a usable specialist subject but they may be spending at least half their time teaching subjects they've never studied since their own schooldays, or even never studied at all.

Money is the main driving force in state provided education and these days it's all about getting more for less. So older experienced teachers are 'managed out' of the profession to be replaced by those much lower down the pay scale. Instructors and cover supervisors cost less than teachers. Supply teachers can be replaced by supply cover supervisors at less than half the daily pay. And it can still be made to look as if educational standards are improving.

[ 22. May 2014, 10:12: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
In the post where I first brought up the topic of group projects, it was in reply to no prophet saying that schools teach students to cooperate. When I pointed out that this was not always true, the argument shifted, and it was said that group projects teach students that there are slackers and nothing can be done about it.

It seems to me that this is something that an individual who has been homeschooled can learn very quickly. It does take much more time to learn cooperation, but in many cases that's not being learned anyway.

Even if every student in school learned cooperation there, that does not mean that homeschooled students have no opportunity to learn it. My daughters learned it at home, in Girl Scouts, and other activities. My younger daughter was in a drama group where all the children were amateurs, but all the adults who worked with them were professionals. The kids were taught how cover for others' mistakes, so that the audience would not realize anything was wrong. This was the extreme opposite of the group projects they were involved in at school.

Moo
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
An additional thought about the home environment, following on from a comment pages back about people getting a break from each other.

I had the great joy (!) of mild depression after both my older children were born. It was fairly mild, as these things go, and also fairly short lived. It was still bloody awful though. I was impatient, unpredictable, often angry, and tearful much of the time. I can't imagine I was great company for my young children. By the time Child A was old enough to go to playschool (nearly 3) I was just about beginning to be able to see out of the pit. Child B would have been nearly 1, I think I was better properly when she was about 18 months old. It was a blessed relief to hand over, for a few hours a week, Child A to people who would look after her, play with her, help her to find out about stuff, and generally be rather more emotionally stable & fun to be with than her mother.

Similarly, the reception class teacher both children had is bubbly, cheerful and quite loud & outgoing, in contrast to how I was at the time. She also shouts quite a bit, apparantly, so we do have that in common.

I think how one chooses to do education is about the needs and wants of the family as a whole as well as the child. I wouldn't have wanted to HomeEd for a million reasons, and not being able to cope would have been a big part of it.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
During the years we were involved in home education my son got involved in various 'living history' projects which developed skills in cooperation and also in dealing with the realities of working life. One these projects was based at a Tudor manor house which would recreate life in a Tudor estate with agricultural workers, blacksmiths, brewers, bakers etc.. Many home educated teenagers were involved in this because they had the time and freedom to attend the training sessions, make their costumes and then spend several weeks in character when the house was open to the public. They needed self-discipline and cooperation with others for this to succeed. Anyone not willing to make the necessary effort and reach the standard needed would have been told to go home.

Similarly, many home educated teenagers enrol on 'post-16' courses where they are treated just the same as other students - either they do the work and make the grade or they're off the course.

[ 22. May 2014, 12:57: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I think how one chooses to do education is about the needs and wants of the family as a whole as well as the child. I wouldn't have wanted to HomeEd for a million reasons, and not being able to cope would have been a big part of it.
Absolutely

And, I know for a fact some still condemn parents who put their children in daycare instead of staying with them all day. Women take the brunt of this judgment. Those folks can fuck right off too. Those are decisions families should make without interference or judgment.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Touching back on the Ye olde days education, a reason homeschooling can function effectively in modern society is because of, not in spite of, state education.

[ 22. May 2014, 14:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In the post where I first brought up the topic of group projects, it was in reply to no prophet saying that schools teach students to cooperate. When I pointed out that this was not always true, the argument shifted, and it was said that group projects teach students that there are slackers and nothing can be done about it.

It seems to me that this is something that an individual who has been homeschooled can learn very quickly. It does take much more time to learn cooperation, but in many cases that's not being learned anyway.
fyi: the point has been made several times but seems to be missed, that learning group management skills (different from cooperation) is not the only or even the primary reason for assigning group projects-- it's an important side benefit. The main purpose for assigning group projects is that it is one of the most effective teaching techniques (one of those things that you learn when you pursue those meaningless teaching certificates). That's why teachers assign them. So even when slackers exploit the go-getters, those diligent students still derive the primary benefit of the assignment-- the superior learning of the content that happens when you engage in this sort of learning. Yes, it can be done in other ways. But it's one of the most effective.


quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My daughters learned it at home, in Girl Scouts, and other activities. My younger daughter was in a drama group where all the children were amateurs, but all the adults who worked with them were professionals. The kids were taught how cover for others' mistakes, so that the audience would not realize anything was wrong. This was the extreme opposite of the group projects they were involved in at school.
Obviously, teachers vary as do the circumstances. Many teachers will engage in some of this sort of instruction when using group projects as well as develop various assessment devices to account for the differing levels of contribution to group projects. This is true of teaching, I suspect it's also true of drama groups. Your children were fortunate enough to have a very good drama experience and a rather poor school experience. I imagine one could find other children where the reverse was true.

But yes, group experiences/projects can be found outside of school environments. That's why most of us on this thread are not arguing vs. all homeschooling per se, but rather simply that there be oversight/guidelines to insure that it is done well.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I think how one chooses to do education is about the needs and wants of the family as a whole as well as the child. I wouldn't have wanted to HomeEd for a million reasons, and not being able to cope would have been a big part of it.
Absolutely

And, I know for a fact some still condemn parents who put their children in daycare instead of staying with them all day. Women take the brunt of this judgment. Those folks can fuck right off too. Those are decisions families should make without interference or judgment.
When you make it absolute, it is problematic. I know there is a general anti-intellectual and anti-academic bent to things these days. Everyone is "folks" and everyone's ideas shall be recognized. So, no, not all families and not all the time.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
no prophet - you asked about the teaching of creationism - TES story from April 2014 saying creationism and extremism are targeted under new rules for academies. This follows earlier stories in July 2012 discussing the approval of a company teaching creationism to run academies and this story from November 2012 pointing out a loophole that allowed the teaching of creationism.

Academies in their current form are the bastard dream child of our current secretary of state for education, Michael Gove.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I don't have a problem with group projects. I do have a problem with teachers giving the impression that they don't mind if some students demand and get a free ride.

I mentioned cooperation in Girl Scouts. When a group goes camping, there are various jobs to be done. This is handled by assigning two or three girls to each job. I have never heard of a girl refusing to work; I'm sure if it ever happened, the leader would notice and have a lot to say.

Moo
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I suspect the non-working girlscouts were just subtle. That or the leaders openly let them chat instead of working. In my years as a camper and a counselor there are always some people who say set up tents and some who socialize meanwhile. Even when it's expressly billed as group work.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I suspect the non-working girlscouts were just subtle. That or the leaders openly let them chat instead of working. In my years as a camper and a counselor there are always some people who say set up tents and some who socialize meanwhile. Even when it's expressly billed as group work.
Yes.

It's hard to make generalizations. Every group is different. Moo's girl scouts may have been unusually cohesive, which led to greater cooperation. Perhaps some of the explicit teaching in girl scouts to promote cooperation paid off (just as there is explicit teaching re cooperation in every school). Or maybe they were just lucky.

In the group projects I assign, I would say about 10% of the time there's a real problem of the type Moo is describing. More often it's a continuum, everyone's doing something, but some do more than others. Sometimes that's by choice-- some people really enjoy group projects and actually would rather take charge and be able to control the outcome, others don't care for group work and would rather opt out. Sometimes there are things a skilled leader can do to help shape the outcome and/or assess individual contributions as well as overall group output, sometimes there isn't. Just like real life.

But again, the primary pedagogical benefits-- the greater knowledge of the subject matter gained when done thru a group project-- will accrue for the go-getters whether or not there are slackers leeching off them (the slackers, otoh, will gain none of those benefits). And supposedly, that's what it's all about, right? At least that's what parents claim to be the case.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Hmmph, having spent last weekend on a Girl Guide camp, there are definitely some girls who slack and some who don't, and who slacks and who doesn't could depend on tasks or not change. We spend/spent a lot of time attempting to get the girls to work in their patrols (mixed age groups) rather than not work in friendship groups. It took several goes to get a few girls to do any cleaning up, and one particular girl, having been detailed to vacuum the hall, next time we looked around, had handed the vacuum cleaner over to someone else.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Saw it tonight at Boy Scouts--the older boys automatically started stacking chairs, my LL had to nudged ("see what they're doing?") and joined in doughtily, and yet another stood right by the leader attempting to look wholly absorbed in the adult conversation, though he nearly got stacked up IN the chairs, which were just behind him. [Big Grin]

Cliffdweller, I'm curious about what these extra benefits are to learning something through group work, even with slackers, that would not obtain if the students were to work independently. Because in my high school experience, that's usually what happened--you'd have a group of three including one hard worker (me, since I cared about the grade) and two slackers, who did zip and coasted along on my work. How did my work in such groups help me learn more than my independent work? As far as I can see, it WAS independent work (for me, anyway), and only added a layer of vexation.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
But again, the primary pedagogical benefits-- the greater knowledge of the subject matter gained when done thru a group project-- will accrue for the go-getters whether or not there are slackers leeching off them (the slackers, otoh, will gain none of those benefits).
My daughters didn't mind the extra work that much. What did bother them was the arrogance, bordering on contempt, with which the non-workers said they wouldn't work.

My son-in-law told me of an experience he had when he was in college more than twenty years ago. He took a course where the students worked for an entire semester in groups of eight doing a research project. The project was big enough that it required hard work on the part of all group members. When the assignment was given, his group held an organizational meeting where they divided the topic into smaller parts and assigned them. He volunteered to write the final report, pulling all the smaller reports together.

The group met at intervals, and each member summarized his progress. It became increasingly clear how various things fit together. However, there was one member of the group who did little, if any, work. The others had neither the time nor the inclination to cover his sub-topic as well as their own.

My son-in-law told the others that he needed to have their reports a week before the final report was due, so he could write the final report. All except the shirker gave him their reports on time. My son-in-law kept reminding this guy to give him the report. On the day before the final report was due, the shirker gave him a pile of research notes, obviously hastily assembled.

The next day my son-in-law took the final report to the professor, pointing out that it did not cover one sub-topic. He also gave him the pile of research notes and told him what had happened.

After reading the report and looking at the pile of notes, the professor gave a good grade to all who had worked, and a failing grade to the shirker.

Apparently, failing the course messed up the shirker's summer plans, and he was furious with my son-in-law. He should have been furious with the teachers who had allowed him to get away with shirking in the past.

Moo
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Moo

This chimes with what has just happened to one of my offspring.

A group project was given and the various parts assigned to different people by the lecturer. My son and his friend got things done to deadline and wrote up meticulous notes, emailing them and hard-copying to the person charged with drawing up the final report.

Due to a weather-caused re-scheduling the date for the final report was brought forward by one day which was notified to every member of the group. The day before the deadline son and his friend, having heard nothing from the other group members, handed in their completed sections with a note saying they'd been unable to raise the others. Son and friend have had their work evaluated and been given a mark, the others haven't and since this piece of work forms a large part of the mark for the year they've also got a grade for the year; the non-performing members of the group have been given a fail for the year and will have to stay on campus to do the work after others go home. Since some of it involves a school-based placement they also reneged on it is unclear whether or not any of the four will be able to continue without re-doing the whole year.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Both stories sound a lot nicer than what happened in my pre-college groups. We were regularly told that we were all responsible for all the work. If the group was having troubles working together--aka some people weren't doing shit--that was our problem. So of course I, and people like me, did all the work.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You'll find the answer to your two other questions by reading the thread a bit closer. [Biased]
Vaguely implicit.

Not coherent.

Certainly wouldn't pass a PGCE.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it is a question if where the responsibility of educating our children primarily lies: the parents or the state? I would argue the parents. That's not to say that I don't agree with a state funded education system open to all, it's just that I believe that it is the parents' prerogative to educate their children as they choose.
What if they're complete idiots?
That's not a phenomenon exclusive to parents by any means!

My chief concern with homeschooling is the variableness of the results. Some homeschooled kids I've known are extremely well-educated and knowledgeable, and some of them are woefully ignorant. I'd think that if your kids are going to be homeschooled K-12, the state should require a G.E.D. exam.

As for socialization, there are plenty of ways children can interact with other children outside of a classroom or recess playground. That's only really a concern if the parents are loons who never let their kids play with others.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

But yes, group experiences/projects can be found outside of school environments. That's why most of us on this thread are not arguing vs. all homeschooling per se, but rather simply that there be oversight/guidelines to insure that it is done well.
The UK Government has produced detailed guidelines for local authorities. Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities (pdf document - 20 pages)

A couple of points from the guidelines:
quote:

2.3 .... An "efficient" and "suitable" education is not defined in the Education Act 1996 but "efficient" has been broadly described in case law1 as an education that "achieves that which it sets out to achieve", and a "suitable" education is one that "primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child's options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so".

3.13 Parents are required to provide an efficient, full-time education suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. There is currently no legal definition of "full-time". Children normally attend school for between 22 and 25 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year, but this measurement of "contact time" is not relevant to elective home education where there is often almost continuous one-to-one contact and education may take place outside normal "school hours". The type of educational activity can be varied and flexible. Home educating parents are not required to:

teach the National Curriculum
provide a broad and balanced education
have a timetable
have premises equipped to any particular standard
set hours during which education will take place
have any specific qualifications
make detailed plans in advance
observe school hours, days or terms
give formal lessons
mark work done by their child
formally assess progress or set development objectives
reproduce school type peer group socialisation
match school-based, age-specific standards.

However, local authorities should offer advice and support to parents on these matters if requested.
[code]

[ 23. May 2014, 20:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
It has just occurred to me that one solution to the problem of slackers is to put them all in the same group. I suspect that at least some of them would start working.

Moo
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
One reason for mixing the slackers and/or troublemakers up with everyone else is that they do less slacking and cause less trouble if they're not all together. The idea is that they'll be inspired to achieve and toe the line by being with learners who are more motivated and better behaved.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One reason for mixing the slackers and/or troublemakers up with everyone else is that they do less slacking and cause less trouble if they're not all together. The idea is that they'll be inspired to achieve and toe the line by being with learners who are more motivated and better behaved.
AFAIK slackers and troublemakers are two separate groups. The slackers my daughters dealt with said that they had better things to do with their time than work on projects. They didn't want to make trouble; they wanted to be free to do what they felt like. Putting them with the conscientious students enabled them to goof off.

Moo
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Fr.Weber:
My chief concern with homeschooling is the variableness of the results. Some homeschooled kids I've known are extremely well-educated and knowledgeable, and some of them are woefully ignorant. I'd think that if your kids are going to be homeschooled K-12, the state should require a G.E.D. exam.

You've never met a woefully ignorant high school graduate?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It has just occurred to me that one solution to the problem of slackers is to put them all in the same group. I suspect that at least some of them would start working.

Moo
As I said, there are a variety of different methods for dealing with the problem. Yours is a possible solution, but not the best one in my experience. As I said, this is a known risk so it's something educators are aware of and usually account for in one way or another. I would not therefore assume that just because you didn't see how the teacher dealt with it that it wasn't dealt with. (US federal law requires most such academic consequences to be kept confidential).
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Since our teachers told us that the whole group would get the same grade, whatever consequence they may have given, I don't like it. In one class where it was particularly over the top, I think my mother mentioned it at report-card pickup. The teacher told Mom straight up that it was a way to avoid failing the children who weren't doing their work or whatever.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Remember the situation described in this post and this one. In both cases the slackers found themselves in serious academic trouble at college because they apparently were used to getting away with shirking.

Perhaps their high school teachers did everything they could think of to stop this behavior. If so it's surprising that the slacker my son-in-law uncovered was so surprised and outraged. He must have been invincibly ignorant.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Since our teachers told us that the whole group would get the same grade, whatever consequence they may have given, I don't like it. In one class where it was particularly over the top, I think my mother mentioned it at report-card pickup. The teacher told Mom straight up that it was a way to avoid failing the children who weren't doing their work or whatever.
Well, again, that's one option.

For my own course (uni students) I've tried a variety of means over the years, the one I've landed on so far is that the grade for the project is comprised 50% of a group grade based on the overall project and 50% on their individual contribution. They are required to turn in separate bibliographies, etc. to help me assess that. I had one group this year with one member who completely bailed-- didn't do a single thing, never met with them, and didn't even show up the day of their class presentation. With this rubric he ended up with an "high F" (in a point-based system) while the rest of the group was able to get A's and B's (varied). I felt pretty good about that as a fair outcome so will stick with this procedure for now, but there are other possible alternatives.

The idea of segregating the slackers assumes that kids fall into but two categories-- slackers and go-getters-- with visible markers to distinguish them. That may have been the case in Moo's situation, but the much more common reality is much more nuanced, with a continuum between those two extremes. There's also a lot of interpersonal dynamics at play-- which, to some degree, is why we're assigning group work, but is also one reason why I don't follow the common pattern of group assessments of individual contributions as it tends to be too heavily influenced by those interpersonal factors rather than the real level of work done.

But again, there are lots of different means and practices depending on the teacher, how much effort they want to put in, and the goals of the assignment and reasons for making it a group assignment. This is not something that is unknown to educators.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
The ones who suffer most from the present state of affairs are those whose experience leads them to believe they can always get away with slacking.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The ones who suffer most from the present state of affairs are those whose experience leads them to believe they can always get away with slacking.
Well, again, "present state of affairs" is an overstatement. As I said, there are many different ways that teachers deal with this problem, most don't involve getting away with the slacking, although FAFSA (US federal) regulations may prevent the parents of non-slackers from knowing that.

And, again, the primary purpose of the assignment is to learn the material-- something that presumably will be later assessed through some sort of exam. The slackers will not have learned the material, so will presumably not do well on the exam. Unless they cheat.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I'm thinking of the ones who get to college taking it for granted that they can off-load the work on the rest of the group.

I have given an example here and L'organist has given one here. In both these cases the students finally had to deal with the consequences, which were quite disruptive. If the students had had to face consequences in high school, they would have had far less to deal with.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm thinking of the ones who get to college taking it for granted that they can off-load the work on the rest of the group.

I have given an example here and L'organist has given one here. In both these cases the students finally had to deal with the consequences, which were quite disruptive. If the students had had to face consequences in high school, they would have had far less to deal with.

Moo
Uh-- read my post above. To reiterate:

1. "Present state of affairs" is an overstatement. Three examples does not a "present state of affairs" make. As we have seen, the slacker problem is quite common-- both in school and in life in general. But as has been pointed out several times, teachers have various rubrics for dealing with this known problem, so that "getting away with it" is not the most common result, at least in school system. So not a "present state of affairs".

2. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but in the US there are strict laws (FAFSA) that bar teachers from discussing student's grades with other kids or their parents. So if your kids' teacher was using one of those common rubrics to penalize the slacker kids you wouldn't know about it. I would imagine UK schools have similar restraints.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

And, again, the primary purpose of the assignment is to learn the material-- something that presumably will be later assessed through some sort of exam. The slackers will not have learned the material, so will presumably not do well on the exam. Unless they cheat.
And here's a big part of the problem. Many courses in the U.S.--more of them, the further up the educational ladder you go--rely on paper or project grades to assess course learning, and have no exam at all. And we have no "leaving school" exams.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

And, again, the primary purpose of the assignment is to learn the material-- something that presumably will be later assessed through some sort of exam. The slackers will not have learned the material, so will presumably not do well on the exam. Unless they cheat.
And here's a big part of the problem. Many courses in the U.S.--more of them, the further up the educational ladder you go--rely on paper or project grades to assess course learning, and have no exam at all. And we have no "leaving school" exams.
Honestly, of all the problems with the US educational system-- and as a US univ prof for the last 10 years, I can tell you there are many-- "too few exams" is definitely not one of them.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, I tend to agree--it's damn hard to set reasonable and comprehensive exams in certain subjects, and a paper or project is more reliable for assessment. But if those are done in groups, it's a shirker's paradise.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, I tend to agree--it's damn hard to set reasonable and comprehensive exams in certain subjects, and a paper or project is more reliable for assessment. But if those are done in groups, it's a shirker's paradise.
My point was that (and here I'm speaking both as a mom and as an educator) that US kids already spend about 1/4 of their time preparing for (including days spent practicing "filling in dots"-- no joke), practicing and taking comprehensive exams. Too few exams is not the problem.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Okay, I suppose things were different where I grew up. And are different where my son is. We have never had much in the way of comprehensive exams, and certainly not days of filling in bubbles (sheesh). And finals week was / is dreadful mainly because that's when all the longterm projects come due--not so much for exams.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, I suppose things were different where I grew up. And are different where my son is. We have never had much in the way of comprehensive exams, and certainly not days of filling in bubbles (sheesh). And finals week was / is dreadful mainly because that's when all the longterm projects come due--not so much for exams.
That must have been in the days before No Child Left Behind, when Bush Jr. decided that, in good old American "supersize me" fashion, if having some comprehensive exams is good, then more (and more! and more!) must be really really good.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Me certainly, but LL is 13.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm thinking of the ones who get to college taking it for granted that they can off-load the work on the rest of the group.

I have given an example here and L'organist has given one here. In both these cases the students finally had to deal with the consequences, which were quite disruptive. If the students had had to face consequences in high school, they would have had far less to deal with.

Moo
Uh-- read my post above. To reiterate:

1. "Present state of affairs" is an overstatement. Three examples does not a "present state of affairs" make. As we have seen, the slacker problem is quite common-- both in school and in life in general. But as has been pointed out several times, teachers have various rubrics for dealing with this known problem, so that "getting away with it" is not the most common result, at least in school system. So not a "present state of affairs".

2. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but in the US there are strict laws (FAFSA) that bar teachers from discussing student's grades with other kids or their parents. So if your kids' teacher was using one of those common rubrics to penalize the slacker kids you wouldn't know about it. I would imagine UK schools have similar restraints.
I used the phrase 'present state of affairs' in an earlier post, but not this one.

The point of my post which you quoted was that if students do not learn in high school that they can't get away with slacking, they are likely to meet academic penalties in college which are much more severe than any that would be inflicted in high school. This is what I meant when I said that letting the slackers get away with it in high school is doing them a serious disservice.

As I said in this post my daughters didn't mind the extra work nearly as much as they minded the contempt with which the slackers treated them. I never complained to a teacher and neither did they. It wouldn't have done any good.

Moo

[ 24. May 2014, 21:45: Message edited by: Moo ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0