Ship of Fools: Homeschooling pros and cons.

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » » Oblivion » Homeschooling pros and cons. (Page 3)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Homeschooling pros and cons.

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

I think the choice really comes down to that ying/yang-- between the greater societal good and what this child, this family, needs.
Cliffdweller, I'm really sympathetic with your situation -- I have a child whose needs will always be very difficult for our local school to meet. I spend hours worrying and praying about what the right thing for him is. I guess I wanted to say, though, that these things are about more than just one's own child, and to add that dimension to the discussion.

Yes, precisely, that was my point. And yet I confess that obviously I made my decision entirely about just my own child. Which creates broader ethical concerns.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

Posted

This is an interesting thread.

I'm over 60. I've known people who have been to all sorts of different schools. Yet I've hardly ever met anyone who as far as I know had all or part of their education in somewhere other than some sort of school. The few I have met were either:-

a. Educated a long time ago, before the First World War, or in the case of primary only, well before the Second; or

b. Brought up in a remote part of a foreign country in a place where there was no viable education in their own language and education system. I believe there was once an organisation that provided UK style schooling by correspondence courses for such people, but don't know whether it still exists.

I've not met anyone my age or younger whose parents simply chose to do it themselves. It's an intriguing idea, but I'd have thought few people have the skill or time to do it. Don't you get taken to court though?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008 | IP: Logged

Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which creates broader ethical concerns. [/QB]

I think that's my point, that the education one chooses for one's child is, as well as being a consumer choice, an ethical choice. Choosing the 'best thing' for one's own child may mean, by default, choosing a worse thing for someone else's.

That's not to say that choosing to home school is a bad thing, merely that it has ethical implications, and consequences beyond one's own family.

--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/

Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010 | IP: Logged

ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683

Posted

Enoch

The modern home education movement traces it roots back to the early 20th century with educational practitioners such as Charlotte Mason and home educating families such as the GK and Francis Chesterton. It grew steadily until the second world war, and the educational reforms of the 50's and 60's pushed it back a bit until the 1980s when it took off again.

No - the law states that:

quote:
Compulsory education

7: Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

a: to his age, ability and aptitude, and

b: to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. (Education Act 1996 section 7)

This states that it is legally the parent's responsibility to ensure the education happens, and that this may be by attendance at school or by other means - there has been a lot of case law establish just what is meant by most phrases in this section.

--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com

But maybe not

Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
My own experience is that very few home educating families are relatively wealthy and it certainly is an option for the poor and for single parents. This pdf doc gives one parent's account. There's also a thread in netmumsSingle parent/ home schooling question which deals with working and with the benefit system. For example a single parent might work four hours a day and arrange for the child to be looked after, perhaps within another home-educating family. Child-care allowances and the tax credit system help. I doubt if it costs the state any more than it pays out for a child to use the school system.

There are probably cross-pond differences at play here. I probably should have specified it is not usually an option for single-parent and poor families in the US.

One does have to beware, though, of relying too much on anecdotal stories when making assumptions re: what is possible for the poor. Something I've found in my work w/ the homeless here is that someone can always find an exceptional example of someone who has "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" (a favorite phrase among American pols) and managed to accomplish great things despite a background of severe poverty deprivation. Those stories are inspiring, and may include some kernels of truth that will be helpful for others seeking to make the same journey. But all too often they are used instead to deny poor and single parent families of the resources they need-- "JK Rowling was able to pull herself out of poverty-- so you just go and do the same!" as if Rowling's accomplishment was easily duplicated.

Again, UK system is obviously very different than ours, so ymmv.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which creates broader ethical concerns.
I think that's my point, that the education one chooses for one's child is, as well as being a consumer choice, an ethical choice. Choosing the 'best thing' for one's own child may mean, by default, choosing a worse thing for someone else's.

That's not to say that choosing to home school is a bad thing, merely that it has ethical implications, and consequences beyond one's own family. [/QB]

Yes, again, we're very much on the same page. I'm just more aware of my own short-comings in this area. My pessimism about any parent choosing the greater good over their own child's particular good may be my own defense mechanism of projection. Plus whining about my guilt makes me sound like a good & ethical person even if I'm not.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
....
I've not met anyone my age or younger whose parents simply chose to do it themselves. It's an intriguing idea, but I'd have thought few people have the skill or time to do it. Don't you get taken to court though?

This website Education Otherwise is worth a look if you want to see how home education works in the UK. EO was founded in 1977 and grew from a few families to thousands. There are several other support groups for home educating families. Around 40,000 families are believed to be involved.

Nimminypimminy - Can you give some examples of the ethical implications and the consequences beyond one's own family?

[ 11. June 2012, 21:19: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

Posted

Enoch

So long as you can prove that your child is actually being educated, it's not agains the law. However, I understand that some local authorities are more hostile than others, and might present more obstacles. If you are taken to court, you have to make your case, don't you?

Child film stars, or the children of film stars, or rich foreigners with a peripatetic lifestyle sometimes employ tutors or governesses for their children. You still see the adverts in 'The Lady' or certain other publications. (The most famous example recently was when Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin advertised for a super-qualified, multi-talented person.) The state sometimes provides free tutors for children who can't attend school due to illness.

Of course, parents aren't always qualified teachers - but private schools aren't obliged to be hire qualified teachers anyway. Many of them hire people straight from university, and then train them on the job. Only state schools are obliged to hire qualified people, I think.

Home-schooling by parents in the UK is probably less common today because most families want to have the kind of lifestyle only possible if both parents go out to work. Also, most parents are satisfied with state schools, or else can afford private schooling. But there are always exceptions. Maybe the majority of home-schooled children have been to school but have had significant problems there. I'm sure there are some statistics somewhere.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

Nimminypimminy - Can you give some examples of the ethical implications and the consequences beyond one's own family?

can we start with the ones we already raised?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is an interesting thread.

I'm over 60. I've known people who have been to all sorts of different schools. Yet I've hardly ever met anyone who as far as I know had all or part of their education in somewhere other than some sort of school. The few I have met were either:-

a. Educated a long time ago, before the First World War, or in the case of primary only, well before the Second; or

b. Brought up in a remote part of a foreign country in a place where there was no viable education in their own language and education system. I believe there was once an organisation that provided UK style schooling by correspondence courses for such people, but don't know whether it still exists.

I've not met anyone my age or younger whose parents simply chose to do it themselves. It's an intriguing idea, but I'd have thought few people have the skill or time to do it. Don't you get taken to court though?

Or in a remote part of their own country. The School of the Air flourishes here, bringing education to children on isolated properties while they remain in their own homes; or in the case of some larger properties, in a room set aside for the children living there. The school is based in Alice Springs, with teachers working via radio (perhaps a version of Skype these days) with their various pupils.

In earlier years, there was also correspondence school for children who could not attend a school for all sorts of reasons. Lessons would be posted out and exercises returned for assessment. That programme seems to have dropped out.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008 | IP: Logged

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy
But in the end I think my objections are ones of principle. Decisions about education don't only concern the academic curriculum and how it is taught; nor do one's decisions only affect one's own children. Schools are part of society at large; a local school is -- or should be -- a microcosm of society in its area. If you take your child out of their local school, whether that is home schooling, or private education, or some kind of alternative like Steiner, you are taking them out of their local community and into a self-selecting group of like-minded and like-circumstanced people.

I think that everyone loses when that happens. Removing your child from your local school means, in effect, removing them from society, from our common circumstances and experiences. That's bad for the child concerned, and it also diminishes the richness and diversity of the school's society. It means saying that 'what is good enough for the common herd is not good enough for my child'.

Both my daughters are now in their forties. When they were in school there was a philosophy that children are supposed to adjust to the group, and if the group rejects them, it's their fault. Obviously children need to learn not to behave obnoxiously to other children; however many children who are picked on would like to quietly mind their own business.

One of my daughters had to start wearing hard contact lenses when she was nine years old. They caused a lot of pain and made her eyes extremely light-sensitive. She was teased unmercifully because of the dark glasses she wore. She could have handled the teasing if she had not had to use a lot of emotional energy to handle the pain. I spoke to the guidance counselor, and she said the child would have to learn to handle it by herself.

AIUI most schools now provide more protection for kids who are harassed.

As far as socialization was concerned, she had friends at church, in the neighborhood, at the children's theater, and at Girl Scouts. The kids in these groups treated each other much better than kids at school did.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

Moo, while I can see how your post relates to the thread as a whole, I'm not sure how it relates to the question you quoted from Niminypiminy re the broader ethical concerns re: society as a whole v. our own individual child. Could you say more to draw out what your point was relative to Niminypiminy concern?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Moo, while I can see how your post relates to the thread as a whole, I'm not sure how it relates to the question you quoted from Niminypiminy re the broader ethical concerns re: society as a whole v. our own individual child. Could you say more to draw out what your point was relative to Niminypiminy concern?

Niminypiminy said I think that everyone loses when that happens. Removing your child from your local school means, in effect, removing them from society, from our common circumstances and experiences. That's bad for the child concerned...

If the 'common circumstances and experiences' are having a bad effect on your child, you should get him the hell out of there. I think bullying is bad for the child who does it as well as for the victim. However, if the school won't do anything, parents have a duty to protect their own child. Moreover, there is an assumption that socialization can happen only in a school setting. I named other settings where my daughter could interact with kids who did not torment her.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

PerkyEars

slightly distracted
# 9577

Posted

The issue of children ending up with a very narrow perspective on society isn't confined to homeschooled children. Public schools seem to be very bad at giving children anything but ignorant contempt for state schooled children. In fact, this seems to be part of what parents are paying for in some cases. I went to a state school and was thoroughly steeped in inverted snobbery both there and at home, which was equally damaging in it's own way.

I think any parent has to be very intentional about giving their child a broad and tolerant experience of society, regardless of schooling.

Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005 | IP: Logged

LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

Posted

I was bored to tears in elementary school, and I was also bullied for being fat and an "egghead," so I would have given my eyeteeth to have been educated at home. (I used to read my parents' old schoolbooks anyway.) I think the handwringing over homeschooled children not being "socialized" enough is mostly crap; if getting beaten up and having my lunch money stolen while responsible adults refuse to get involved is being "socialized," then I was socialized enough, thanks, in my first years of school.

If I had a child and had the financial freedom to homeschool him or her, I would very seriously consider it, at least for the first few years. I've been reading about various homeschool curricula lately (an Internet rabbit hole I scampered down after meeting our granddaughter's second cousin, who's been Waldorf homeschooled and is quite an interesting young man), and some of them I think I would have enjoyed as a kid...not the Christian-fundamentalist-nonsense ones, but the Charlotte Mason method, which includes a lot of nature study and eschews academic textbooks for "real" books by people who obviously know and love the subject matter at hand. (I wouldn't mind being "Charlotte Masoned" now!)

A lot of my teasing at school was focused on my lack of physical education ability -- I'm built for strength, not for agility;-)...I think perhaps had I been homeschooled I could have concentrated on things like hiking, which I love to do, and would have developed a much healthier body image.

In the US, I think the social conservatives are determined to send public education down the chute, so IMHO it's going to increasingly be everyone out for himself or herself as far as providing a decent education for children. Sad but true. Rome is burning.

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Moo, while I can see how your post relates to the thread as a whole, I'm not sure how it relates to the question you quoted from Niminypiminy re the broader ethical concerns re: society as a whole v. our own individual child. Could you say more to draw out what your point was relative to Niminypiminy concern?
Niminypiminy said I think that everyone loses when that happens. Removing your child from your local school means, in effect, removing them from society, from our common circumstances and experiences. That's bad for the child concerned...

If the 'common circumstances and experiences' are having a bad effect on your child, you should get him the hell out of there. I think bullying is bad for the child who does it as well as for the victim. However, if the school won't do anything, parents have a duty to protect their own child. Moreover, there is an assumption that socialization can happen only in a school setting. I named other settings where my daughter could interact with kids who did not torment her.

Moo

Yes, you made a decision similar to that I made-- you did what was best for your child. But the question that Niminypiminy wasn't just (or even primarily) about "socialization", it was about the effect on society as a whole (or, I would add, more specifically on the public schools) when all of us who are able/motivated/ have the resources pull our kids out of a broken system rather than staying to fix it?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

If I had been able to fix the system, I would have. You're right, it would have been much better. However, as far as the guidance counselor was concerned, my daughter should learn to adjust to the group.

I knew what I could do for my daughter. I did not know what I could do for the school system.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If I had been able to fix the system, I would have. You're right, it would have been much better. However, as far as the guidance counselor was concerned, my daughter should learn to adjust to the group.

I knew what I could do for my daughter. I did not know what I could do for the school system.

Moo

Yes, again, that was my story as well. But I think Nim's question is a valid one. Are we as motivated to advocate for change, to advocate for improved conditions, after we've removed our children from the system?

My concern is that those left behind are the very ones least able to advocate for change (those w/ the least political capitol).

But again, this is "liberal guilt"-- I've already made my choice I'm just blathering on about how bad I feel about it like that makes me a better person.
[brick wall]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

Nimminypimminy - Can you give some examples of the ethical implications and the consequences beyond one's own family?
can we start with the ones we already raised?

Do you mean these?

"Removing your child from your local school means, in effect, removing them from society, from our common circumstances and experiences. That's bad for the child concerned, and it also diminishes the richness and diversity of the school's society. "

I don't think you've made a case for claiming that the child is removed from society or shown any evidence that it's 'bad for the child concerned'

"If those of us who have the ability to leave the system opt to do so, rather than stay and fight for a better system, then the people who lose out are the most vulnerable-- the poor, single parent families-- those with no other options."

What do you mean by 'fight for a better system'? Fight how? And what you consider a better system may be what others would fight against.

"for a significant portion of society, homeschooling is not an option, no matter what sacrifices the parents are willing to make. And that segment of society is the segment that is the most vulnerable, the most in need of the boost of a good education. "

Homeschooling isn't an option probably for most of society or at least not an option most people would seriously consider. It doesn't fit with what most parents want. Those who do want this choice include single parents and poorer families. 'A good education' isn't confined to schools. Home education is a good education too. This research includes the results of tests which show:

quote:
Baseline Assessment

This involved 4-5 year olds who were tested twice over a 'school' year.

The PIPS Baseline assessment data indicated that 64% of the children scored over 75% on the assessment where nationally, just 5.1% of children score over 75%. 'End of Reception Year' data suggested that the children's progress over the period was less than that associated with school children during their reception year. This observation, however, was offset by the home-educated children's high baseline scores.

Children from the lower end of the socio-economic class scale significantly outscored those from the upper spectrum of the scale.(my emphasis)

There was no score differences between families who owned and did not own a television.

Children from religious families did not score significantly differently from those children from more secular families at the start of reception although by the end of reception the score difference was significant.

Literacy Assessments

Working with the idea of a normal bell curve distribution, we expect to find 16% of children in the top band. Percentages of home-educated children within this score band for literature were as follows:

94% of 6 year olds

77.4% of 7 year olds

73.3% of 8 year olds

82.3% of 10 year olds

Figure 1 shows the percentages of year 1, 3 and 5 children in each band. As can be seen, none of the children fell into the lower 16% band.

The paper quotes some earlier research Thomas (1998) into children's informal learning processes.

Thomas hypothesised that on entering school, children lost the art of informal learning, at least to the degree experienced by children who had not been at school. The type of learning that occurred naturally was very different from that of school;

The very high test scores of the home educated children may be a natural consequence of retaining the art of informal learning rather than an indication of higher ability.

So, on the broader societal level, you have to wonder what happens to those kids. Will our concerns for public schools be as strong, will we fight as hard to set right all the things that are driving us away from them, once we have made that sacrifice to remove our kids from a system we believe is broken?

The things that drive some of us away may be exactly the things most parents want, e.g. timetables, regimentation, uniforms.

You've produced what you consider to be ethical considerations but I don't think you've made a case in support and there are no examples of adverse consequences stemming from my or anyone else's decision to home educate.

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

The specific evil in this case was the idea that if a kid is picked on, it's his fault. The group cannot possibly be wrong.

When I was in elementary school in the 1940s, our parents and teachers all said the same thing, "If you don't like so-and-so, you don't have to play with him. If you're not going to play with him, leave him alone."

When my daughters were in school the 'adjustment to the group' idea was firmly entrenched. The teachers and guidance counselors were 'the professionals'. We amateur parents just didn't understand.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

Justlooking-- whoa, dial down the paranoia. You're jumping to conclusions and answering questions no one is asking.

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by justlooking:

"Removing your child from your local school means, in effect, removing them from society, from our common circumstances and experiences. That's bad for the child concerned, and it also diminishes the richness and diversity of the school's society. "

I don't think you've made a case for claiming that the child is removed from society or shown any evidence that it's 'bad for the child concerned'

Nim is the only one who made that comment, and even then I think it was secondary to the larger question about society as a whole. Most of us here seem, despite your fears, to be fairly comfortable that homeschooled children can have a very good education.

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
[QUOTE]
"If those of us who have the ability to leave the system opt to do so, rather than stay and fight for a better system, then the people who lose out are the most vulnerable-- the poor, single parent families-- those with no other options."

What do you mean by 'fight for a better system'? Fight how? And what you consider a better system may be what others would fight against.

Imagine for a moment that homeschooling was not an option, not under any circumstances. Imagine that private schooling was not an option. You were trapped, for whatever reason, in the public school. What would you have done? That's what I mean by "fight for a better system."

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
[QUOTE]"for a significant portion of society, homeschooling is not an option, no matter what sacrifices the parents are willing to make. And that segment of society is the segment that is the most vulnerable, the most in need of the boost of a good education. "

Homeschooling isn't an option probably for most of society or at least not an option most people would seriously consider. It doesn't fit with what most parents want. Those who do want this choice include single parents and poorer families. 'A good education' isn't confined to schools. Home education is a good education too.

... many links to stats...

Justlooking, why did you post all those stats? Who are you trying to convince? My comment, if you read it, assumed that homeschooling can and often is a "good education"-- as I and most others here have assumed throughout this thread. That was my point. Your defensiveness (perhaps based on past experiences) is making it hard for you to hear what's actually being said and asked. That's understandable, this discussion is so personal, so emotional, it makes most of us defensive.

Now, why don't you answer the question I was actually asking?

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
[QUOTE]
So, on the broader societal level, you have to wonder what happens to those kids. Will our concerns for public schools be as strong, will we fight as hard to set right all the things that are driving us away from them, once we have made that sacrifice to remove our kids from a system we believe is broken?

The things that drive some of us away may be exactly the things most parents want, e.g. timetables, regimentation, uniforms.

I doubt the difference is as large as you assume.

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
[QUOTE]
You've produced what you consider to be ethical considerations but I don't think you've made a case in support and there are no examples of adverse consequences stemming from my or anyone else's decision to home educate.

The consequence we would be looking for in this case would be declining public schools. Which seems to be something that is assumed in the argument for homeschooling, although if we wanted to take the time we could probably produce stats parallel to yours to document the decline.

Do you see no validity to the concern whatsoever? Do you-- and I-- hold any responsibility for the children of other parents? The children of our neighbors with fewer options?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The specific evil in this case was the idea that if a kid is picked on, it's his fault. The group cannot possibly be wrong.

When I was in elementary school in the 1940s, our parents and teachers all said the same thing, "If you don't like so-and-so, you don't have to play with him. If you're not going to play with him, leave him alone."

When my daughters were in school the 'adjustment to the group' idea was firmly entrenched. The teachers and guidance counselors were 'the professionals'. We amateur parents just didn't understand.

Yes. A bad system. For your kid... but also for many, many others. Kids with fewer choices.

So how does the system change? Does the system change when we (and it really is "we") pull our kids out? Perhaps-- if enough do so. Does the system change when we stay and advocate for change, not just for our kids, but for all kids? This is the harder choice-- the road not taken by me, but the one it sounds like Nim chose. It's a courageous choice.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
So how does the system change? Does the system change when we (and it really is "we") pull our kids out? Perhaps-- if enough do so. Does the system change when we stay and advocate for change, not just for our kids, but for all kids? This is the harder choice-- the road not taken by me, but the one it sounds like Nim chose. It's a courageous choice.

I don't know how to get through to people who patronizingly tell me that they are professionals, and I don't understand how things should be done.

It requires a specific personality type or set of skills to fight this kind of battle. I don't have what it takes.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
So how does the system change? Does the system change when we (and it really is "we") pull our kids out? Perhaps-- if enough do so. Does the system change when we stay and advocate for change, not just for our kids, but for all kids? This is the harder choice-- the road not taken by me, but the one it sounds like Nim chose. It's a courageous choice.
I don't know how to get through to people who patronizingly tell me that they are professionals, and I don't understand how things should be done.

It requires a specific personality type or set of skills to fight this kind of battle. I don't have what it takes.

Yeah, that's my feeling as well. Yet I can't help thinking that we probably have more resources, more political capital, than those we are leaving behind.

Then there's the question of timing. Change takes time. Changing a system takes time. When it's your kid that's being bullied/ poorly educated/ whatever, how long can you wait? Every wasted year carries with it huge consequences.

On the macro level, I don't think there's any getting around the truth of what Nim is challenging us to. If everyone thought like me/justlooking/moo the schools in Little Rock would still be segregated.

But when it's my kid....

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

Posted

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, you made a decision similar to that I made-- you did what was best for your child. But the question that Niminypiminy wasn't just (or even primarily) about "socialization", it was about the effect on society as a whole (or, I would add, more specifically on the public schools) when all of us who are able/motivated/ have the resources pull our kids out of a broken system rather than staying to fix it?

I'm still wondering...

What makes an arbitrarily drawn school district the community as a whole but not organic social groupings?

and

Why should I accept that what is good for the common herd is good for my children?

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged

SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

Posted

Presumably it's possible to speak out for improvements in state education without actually sending your child to a state school? After all, we all have to live and work in a society where the majority are schooled in that system, so it's not as though other people don't have an investment in its success.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

Posted

Not really

Cliffdweller is right about that.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged

Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

What makes an arbitrarily drawn school district the community as a whole but not organic social groupings?

The fact that "organic" social groupings tend to segregate themselves by race and wealth? Take churches for example- very few, especially in rural areas, are truly diverse.

From my own experience, if I hadn't gone to public schools I probably wouldn't have known black kids, poor kids or kids who weren't faculty brats. My "organic" extracurricular activities- church, Scouting, and various music groups- were all lily-white and upper-middle-class. I'm glad those weren't the only kids I socialized with outside my home.

Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

cliffdweller:
I asked Niminypiminy for some examples of the claimed ethical implications and the consequences beyond one's own family and you answered with:

quote:
..can we start with the ones we already raised?

. 'we' presumably being youself and Niminypiminy. I looked back through the relevant posts and quoted what seemed to be the ones already raised.

quote:
Imagine for a moment that homeschooling was not an option, not under any circumstances. Imagine that private schooling was not an option. You were trapped, for whatever reason, in the public school. What would you have done? That's what I mean by "fight for a better system."

quote:
Do you see no validity to the concern whatsoever? Do you-- and I-- hold any responsibility for the children of other parents? The children of our neighbors with fewer options?

No I don't. I think this is patronising and untrue.

I don't think you've made a coherent case for home education having ethical implications for wider society nor have you shown how the 'most vulnerable-- the poor, single parent families' lose out.

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

cliffdweller:

quote:
If everyone thought like me/justlooking/moo the schools in Little Rock would still be segregated.

First of all - speak for yourself, do not speak for me.

Then, explain how if everyone thought like you the schools would be still be segregated.

[ 12. June 2012, 01:32: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

Posted

quote:
originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
The fact that "organic" social groupings tend to segregate themselves by race and wealth? Take churches for example- very few, especially in rural areas, are truly diverse.

So?

I don't value diversity for the sake of diversity.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, you made a decision similar to that I made-- you did what was best for your child. But the question that Niminypiminy wasn't just (or even primarily) about "socialization", it was about the effect on society as a whole (or, I would add, more specifically on the public schools) when all of us who are able/motivated/ have the resources pull our kids out of a broken system rather than staying to fix it?
I'm still wondering...

What makes an arbitrarily drawn school district the community as a whole but not organic social groupings?

I don't think it's that organic social groupings are not community, but rather that public schools are our community. Not the only community, but an important part of our community, an important part of the social fabric that makes society work. When we abandon them we imperil our future.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why should I accept that what is good for the common herd is good for my children?

The question we're asking here is the reverse-- if the public school system is not good for your kids, doesn't it stand to reason that it is also quite possibly not good in the same ways for lots of other children-- children with fewer (or no) other options, and whose families have less political capitol to bring about needed change?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Presumably it's possible to speak out for improvements in state education without actually sending your child to a state school? After all, we all have to live and work in a society where the majority are schooled in that system, so it's not as though other people don't have an investment in its success.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not really

Cliffdweller is right about that.

Actually, I do think it's possible. I just think it's less likely. We're less likely to know what those problems are, for one thing, after we've flown away. And we're less likely to be motivated to do something when it's not our kid's future on the line.

But I do think it's possible. And perhaps that's what I'm advocating here (for myself as much as anyone). That if we feel we must move our kids, then do so-- but don't forget those who are left behind. Stay connected to them, stay involved-- and be an advocate for change.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
cliffdweller:

quote:
If everyone thought like me/justlooking/moo the schools in Little Rock would still be segregated.

First of all - speak for yourself, do not speak for me.

Then, explain how if everyone thought like you the schools would be still be segregated.

Well, I was speaking for myself. I was talking about the painful choice we make between what is best for my kid v. what is best for all the kids.

The parents who integrated the schools in Little Rock made the exact opposite choice you and I did. They chose to put their kids in a toxic-- really toxic, to the point their lives were at serious risk-- situation. They chose to put their kids in a situation where federal marshals had to walk their kids to school. They did that for the sake not only or even primarily of their own kids. They did so for the sake of all the children-- the children of the entire community, who indisputably (I hope) are better off because of the courageous choices they made.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

(sigh) justlooking, you seem to have missed it, but many people here are sympathetic to your pov. Your defensiveness is really, really getting in the way of what would otherwise be a good and cogent argument.

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Imagine for a moment that homeschooling was not an option, not under any circumstances. Imagine that private schooling was not an option. You were trapped, for whatever reason, in the public school. What would you have done? That's what I mean by "fight for a better system." [/b]

When my son was in primary school the system at that time still allowed for corporal punishment. I joined the STOP society and served legal notices on the school and LEA to protect my child. Some of the schools rules I considered irrational and challenged them. However, fighting for changes can turn school into a battleground and since parents have different ideas about what makes for a better system there would be a lot of fighting at cross purposes. [/QUOTE]

Yes. But it's worth it. This is an excellent example of what I was talking about. Would that we all (and by "we" I mean "me") would do the same.

QUOTE]Originally posted by justlooking:

As I understand it, "for a significant portion of society, homeschooling is not an option,.. And that segment of society is the segment that is the most vulnerable, the most in need of the boost of a good education. " is your view that single parents or poorer families are vulnerable in some way which removes the option of home education. Which is not true since many single parents and poorer families do home educate. [/QUOTE]

Again, there may be cross-pond differences here due to the differences in benefits programs to aid the poor. In the US it is very unusual for a poor or single parent to homeschool, because it is simply not possible-- logistically as well as economically. Now again, many middle-class parents make significant sacrifices to homeschool-- leading very simple lives w/ few if any luxuries in order to make that possible. Again, this is the profile of most of the homeschoolers I know here in the US. But even w/ those sacrifices it is not an option available to Americans below a certain level of poverty or w/o a working partner. There are, of course, notable exceptions.

QUOTE]Originally posted by justlooking:
[b]
The 'stats' are results which contradict a number of assumptions about home education, school education and poorer families. They contradict your assumptions since the research found that the children of poorer families obtained significantly higher results. The research suggests that if the home educated children had gone to school they would not have obtained the same very high results, that children do not need to be taught in order to learn, and that the school system may suppress children's natural learning ability. It's nothing to do with a 'decline' in public schools. Schools by their nature cannot allow for natural learning. [/QUOTE]

Justlooking, THIS is the point: in the context of the discussion at hand, NO ONE was disputing that. NO ONE. You posted the stats under a quote of mine which was not AT ALL disputing this, in fact, was ASSUMING these very facts. Which is why I asked, "who are you arguing with?". It feels very, very much like you are engaging in shadow boxing here.

QUOTE]Originally posted by justlooking:
[b]

quote:
[b]Do you see no validity to the concern whatsoever? Do you-- and I-- hold any responsibility for the children of other parents? The children of our neighbors with fewer options?

No I don't. I think this is patronising and untrue.
[/QUOTE]

Wow. Seriously? You seriously think it is "untrue" that we have a responsibility for the children of our neighbors? And you think the suggestion that we might is "patronizing"? Seriously?

Well, if that is the case, I can't think of a single response. Other than wow. Just wow.

[ 12. June 2012, 02:12: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

agh, the html is massively messed up there-- tried to fix it and only made it worse, then ran out of edit window. Bleh.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

I'm gonna try reposting the worst of it and see if I can fix the html. Wish me luck.

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
As I understand it, "for a significant portion of society, homeschooling is not an option,.. And that segment of society is the segment that is the most vulnerable, the most in need of the boost of a good education. " is your view that single parents or poorer families are vulnerable in some way which removes the option of home education. Which is not true since many single parents and poorer families do home educate.

Again, there may be cross-pond differences here due to the differences in benefits programs to aid the poor. In the US it is very unusual for a poor or single parent to homeschool, because it is simply not possible-- logistically as well as economically. Now again, many middle-class parents make significant sacrifices to homeschool-- leading very simple lives w/ few if any luxuries in order to make that possible. Again, this is the profile of most of the homeschoolers I know here in the US. But even w/ those sacrifices it is not an option available to Americans below a certain level of poverty or w/o a working partner. There are, of course, notable exceptions.

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The 'stats' are results which contradict a number of assumptions about home education, school education and poorer families. They contradict your assumptions since the research found that the children of poorer families obtained significantly higher results. The research suggests that if the home educated children had gone to school they would not have obtained the same very high results, that children do not need to be taught in order to learn, and that the school system may suppress children's natural learning ability. It's nothing to do with a 'decline' in public schools. Schools by their nature cannot allow for natural learning.

Justlooking, This is the point: in the context of the discussion at hand, NO ONE was disputing that. No one. You posted the stats under a quote of mine which was not AT ALL disputing this, in fact, was assuming these very facts. Which is why I asked, "who are you arguing with?". It feels very, very much like you are engaging in shadow boxing here.

Sorry again for the messed up html.

[ 12. June 2012, 02:17: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

fwiw: here is a link to an abstract re: research into American homeschooling. The conclusion of the extensive research was that in the US it is undertaken primarily by white families of moderate income & education, and almost exclusively two-parent families. Again (third time), differences in the types of assistance available to single families in UK v. US may account for these differences.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, I was speaking for myself. I was talking about the painful choice we make between what is best for my kid v. what is best for all the kids.

You included me and moo in your allegation that schools would still be segregated.

You are not responsible for all kids. They have their own parents and do not need you to make any choices for them. My choices were based on what was best for my child. I found I couldn't support a system I thought diminished children. But I was responsible only for my child and other parents made their own choices.

quote:
The parents who integrated the schools in Little Rock made the exact opposite choice you and I did.

Again, speak for yourself and don't include me in your decisions.

There was a lot more to desegregation than choices made by some parents. The teenagers themselves took a leading role. Also, it had nothing to do with home education. It was all about school education. Just what is it that you feel you could be fighting for? You talk about making changes and improving the system for others - what changes? What would you be doing other than bestowing your presence? And what makes you think other parents would want your help?

You know sod all about what led to my son being educated out of the school system and I'm not going to tell you the whole story because it's none of your business. But I've been involved in active campaigning and not just theoretical wrangling. If I could, I would have changed the school system to something more in line with the free school movement. I doubt if this is what most parents want.

[ 12. June 2012, 02:40: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
[QUOTE]
You know sod all about what led to my son being educated out of the school system and I'm not going to tell you the whole story because it's none of your business. But I've been involved in active campaigning and not just theoretical wrangling. If I could, I would have changed the school system to something more in line with the free school movement. I doubt if this is what most parents want.

Yes, obviously I don't know you or your situation. But clearly it was something very painful-- as evidenced by the very, very defensive way you have engaged in this conversation. I know you don't realize this, but for the most part I've been agreeing with you. It doesn't sound like we're ever going to get past your feeling of attack, no matter what I say. So best to leave it be.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

Posted

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't think it's that organic social groupings are not community, but rather that public schools are our community. Not the only community, but an important part of our community, an important part of the social fabric that makes society work. When we abandon them we imperil our future.

Schools are part of our community. Public schools are no more a part of our community than private schools. Our schools are wherever we send our children regardless of who runs the schools. Even those who homeschool usually don't try to educate their children entirely apart from other children.

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
The question we're asking here is the reverse-- if the public school system is not good for your kids, doesn't it stand to reason that it is also quite possibly not good in the same ways for lots of other children-- children with fewer (or no) other options, and whose families have less political capitol to bring about needed change?

As justlooking said, we will not all agree on what we want in a school. To me, it makes sense for those who want the same type of education to band together and find a way to provide that for their children. Public schools can provide what some parents want for their children. Whether or not the public schools provide the type of education the parents want depends as much on the other parents as anything else. The middle class doesn't have anymore political capitol than the poor. We all have one vote regardless of our income. The middle class might have more money than the poor but not enough to buy political influence.

Tclune's Robinson Jeffer's quote is very appropriate.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't think it's that organic social groupings are not community, but rather that public schools are our community. Not the only community, but an important part of our community, an important part of the social fabric that makes society work. When we abandon them we imperil our future.

Schools are part of our community. Public schools are no more a part of our community than private schools. Our schools are wherever we send our children regardless of who runs the schools. Even those who homeschool usually don't try to educate their children entirely apart from other children.

Again, no one is arguing that point.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The middle class doesn't have anymore political capitol than the poor. We all have one vote regardless of our income. The middle class might have more money than the poor but not enough to buy political influence.

I assure you, that simply is not the case, at least in the US, particularly re: local school boards.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
]
Yes, obviously I don't know you or your situation. But clearly it was something very painful-- as evidenced by the very, very defensive way you have engaged in this conversation. I know you don't realize this, but for the most part I've been agreeing with you....

No it wasn't 'something very painful'. And I'm not so much interested in whether or not you are agreeing with me as trying to find out just what it is you are arguing for.

I'm not feeling 'attacked'. I'm bewildered by statements like this -

" That if we feel we must move our kids, then do so-- but don't forget those who are left behind. Stay connected to them, stay involved-- and be an advocate for change."

Is this what you're doing? Are you working as an advocate for 'those who are left behind'. What changes are you advocating? Because if you're not actually doing anything it's just emotional rhetoric.

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
[QUOTE]

Is this what you're doing? Are you working as an advocate for 'those who are left behind'. What changes are you advocating? Because if you're not actually doing anything it's just emotional rhetoric.

um.... yeah. Like I said. Almost word for word.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

Posted

So what are you doing?

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

You're not following, justlooking. Like I said, you are so defensive you're not following what I'm saying, even when I'm quite direct or repeat myself. There really is no point, it's only causing needless angst. Let it go.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
The fact that "organic" social groupings tend to segregate themselves by race and wealth? Take churches for example- very few, especially in rural areas, are truly diverse.

So?

I don't value diversity for the sake of diversity.

Now this I find strange. The narrower ones experience then, I think, the risk is the narrower one's mind.

More broadly, the less involvement you have with "the common herd" the less you are likely to care about their fate. Ultimately, that leads to a looking after number one, devil take the hindmost society the gradually becomes more fragmented and divided.

[ 12. June 2012, 06:37: Message edited by: Think² ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005 | IP: Logged

anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189

Posted

I have a fair bit to reply to here, so will break into a few posts, but a disclaimer to start with. I was educated at home for five and a half years. I did not enjoy it.

quote:
Originally posted by FullCircle:
I had a short period (months)of home schooling when I was eight and hated it. It changed my relationship with my mother: and made a battle ground between us that lasted for years. I went to multiple schools (from large comprehensives to small international schools) all of them were better than home schooling. It really is one of my worst memories of childhood.

Yep. I saw this thread a few days ago and intended to comment on it but my mother was staying with us over the weekend so I couldn’t because it is still a bit of a live issue between us (I am 35).

quote:
Originally posted by Chive:
My sisters and I were home schooled til we were ten and it was bloody awful. My main problem with it was the idiosyncracies my parents had when it came to what to teach, the fact that all my emotional eggs were in one basket - I couldn't piss my teacher off without pissing my mum off, and the fact that it was very isolating.

Oh my God, is it isolating. Evidently there are people posting on this thread who have had a different experience, but once you are out of the school system, there are no opportunities to see other people your own age unless your parents both approve of it [idea of socialising] and them [people in question] and place sufficient value on the idea to make it a priority. Didn’t happen much for me – and when it did, it was in a context where both my, and their – whoever they were – parents were right there, hanging around, being all grown up and lame and fucking watching me. How can anyone act normally or build anything approaching a rapport with someone else in such a situation? (even if such a situation had occurred more than about three times a year).

quote:
Originally posted by ArtDunce:
I would have hated to be homeschooled since despite the bullying or the boredom I had the opportunity to decide who I wanted to be in the world away from the person you feel compelled to be with/for your family. Room to try on different personas, exposure to people very different from your familiy's circle and the space to question them and decide for yourself what your values, opinions or choices will be.

Oh YES – and this. This, this, and this. I was actually bullied at school, before I was removed at ten, but despite this, I did not want to leave – I was horrified by the idea, in fact. Obviously I did not get any choice in the matter, and I think even now I could talk until I was blue in the face to my Mum about how the opportunity to ‘…try on different personas…and decide for [my]self what [my] values, opinions and choices will be’, was worth any amount of bullying [and there was more of it than I ever disclosed to my parents] – in fact, this sort of freedom is worth more (to me, anyway), than all other freedoms combined. I had it taken away from me, and I’m still struggling with the implications of that.

--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --

Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008 | IP: Logged

anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
What I dissaprove of and what gets me riled is a parenting philosophy that thinks it's fine for children to have a bad time at school as this is character building, or in some way related to preparing them for 'real life' - and this is what I often hear from the most vociferously 'anti' people. There are lots of other parents I've spoken to who've chosen school for other reasons.

I would class myself as ‘vociferously anti’ – or possibly ‘scarred by’, and I wouldn’t make the argument that bad times are character building – in fact I think that’s a crock of shite. I would say that bad times can be had at home at least as easily as at school, depending on the child, and that you, as the parent, won’t necessarily know this, because your child may not feel free to tell you the length and breadth and depth of what they feel on the topic. I still don’t feel free to do so, and as I have already said, I’m 35. And I’ve had a few years of therapy. And my parents weren’t bad people, they were trying to do what they thought were right, and they never shut us in cupboards or hit us with hosepipes or anything like that.

quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
What I also think is sad is the number of parents who don't think themselves capeable of homeschooling when they perhaps are.

What I find astonishing (and I’m not directing this at you, because I know nothing of your background), is that parents with no training for the job imagine they can do a better job than those who have been trained. It’s very dismissive of an education system, that by and large, does work. Yes, there are some people who it does not work for – I know that. But really – my mother left school at 14 to go and work in an office, and thought she might take on educating her two children – I am (and I don’t love this about myself, but hell, I’m very academic) – I had outrun her by the age of 12! It didn’t do wonders for an already fragile relationship, I have to say. But even for those parents who are massively educated and intellectual, there is a big difference between knowing things and knowing how to teach them.

quote:
Originally posted by Zaccheus:
I haven't known anybody who had home schooled, but I have known a few who considered it. My concern was that they were parents who just wanted to control every aspect of their children's life, and they were worried that in schools, other people had influence over their children.

Yep. Education system very ‘wordly’, one’s children need to be soaked in this* crap all day, every day, and only socialise with church people. Otherwise they might be swayed by deceptively persuasive ideas**.

* pdf's at bottom of page, can't link directly to them.
**scientific evidence.

quote:
Originally posted by Zaccheus:
I know a few people who do, or who have, home schooled their children. It always seemed to me that the decision to home school was far more about the parents than about the children.
Auntie Doris x

Yes, though to be fair, in my case, I think it was about the parents’ fears with respect to the children, which were silly and groundless, but entirely sincere, nonetheless. And I should acknowledge that my parents made considerable financial sacrifices in order to impose this stuff on us…

quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
Yes, I share that experience. It's when home-schooling becomes all about what you're afraid of, what you're running away from-- rather than what you're drawn to, what you're adding-- that it becomes negative IMHO. Should be more about what you're "for" than what you're "against".

Yes. See above. In my experience, there was plenty of it about – but of course my experience will not have been representative seeing as those with whom we socialised will have been a self-selecting group.

--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --

Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008 | IP: Logged

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

I may be unusual here in that both my sons went to the local 'sink' comprehensive school when they were 11. It had just failed its Ofsted and was listed as one of the worst ten in the country.

Why did we send them there? Because we had told them the school they went to was their choice - and this was where they chose, as many of their friends were going there. The social mix was considerable.

My hunch was if they were going to do well, they'd do well anywhere.

This turned out to be a good hunch - they made good friends of all social and ethnic backgrounds. Both have good Master's degrees now and are getting on well in life - they can mix with anyone fearlessly.

When I ask them they are happy with their choices and have no regrets.

<typo>

[ 12. June 2012, 09:44: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website