The pros and cons of Homeschooling , page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 06:54 PM by asmeone2
reply to post by otherhalf


Thank you for the statistics!

There are some things about it I would question, though.

One being that academic performance is mainly memorizing facts. The students may be smarter in that sense, but that doesn't automatically mean that they have better critical thinking or life skills.

Another is that when it says "high self esteem," I've often seen that translate out into narsicism--the kids may, sometimes because of their better academic performance, sometimes because of an unintended consequence of the parents' reasons for homeschooling, develope an us vs. them mentality.

I question the cost statistic. It seemed like it only counted textbooks for homeschoolers, but not the electric, food, gas, ect. costs involved in maintaining the "schoolhouse."

And of course "well socialized" is a very subjective phrase.



reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 07:08 PM by RogerT
What subjects do I teach - the question is a bit off the mark.

Look, I'm happy to be the radical on this thread.

I read the posts about home schoolers outperforming schoolers on percentile points - whoopee do!

I mean, really, what value does knowing how many carbon atoms in a benzine ring, other than to appear intellectual in a forum post or gain a percentile point.

What subjects do I teach:
how to spot the lady in the checkout that will give you the best slice of cake. how to play with your brother so you'll both have fun. how to drive the car above the speed limit when you need to get somewhere fast, without getting a ticket. how to spot when gold futures are undervalued and about to take off to the moon. how to spot when some authority figure is lying to you. how to be responsible for your own health and question the doctor's opinion. I don't really know bro, whatever it takes to get by in this world, looking after those you can, not treading on too many toes, being fair but strong, keeping a warm heart and open mind. Stay balanced, tell the truth, keep calm, communicate, trust your instincts and your perception. What else do we really need to know. If anyone needs information, the world is awash with it, and it's literally at our fingertips. Why push all this mostly untrue drivel into young minds against their will. What purpose does that possibly serve.

My daughter has problems with maths. She's been tested and has mathematical dyslexia Yet she is still made to feel less than others because she doesn't do her times tables as well as the rest of the class. I bought her a calculator. She's not allowed to use it at school but she can sure use it when she goes shopping! She didn't want to be bottom of the class so she's worked to not be, via extra lessons and some advanced learning techniques, but as far as I was concerned, bottom was just fine. She's bilingual and speaks better english than the english teacher so where she 'fails' at math, she kicks ass at languages.


reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 07:23 PM by otherhalf
Originally posted by asmeone2


There are some things about it I would question, though.

One being that academic performance is mainly memorizing facts. The students may be smarter in that sense, but that doesn't automatically mean that they have better critical thinking or life skills.


How is that measured with publicly schooled kids?

Another is that when it says "high self esteem," I've often seen that translate out into narsicism--the kids may, sometimes because of their better academic performance, sometimes because of an unintended consequence of the parents' reasons for homeschooling, develope an us vs. them mentality.


When you say that you have "often seen that translate out into narsicism" are you saying that you have often seen this with homeschooled kids specifically?

I question the cost statistic. It seemed like it only counted textbooks for homeschoolers, but not the electric, food, gas, ect. costs involved in maintaining the "schoolhouse."


The "schoolhouse" would have to have electricity, gas etc. even if the kids were not homeschooled. School lunches now cost more than what I can feed my children for at home. Even figuring in "extras" such as art supplies and field trips doesn't get you anywhere near the $5325 figure.

And of course "well socialized" is a very subjective phrase.


Yes, I agree. But, again, how would you measure that in a person who was not homeschooled? Socialization seems to be a big concern when people are discussing homeschooling, yet I'm not sure how it is decided that homeschoolers are not "well socialized". What is the ruler we go by?


reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 07:24 PM by ScienceDada
reply to post by RogerT

The question of subjects is an appropriate one, as it is a gauge for those who want to focus on academics and not "life skills". Although, I will say that I believe the life skills is a real edge, and one that is not easily obtained from public education. BUT we are not comparing the two, so I will stay on topic.

Subjects:
* Mathematics (counting, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, logic, set theory, probability)
* Reading (comprehension, synthesis, analysis)
* Writing (creative writing, computer publishing skills, book binding)
* Languages (modern language of chioce, Latin, Koine or Attic Greek, Biblical/Modern Hebrew)
* Science (physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy, earth/space science)
* History (pick a book or a curriculum, then delve in depth)
* Computers and electronics (programming, repair, maintenance, circuit design/debug/fabrication)
* Home economics (cooking, cleaning, money management, home maintenance)
* "Shop" (working with dad in the garage)

Others available through external lessons or cooperative
* Dance
* Art (drawing, sculpture, crafts)
* Music (my kids do piano, viola)
* Sports (t-ball, swimming, track & field, soccer, firearms, archery)

And each of these is of course based on age level and interest.


reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 07:33 PM by eradown
reply to post by asmeone2

It is impossible to write about all the advatages of homeschooling unless the problems associated with group schooling are brought up. I will say that I have noticed that the highly educated ,rich , and snobby among homeschoolers are starting to turn on their poorer brethren. They are starting to call some homeschoolers trash. To me it looks like some people resent those who would use homeschooling to better the lot of their children. What a shame! The greatest gains in literacy among homeschoolers are among the ill educated and impoverished homeschoolers. Homeschooling is an equalizer.

This link is so informative.
www.hslda.org...



reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 07:49 PM by ScienceDada
Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by otherhalf

One being that academic performance is mainly memorizing facts. The students may be smarter in that sense, but that doesn't automatically mean that they have better critical thinking or life skills.

I think that this is a difficult argument to make, because those skills are difficult to gauge, i.e. a valid test must be designed that does not cater to any ethnic group, environment, or educational style. That is why test validity is established by groups like ETS. I don't have a stat to quote, but I would be very surprised if homeschool students don't out perform on the SAT, ACT (and as a follow-up, the GRE because they tend to do well in college).

Another is that when it says "high self esteem," I've often seen that translate out into narsicism--the kids may, sometimes because of their better academic performance, sometimes because of an unintended consequence of the parents' reasons for homeschooling, develope an us vs. them mentality.

On the flip-side, homeschool children are typically taught to not unrealistically gauge their performance because it is often tested in real-life situations, which builds confidence. In my experience, public school children often have an over-inflated sense of self because they are measured on a bell curve populated by underachieving students, many of whom put in minimal/no effort. Homeschool children are often taught with a more puritan-esque ideal, where *perfection* is the goal (opposed to good enough), so excellence is pursued and usually attained.

For example, my child's report would typically be computer-generated, and compared with professional publications -- opposed to comparisons with their peers' hand-scratched half-as*ed attempt.

I question the cost statistic. It seemed like it only counted textbooks for homeschoolers, but not the electric, food, gas, ect. costs involved in maintaining the "schoolhouse."

The cost statistic is not taking into account the fact that families already pay into the educational system via property taxes, and the cost of homeschooling is on top of that. But it is cheaper in the sense that school teachers salary, teachers union, and administrative costs are not paid. So, it is sort of comparing apples to oranges. I would argue that homeschooling is very expensive, just as private school is.

And of course "well socialized" is a very subjective phrase.

That may be, but then why is that almost universally used as a reason not to homeschool. Studies that try to quantify it objectively have demonstrated that it is not demonstrable. I believe that the HSLDA stats at least try to address the issue.

This is really a pivotal issue and should be explored more in this thread. Because I believe we are all familiar with the "homeschool disease" (HSD) in which some young adult is almost entirely unequipped to meet the challenges of the real-world. I have seen this happen. In all fairness, there are public school children who graduate and are virtually illiterate. So, there are exceptions on both sides. I would say that HSD is a small fraction of the total population, maybe 1-3%. But when populations are compared, the bell curves are separated by a wide margin in terms of test scores, so we admit that as a group, the homeschool children are measurably at a higher level.

So, what can this be attributed to? I believe it is fair to say that you can't beat the student-to-teacher ratio, nor the parental involvement factor. These drag public schools down. But then what conclusion can be drawn? If homeschooling is good for the child and they thrive, then it makes sense. But if public schools are necessary, at least be very involved in their education.


reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 08:05 PM by otherhalf
reply to post by asmeone2


Interesting. Of the homeschoolers I know (and I happen to know a bunch from around the U.S. at least), I don't see them being anymore stuck-up or narcissistic than you would find in the general population. I mean, if they are that way, it's not due to homeschooling.

Do you think it could be more of a defensive mechanism? Homeschoolers do find themselves having to defend every aspect of their lives a lot. How many parents of publicly schooled kids have to answer "Do you think they get enough socialization"? Do parents of publicly schooled kids worry that if their kids go outside to exercise for a few minutes they will be turned into Child Welfare? (Just throwing out some examples.) When you homeschool you sometimes feel like you are defending your whole way of life. A casual conversation in the check-out line turns into an inquisition all of a sudden.


reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 08:13 PM by ScienceDada
Originally posted by asmeone2
Honestly I think we may have some kind of a geographic, or cultural, difference here, because that was more the case of the homeschoolers I would encounter. That is probably because it is pretty rural here. Some had enrichment classes, but they usually totaled one or two hours a week. Maybe the laws differ where you are, but the kids can't get a paying job for an aprenticeship until they are 16 or older, either.

That may be for employment in the W-2 sense, but for example, a girl can help in a childcare or at the YMCA when she is younger, it just has hour limitations. Volunteer work is legal no matter what the age, and that does not make it any less work, as performance can be monitored, timecards may still be filled out or punched, and performance evaluations can still be done.

But all things being equal, a high school age student gets a job. The contrast is in using that as an educational opportunity, in which the students are expected to perform at a given level, and the metrics are used as part of their education. An example might be: if your son works part time doing data entry, then you use it as an opportunity for him to do typing lessons and gauge his progress of words-per-minute as a kind of grade. Thus, school is not divorced from work, play, or daily activities. I believe this is a PRO for homeschooling.

I think that the parents should have to be able to prove proficiency in whatever subject they are going to teach to the kids... for example, before they teach algebra, they have to prove that they can do algebra. It isn't controlling in the sense that the government dictates what is being taught in the lesson plans. It's like a civil service exam.

If that is too much government intrusion, then our opinions will just have to differ here.


I believe it is an intrusion, although for the sake of argument not with algebra, that is fairly straightforward. But in the areas of civics, history, and literature -- these are areas where I do not want the government dictating what bs my children are spoon-fed. Is it a conspiracy? Yes, albeit an open conspiracy. A good example of what I mean is the way that the Puritans are demonized by teachers, because they read The Scarlett Letter. There are two sides to every story, and for the children to make up their own minds and develop critical thinking skills, it is important for them to hear both sides. This is definitely a big PRO for homeschooling (and incidentally a CON for public schools in my experience, yet off topic).



But even in a more fair comparison, what does fine mean?

Fine depends a lot on the situation, as you pointed out; I'm just as curious how you define well-adjested? I'm not sure I can answer the question until I know what I'm comparing it against.

I would consider well adjusted as the ability to independently adjust, survive, succeed, and thrive in the world as an individual, an employee, and in starting a family (at least in this context).


reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 08:19 PM by ScienceDada
Originally posted by otherhalf
reply to post by asmeone2


Do you think it could be more of a defensive mechanism? Homeschoolers do find themselves having to defend every aspect of their lives a lot. How many parents of publicly schooled kids have to answer "Do you think they get enough socialization"? Do parents of publicly schooled kids worry that if their kids go outside to exercise for a few minutes they will be turned into Child Welfare? (Just throwing out some examples.) When you homeschool you sometimes feel like you are defending your whole way of life. A casual conversation in the check-out line turns into an inquisition all of a sudden.

I can attest to this, and often it is a defense mechanism. But to be fair, there is an undercurrent of elitism with many home-schoolers that their education is superior. The same could be said of private schools, but that is not a commonly used reason for private schools to be shut down, diminished, or have greater regulation.

I would not consider this is a CON that is inherent to homeschooling per se, but more of a problem with the parents that would equally manifest itself if they instead sent their kids to private schools (which a great many would/do because of their opposition to the public school system).



reply posted on 11-8-2008 @ 08:23 PM by eradown
Originally posted by asmeone2
I would like to post my thoughts on homeschooling in the wake of the legal action surrounding it in California, and invite everyone to chime in as well.

I support a parent's right to educate their kids as they see fit. However, they have a duty to ensure that the child is equipt with the knowedge they need to function in the world, regardless of their personal beleifs.


I say this is true of all parents. The only way to make sure children are educated is for the parent to do it themselves.

Originally posted by asmeone2
The PROS of homeschooling, as I see them, are that the education is tailored to the kid's needs, there is more scheduling flexibility, there may be less temptation to engage in damaging behavior, and more, I am sure, that could be supplied by the parents who are homeschooling.


Scheduling is not so flexible. It is best to follow the public school calendar if a homeschooler does not wish to raise the hackels of authority figures.

Originally posted by asmeone2
However, the CONS, as I see them(I have to resort to anecdotal evidence, I don't think some of these observations are even quantifiable!), are numerous:

Whatever subject the parent is weak in will be passed on to the child. He may be a great English teacher, but bad at math. Therefore the children will be somewhat set back in this feild.


This might be true if parents were trying to teach brain surgery ,but teaching core subjects one on one with the help of teaching aids which simplify everything give homeschoolers an advantage when it comes to teaching.


Originally posted by asmeone2
On top of that, the parent might be good at parenting, but bad at teaching academics, period. I've known a lot of parents who, at the expense of the child, were more caught up in the culture of home-schooling than the actual teaching.


Sounds too anecdotal to me.

Originally posted by asmeone2
Schooling prepars the child for the schedules needed in the real-world. You can call this a bad thing if you want, but fact is, if you're going to be able to do well in our world, you have to know how to get to school/work on time, get (home)work done on time, manage extracurricular activities and studies, ect. Homeschooling sometimes shrifts the kids out of this part of the education; many of the homeschooled kids I knew had a hard wake-up call when they entered college or high school because of this.


I am not sure why this is a good or positive thing teaching kids to respond to bells and waste time shuffling around hallways. This does not look like bussiness to me. To me ,it just looks sad and chaotic.

Originally posted by asmeone2
Some parents use homeschooling as an unhealthy form of sheilding or indoctrination (see my thread about that here. Parents should have the right to raise kids as they see fit, religiously or not, but that should NOT compromise the kid's ability to function in the real world. For example, I am talking about the Christians on the extreme side of the scale who teach their kids that they should distrust all science because it gave us evolution, abortion, whatever. On the flip side might be someone who homeschools because they don't want their kids to say the Pledge of Allegence and teaches the kid to see a religious conspiracy in every aspect of wha they learn.


Well, there is no way around parents passing their own veiws onto their children unless you believe the state should also raise children. You have managed to attack two groups that loath each other normally. That is a good thing for those who support homeschooling.

Originally posted by asmeone2
And although this may be the most debated aspect, I think that children absolutely need *something* outside of homeschooling to learn how to socially function. It isn't just about making friends, it's much more about learning to solve problems without MOm or Dad mediating, observing how different people have different strengths and weaknesses, watching trends come and go, being exposed to different opinions. I have known WAY to many homeschoolers who were *great* at memorizing facts, but absolutely useless when it came to social interactions.


Children can only be socialized by their parents. Groups do not teach kids how to interact. Villages do not raise children. Only parents raise children. So you did not get along well with those homeschoolers ,but they have problems. Okay, without knowing you or those homeschoolers ,I am in no position to judge them or you, but I have never had a bad experience with a product of homeschooling.

Originally posted by asmeone2
So in general I support homeschooling. I also think that it should be regulated, for the reasons I listed above.

I think the children should be held to the same examination standards of public schools. (In my opinion, ideas like Unschooling represent parental laziness hidden under a cute label and don't serve the child's educational needs at all.)


Public schools are held to high standards because of all the money they take ,and because of all the children entrusted in their care. Parents care more about their children than strangers do, and most of the people who do not love their children would not waste time educating them at home. Homeschoolers should be allowed to continue their ways because they have been successful without the intrusion of the state's dumb biddies.




[edit on 11-8-2008 by eradown]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



A MUST Read, "Written By A Female Cop"
  Posted 2 days ago with 33 member flags
Know your enemy ... the Daily Mail & Viscount Rothermere
  Posted 11 days ago with 17 member flags
Pictures That Shocked The World (viewer discretion advised)
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags
NBC and the Banned \'Fear Factor\' Episode
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags