Why do people homeschool their dc if they don't know the material or care to know it?

[Heather in WI]

 

 

"Outsourcing" is one of the secrets of success for high school at home. Tutors, online services, and correspondence courses all preserve the strengths of home schooling -- flexibility, one-on-one attention, expertise above and beyond that permitted by a normal high-school curriculum -- while eliminating its one weakness -- parental ignorance of the subject at hand.

 

~ Chapter 43 in

The Well-Trained Mind

.

 

 

:)

 

I think that its perfectly acceptable for parents to realize their limitations and outsource classes to online tutorials, computer programs, correspondence classes, etc.

 

And, I don't get the idea that students are unable to teach themselves anything. Take Nathaniel Bowditch who beginning at 14 taught himself algebra, calculus, Latin and French, for example.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Heather in WI

[Haiku]

I meet more and more homeschoolers each year who send a dc to public school and are shocked to learn that they are struggling to keep up with their ps classmates, because the parents were assured by other homeschoolers, magazines, and books that a very relaxed homeschooling program was still ahead of the public school curriculum.

 

I wouldn't assume this is because they haven't received an good education at home. I would be willing to investigate the idea that homeschool and public school environments ask very different things of kids, and the kids who enter school after homeschooling just might not have been socialized into the public school way.

 

Tara

[Guest mrs. logic]

Homeschooling is our job, if we chose to teach our children we need to treat it as such. If they fail we have no one but ourselves to blame. There are tons of resources out there, but it is still our job to make sure they are the correct ones. That our children are thriving and learning.

 

Just my two cents.

I agree! :)

[Mom0012]

I'm kind of surprised to hear you say this because isn't CLE pretty much self teaching? It sure is at our house.

 

My son is taking an outside class and may be starting with an online course. He will have a better experience in these subjects this way than with me. I certainly don't feel guilty about it or like I'm letting him down in any way. These classes are what's best for him.

 

Many people have reasons for homeschooling other than purely for academic excellence. I know that's the most common reason on this board, but I'm not sure it's the main reason for most homeschoolers.

 

Lisa

[Melissa in Australia]

I haven't read all the replies. I really think it depends on the child and the age.

I teach nearly all the subjects to my children, but I am finding my ds nearly 16 is teaching himself physics. I really have trouble with the physics, and personally I am not interested in learning it. I am happy for my son to do it himself, and I just correct it when he is finished.

[stripe]

I always hear other women refer to homeschooling as their job (as in, on a Facebook questionnaire: "Do you like your job?" "Yes, I love being a Mom" or "yes, but sometimes homeschooling wears me down."

 

Or authors (like in Side-Tracked Home Executives) will refer to "their profession," and I'll think, "Oh, what's their profession?" and then I'll realize they mean being a housewife.

 

I get what you're saying, but then, speaking as someone who doesn't have a paying job or a full-time volunteer type position, if being a wife/mother/educator isn't my "job," then I guess I don't have one? Or it's eating and reading novels? Er? (I never know what to say my "job" is; can you tell?) I think we need a spin off thread! Here I go...

Edited January 14, 2010 by stripe

[Jenny in GA]

I get what you're saying, but then, speaking as someone who doesn't have a paying job or a full-time volunteer type position, if being a wife/mother/educator isn't my "job," then I guess I don't have one? Or it's eating and reading novels? Er? (I never know what to say my "job" is; can you tell?)

 

 

Like I said, I'm unusual in this regard ....

 

But since I work as a free-lance musician, that's exactly what I say my job is when asked.

 

If I didn't have any kind of paying job, I would say something like, "I don't have a job right now, because I'm home with three kids."

 

Or, depending on the context of why someone was asking, I would discuss what my job was and then say I wasn't doing it at the moment, because I was home with kids. Or (if this were true) I might say, "I'm not working at the moment, because the kids take up a lot of my time, but in a few years I'm planning to pursue ___."

[at the beach]

I imagine that in many areas the dc teaching themselves is a better option than the classroom teacher not teaching the dc anything.

 

:iagree: And from an online newspaper article:

 

Summit to focus on Cleveland's dropout rate

By Doug Kramer

April 23, 2009, 9:29PM

 

An Ohio summit was held last November, and sessions are planned in Cincinnati, Toledo and Columbus later this year.

The report, researched by Editorial Projects in Education, pegged Cleveland's 2005 graduation rate at 34.3 percent -- meaning almost two out of every three students did not earn a diploma. Only Indianapolis public schools had a lower rate.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/04/summit_to_focus_on_clevelands.html

Edited January 14, 2010 by Violet

[christielee7278]

If my kids still need me to teach them everything by the time they reach high school, I will feel that I didn't do a very good job homeschooling them. My aim is to teach them how to learn on their own, not just how to be taught by others. I don't expect that I will know all the material they learn, and I am fine with that.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

 

My dh and I were just talking about this exact thing. My oldest learns and retains much better if he does so independently. I keep up with his work and we talk about missed problems and such, and of course if he is stumped, I help him. For the most part though, he is in the 6th grade and very independent. Really the only subject he needs one-on-one help with is English. Since he moved into a more independent study, his standardized test scores have jumped up. He just learns better by himself. It would be silly of me to push my teaching on him when he does much better on his own.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

:iagree: And from an online newspaper article:

 

Summit to focus on Cleveland's dropout rate

By Doug Kramer

April 23, 2009, 9:29PM

 

An Ohio summit was held last November, and sessions are planned in Cincinnati, Toledo and Columbus later this year.

The report, researched by Editorial Projects in Education, pegged Cleveland's 2005 graduation rate at 34.3 percent -- meaning almost two out of every three students did not earn a diploma. Only Indianapolis public schools had a lower rate.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/04/summit_to_focus_on_clevelands.html

 

I'm in Indianapolis. That is one reason why I don't lose much sleep over my inadequacies as a superstar homeschool mom! My school-aged children are all literate, and competent in basic math skills. I have outperformed our local high school, even for my third-grader.

 

I'm not done yet, of course. My goal is not to merely beat the public school. I want my children to be properly educated, and I want the full twelve years for each of them. NOT going to berate myself if I choose to use TT down the road. That's silly.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Dulcimeramy

[dragons in the flower bed]

I agree with this as well. I don't think "any" school is better than public school.

 

Yes, but sometimes teaching yourself is better than going to the local school, and the OP said that teaching yourself just doesn't cut it, without any qualifiers. It's inaccurate to make such a generalized statement and unkind to wield the generalization as a judgment.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I believe that my task (I won't use the word "job";)) is to provide what both of my kids need in order to learn. Some of the time it is direct teaching (esp. at the younger ages). Some of the time it is letting them figure it out on their own. Some times it is to direct them to a source (tutor, website, book etc.) that will give them the answer. I think it is always to provide access to lots of books.:001_smile: I think the key phrase of the OPs was if the parent doesn't "care to know" the material. I don't think that means that I have to learn the subject to the same degree esp. in the older grades if they are learning it on their own. But it should mean that I value my kids learning the material well.

[katilac]

Of course there are horror stories of home schooled kids who are grades behind their peers. There are also plenty of horror stories about schooled kids who are grades behind their peers, no?

 

I'd be interesting in hearing about the OP's thoughts on the importance or lack thereof of the ability to self-educate. If it is important, when do you think it should start? When I started graduate school, I was told (several times) that "the first thing we want to teach you is how to learn and think for yourself." As the youngest students were about 22, I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard, and a sad commentary on the American school system. It was also painfully, painfully true: many of these college graduates had little or no idea how to self-educate, and the transition away from spoon-feeding was a harsh adjustment. I'll be appalled and frustrated if my kids can't self-educate to a high degree by the time they are in high school.

 

I definitely don't think a hs parent has to be ahead of their students in all subjects. Of course a knowledgable, passionate teacher can do wonders for students, but while I had my share of them, they were not in the majority by any means. And none of my teacher's had "office hours" until I went to college; getting assistance out of class was most definitely an exception.

 

I'm proud to say that my 11-year-old has surpassed me in Latin, and I don't speak a lick of the French she's learning. I plan for her maths to surpass mine in high school - - not so much because of my dedication to self-learning, but because I learned algebra one already, and I'll be ****ed if I do it again :D.

 

 

edited to add that I'm highly amused that the boards have an automatic censor, lol!

[StaceyinLA]

I had some really DUMB teachers in high school. I had English teachers that couldn't speak proper English, math teachers that assigned work and never explained it, coaches that knew nothing about history teaching history, etc.

 

I am also wonderful friends with plenty of people that home school whose grammar occasionally makes me cringe. However, those people LOVE their children and are investing their time and effort to make sure their children are getting a good education. In many cases, one much better than they received.

 

If a person understands his/her weaknesses and can implement quality materials to fill the gaps, I think that is just smart teaching. NO ONE is going to be highly educated on EVERY, SINGLE, subject.

 

A high school English teacher probably has minimal math skills, and the math teacher may stink at teaching writing. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect that every parent will be perfect at teaching every subject. It's the desire to see your children succeed, and the ability to seek out quality educational tools that makes the difference.

[chiguirre]

I think there's a deep divide on this issue based on hsing plans for hs. If you're committed to hsing through graduation, you're more likely to opt for at least some self-teaching because that's the dominant mode of hs instruction for the teen years. If you'd like your dc to attend an institutional hs, you're more likely to value a face-to-face teacher who specializes in their subject. Of course, your school decisions reinforce your view of the best teaching method and your educational philosophy guides your school choices, so it's a self-reinforcing cycle. There's no point in getting frustrated or upset over someone else's educational philosophy because the way in which we evaluate it depends on our own POV.

[2cents]

...

 

Do the online teachers have office hours to help struggling students IF the parent can't help? :confused: :toetap05:

 

I guess it depends on what kind of online you are talking about. I've known a couple of hs'ers who plant their children in front of the pc and let the kids play on sites doing flash cards or ed games. I personally consider that 'extra'. However, we do Florida Virtual school as homeschoolers and there are teachers and lots of accountability with pace charts and grades and the teachers are available almost 24/7. So it just depends on what kind of online you are dealing with. Some is a lot better than others IMO. Personally, I consider myself the teacher and anything outside or online is done with my supervision and is just an 'outsourced' or 'elective' activity.

Edited January 15, 2010 by 2cents

[mommyrooch]

I agree. So many homeschoolers are led astray by the common homeschool-guru mantra of, "at least it's better than public school." It is a lie that the least homeschool efforts are still better than public school. I meet more and more homeschoolers each year who send a dc to public school and are shocked to learn that they are struggling to keep up with their ps classmates, because the parents were assured by other homeschoolers, magazines, and books that a very relaxed homeschooling program was still ahead of the public school curriculum.

 

:iagree: I have a good friend that homeschools her six kids and they are all "behind" academically. For example, her almost 12 year old son is just now doing 3rd grade math. He doesn't even know his multiplication tables. :001_huh: At first glance others would deem this unacceptable. Is it though? Can we see the future and "know" how this kid will turn out?

 

This friend of mine is a believer in the "better late than early" method of teaching. She is a great mom and her kids are very bright. They are just behind their public school counterparts because of her laid back approach to teaching. If they were to be tested "today" they would come up seriously lacking academically. Luckily "today" though is not the end of their journey. Perhaps 2 years from now they will be caught up to their public school counterparts.

 

All of this to say that it is very possible that these kids will turn out just fine. I like what one poster said, "it's not a sprint, it's a marathon." They may be able to progress quickly and have everything level out accademically. How do I "know" they won't?

 

I personally have problems with specific "grade" levels anyway. All kids learn at such different rates that it really is such a "general" classification. Some kids may be behind in math but ahead in spelling etc.

 

I feel that if a parent genuinely loves thier kids then I will by default trust them to do what they feel is best for them. If that means out sourcing subjects to others, starting their kids late etc. then so be it. They know their kids better than anyone and their ultimate goals for them may not be the same as the goals I have for "my" kids.

 

Not to mention that the methods I use and the motivation (or lack thereof) that I have sometimes when it comes to teaching are definately not perfect so I will be cautious when passing judgement on others. Even if they don't outwardly live up to "my" standards because I know that "my" standards certainly aren't perfect. :tongue_smilie:

[Rosie_0801]

Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but I think we need to teach (that may be deliberate instruction, or very carefully guiding) the meta-skills, because I don't think kids will learn these things left to their own devices. We certainly can't teach them if we don't know them ourselves.

It is not always necessary to teach content, though. Is there really a difference between a 12 year old making Latin vocab flashcards from a list and their mother making Latin vocab flashcards from the same list? Is there really a difference between a child reading a chapter of a history book and listening to their mother read that chapter to them? Not really. Mum doesn't need to know the ins and outs of a subject in order to be able to ask intelligent questions, she just needs to be able to judge whether the child is making confident and logical answers. It's pretty obvious if a kid isn't confident in their answer. "Uh, um" kind of gives it away ;) We don't need to know the subject to notice contradictions, either. "Hey, you just said the complete opposite a second ago, which is it?!" Ha. Now I'm reminding myself of conversations with dh about homeschooling. He'll ask a question, have no thoughts on the matter at all, no knowledge of the subject matter, but will be perfectly confident that whatever I come out with is a good course of action because I have clearly thought out reasons for thinking as I do.

 

Yeah, I think I'll stop now. If I haven't got my point across by now, waffling longer isn't going to help :D

 

Rosie

[Peela]

Isnt the key whether the individual child has the support they need to keep glearning? For some, they may be perfectly able to self learn most subjects as long as mum brings them chocolate and hugs and emotional support. Others may need more support in different areas. My son needs me to stay very in tune with his work and if I fall out of tune, he suffers- the quality of his work suffers and everything slides.He needs immediate feedback. Yet my dd can manage quite well without my support as long as we have parts of the day, and some subjects like history, that we do together, so that she feels connected and not isolated. And, if she is struggling in an area I can't help her...I get support for her, like a good online class or a teacher IRL. And I have learned that some online classes dont give the sort of support she needs. Expensive lesson for us all...but other classes have really hit the spot.

The parent doesnt have to do it all. They are the facilitator. They have their kids' best interest at heart. But they also have limitations. Knowing those limitations and working around them is key....I guess not caring enough to do something about it would be a sad thing....but who knows? Kids can be resourceful too.

[Storm Bay]

I wouldn't assume this is because they haven't received an good education at home. I would be willing to investigate the idea that homeschool and public school environments ask very different things of kids, and the kids who enter school after homeschooling just might not have been socialized into the public school way.

 

Tara

 

 

This is another good point. I think that both things occur, to be honest. Some kids are well educated and don't know the ps way or weren't taught all the same things in the same order (no harm in that, IMO, as long as we get all the learning we need; eg MUS for those who use it, or waiting on history until gr 3 as we did). However, there are some dc who really don't know much either due to learning issues or lack of teaching.

[Storm Bay]

Of course there are horror stories of home schooled kids who are grades behind their peers. There are also plenty of horror stories about schooled kids who are grades behind their peers, no?

 

 

 

Absolutely. Everywhere it's a mixed bag, but my vote is that there are more neglected students in ps than in homeschools (percentage wise, since numerically that's a given.) In particular, bright through pg dc are neglected frequently in the US due to the no child left behind act. But that isn't even the point of behing behind a ps class, of course, just an extra observation.

QUOTE=mommyrooch;1430507]:iagree: I have a good friend that homeschools her six kids and they are all "behind" academically. For example, her almost 12 year old son is just now doing 3rd grade math. He doesn't even know his multiplication tables. :001_huh: At first glance others would deem this unacceptable. Is it though? Can we see the future and "know" how this kid will turn out?

 

This friend of mine is a believer in the "better late than early" method of teaching. :tongue_smilie:

:iagree: I combined Better Late Than Early with Classical & eclectic for my younger two dc (my eldest did ps from K-2). I did teach math from gr 1 age, though, because my dc are mathy, and they did learn to read, etc. But many subjects I waited for, particuarly with ds who just wasn't ready. A year and a half he was woefully behind his age peers, but he has not only caught up, he is going to be ahead in a numbero of areas by age 10, but not in writing skills, which we're just starting this year.

 

However, my dc weren't neglected since we often followed their interests, they were read to, we use a large vocabulary, we have a lot of discussions about important topics, etc, etc. But by ps standard, yes, they were behind.

[MIch elle]

1 : to cause to know something <taught them a trade> b : to cause to know how <is teaching me to drive> c : to accustom to some action or attitude <teach students to think for themselves> d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action <I'll teach you to come home late>

2 : to guide the studies of

3 : to impart the knowledge of <teach algebra>

4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted <experience teaches us our limitations>

5 : to conduct instruction regularly in <teach school>

 

I believe all the above defines "teaching." #2 is a valid way of teaching esp. in homeschooling. Guiding is not handing your dc the book or DVD program and not knowing how to help your dc if they get stuck with that program.

 

I think you all have misunderstood me by defining "teaching" in a narrow way as in just #5 above "to conduct instruction regulary in <teach school>. :001_smile:

[TXMary2]

but, I have some subjects that my dc self-teach. I spend a LOT of money on good curriculum that has cd-rom instruction because I know that that particular subject is weak for me. For example: When I was in high school (in the wonderful '80s!) in order to graduate, we only had to have 1 math credit. :eek:! Really! So I took Algebra 1 in 10th grade and called it good. Well, now they have to have 1 full math credit each year. I can't teach or even begin to understand Geometry--I just can't. So I spend money on curriculm that dd15 can do on her own and e-mail the instructor if there's an issue.

 

When it comes to other subjects, some of them we do together every day, some we do where I meet with them once a week and then they are on their own the rest of the week. I'm available for questions, but, I don't sit down and physically teach them every day. It's not necessary anymore. They've learned to be self-motivated, self-directed, and responsible for their work.

 

Anyway, that's my opinon!

 

I was in high school in the 80's too and we only needed 2 math credits. I took developmental math and Record Keeping!!

 

We use Teaching Textbooks so someone else can teach the lesson, but I watch with my son. What I have realized using TT is that I am not bad at math. As a child I think a few frustrating situations combined with teachers not taking the time to help me caused me to just mentally tune out math. I recall one teacher in the 7th grade being awesome and I actually had A's and B's in her class, but the next year it went downhill without her. Anyway, I watch the lectures with ds and I am more than capable of helping when he needs help.

[Haiku]

Guiding is not handing your dc the book or DVD program and not knowing how to help your dc if they get stuck with that program.

 

 

Yeah, I guess if you stare blankly at your kid with drool coming out of your mouth when they ask for help, it would be a problem. But saying something like, "I can't help you with that, but call Uncle Abelard, he has a PhD in it" or helping your child find another resource to get help is perfectly fine, imo. No one slags on public school parents for not knowing everything their kids are learning. Public school parents outsource learning. Homeschool parents can, too, without needing to feel guilty about it.

 

Tara

[Kari C in SC]

I don't understand it! The dc teaching themselves doesn't CUT it! :svengo:

 

Yes, yes, I know there are online courses, etc. but....

 

Do the online teachers have office hours to help struggling students IF the parent can't help? :confused: :toetap05:

 

Haven't read the replies. I am assuming you are speaking of somebody in particular.

 

My experience or two cents... when I was a Junior in high school, I had a baby (with my now dh). One month after I had this baby, my dad got seriously ill. My mom went from working pt to ft. Somebody had to care for the new baby and my ill dad. Enter - American School of Correspondence. This was before I had ever heard of homeschooling. I had doubled up classes all through my JR to graduate on time while taking time off to have baby. God had other plans. I stayed home my senior year to take care of baby and my dad (who couldn't walk by this point or do much else). My parents had ZERO to do with my school other than paying for it and occasionally asking me how it was going. I did fine, graduated early. That is one instance where I can see it being okay to not have involved parents. There are lots of kids out there at high school level that really don't always need parental help.

 

Now... I have been homeschooling for 11 years. My kids require supervision on a lot up until a certain point. When they do get older, I do tend to buy more self directed school. I simply do not have the time to be an expert in everything. I LOVE Teaching Textbooks because the guy shows my dd how to do her math and then that beloved cd GRADES it for me! That is not to say I am not around for questions, but I do sometimes tell her to go back and watch the instruction again.

 

I do NOT condone uninvolved parents when a child really needs the help and support. I do understand that there are situations where a child can and will work independent of a parent.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Yeah, I guess if you stare blankly at your kid with drool coming out of your mouth when they ask for help, it would be a problem. But saying something like, "I can't help you with that, but call Uncle Abelard, he has a PhD in it" or helping your child find another resource to get help is perfectly fine, imo. No one slags on public school parents for not knowing everything their kids are learning. Public school parents outsource learning. Homeschool parents can, too, without needing to feel guilty about it.

 

Tara

 

:lol: Well said.

[6packofun]

I agree. At that point I consider myself a facilitator, overseer and maybe even motivator of their educations. If I limited my children to what I know, their educations would be sad indeed and I didn't set out on this path to create cookie cutouts of myself. I consider my *example* of continual learning along with--or just ahead!--of them to be more important than the content of that learning.

[Colleen]

Isnt the key whether the individual child has the support they need to keep glearning? For some, they may be perfectly able to self learn most subjects as long as mum brings them chocolate and hugs and emotional support. Others may need more support in different areas. My son needs me to stay very in tune with his work and if I fall out of tune, he suffers- the quality of his work suffers and everything slides.He needs immediate feedback. Yet my dd can manage quite well without my support as long as we have parts of the day, and some subjects like history, that we do together, so that she feels connected and not isolated. And, if she is struggling in an area I can't help her...I get support for her, like a good online class or a teacher IRL. And I have learned that some online classes dont give the sort of support she needs. Expensive lesson for us all...but other classes have really hit the spot.

The parent doesnt have to do it all. They are the facilitator. They have their kids' best interest at heart. But they also have limitations. Knowing those limitations and working around them is key....I guess not caring enough to do something about it would be a sad thing....but who knows? Kids can be resourceful too.

Yes, this is the key. I think most, though clearly not all, understand and agree upon that.

[Colleen]

1 : to cause to know something <taught them a trade> b : to cause to know how <is teaching me to drive> c : to accustom to some action or attitude <teach students to think for themselves> d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action <I'll teach you to come home late>

2 : to guide the studies of

3 : to impart the knowledge of <teach algebra>

4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted <experience teaches us our limitations>

5 : to conduct instruction regularly in <teach school>

 

I believe all the above defines "teaching." #2 is a valid way of teaching esp. in homeschooling. Guiding is not handing your dc the book or DVD program and not knowing how to help your dc if they get stuck with that program.

 

I think you all have misunderstood me by defining "teaching" in a narrow way as in just #5 above "to conduct instruction regulary in <teach school>. :001_smile:

Mmm, no, I don't think we've misunderstood you. You initially asked why people homeschool if they don't know the material or care to know it. People pointed out that in many cases, facilitating a child's education doesn't require a parent's mastery of ~ or extensive familiarity with or interest in ~ all the material. The point was made that "teaching" comes in many forms. You agreed and commented: "You are willing to do WHATEVER it takes to provide your dc with a good education and that is what is needed, not to know everything. No, it's not being "smart" enough, it's the willingness to LEARN with your dc as needed to help them or get them the help that they need."

 

Great! We all agree. Teaching comes in different packages and bottom line, the teacher/parent/facilitator should provide the student help as needed. You apparently know, or think you know, of a situation in which students are simply being handed the material and given no assistance when they hit a wall. That's a shame, yes. Is that what you want to hear?

[Ester Maria]

A few valid (albeit quite obvious in my opinions) points were repeatedly brought up in this discussion (yeah, I was crazy enough to read or at least skim all the posts) - one, that nobody can possibly be an expert in ALL fields they are necessarily going to implement in their children's education; two, that, at the end of the day, we're also entitled not to be equally interested in all areas or willing to learn them along with our children, or not to the same extent; three, that independence in one's studies is actually a desirable quality we should encourage, as opposed to promoting being passive and "spoon-fed". All of those are valid points that I agree with.

However, I believe that the essence of home education is - or should be - somewhere else.

 

Most of what you talk about is doable in the public school circumstances as well - you can also only "supervise" your children's work, be there as a facilitator, point some new resources for them, help them out with their specific interests and support those financially, encourage independence in and responsibility for one's learning, and pleasantly ignore oh, those ****ed integrals you never properly learned at school and wish not to bother with. That's actually how most of the responsible parents with children in public schools reason and behave. So the question is, why homeschool in the first place? What makes you bring your child home and then provide them with an education based on somebody else's teaching (i.e. minimizing parental instruction and your ACTIVE involment in the PROCESS of your child's education, not just "checkpoints")?

 

While I agree that children may and DO profit from a lot of independent work, I think that the DIALOGUE is the crucial part of education. My daughters to do a lot on their own, but that's not where it stops - they learn it in order to enter the dialogue at some point: with me (usually, as I educate them), with their father, with our family members and colleagues, with various other individuals they are going to meet. Simply going through a book on one's own, writing a few pages on it or translating a few dozen lines of Cicero is the FIRST STEP, not the PURPOSE of the process of doing it. I do require the first step to be done independently as much as possible, with regards to the child's age and ability, however, the actual learning BEGINS at the point when that part is DONE.

 

And THAT is where most of the home educators I have personally met fail. They're satisfied with that point, period. "Teaching to cover the material" and "teaching to the standardized tests" approach. "We do X pages of that and write Y pages of that, that was our today's work", "we discuss things based on the questions in the book", etc.

I mean, okay, but you could perfectly do all of that with a child in the system; in fact, what a lot of people do is basically just going QUICKER through the system (since they're in the situation of being able to "adjust" it to themselves, by picking the materials they like more, working on their pace, etc.), which is giving them the illusion of doing BETTER. MORE, from the quantitative point of view, maybe; but not necessarily better. A lot of those kids know "more" simply because they were exposed to more CONTENT, not because they gained DEPTH.

 

Personally I cringe when I see those colorful Latin programs, which usually take two years to teach you what you would learn in one semester in any good "old school" classical school. Or when I see Latin taught via proverbs and "fossilized" pieces of knowledge nobody is versed in any more. Or when I see Literature taught via "what did the author want to communicate" or "let's see who can read more symbols into the book" approach. Or when I see students not knowing what a scientific theory is and what's the relation between theory and proofs. Or when I see a foreign language taught via RS.

You see, all of those are EXACTLY what public school system works like. They do it on less content and usually slacking more, but ESSENTIALLY, METHOD-WISE, it's the same approach. By covering more with that same approach you aren't necessarily giving your children anything they would not get in the school anyway. "Independent learning" is the same thing, they would have worked on their assignments anyway and would have to cram in some independent learning for tests.

 

That's why I believe the role of the parent is crucial and NOT only as a facilitator in order to "get the content done", NOT only as somebody who asks questions to see if the student has learned or who corrects papers.

I see the parent as the involved conversant, who may - and should - require "preparation" for "sessions" with him, but essentially, it comes down to the good quality dialogue, to going through the RELATIONS between various areas, to getting things done not only on the level of familiarity but inclining more towards mastery and in-depth understanding, to spending a lot of TIME, even if not directly teaching, with your student. Yes, it DOES take a lot of time. And the one who leads the process should DEFINITELY know the material and care about it, because you can neither debate, let alone TEACH, what you don't KNOW.

 

So in many ways I agree with Michelle's point, though I realize she might have had some different concerns in her mind originally.

 

The thing is... My entire semi-rant can be summed up in this: "having" the information is the LOWEST level of knowledge. There's a HUGE, HUGE gap between "having an information" and "being able to operate with it in its context"... let alone between the former and "being able to MANIPULATE with it in its context AND OUT OF IT", which should be the ultimate goal.

As long as you promote having the information and applying it in its system, you are basically not THAT removed from the public school system, you just do it on a more advanced content.

[Colleen]

This was an excellent post, Ester Maria, and I agree with you in many, many respects. My sticking point is just this: These discussions inevitably rest upon the premise that there is a Right (capital R) style of and purpose in homeschooling. They presume that all who partake of this lifestyle, this educational path, should have the same eyes on the same prize. That's not reality nor is there any reason it should be.

Most of what you talk about is doable in the public school circumstances as well...That's actually how most of the responsible parents with children in public schools reason and behave. So the question is, why homeschool in the first place?

You're asking rhetorically, but here again we're back to the original question. "If that's all you want to do, why homeschool in the first place?" And again, we can point to the fact that people homeschool for a myriad of reasons. While engaging in the learning process and dialogue is of great import to me, it may be lesser so to Suzy Q. Homeschooler. I know of all manner of people who homeschool for the simple reason that they don't want their children to attend school.

And THAT is where most of the home educators I have personally met fail. They're satisfied with that point, period. "Teaching to cover the material" and "teaching to the standardized tests" approach. "We do X pages of that and write Y pages of that, that was our today's work", "we discuss things based on the questions in the book", etc. I mean, okay, but you could perfectly do all of that with a child in the system...By covering more with that same approach you aren't necessarily giving your children anything they would not get in the school anyway.

Yes, and some people are perfectly content to school in a manner that replicates the system. Using materials of their choosing, avoiding what they want to avoid, and so on. I think it's a shame to accuse them of failure simply because they don't embrace your standards.

(T)he one who leads the process should DEFINITELY know the material and care about it, because you can neither debate, let alone TEACH, what you don't KNOW.

The particular subject at hand plays a large role in this and you fail to take that into consideration. Some subjects clearly lend themselves to rhetorical discussion. Others, not so much. Which is why Susan and Jessie encourage outsourcing modern foreign languages (for example) at the high school level. My oldest takes German through Oklahoma State University's online program. As it so happens, I'm fluent in German so if called upon, I can help him as needed. But what if I wasn't familiar with the language? What if he had a desire to learn German and I knew next to nothing about it. In light of the fact that there's an excellent course available; in light of the fact that the course provides all the guidance needed; in light of the fact that there's virtually no reason why he would need to debate/dialogue about the material with me...Should I then, nonetheless, DEFINITELY know and care about the material? Of course I shouldn't. Perhaps my interest in the language is piqued as he studies it. Perhaps I even decide to dip into it myself. Grand! But I wouldn't be failing in some respect if I simply let him study the language in a manner that essentially duplicates a school setting. And to suggest otherwise is stuff and nonsense.

[Joy at Home]

Yeah, I guess if you stare blankly at your kid with drool coming out of your mouth when they ask for help, it would be a problem. But saying something like, "I can't help you with that, but call Uncle Abelard, he has a PhD in it" or helping your child find another resource to get help is perfectly fine, imo. No one slags on public school parents for not knowing everything their kids are learning. Public school parents outsource learning. Homeschool parents can, too, without needing to feel guilty about it.

 

Tara

 

:thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

[angela in ohio]

Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but I think we need to teach (that may be deliberate instruction, or very carefully guiding) the meta-skills, because I don't think kids will learn these things left to their own devices. We certainly can't teach them if we don't know them ourselves.

It is not always necessary to teach content, though.

Rosie

 

:iagree:

 

While I agree that children may and DO profit from a lot of independent work, I think that the DIALOGUE is the crucial part of education. My daughters to do a lot on their own, but that's not where it stops - they learn it in order to enter the dialogue at some point: with me (usually, as I educate them), with their father, with our family members and colleagues, with various other individuals they are going to meet. Simply going through a book on one's own, writing a few pages on it or translating a few dozen lines of Cicero is the FIRST STEP, not the PURPOSE of the process of doing it. I do require the first step to be done independently as much as possible, with regards to the child's age and ability, however, the actual learning BEGINS at the point when that part is DONE...

 

And THAT is where most of the home educators I have personally met fail. They're satisfied with that point, period. "Teaching to cover the material" and "teaching to the standardized tests" approach. "We do X pages of that and write Y pages of that, that was our today's work", "we discuss things based on the questions in the book", etc...

 

The thing is... My entire semi-rant can be summed up in this: "having" the information is the LOWEST level of knowledge. There's a HUGE, HUGE gap between "having an information" and "being able to operate with it in its context"... let alone between the former and "being able to MANIPULATE with it in its context AND OUT OF IT", which should be the ultimate goal.

 

 

Excellent points. :001_smile:

[Ester Maria]

These discussions inevitably rest upon the premise that there is a Right (capital R) style of and purpose in homeschooling.

Actually, exactly because of that, I tried to use enough "I believe"s, "I think"s and "Personally I"s when making points for which I realized that they stem more or less directly from my ideological position with regards to home education, as opposed to some other points which I would consider fairly objective claims.

 

I agree with you here, and I realize that there is no single style or approach that would suit all, as well as that people homeschool for variety of reasons. It's just that I tend to skip that "apologetic" part of the post and go straight to the point, relying on the language to mark the difference between the types of claims I make.

Yes, and some people are perfectly content to school in a manner that replicates the system. Using materials of their choosing, avoiding what they want to avoid, and so on. I think it's a shame to accuse them of failure simply because they don't embrace your standards.

It's a legitimate choice. The one I disagree with, but a legitimate choice and I recognize it as such.

 

Also, I don't "accuse" them of failure in general, of failure as homeschoolers - they might as well be VERY successful with regards to the goals they decided to pursue - but only with regards to that one specific point I brought up, the same way I would "accuse" a school of failure. That kind of "accusation" does not necessarily imply a concrete failure of a concrete goal; in fact, they might as well never have included that component in the first place. I just wanted to bring up that, ecco, there are some things in their method that I disagree with. No snobbery or imposing my standards was intended there (I know, I know I should include these "apologetic" notions as I write in order to prevent the confusion, but my posts tend to be WAY too lengthy already, so like I said, usually I skip that part and hope the language will "contain" the nuances :blush:).

The particular subject at hand plays a large role in this and you fail to take that into consideration. Some subjects clearly lend themselves to rhetorical discussion. Others, not so much.

Maybe not to a rhetorical discussion the way that humanities do, true; however, there's plenty of room for discussion in sciences as well, though on a different level and within a different discourse, naturally. In fact the only areas I can think of which would NOT be a subject to dialogue extensively are arts and crafts, the "concrete" skill work, at least from our experience.

 

However, I agree that certain areas will by their nature require less parental involvement. I just don't see that as an "excuse" not to be in touch.

But what if I wasn't familiar with the language? What if he had a desire to learn German and I knew next to nothing about it. In light of the fact that there's an excellent course available; in light of the fact that the course provides all the guidance needed; in light of the fact that there's virtually no reason why he would need to debate/dialogue about the material with me...Should I then, nonetheless, DEFINITELY know and care about the material? Of course I shouldn't. Perhaps my interest in the language is piqued as he studies it. Perhaps I even decide to dip into it myself. Grand! But I wouldn't be failing in some respect if I simply let him study the language in a manner that essentially duplicates a school setting. And to suggest otherwise is stuff and nonsense.

You should definitely know and care about the material YOU work with him on. I did NOT eliminate the possibility of your child working on something that does not involve you - I just disagree with making that the BASIS of the education in the homeschool setting. :)

 

OF COURSE that there might be an area or two your child is going to work on without you, or with somebody else's help, due to the nature of their specific interests, and OF COURSE that the child should not be limited because of the parent's limitations or inability to follow them everywhere. But hey, that's NOT what we originally talked about. Those are - unless you have a wunderkind at home - usually exceptions. We talked about the "rules", not about the "exceptions". There is a HUGE difference between not being able to follow your child in English in elementary (supposing it's your first language) and not being able to follow your child in a foreign language of their choice in high school; just like there is a HUGE difference between not being able to follow your child with regards to the typical middle and high school science content and not being able to follow your child who realized "something was wrong" with that stereotypical model of the atom when she was 10 and subsequently discovered modern science, and whose scientific interests might hit serious university level before she hits high school (talking about my younger one here).

 

And that is what originally the thread was about, or at least I read it that way - not the exceptions, special interests, etc., but parents who minimize their active involvement with their children's education out of lack of basic knowledge, lack of interest, lack of will to catch up a little, the comodity of child being taught by videotapes, and so on. NONE of that is bad, in moderation, but BIG problems can arise if one's schooling is BASED on that (again, note that I used "can arise", not "will arise").

 

Speaking of foreign languages, though, I definitely think that there are cases when parents can do more harm by teaching them (and thus transferring their mistakes onto their children) than by letting somebody else do that. I can't begin to tell you how afraid I was to teach English to my daughters, because I'm obviously not a native speaker (maybe a fairly literate non-native, but forever a non-native), but I was in the situation that I had to, unless I wanted to leave them illiterate in the country they came to reside in. Still, I would have been more comfortable with them learning by somebody more knowledgeable (at least when it comes to language, literature would be the easier part), so I can definitely put myself in a position of somebody who was not comfortable doing something.

Yet, I did it, though they surpassed me in the language long ago too. ;)

 

But even if I hadn't done that - as I said, no problem with a course or a professor or something else, as long as it's an exceptional situation, as long as I don't apply that "method" to math, to history, etc... you get my point.

[EKS]

Is there really a difference between a child reading a chapter of a history book and listening to their mother read that chapter to them?

 

I think there is a difference if there is interaction beyond the reading. Spontaneous discussion during the reading or whatever. I think education is more than just the assimilation of information; it is a social act. When we insist that our children learn in isolation we deprive them of the social nature of learning.

[Rosie_0801]

In fact the only areas I can think of which would NOT be a subject to dialogue extensively are arts and crafts, the "concrete" skill work, at least from our experience.

 

Heheh. Glad you added your "in our experience' apologetic ;)

 

I think there is a difference if there is interaction beyond the reading. Spontaneous discussion during the reading or whatever. I think education is more than just the assimilation of information; it is a social act. When we insist that our children learn in isolation we deprive them of the social nature of learning.

 

Oh, I completely agree. I have a humanities degree and I know how much discussion is involved, and how much more could be if there were more hours in a week. I wasn't talking about that, I was just talking about what was on that page and nothing further.

 

Rosie

[Colleen]

As I said previously, Ester Maria, I agree with the essence of your argument but I remain uncomfortable with what I perceive as the underlying premise/attitude ("This is the way homeschooling should take place."

OF COURSE that there might be an area or two your child is going to work on without you, or with somebody else's help, due to the nature of their specific interests, and OF COURSE that the child should not be limited because of the parent's limitations or inability to follow them everywhere. But hey, that's NOT what we originally talked about...not the exceptions, special interests, etc....

I don't think "we" (everyone in this collective discussion) talked about any one thing originally. That's because the original post was brief and non-specific. Which is why, for example, you and I read it differently.

 

Don't have time to respond further just now...

[Rosie_0801]

As I said previously, Ester Maria, I agree with the essence of your argument but I remain uncomfortable with what I perceive as the underlying premise/attitude ("This is the way homeschooling should take place.

 

Perhaps that's morphing into a discussion on what education should be, and how it ought to be something more than what the average bod thinks of when they say "a good education."

 

;)

Rosie

[Peela]

 

I also agree with Tara, that if I had a highschooler that could not do most of their learning independently, I would feel like I had failed. There was no hand holding in the college I went to and only a handful of teachers that taught anything more than what was in the text.

 

 

Yes, but justifying complete independence in highschool because one needs to be independent in college is not realistic. Yes, by the end of highschool, a kid should be able to work pretty independently, for sure, but theres a long way between 15 and 18 and many need a lot of handholding in that time. I don't feel that makes parents of those kids homeschooling failures.

I am not against independence at all but I understand Michelle's point to be more that handing the reigns over completely is to bow out of the responsibility to stay involved in a way that is actually totally beneficial to the child/emerging adult.

This isn't an either /or matter. It's not about the extremes of the child's complete independence versus being spoon fed everything. It's about the best education and the responsibility of the homeschooling parent to stay involved all the way through- in some form or another. I dont think that necessarily means personally teaching every subject through highschool and I dont think thats what Michelle meant .

I like the point Ester Marie is making about educaiton being a social, interactive thing that is way beyond jut assimilating information and completing workbooks. I think if we didnt have that aspect in our homeschool, I would find it very dry and dull and so would my kids. That is what gives homeschooling, for us, it's life, it's joy, it's depth.

And i am glad for this conversation because I am preparing for our next year and its a good reminder to me what my own ideals are and how often I fall short of them.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Peela

[LibraryLover]

Does this hsing mom know her material?

 

[Colleen]

Had to cut short my other post, but I wanted to come back and reply to this:

I can't begin to tell you how afraid I was to teach English to my daughters, because I'm obviously not a native speaker (maybe a fairly literate non-native, but forever a non-native), but I was in the situation that I had to, unless I wanted to leave them illiterate in the country they came to reside in.

They would have acquired the language naturally, of course, but I understand your point. Your English skills are excellent and indicative of a person competent with linguistics. I'm reminded of my mother. Had she been in the same position you found yourself, she wouldn't have been keen on teaching us English ~ but she would have been able so, and more than competently. My husband, on the other hand, simply couldn't do it. His abilities lie elsewhere. It's fortunate that you were able to do what you felt compelled to do.

[kalanamak]

I get frustrated with reading over & over again that the primary homeschooling parent doesn't know the upper level subjects, esp. English, math, & science.

 

 

I think it very hypocritical to believe my son should know something and not bother to learn it myself.

 

I also think my delight in broadening my knowledge is one of the biggest lessons I can teach my son.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I hope it isn't hypocritical for me to not learn what my son learns!

 

He is learning Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and four instruments. In a few years he wishes to add Spanish and Italian, and another instrument. I play folk instruments only, and have no ear for languages!

 

I wonder if people know what it is like to homeschool children smarter than themselves. The best I can do is to offer encouragement and such resources as I can dredge up and/or afford. I can't learn it first!

 

If I send him to public school, the graduation rate is only 34%! He might not even graduate high school! They certainly do not offer Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and the four instruments he plays. They do not offer Italian, either.

 

This thread is beginning to get on my nerves.

[Quad Shot Academy]

nevermind :D :auto:

Edited January 16, 2010 by Quad Shot Academy

[EKS]

Does this hsing mom know her material?

 

 

That would be a good question.

[Joy at Home]

I think it very hypocritical to believe my son should know something and not bother to learn it myself.

 

I also think my delight in broadening my knowledge is one of the biggest lessons I can teach my son.

 

Well, I see you have one seven year old child and I would think you would know everything you are teaching him now. Perhaps as he reaches the upper levels you would feel differently.

 

I agree with the other poster. This thread is getting on my nerves.:glare:

 

Lisa

[KathyBC]

On several recent occassions, I've had a non-homeschooling friend tell me about a homeschooling family (different friends, different families) that they know who are not teaching their kids. The "reasons" ranged from the mother's bout with depression to the fact that they just plugged the kids into the computer for some type of on-line program. When this happens, I do cringe a bit.

 

Am I misunderstanding this? How would plugging a child into an on-line program equate to not educating them? Why would that be cringe-worthy?

[Tree House Academy]

When I was in grade school, my Social Studies teacher would stand in front of the class and read, paragraph by paragraph the social studies book to us. I can't really think of anything more irritating in all of my years of school. When given a novel to read and an essay to write, I flourished. When given work to do, I always went above and beyond. I read thoroughly, answered the questions in complete sentences, and presented my work in a neat and timely manner. However, having my teacher read the book to me in 5th grade was more than an insult to my intelligence. I was perfectly capable of reading the text and answering the questions. The fact that I got in trouble for answering the questions WHILE she read the book to me made the experience even worse.

 

I don't insult my kids' abilities. My son is reading history and Science and doing what needs to be done in those subjects without much help from me. Do I feel like I am failing him by not learning it WITH him? NO. I feel like he is gaining a valuable tool he will use for the rest of his life.

 

When I went to work for my first job out of college, there was a learning curve. They were using a software I was not familiar with and I had to come up to speed...FAST. There was no one there to "teach" me. I got the online manual, opened the program, and figured it out. Within a week, I was using it well enough to be productive with it.

 

My point is just that you can't put down self teaching all the way around. If my son asks me something about math and I don't know the answer, I find someone or some resourse that does. I look online, I dig through books, and we learn together. But if he reads the material and just catches on, I see no reason to stand in front of him and "teach" it to him.

[Colleen]

 

I think it very hypocritical to believe my son should know something and not bother to learn it myself.

Yes, that makes sense ~ with regard to a 7 year old child.

 

[kalanamak]

Well, I see you have one seven year old child and I would think you would know everything you are teaching him now. Perhaps as he reaches the upper levels you would feel differently.

 

 

I hope not. I am currently studying well ahead of him, and hope to keep it up.

I wasn't referring to electives like Urdu, but the standards of LA, math, history, science and the arts *I expect of him*. I feel very grateful that a turn to homeschooling has given me the motivation of to make up for the "new math" and "twaddle English" I was fed in school in the 60's, teachers who said things like "she did real well", and a student body so wildly dedicated to football, I dropped out at age 16.

 

I realize I have a long ways to go. But my night table has two diagramming books in it and I try to do 10 sentences a night, and today I listened to a lecture on the Lutheran cantata while I commuted to and from work. Tomorrow I will clean the upstairs with an intro to the Universe on the vid (the boys are in the mountains for two days).

 

I have been disappointed in the public-school-on-line homeschoolers I have met. Mom sometimes seems proud of how this is (in our state) free and effortless on her part. I guess I view it as a journey together, and yes, I hope to have a up-to-snuff high school education in all the required subjects by the time kiddo graduates. I would wish that of all intellectually capable citizens the world over.