Issuing credits for "life?

[Sue G in PA]

Let me explain. I've been thinking a lot about the things that my dd13 does during the course of her everyday life and wondering if I could develop some sort of course around her activities. For example, chores, cooking, baby/toddler care (changing diapers, bathing, babysitting, etc.), etc. sound an awful lot like the kind of things that a home economics course in a public school try to duplicate using baby dolls and such. Could I give dd a home economics credit for such activities? Along those lines, she is in a play that our church is doing for Christmas. She rehearses 2x/wk for 3 hrs. each day for a total of 6 hrs./wk. Hours will increase as the production date nears. Would this be enough to issue her a 1/2 or 1/4 credit for Drama? Or, could I add to that a bit by having her do some reading in order to issue the credit? Any advice would be terrific.

[Chris in VA]

Wellll...

She's just 13. Is she in 9th grade? If she isn't in high school yet, then I wouldn't worry about issuing any credits at all--no reason to keep track, as nothing counts until that high school transcript!

 

If, however, she's in high school, then I think you probably could come up with something to count as Home Ec. I would put some thought into it, and actually make sure she's learning something new and can be evaluated. I might have her learn 10 recipes, do some child development research and write a report, make a toy or a do some planned, intentional activities with her sib--stuff like that. I would not just count "living" and "chores" for credit, but I'd allow her credit for learning and application.

 

Again, if she's in high school, I'd go ahead and add a reading component to the play and call it drama, if you want, but I'd probably be more likely to use it as an extra-curricular.

[Lawana]

Do you think you will be needing the credit(s) in addition to her academics to reach graduation? If not, I would not bother with it at all. Certainly, her hard work and experience count in real life, but that doesn't mean it has to fit into a "school" framework.

[Sue G in PA]

She is in 9th grade. A young 9th grader as she started school early (back when the cut-off date was the end of Dec. (her bday is end of Nov.). Anyway, do I think she will "need" the credit? Probably not as she has a full load already. I consulted with my dh who taugh high school for many years and he said he would issue her a 1/2 credit for the drama. As for the other "life" stuff...it isn't necessary but I was just curious. KWIM? Having seen the "work" she did last year in 8th gr. public school I think she is doing and learning a TON more and it should count for something. Anyway, thanks!

[Alphabetika]

Sue,

 

You might like to look at Barb Shelton's book "Home Designed Form-U-La" for great ideas about turning real life into high school credit. It's very helpful!

[Carrie12345]

I just finished reading "Setting the Records Straight", and I would say yes. At least for now. You always have the option of taking it off her transcript before sending it out to anyone if you decide it looks unnecessary.

 

Otoh, if you don't record it now, will you remember all of the components in 2 years or so?

[Pamela H in Texas]

1) Ideally, her schooling would be sufficient enough that she doesn't need such credits. Obviously, different kids are different and part of it depends on her particular goals, but for many homeschoolers, too many credits, and high-quality ones at that, would diminish the need or desire to turn life into credits.

 

2) I think there are issues with turning anything and everything into credits. It cheapens the experience and opportunity. It already "counts for something." Sure, they learned more than they would have in a similar high school class, sitting there for a semester or a year; but high level gymnastics and running a household and dealing with a kidney disease are all much more "something" than a silly credit.

 

3) Though there are plenty of poorly designed public school classes, we would want to meet the credit guidelines for ones that aren't junk, not the ones that are. Giving credit for life alone probably isn't the best. There should be, imo, something systematic. And it probably should require things such as a textbook, projects, research, etc.

Edited October 13, 2010 by 2J5M9K
comma (though I probably missed a couple others! LOL)

[Cedarmom]

I did use some of my son's things he did outside of school as credits ( designning websites, speech) So I think it can be a good idea. The theater could count as a fine arts credit. Your only drawback may be that some schools do not want you to list the same things for extracurricular as you do for credit. So, if you count theater as speech credit, you couldn't list it in extracurricular ( and some schools pay a lot of attention to activities. If she continues in theater, you could do for credit one year and as an actiity the next too.

[Ester Maria]

Absolutely not.

 

The schools have already turned from academic institutions into umbrella institutions for all kinds of courses, crash courses and nonsense, and we definitely don't need the replication of that in the homeschooling community. Her schooling is her academic part of life, not the totality of her life, interests, duties and other things she does. I would never allow my child to count day-to-day life as a school credit, let alone call a church play "drama" (it would be, IMO, intellectually dishonest to label it a course that way too). Let school be school, and life be life.

 

In addition to that, I find that many such courses are basically "fluff content" to the extent that I would seriously prefer a high school diploma without such a course than with it, especially if a child has had opportunities to learn some practical life skills at home, and the vast majority of homeschoolers have had that opportunity. There is perfectly no need to add "fluff content" if you have a reasonable load of academics, or count all sorts of outside activities and interests for a credit. Focus on your academic framework for credit, and the life outside of it should remain life outside of it.

I also agree with points brought up by Pamela.

[Julie in MN]

Sue,

 

You might like to look at Barb Shelton's book "Home Designed Form-U-La" for great ideas about turning real life into high school credit. It's very helpful!

 

I agree.

 

And dig up old homeschool how-to books, when a homeschool education was often much more creative than public school textbooks.

 

I do also agree that school credits are academic credits. I just don't think academic skills are only obtainable through textbooks. Why just read about drama theory and not experience being in a drama because it's not academic enough? I took many college courses that required no textbooks, especially the honors courses.

 

Julie

[LoriM]

I agree, wholeheartedly. Academics are recorded on the transcript. Please allow time for "leisure" and don't credit everything. :)

[lmrich]

Does your state require a fine arts credit? Did you have something else planned for her to do earn that credit? You will want to pay careful attention to extra activities that she is in to make her look well-rounded for college. For example, if she earns a 1/2 credit for drama, she can not count that as her activity. No double-dipping! or at least that is what I have been told!

[Ester Maria]

I just don't think academic skills are only obtainable through textbooks. Why just read about drama theory and not experience being in a drama because it's not academic enough? I took many college courses that required no textbooks, especially the honors courses.

In my opinion, these are two very distinct things: (i) to get a theoretical base AND an application of that base, and (ii) to be a part of some outside project which has no structure of a course whatsoever and is simply a singular practical activity related to certain field.

 

(i) is a valid course.

(ii) is not.

 

It's not about the number of pages read, it's more about a structure. A course is a unit, structure of a specific focus, not a singular practical activity, and as such, on an introductory level (and ALL high school courses are introductory), it must include a theoretical base, and practical activities must be tied to it structurally. Otherwise it's a "random activity", not a "course".

 

I'm adamant about that one, and it angers me to see the definition of a course in an academic institutions blurred. By definition, academic institutions provide with a theoretical base and application. One CANNOT work without the other one, otherwise it doesn't lead to the formation of the expert. And while on the high school level we don't aim to produce experts for any field, whenever the standards are good, they are pretty much the same - that's why I oppose counting everything and anything as a course and that's why I call it intellectually dishonest. Participating in a singular theatrical activity outside the educational framework or even a single course framework cannot bring credit. Wanting to count all sorts of such things for a credit is about making your schooling "fluffy", rather than concrete and solid. Not to even mention counting day-to-day life duties at home for a credit - there is just no basis to do so. And even if there were, one has to draw the line somewhere, in my opinion, and not make everything school. Schools is only that structured, academic part of your life - not the totality, even though learning (practical and theoretical) does extend to all spheres of life indeed. But we don't count it for a credit. Not all learning has to be squeezed into a structure of a schooling, and it's not even good to do so.

 

But hey, that's only me. We all know I'm a structure freak whom you'd never want to prescribe the education criteria, so I just rant off my chair. :D

Edited October 13, 2010 by Ester Maria

[StephanieZ]

I'd say yes on the drama credit, especially if you could add reading or watching some text-y type book or show related to drama. Nothing too long, but just something factual? 1/2 credit seems fair to me.

 

On the home-ec, I'd say no. Honestly, I'd hate to see home-ec on anyone's transcript if they are college-bound. I just can't see it reflecting well on the homeschool or the student. If you really need a filler credit for some reason, then I'd say maybe do 1/2 credit of cooking could be OK. Maybe you could add some kitchen-chemistry book/plan and then call it a year of kitchen chemistry / practical cooking? That sounds better to me.

 

But cleaning & child care, no, I wouldn't go there.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Nobody said it had to be a textbook. It just has to be SOMETHING. All sorts of courses don't use textbooks, including many WTM suggestions. But they all have SOMETHING as input.

 

It's not a parenting class to babysit your siblings, change their diapers, follow your mom's discipline method, play blocks with them, etc. There is MUCH more to parenting than that. *I* took a parenting class in high school as a teen parent. NONE of our daily care counted towards our class. We also did not have a textbook. However, there was a lot of "something" from research, projects, discussion, field trips, people coming in, etc. There was input. Practical application is good, but it's not everything.

Edited October 13, 2010 by 2J5M9K

[Alphabetika]

Absolutely not.

 

The schools have already turned from academic institutions into umbrella institutions for all kinds of courses, crash courses and nonsense, and we definitely don't need the replication of that in the homeschooling community. Her schooling is her academic part of life, not the totality of her life, interests, duties and other things she does. I would never allow my child to count day-to-day life as a school credit, let alone call a church play "drama" (it would be, IMO, intellectually dishonest to label it a course that way too). Let school be school, and life be life.

 

In addition to that, I find that many such courses are basically "fluff content" to the extent that I would seriously prefer a high school diploma without such a course than with it, especially if a child has had opportunities to learn some practical life skills at home, and the vast majority of homeschoolers have had that opportunity. There is perfectly no need to add "fluff content" if you have a reasonable load of academics, or count all sorts of outside activities and interests for a credit. Focus on your academic framework for credit, and the life outside of it should remain life outside of it.

I also agree with points brought up by Pamela.

 

I guess I'm oversensitive, because this post makes me feel very small. Perhaps this is why I'm not a WTM'er at heart.

[Ester Maria]

I guess I'm oversensitive, because this post makes me feel very small. Perhaps this is why I'm not a WTM'er at heart.

Hey, I'm just sharing my admittely very biased and, possibly, even distorted view of things; I'm also known to often come across as way more intimidating and rigid than I actually am, as I focus on the pure thought when I write, not on packing it nicely, which maybe I should work on. Don't let me discourage you.

 

FWIW, I've never been a true WTM'er either; WTM is simply the closest thing to my educational philosophy on the homeschool market. There are many sharp, stark differences from how I do things and how WTM does them, as I adhere to a completely different value system behind education, which quite strictly separates formal from informal learning, academics from "life", etc.; so obviously to my perspective, these ideas as in the OP are quite "heretical".

However, I'm fully aware of the fact that for somebody else they might work wonders, that somebody else might have a different framework or different goals whatsoever, that other people have different conception of education, a line between formal and informal drawn differently, etc. I'm just sharing my odd perspective here. :)

[Miss Marple]

I agree, wholeheartedly. Academics are recorded on the transcript. Please allow time for "leisure" and don't credit everything. :)

 

I remember reading somewhere (on a college website I believe) that one should not give credit for things that other students do outside of school - i.e., Boy Scouts, dance, volunteer, etc.

 

These are supposed to be listed as extracurricular according to the site.

[distancia]

I would do it this way:

 

1) Consider the church as an "extra curricular" activity. Thus, she can put it on her college app as a true extra curricular for that calendar year.

 

2) About the household activities, I would not call them Home Ec, as that is an obsolete term. I would integrate her activities with other practical matters: maybe reading a book about nutrition; doing Dave Ramsey's program on Personal Finance; and reading the book "Seven Highly Effective Habits for Teens", among other things. Test her, have her write some papers and/or keep a log. If you were to combine those materials, then yes, I would give her a .5 elective credit and call it Life Management Skills.

 

LMS, by the way, is a required course for graduation in all Florida public schools. I am not saying you should copy the public schools in your state, but if you have a transcript that includes a title that matches the requirements of the public schools in your state, it appears (at least to me) a bona fide credit.

 

On my transcripts for my DD I am even including the State Course # (for public school classes) next to all her homeschool class equivalents.

[katilac]

I'd say no.

 

I'm sure that most kids do that sort of thing as part of their everyday lives. The details might differ, but many, many students with full transcripts also have numerous skills and responsibilities that have nothing to do with school.

 

And if she's college prep, I wouldn't let words like "home ec" or "life skills" anywhere near her transcript. I'm not downgrading those skills on their own merit, but they are not academic. Personal finances are an ongoing area of teaching at our house, we feel it's well worth spending time on, but I'm not going to put "consumer math" on a transcript, kwim? It can be seen as a downgrade, not an upgrade.

 

The play is an extra-curricular and should be listed as such. Again, most kids participate in extra-curriculars, and it's in addition to their academic load.

[Sue G in PA]

Thanks for all the great responses. Being new to this, I just wasn't sure. I'm still very unsure about how to homeschool high school, how many credits are "enough", what will be "good enough" to get her into a decent college if she so chooses (which she is talking about already), etc., etc. I think I will just count this as extra-curricular and look into a more structured drama program for credit for next year. She certainly has enough "real" credits for this year, I think. She has Algebra (1), Bible (1), English (1), Phys. Science

(1), Spanish (1), Health/PE (swimming) (1/2 cr.), Logic (1/2 cr.), and she is starting Latin in a few weeks (1/2 cr.). I think that is it. Is that enough?

[katilac]

Thanks for all the great responses. Being new to this, I just wasn't sure. I'm still very unsure about how to homeschool high school, how many credits are "enough", what will be "good enough" to get her into a decent college if she so chooses (which she is talking about already), etc., etc. I think I will just count this as extra-curricular and look into a more structured drama program for credit for next year. She certainly has enough "real" credits for this year, I think. She has Algebra (1), Bible (1), English (1), Phys. Science

(1), Spanish (1), Health/PE (swimming) (1/2 cr.), Logic (1/2 cr.), and she is starting Latin in a few weeks (1/2 cr.). I think that is it. Is that enough?

 

That sounds like enough quantity-wise, altho' you'd need to check w/your state dept of education to be sure. I would check requirements ASAP, tho', as they can be quite specific. My state requires 4 credits in English; 3 of them have to be specific courses, the 4th can be one of about three different courses. So, it's not enough to take four excellent courses in English - you have to take those specific ones.

[Cedarmom]

Thanks for all the great responses. Being new to this, I just wasn't sure. I'm still very unsure about how to homeschool high school, how many credits are "enough", what will be "good enough" to get her into a decent college if she so chooses (which she is talking about already), etc., etc. I think I will just count this as extra-curricular and look into a more structured drama program for credit for next year. She certainly has enough "real" credits for this year, I think. She has Algebra (1), Bible (1), English (1), Phys. Science

(1), Spanish (1), Health/PE (swimming) (1/2 cr.), Logic (1/2 cr.), and she is starting Latin in a few weeks (1/2 cr.). I think that is it. Is that enough?

 

 

Go look at your school district's requirements for high school graduation. That will give you a good idea of what you need. Then you can map out what credits you will need. Also look at your state college requirements and other colleges requirement. This will give you a good feeling for what you need to accomplish over the next four years.

[Julie in MN]

you'd need to check w/your state dept of education to be sure. I would check requirements ASAP, tho', as they can be quite specific. My state requires 4 credits in English; 3 of them have to be specific courses, the 4th can be one of about three different courses. So, it's not enough to take four excellent courses in English - you have to take those specific ones.

 

I'm not sure that this will apply to homeschoolers. I don't want the OP to conclude that she must comply to this type of particular requirements in order to award a diploma from her own private (home)school.

 

My understanding is that although states may require homeschoolers to "teach" certain subjects, for the most part they do not have anything to say about what a private school prints on its diploma etc. There are 3 to 4 states in the USA that actually have certain credits required for "legal graduation" but even these are quite broad.

 

I would check your state's requirements on the HSLDA website.

Julie

[Julie in MN]

I would not call them Home Ec, as that is an obsolete term.

 

In our area, it's called Family and Consumer Sciences, but it's basically the same thing. You could just google your school district to see what typical titles are used.

 

You probably don't want to load up the transcript with these types of electives in case it doesn't look very college-prep, but most students have at least a few general electives.

 

Julie

[Nan in Mass]

I'm not as extreme as Ester Maria. I pick more of a middle ground. I do give credit for practical application type things, but first I turn them into courses. To be a course in our homeschool, something has to have an academic component: reading, writing, a framework or something to tie the bits of knowledge that are gained during the practical application into a cohesive body of knowledge, and some knowledge of the structure of the subject, in other words, knowing that aspects of this subject that haven't been covered exist and weren't covered. In practice, for a practical application that has been very time consuming and contained lots of learning, the minimum would be reading some sort of quick overview of the subject, reading about one aspect of it in depth, and some sort of written work. This falls pretty short of Ester's high standards but at least maintains a distinction between activities and courses. In our household, there is a ton of educational spillover between traditional school activities and living, so I was forced to make some decisions about what I was going count as "school". If there had been less spillover, or if we were a more academic-minded family, the line would probably be more obvious.

-Nan

Edited October 15, 2010 by Nan in Mass

[regentrude]

Thanks for all the great responses. Being new to this, I just wasn't sure. I'm still very unsure about how to homeschool high school, how many credits are "enough", what will be "good enough" to get her into a decent college if she so chooses (which she is talking about already), etc., etc. I think I will just count this as extra-curricular and look into a more structured drama program for credit for next year. She certainly has enough "real" credits for this year, I think. She has Algebra (1), Bible (1), English (1), Phys. Science

(1), Spanish (1), Health/PE (swimming) (1/2 cr.), Logic (1/2 cr.), and she is starting Latin in a few weeks (1/2 cr.). I think that is it. Is that enough?

 

I would like to add to the advice of the previous posters: don't just check your state's requirements. Those will be much lower than the admission requirements of the college she may want to attend! Check what the university of her choice demands and plan accordingly. Selective schools want to see four years of rigorous science, for years of math after algebra 1, four years of the same foreign language ... (you get the idea)

[Julie in MN]

that's why I call it intellectually dishonest. Participating in a singular theatrical activity outside the educational framework or even a single course framework cannot bring credit. Wanting to count all sorts of such things for a credit is about making your schooling "fluffy", rather than concrete and solid.

 

Well, you're making a lot of assumptions there.

 

I'll just come out with it: I counted theater credits for my dd, who was in two homeschool plays.

 

I got myself a college intro theater book and basically flipped through and said to myself, "knows that," "did that," "done." She understood the parts of a director, a scriptwriter, playwright, prop table, audition, blocking, and all the other things I can't think of right now. I know a church production might not have all these things involved, but the activity could be supported with a little info from google etc. I also had my student read the original books, the scripts of course she read, plus she watched the movies and the plays of course, so she could compare any or all of these. So that's my confession. Got credit twice.

 

I think it's fine to say that the OP might need to flesh out the credit, or perhaps you can suggest how she might flesh it out. Although, you can't be sure that the OP wasn't already having her child doing these sorts of things.

 

I personally think some homeschooling academes are scaring parents back to public school, where they likely won't get as good of an education, anyways. Our local public high school has a course entitled Film Appreciation. My oldest son got a public school credit for being an aid to the yearbook coordinator, basically xeroxing and laying out pictures in rows -- and he's now a working petroleum engineer.

 

I often read of homeschoolers taking requirements far beyond what a real teacher does or what a real student needs to do, even in a college prep program. High school is not about learning everything in the universe. It's about learning several units of knowledge in order to be prepared for learning whatever body of knowledge the student may be heading for in life. And meanwhile, the student is learning how to think, to observe, to talk, to respond, to write, and to behave in a community of adult, educated persons. Sometimes a textbook isn't needed at all.

 

I guess I'm oversensitive, because this post makes me feel very small.

See, that's what I really don't like to see. If you are tutoring your child one-on-one, there is no better education. As far as I know, Socrates taught without mountains of paper, without mountains of books, and without desks. Many exceptional Americans were taught with a Bible alone. It is possible to educate you child outside of published textbooks.

 

See, that's my soapbox :)

Julie

[Tiramisu]

These are the "arts" requirements for graduation from a public high school in NJ:

 

10 credits total; may be acquired as 5 credits in visual and performing and 5 credits in practical arts* or 10 credits in one content area

 

*Career Education and Consumer, Family, and Life Skills (Practical Arts)

 

I thought I read on some site somewhere that state colleges in NJ basically want homeschoolers to fufill the same requirements as public high schools (even though it might not be technically required). And, I know there is a private diploma program that asks homeschoolers to fufill the requirements for a NJ public high school graduation. Therefore, something like what the OP is thinking about wouldn't be unreasonable and might prove useful depending on the local requirements.

 

It seems better to integrate some traditional learning, like reading a book or articles on nutrition, but when I took a cooking class in high school, we only had to sit in the class, listen to the teacher, and cook. I think we had to take exams at the end of each semester but we never had any text to study from. My public school educated niece filled these credits with classes in Interior Design and Child Development. There were no texts assigned for the class, but there were projects to do.

 

[Guest]

Clonlara, which is an accredited homeschool "umbrella" school, has three very different plans for high school. One is the traditional academic plan, as defined in the narrowest way (i.e. book learning for the most part); one is called "Walkabout," in which the student sets up many different challenges in different areas to complete as part of the overall course of study; and one is work, service, or internship oriented. The high school manual has an interesting discussion of what it takes to turn what the OP described into a credit for this last option: it must "go above and beyond" what is typically expected of a child that age in terms of responsibility, duties, and knowledge.

 

That's an interesting and provocative way to think about it.

[katilac]

I'm not sure that this will apply to homeschoolers. I don't want the OP to conclude that she must comply to this type of particular requirements in order to award a diploma from her own private (home)school.

 

My understanding is that although states may require homeschoolers to "teach" certain subjects, for the most part they do not have anything to say about what a private school prints on its diploma etc. There are 3 to 4 states in the USA that actually have certain credits required for "legal graduation" but even these are quite broad.

 

I would check your state's requirements on the HSLDA website.

Julie

 

That's correct in my state to the extent that home schoolers and other non-approved private schools are welcome to issue diplomas based on their own criteria all day long, but if you don't follow the state requirements, you automatically lose what can be VERY significant state funding.

 

So, while hs'ers do not HAVE to comply with our state's requirements, they are put over a financial barrel in order to encourage them to do so. In addition to the state financial aid, the only public university in my part of the state will not accept non-approved diplomas, a big problem for those who financially need to stay home while attending college. I know that the A Beka issued diploma is also considered 'approved,' and thus you can get the financial aid, but again, you have to spend a lot of money to go this route.

[cathmom]

Some of us do not believe in such a strict separation of school and life.

 

My oldest child's transcript listed one credit for Home Economics, and apparently it was not the kiss of death some are making it out to be, as he received a full scholarship from one school and got into his number one choice for college. I gave him this credit because while he was in high school, I got pregnant with twins and was basically on bed rest through the whole pregnancy, and then was taking care of two newborns. Through this period he did most of the work of maintaining our household: planning menus, making shopping lists, and cooking the meals; taking care of his younger brother, who turned two just two weeks before the twins were born; cleaning our house and supervising my other older dc in their chores; assisting me when I needed it, etc. This went above and beyond what a normal high school student would do, and I felt he deserved credit for it. Would I give credit for normal chores? No, I would not.

[Nan in Mass]

I looked at their website when I was deciding how to structure high school for my out-of-the-box oldest. Their walkabout program would have served him well. I wish their website had more detailed information to aid in borrowing GRIN. If we hadn't decided to use our community college, I would probably have opted to use them. We are enough on the fringe that we need fairly hefty proof of ability to manage college academics. I didn't feel I needed them to figure out what constitutes a good education. I admit that at times it would be nice to have somebody to say, "That is enough. You can stop now." I decided, though, that they stopped a bit short of where I wanted to stop so I wasn't going to be able to use them for that.

-Nan

Edited October 15, 2010 by Nan in Mass

[Ester Maria]

I got myself a college intro theater book and basically flipped through and said to myself, "knows that," "did that," "done." She understood the parts of a director, a scriptwriter, playwright, prop table, audition, blocking, and all the other things I can't think of right now.

If I were to "translate" my degrees into the American system, I would have some sort of minor in Theatrology.

 

That being said, the things you just listed are NOT the meat of a theatre course - they're a part of, shall we call it, "media culture" (which would include basic knowledges on theatre and film), on an elementary to middle school level. Something that's learned informally for those in a closer contact with the fields, and if formally, it takes barely a few hours to learn it. If I were to design an intro to drama course, all of those would maybe fill a week's worth of studies.

 

The real question is, what does your daughter know about drama itself? About the structure of the dramatic text? About the acting systems out there? I opened a new thread with a possible syllabus on a high school level here, and while that's only one of the possible options how to structure such a course, it covers considerably more theory in a relatively structured fashion than just those basic notions you mention which most children will know by high school age anyway.

 

In my opinion, in order to be "meaty" enough, such a course must include some general introduction to theatre, as well as a specific part related to the play your child has a role in.

I have no idea what introduction to theatre you took, but the technical stuff you mention would be covered in less than a dozen pages "just in case" somebody has opened such a textbook without knowing them very well. :)

I often read of homeschoolers taking requirements far beyond what a real teacher does or what a real student needs to do, even in a college prep program. High school is not about learning everything in the universe. It's about learning several units of knowledge in order to be prepared for learning whatever body of knowledge the student may be heading for in life. And meanwhile, the student is learning how to think, to observe, to talk, to respond, to write, and to behave in a community of adult, educated persons. Sometimes a textbook isn't needed at all.

This comes down to different approaches to education; as I said, I'm the "schooling is only the formal part of learning" camp. :)

 

I also disagree with a notion that high school is a time to learn several units of knowledge - I'm of an opinion that it's a time to form a sort of "structure" in one's mind, through a study of more areas to lesser depth, but more intertwined and meaningful one with relation to another (sciences, arts, history, etc.). The kind of theatre course I suggest isn't about learning all there is to learn about theatre - not at all. It's not even a "proper" introduction to all there is to learn about it since it neglects entire components of theatrology. BUT, it has a structure that's meaningful in the context of classical education (chronological covering of the epochs and poetics; connections with literature and classical antiquity, etc.), it produces a good general overview of the approaches, and it enables a student to access greater body of literature than the limited one that's used in a course. That's it - really, no professionalism there at all. :)

 

Regarding requirements... First, I don't adhere to your ones at all (and basically my "role" on these boards is to present a sort of different point of view from what most of you is used to, as I come from a different culture and within that culture, from very specific circles), but even if I did, I certainly would take them seriously, striving to compare myself with the best system out there to the best of my knowledge, abilities, and specifics of what my children need and can do. I would try to make a reasonable, but a concrete theatre/film/etc course, regardless of what schools do. And as such, as a part of a formal learning framework, it would have to have a book component to it, or a series of lectures, or theory texts read... Something, that can cover general part of the course, and then specific one related to the play itself.

If you are tutoring your child one-on-one, there is no better education.

Homeschoolers love using that wording, but technically speaking, it's incorrect to say that any homeschooling is necessarily better than any public or private schooling. It's usually that way, but keep in mind that there are excellent schools out there in addition to bad ones, whether we use them or no. :)

As far as I know, Socrates taught without mountains of paper, without mountains of books, and without desks.

And we know about Socrates from... Platonic dialogues. Which were written and trasmissed as such. :) Heck, even the Jewish oral law ended up written in the end, and is studied in both modi todays - throughout oral discussions and oral transmission of tradition, but also throughout a written, textual component, and quite a close analysis of that.

 

Also, in my view, Socrates is far from the ultimate be all end all of education. He presents one possible paradigm in one possible society, which is far from applicable to today's world regarding many of its aspects. The reason why we continue to quote him has more to do with our "cultural sentimentality" than concrete, actual relevance to our life and times.

 

I fully agree with you that it's possible to educate a child outside of the official framework and textbooks, as well as to incorporate elements of the oral culture and oral transmission of knowledge, not only visual and written. And I think it's great to think that way. :) I just think that in this particular case, it's maybe taking it a bit too far. If schools are too "lazy" to have "proper" courses, doesn't mean we have to follow the route - especially when it comes to drama, where you certainly have plenty of opportunities to get a theoretical background (certainly more so than home economics, which was also brought up), and where you actually need one, to some extent, in order to understand the phenomenon of theatre.

 

Only my .02 though.

(ETA: Added a few smilies, to clear up that it's supposed to sound benevolent, not snarky.)

Edited October 15, 2010 by Ester Maria

[Julie in MN]

I opened a new thread with a possible syllabus on a high school level here, and while that's only one of the possible options how to structure such a course, it covers considerably more theory in a relatively structured fashion than just those basic notions you mention which most children will know by high school age anyway.

 

Ester Maria,

I appreciate your efforts there. I think we're both fast typers :) I'm sure someone will benefit from them -- posts on this board are searched for over years and you may not know who benefits.

 

However, I will just say to the other mom(s) that I tutor in a program where the high schoolers are mostly advanced and mostly international students. I tutor in the reading department and many times the kids graduate our program to the college level by the time they get to high school, and then some of them work as aides for us, so I get to know them even more. I also have a son who graduated from the public schools and was accepted into every college where he applied.

 

The first section of your course is not only beyond the expectations of the schools around here but is beyond the thinking level of the students I talk with. The advanced students are interested in exploring things, as compared to regular students who often just want to "get it done." However, their level of exploration is really still at the exposure level, because there is still so much they haven't even been exposed to. And I still think the opportunity of acting itself would probably take them further than lessons in a textbook.

 

The second section, on Shakespeare, can be compared to my son's experience studying Romeo and Juliet. The teacher used worksheets to try and draw the student through the entire text. It was basically a retelling of the entire story in English with blanks to fill in to make sure the kids were reading along. There was of course discussion in class, but I've been in those classes and there is much "not paying attention" going on, as well as students missing the teacher's point, etc. The things the teacher grades on are quite limited. I believe my daughter surely got 1,000% more out of our reading Shakespeare at home - and I didn't even use worksheets :) (and I didn't use Romeo & Juliet)

 

Add to that the reality of the day-to-day. Here's a look at what happened to the best-laid teaching plans in a nearby school district. We follow a local public school calendar (a more advanced school district than we live in), and this week they had 4 hours off twice, for the PLAN and the PSAT (even if the student only took one, they had only 2 hours of school both days). And now today, they have off because of a chemical spill. Even my grandson had part of his preschool day yesterday off because of a drill preparing them in case there was an intruder.

 

I am just trying to emphasize that the dream of high school education looks different than the reality. At least it does in American education, where every single young person has a right to be in the class and the teacher must accommodate them. Even the private schools must deal with this fact, to some extent. And although we don't need to aspire to only the public school level, still a one year high school course is only equivalent to a semester in college, not to a degree.

 

Julie

Edited October 15, 2010 by Julie in MN
clarify

[Nan in Mass]

Well, I guess it is a response, but a sideways one.

 

I think Ester is right. In an ideal world, that is the sort of education I would give my children, and in an ideal world, my children would be the sort of children who could take that sort of education and create wonderful new things out of the foundation it gave them. In an ideal world... But I don't live in an ideal world.

 

I myself am incapable of giving them that sort of foundation and so is my local public school. There are private schools which could, and which we could probably have managed to send them to (financially) if we had planned for that. Many people in my area do just that. The wives hang on to their careers and put the children in child care. They think the latter part of the child's education is more important than the early part and they go to great lengths to make sure that the latter half (14yo-22yo) is tiptop quality. I have seen the disadvantages of this approach, having grown up with friends who went through it, and have chosen not to do that. The ones from rich families who didn't have to make this sort of choice also have dealt with some rather severe disadvantages. (I think that in many ways, in my particular culture, it is easier to raise a moral child when you are not rich. our US culture is does not have the strong tradition of public service that counteracts this. Too many people are first generation rich and the culture values independence too much to make tradition possible.) At any rate, a good education costs more than I am willing to pay.

 

I also am not at all sure that my children are the sort who could withstand the rigours of a not-excellently-taught excellent education and come out with their initiative and creativity intact. In fact, I am quite sure they wouldn't, judging by other family members. I received a rotten education (except in math) but at least it didn't discourage me from learning. My mother received an excellent but dry education (except college) and is still handicapped by it.

 

So, since an excellently taught excellent education is out of my reach or costs too much, I had to find another way to educate my rather fragile children. It isn't the best of educations but hopefully it will leave them whole, or at least more whole than our very excellent public school left my oldest (grrrr) or my mother's very excellent public school left her, and hopefully it will leave our family whole, or at least more whole than those I know who made the sacrifices necessary to send their children to excellent private schools (and we have some absolutely lovely ones nearby - my children wouldn't even have to live there - sigh). It is a very frightening decision, but every time I argue it out with myself, I come up with this being our best option.

 

I have noticed that some people, when exposed to the application of something, become inspired and go on to learn the theory themselves. I am hoping that my children will be among the lucky ones for whom this is true. They have the intensity and quirkiness that seem to be markers for this sort of person. Therefore, the educational approach that I have devised consists of letting them experience applications, trying to give them the academic skills to go on and learn the theory on their own, and making their education ordinary enough that at least some colleges will let them come and learn the theory in a college setting, if they wish.

 

I think people often look at this as a which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg problem. Do you do lots of application first and hope it leads to a desire for knowing the theory and more advanced application? Or do you do the theory first (with a tiny bit of application along with, of course) and hope that it doesn't make the student wish never to see the subject again? Many people here subscribe to the first theory and Ester to the more European second. I think this is probably a misleading way of looking at it. Do most people learn their métier in an application first way, and do most people need to be forced to learn their non-métier subjects? I would love to know the answer to this question. In the meanwhile, I find it more useful to divide up content and academic skills and try to teach academic skills and a little basic content in the hope that my children will go on and teach themselves more advanced content in whatever area they are interested in.

 

-Nan

[TravelingChris]

Not for home ec. I think that having something more structured and not just practical would be needed. Like adding nutrition, consumer math, child development theories, things like that.

 

Many colleges (particularly state ones) look for fine arts credits. Drama can be okay for that. Normally you want one credit in this but many, many students have half a credit in one subject and another half in another. So my oldest had half a credit in choir and another half credit in Art. My second has more fine arts credits although not all of her fine arts work is reflected as credits. She has a year of Choir, a half year of music history, and a half year of art history. She also has numerous other music activities in her extra-curricular list.

[Nan in Mass]

Ester - I just wanted to tell you how much you have helped me to define my own goals for my family and our parameters and make deliberate choices.

[Nan in Mass]

Alphabetika - Somebody very wise here said something about not letting the best be the enemy of the good. There are many reasons to homeschool. Many of us here are putting our children's academic education below other, more important aspects of their upbrining, and then just doing the best we can with the academics. Doing that doesn't keep you from being a WTMer. TWTM tries to show you how to give your children some of the things included in an excellent academic education even when you yourself don't know how to do them. It includes instructions for doing this in many different subjects and then assumes that you will pick which ones are important to your particular family and follow the directions in those, while doing something less rigorous or going less far through the other subjects. That was badly written, but hopefully my meaning came through. I think we all tend to think of a "real" WTMer as doing everything in the book all the way through the rhetoric suggestions, but if you never had any of it in your own education, I don't think that is possible to do. As Ester says, she is talking about her idea of an ideal education. None of us is dealing with an ideal situation. We are just doing the best we can. It is useful to see what an ideal education (or at least Ester's idea of one) is and compare it to what you yourself are doing. It can let you separate those places where you really have hit the limits of your resources and abilities from those places where you could probably do better but weren't because you didn't know what better was, what the possibilities were. Try to read them and take away what is useful and not worry about the rest. Some of us are just trying to keep our children alive and relatively undamaged, and consider anything else frosting GRIN.

-Nan

Edited October 15, 2010 by Nan in Mass

[Guest]

This past summer we had tickets to our local outdoors Shakespeare Festival; we saw King Lear and Taming of the Shrew. We've been attending since dd won free tickets in a raffle when she was nine, so these were about her fifteenth and sixteenth Shakespeare plays in total. This year for the first time we began attending the lectures the theater sets up to accompany the plays. There are discussions before certain performances in which the actors speak and do question-and-answer sessions, and there was a wonderful lecture of nearly two hours in which the artistic director (from the Royal Shakespeare Company) talked about Shakespearean language and how he works with his actors to get them to use in as naturally and meaningfully as possible.

 

The wonderful thing about all this -- well, there are obviously many wonderful things, but one of them is that the conversations are enriched by people who approach the plays from all kinds of perspectives. There are scholars, actors, directors, technical people, and people who just love theater. I am finding them infinitely more appealing and actually more informative than the graduate classes I took a number of years ago. And I love that dd is being exposed to all this by people who actually work in the theater in a number of ways, so she can see it as a living, lively community. I fully expect she is one of the kids who will later come to the theory from this exposure, eager to know more, rather than the other way around --- which I fear would kill her love pretty well in one go.

[regentrude]

Do you do lots of application first and hope it leads to a desire for knowing the theory and more advanced application? Or do you do the theory first (with a tiny bit of application along with, of course) and hope that it doesn't make the student wish never to see the subject again? Many people here subscribe to the first theory and Ester to the more European second. I think this is probably a misleading way of looking at it. Do most people learn their métier in an application first way, and do most people need to be forced to learn their non-métier subjects?

 

I think it is not a chicken-egg problem but that you actually go in cycles.

Let's for example take language

Initially, application is first: a child learns to talk, with correct role models hopefully with a good vocabulary and correct grammar by the age he is ready for formal schooling. Zero theory required for this.

Then, theoretical knowledge is developed: parts of speech, vocabulary, semantics, formal grammar etc.

After that, those theoretically acquired skills are put into practice by higher level of oral and written use of language.

 

Same with math:

Initially, numbers and sets are experienced through counting, grouping, sorting; geometrical shapes through play with blocks, drawing, constructing. Again, this happens during the early years of a child's life.

Then, a theoretical framework is established, formal mathematics is developed, from simple arithmetic to more complex calculus.

After each subject has been theoretically developed, it then has to be applied.

 

I think some of this is mirrored by a child's developmental stages and the trivium of grammar-logic-rhetoric. The grammar stages is in some sense more focused on applications, whereas the rhetoric education should be more focused on concepts, theories, principles and connections with a higher degree of abstraction.

 

As to your last question: many people have to be forced to learn things that they do not like, that do not interest them initially, that do not come easy. It would, however, not be a comprehensive education if they did not have to learn them anyway.

There are, however, people who have a sufficiently high intrinsic motivation that they will excel at learning the unwanted, uninteresting hard things without pressure just because that is how they do things. It is my experience that those are, unfortunately, in the minority. My job as a college instructor would be much easier otherwise.

[Michelle in MO]

The schools have already turned from academic institutions into umbrella institutions for all kinds of courses, crash courses and nonsense, and we definitely don't need the replication of that in the homeschooling community. Her schooling is her academic part of life, not the totality of her life, interests, duties and other things she does. I would never allow my child to count day-to-day life as a school credit, let alone call a church play "drama" (it would be, IMO, intellectually dishonest to label it a course that way too). Let school be school, and life be life.

 

I agree, Ester Maria.

 

I thought seriously about having a "life skills course" for our homeschool coop, but I don't think anyone would have counted it for h.s. credit. Yes, there are many, many things kids need to learn in life--cooking, cleaning, First Aid, CPR, study skills, etc.--but these are not credit-worthy, IMO. I can't think of a high school which would allow those as transfer credits, for example. I doubt if colleges would accept this, either.

 

Now, I would think certain extended homeschooling projects could be counted towards other courses which one might find in a high school, such as an extensive father/son carpentry project could count towards industrial arts. But--that's a different subject, and a different question.

 

Obviously we don't homeschool anymore, but I personally would not consider putting that on a transcript.

[Nan in Mass]

Regentrude and KarenAnne, I'm mulling this over.

 

KarenAnne, I think your example is a good one. And it brings up an important point, one which Ester has mentioned, too - that an enthusiastic, knowledgable community an important part of the equation. An enthusiastic teacher is good (and something I deeply regret my children's missing as they homeschool) but an enthusiastic community is much, much better. Even confirmation that this is indeed interesting from another adult in the child's life has a disproportionate effect - the Ukranian dinner guest who says yes, of course they use cursive in Europe and the gymnastics coach who laughs at a Latin quote... Maybe this is what I am feeling the lack of with my science plan... Mine are part of a community of peacewalkers, but they lack a community for science, engineering, yes, but science, no. And the engineering isn't the sort that appeals to my son, so even that is lacking.

 

Regentrude - I'm still thinking about the cyclical idea and trying to decide if I think you are right. Well, I know you are right. I guess what I am wondering about the length of the cycles. Long cycles suit KarenAnne's daughter. I'm wondering about the advantages and disadvantages of long cycles versus short cycles. (That sounds perilously close to the depth versus breadth question. I've probably just argued myself to the point at which the original poster of that mega thread started. sigh) I'm not sure I understand your examples? My children, because my family happens to speak in something close to standard written English, have not needed grammar in order to be able to write a good sentence. They go by whether something "sounds" right. As far as math goes, at least one of mine is unable to understand math unless it presented in a very whole, very applied way, like Singapore, and another figured out how numbers work (bases) before he had learned to count by rote up to 100. I also am not familiar with that interpretation of the trivium. I thought it went something like: grammar = memorizing without necessarily understanding the implications, logic = learning to argue and ask why, rhetoric = combining the previously aquired knowledge into new knowledge and communicating that in one's own way?

 

-Nan

[Corraleno]

Do most people learn their métier in an application first way, and do most people need to be forced to learn their non-métier subjects?

To the first part of the question, I would say that depends on both the child and the discipline. DS's interest in paleontology started with theory; he understood the history of the earth and evolution of life before he ever saw his first fossil. On the other hand, I would say his interest in reptiles, ecosystems, natural history, etc., grew more out of direct experience than out of any theoretical understanding. With DD, her unusually early interest in business and finance was definitely theoretical — she wanted to know where shops get their merchandise from, how they decide the price, how banks take care of money, how credit cards work, etc., before she could even tell you how many nickels were in a dollar. If she decides to become a banker or business manager, then I would say she found her metier first through theory and then by application. But if she becomes a "bugologist," then I would say she found her passion through hands-on application first, and only got into the theoretical part when she was much older.

 

As to the second part of the question (do people need to be forced to study their non-metier subjects), I would say that depends on how those subjects are presented. A parent (or teacher, school system, etc) can certainly just say "Tough luck, you need to know this whether you like it or not, so just do it." Some kids will resist that, some will do it grudgingly, and others, as regentrude suggested, will do it for the grade. But I think it's also possible to relate the non-preferred subjects to a student's individual strengths and interests, so that force isn't necessary. That may mean studying history through literature for a literary child who dislikes history, or studying the history of science for a history lover who hates science, or letting a science-lover study literature through science fiction. Whether to approach non-preferred subjects through force or customization is an individual choice, and I'm sure parents on both sides of the issue believe that they're doing what's best for their kids.

 

Jackie