Rethinking some areas...

[cathmom]

I've been debating about posting this for a couple of days. I have been thinking about high school level homeschooling.

 

As an illustration, one of my dds has wanted to learn Swedish for several years. She had done some on her own, and I had gotten a couple of books also because I have always wanted to learn it too. We floundered around and made essentially no progress, despite the fact that I am a language teacher (just not Swedish). We just took a class in it, and after the first class, my dd turned to me and said, "No offense, Mom, but I just learned more Swedish in that hour and a half than I learned in all the time with you." And I said, "None taken. I guess that's what having a teacher who actually can speak the language does for you!"

 

So this got me wondering. What benefit would there be for my children in having a teacher that has the average knowledge of a high school teacher in that area, but in all areas? That is a lot more than staying one lesson ahead of the student. I guess in the last few years I've been seeing the breadth and depth of a language teacher's knowledge, and I know that this is replicated across fields. I also recently read Liping Ma's book about elementary math, and about the Chinese teachers' total knowledge of the curriculum.

 

I've been homeschooling since 1997. I never worried about tackling any high school subjects with my dc. I don't have any math phobias and had considered majoring in math at one point. I've done a lot of history and science reading over the years, although I have definite holes in my knowledge in science.

 

I'm not saying that we shouldn't homeschool high school. But I am rethinking how much a high school student can reasonably do on his or her own, without a teacher who has that level of knowledge in the area. I'm aware that this is why many people outsource. Due to our finances, this will not be possible for us. I'm also aware that there are high school teachers in schools who do not possess this level of knowledge and are not passionate about their fields, but that isn't the issue here. I'm feeling like, if I want to truly help my dc achieve their potential, I need to master the entire high school curriculum so that I could teach it all.

 

What do you all think?

[regentrude]

But I am rethinking how much a high school student can reasonably do on his or her own, without a teacher who has that level of knowledge in the area. I'm aware that this is why many people outsource. Due to our finances, this will not be possible for us... I'm feeling like, if I want to truly help my dc achieve their potential, I need to master the entire high school curriculum so that I could teach it all.

 

 

I agree that I can teach only subjects where I have a profound knowledge that goes beyond the material the student is to cover. So I am actively "teaching" only very few subjects.

I do not, however, think I can not help my student learn the other subjects. I see my role as a facilitator for learning. "Outsourcing" can take different forms: I can delegate the actual teaching to a good textbook that is intended to be used for self-study, or I find an online course or video course on DVD - it does not mean that the student needs to actually be enrolled in a class! (But I do not consider myself a "teacher" if all I can do is make my student a syllabus and give assignments - if I can not answer my student's detailed questions about the content, I can't teach the subject).

For instance, I know nothing about Homeric epics and do not consider myself qualified to teach these - that's where I gladly defer to Dr. Vanidver's lectures from the Teaching Company. I do not know enough biology - so we are happy to use Campbell/Reece's excellent textbook and the accompanying CD. Point is: my student still learns the material.

For foreign languages, I have found a private tutor. I find this the most difficult subject to cover, because a book/CD/computer program is not sufficient to acquire conversational skills. So if I am outsourcing anything, it would be French.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I agree that I can teach only subjects where I have a profound knowledge that goes beyond the material the student is to cover. So I am actively "teaching" only very few subjects.

I do not, however, think I can not help my student learn the other subjects. I see my role as a facilitator for learning. "Outsourcing" can take different forms: I can delegate the actual teaching to a good textbook that is intended to be used for self-study, or I find an online course or video course on DVD - it does not mean that the student needs to actually be enrolled in a class! (But I do not consider myself a "teacher" if all I can do is make my student a syllabus and give assignments - if I can not answer my student's detailed questions about the content, I can't teach the subject).

For instance, I know nothing about Homeric epics and do not consider myself qualified to teach these - that's where I gladly defer to Dr. Vanidver's lectures from the Teaching Company. I do not know enough biology - so we are happy to use Campbell/Reece's excellent textbook and the accompanying CD. Point is: my student still learns the material.

For foreign languages, I have found a private tutor. I find this the most difficult subject to cover, because a book/CD/computer program is not sufficient to acquire conversational skills. So if I am outsourcing anything, it would be French.

 

:iagree: I will only be 'teaching' English and Bible.

 

I will be arranging, facilitating, overseeing, learning with, or plugging in something for the other courses.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I agree that I can teach only subjects where I have a profound knowledge that goes beyond the material the student is to cover. So I am actively "teaching" only very few subjects.

I do not, however, think I can not help my student learn the other subjects. I see my role as a facilitator for learning. "Outsourcing" can take different forms: I can delegate the actual teaching to a good textbook that is intended to be used for self-study, or I find an online course or video course on DVD - it does not mean that the student needs to actually be enrolled in a class! (But I do not consider myself a "teacher" if all I can do is make my student a syllabus and give assignments - if I can not answer my student's detailed questions about the content, I can't teach the subject).

For instance, I know nothing about Homeric epics and do not consider myself qualified to teach these - that's where I gladly defer to Dr. Vanidver's lectures from the Teaching Company. I do not know enough biology - so we are happy to use Campbell/Reece's excellent textbook and the accompanying CD. Point is: my student still learns the material.

For foreign languages, I have found a private tutor. I find this the most difficult subject to cover, because a book/CD/computer program is not sufficient to acquire conversational skills. So if I am outsourcing anything, it would be French.

:iagree:Dr. Wile talks about this in his homeschooling CD's.

[cathmom]

I see my role as a facilitator for learning. "Outsourcing" can take different forms: I can delegate the actual teaching to a good textbook that is intended to be used for self-study, or I find an online course or video course on DVD - it does not mean that the student needs to actually be enrolled in a class!

 

I always saw that as my role too (the bolded).

 

With your other comments, I guess that what I am rethinking is that optimal learning can take place under those conditions. I also, though, do not think that being enrolled in the typical class is what I am talking about either.

[cathmom]

:iagree: I will only be 'teaching' English and Bible.

 

I will be arranging, facilitating, overseeing, learning with, or plugging in something for the other courses.

 

So you don't feel any need to get the knowledge required to be able to teach any of those other subjects?

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I always saw that as my role too (the bolded).

 

With your other comments, I guess that what I am rethinking is that optimal learning can take place under those conditions. I also, though, do not think that being enrolled in the typical class is what I am talking about either.

I believe in most cases optimal learning can take place under those conditions because the student is learning how to learn, rather then just being taught.

 

Personally, I learn with my children the subjects in which I'm not already proficient. However, even when I am proficient I still see myself as more of a learning facilitator rather than a "teacher."

[Tiffany in Texas]

Foreign language is an area where you really need to be fluent if the language is to be conversational. I'm teaching Latin because we are not trying to carry on a conversation but are using it to study grammar and to be able to read (Latin) fluently.

 

Another area where fluency seems to be very useful although not as required as foreign language is literature analysis. Again, this is an area where the teacher seems to need to be able to respond quickly to material that might not be on today's lesson.

 

Math, science, logic, and history do not require fluency, hence the reason many of the lower levels are taught by coaches (high school) and grad students (college level). The only requirement is that you keep up. With my eldest daughter (who maxed the local universities math entrance test) I didn't have time to keep up and once I fell behind in the math I started using teaching company videos. With my son I go through every Algebra lesson with him (watching the video lecture and working the problems) and I have no doubt that I will be able to get him up to Calculus I which I will probably turn over to the local university dual credit.

 

Tiffany

5th grader, 7th grader, and Sophomore (mechanical engineering)

[regentrude]

So you don't feel any need to get the knowledge required to be able to teach any of those other subjects?

 

You did not direct this question to me - but honestly, it is not a question of need - I simply do not think it feasible that one parent can acquire all the knowledge to effectively teach every highschool subject.

For example: my DD is currently taking a physics class which I am teaching. In order to acquire the necessary in-depth understanding to not only regurgitate a book, but to structure the material, to design pedagogical examples illustrating precisely the concept I mean to without distracting from it, to answer questions, I had to major in physics, do research work and complete a graduate degree.

I do not presume to be able to acquire knowledge of a subject like history or biology to this same degree - as much as I am interested in those fields. Consequently, I do not see how I could ever learn enough about those things to be able to teach upper level material in these disciplines - or for that matter, how any parent could ever be expected to become an expert in all highschool subjects.

 

Realistically, most parents do not try. The only people I know who are actually teaching calculus, for instance, are people with math degrees - anybody else is using a curriculum, textbook, lecture series etc designed by people who have this expert knowledge, to be used by students who do not have access to a teacher expert in person.

If I had to actually teach all highschool subjects myself without resorting to expert-designed curricula, the level of that education would be not be what I have in mind for my children.

[cathmom]

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

 

If you read my signature, you will see that I have already homeschooled one child all the way through high school. He is a junior in college. He was accepted at his number one university, but went somewhere else when they offered him a full scholarship.

 

I have been there, done that.

 

What I am wondering is, what could my children's education be, if I -as their teacher/facilitator/whatever - master high school content in all of the main subject areas?

 

What constitutes the optimal educational experience? I have a lot of personal experience learning and learning about learning and homeschooling. I am extremely doubtful of the value of online education and "learn on your own" education.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

 

If you read my signature, you will see that I have already homeschooled one child all the way through high school. He is a junior in college. He was accepted at his number one university, but went somewhere else when they offered him a full scholarship.

 

I have been there, done that.

 

What I am wondering is, what could my children's education be, if I -as their teacher/facilitator/whatever - master high school content in all of the main subject areas?

 

What constitutes the optimal educational experience? I have a lot of personal experience learning and learning about learning and homeschooling. I am extremely doubtful of the value of online education and "learn on your own" education.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm not talking about online education or just giving a child some books and expecting them to learn how to learn. I do not believe that the learning experience is necessarily superior when the course is taught by an expert.

[cathmom]

I believe in most cases optimal learning can take place under those conditions because the student is learning how to learn, rather then just being taught.

 

Personally, I learn with my children the subjects in which I'm not already proficient. However, even when I am proficient I still see myself as more of a learning facilitator rather than a "teacher."

 

I just read your comment - I missed it before.

 

I think the student is always learning how to learn, regardless of whether of not there is an actual teacher.

 

I don't want to get hung up on the word "teacher." I am not their teacher; I am their mom. I don't want to be their teacher. But am I limiting *them* if I can't assist with all the main subject areas?

[cathmom]

Math, science, logic, and history do not require fluency, hence the reason many of the lower levels are taught by coaches (high school) and grad students (college level). The only requirement is that you keep up.

 

In the book by Liping Ma, the American teachers did not have fluency in even elementary mathematics, and I bet that seriously limited their students.

 

I think that many grad students do have the level of knowledge that I am talking about.

 

I would say that history especially does require what you call "fluency." How else could you make connections and reach higher levels of understanding?

[regentrude]

What I am wondering is, what could my children's education be, if I -as their teacher/facilitator/whatever - master high school content in all of the main subject areas?

 

What constitutes the optimal educational experience? I have a lot of personal experience learning and learning about learning and homeschooling. I am extremely doubtful of the value of online education and "learn on your own" education.

 

I could imagine - just guessing here- that your children might have learned more material, gone deeper, etc - but OTOH I also imagine a definite trade-off: students who self- study acquire valuable skills in teaching themselves which a teacher-taught student may not necessarily obtain.

I do not share your general skepticism with respect to autodidactic learning because I have seen great examples of people who self-study subjects they are passionate about. Many of the most successful college students are actually working this way; often really gifted students use the professor for inspiration, questions etc, but do not NEED class. (I know university professors of physics who essentially taught themselves while being enrolled in college)

I assume it is, like so many things, a matter of personality: an introverted and intrinsically motivated student may do great using textbooks in his room - whereas an extraverted student who would require more external motivation would thrive in a classroom atmosphere or at least with a teacher-person.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

So you don't feel any need to get the knowledge required to be able to teach any of those other subjects?

 

Well, I didn't say that! Wouldn't any homeschool mother worth her salt wish that she were more than adequately prepared to be an expert in all subjects? On the other hand, isn't it also true that most of us are homeschooling because we want more for our children than we were able to reach for ourselves?

 

Stating that I'm not ready to be an expert in all subjects is nothing like saying that I don't feel a need to learn.

 

I would love to acquire more knowledge, but I won't be able to do so before my son starts high school in a few months! His education won't wait for me to catch up. I expect my younger children will enjoy the benefit of a more knowledgeable mother, but I won't be able to go to college before they start high school, either.

 

I do not lose sleep over this. I can't remedy the situation; I can only do my best with my own talents and skills.

 

You did not direct this question to me - but honestly, it is not a question of need - I simply do not think it feasible that one parent can acquire all the knowledge to effectively teach every highschool subject.

For example: my DD is currently taking a physics class which I am teaching. In order to acquire the necessary in-depth understanding to not only regurgitate a book, but to structure the material, to design pedagogical examples illustrating precisely the concept I mean to without distracting from it, to answer questions, I had to major in physics, do research work and complete a graduate degree.

I do not presume to be able to acquire knowledge of a subject like history or biology to this same degree - as much as I am interested in those fields. Consequently, I do not see how I could ever learn enough about those things to be able to teach upper level material in these disciplines - or for that matter, how any parent could ever be expected to become an expert in all highschool subjects.

 

Realistically, most parents do not try. The only people I know who are actually teaching calculus, for instance, are people with math degrees - anybody else is using a curriculum, textbook, lecture series etc designed by people who have this expert knowledge, to be used by students who do not have access to a teacher expert in person.

If I had to actually teach all highschool subjects myself without resorting to expert-designed curricula, the level of that education would be not be what I have in mind for my children.

 

WSS.

 

Marcia Somerville has the education and experience that I lack. She created Tapestry of Grace for such a one as I. Nathaniel won't be on his own. I'll be walking the path with him, but I will only bring maturity and experience. Much of the knowledge will be new to us both.

 

Dr. Jay Wile gets on my nerves to the extreme, but my son likes his materials and the colleges we are considering value an Apologia Science education. Again, with Dr. Wile's textbooks and labs, Nathaniel will be learning from a scientist. He will be far, far ahead of his local public school counterparts. (Not ahead of all public school students, but certainly ahead of our local school. I've checked.)

 

Art Reed is doing a wonderful job teaching Nathaniel's algebra class. He is clearer (and kinder) than my algebra teacher was! Couldn't rewind my teacher, either....

 

Write Shop and Windows to the World look almost identical to my own AP English courses of 20 years ago. I feel very confident in my ability to teach Nathaniel, using these guides.

 

Martin Cothran appears to know what he's doing in the realms of Logic and Rhetoric, and my son easily understands him. I feel no need to learn those subjects when Mr. Cothran has made his own expertise available to my son.

 

I am studying as much as I can. I've been working through teacher's manuals a week ahead of my oldest son for years! It is very nice to already be familiar with the material as my other children begin to use the same courses, but that's probably as 'expert' as I'll ever become.

 

I'm still convinced my own children are better off at home.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Dulcimeramy

[FloridaLisa]

What I am wondering is, what could my children's education be, if I -as their teacher/facilitator/whatever - master high school content in all of the main subject areas?

 

Interesing question. I would probably disagree with the premise that a) one person could *master* high school content in all subject areas (in time to be able to teach it to upcoming kids! :tongue_smilie:) and b) mastering it and teaching it all would be optimal.

 

What constitutes the optimal educational experience? So many factors here. And, really, advantages and disadvantages to any one method. While tutoring is great, exclusive tutoring would prevent a student from learning that takes place in rich group discussion, ifrom public speaking or presentation opportunities, from being challenged by a peer that is brighter or more hard working. But then, a student in only group learning experiences would miss the huge advantages of tutoring.

 

I think there is a lot to be gained from having more than one teacher. Well-selected outside teachers bring can bring advantages to your student that having one teacher from K-12 would not have. Perspective, different teaching styles, different expectations, different examination styles to name a few.

 

Lisa

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I just read your comment - I missed it before.

 

I think the student is always learning how to learn, regardless of whether of not there is an actual teacher.

I don't agree. I think many professional teachers are not very good at teaching students how to learn despite being experts in their field. I think that is one of the problems with our schools. Students (for the most part) aren't being taught to learn or think critically, which is why so many are having such a difficult time in college. An excellent teacher/expert can indeed facilitate learning but IMHO they are few and far between.

 

I don't want to get hung up on the word "teacher." I am not their teacher; I am their mom. I don't want to be their teacher. But am I limiting *them* if I can't assist with all the main subject areas?

I think they could if they don't actively monitor how the student is doing in his/her classes, which would be true even if the class is being taught by an expert. If my children were taking outside classes (or in school full time) I'd still see it as my responsibility to make sure they are learning optimally and would assist them if they weren't.

[cathmom]

You did not direct this question to me - but honestly, it is not a question of need - I simply do not think it feasible that one parent can acquire all the knowledge to effectively teach every highschool subject.

 

I don't know that it is, and that's one of the things I wanted to discuss. For some people, it may be possible. I'm not saying that the parent needs a PhD in every subject. Maybe I need to define more clearly what level of knowledge I am talking about.

 

For example: my DD is currently taking a physics class which I am teaching. In order to acquire the necessary in-depth understanding to not only regurgitate a book, but to structure the material, to design pedagogical examples illustrating precisely the concept I mean to without distracting from it, to answer questions, I had to major in physics, do research work and complete a graduate degree.

 

Yes, this would be one of my holes. In fact, science would be my biggest hole. When I began homeschooling, to me "science" equalled "boring." But as I examined myself further, I realized that I had always been fascinated by genetics and had done a lot of reading on my own about it, and that I also had developed an interest in pathology and epidemiology, and had read a lot about that. So, yes, it would take a lot of work for me to get to the level where I could teach biology and chemistry confidently.

 

I don't even know that I mean the true upper-level courses like physics, calculus, or German 4 or 5. But I bet that, just like me, there are very few homeschooling moms who feel that they can do more than keep one lesson ahead in even the lower-level courses.

 

I do not presume to be able to acquire knowledge of a subject like history or biology to this same degree - as much as I am interested in those fields. Consequently, I do not see how I could ever learn enough about those things to be able to teach upper level material in these disciplines - or for that matter, how any parent could ever be expected to become an expert in all highschool subjects.

 

Realistically, most parents do not try. The only people I know who are actually teaching calculus, for instance, are people with math degrees - anybody else is using a curriculum, textbook, lecture series etc designed by people who have this expert knowledge, to be used by students who do not have access to a teacher expert in person.

If I had to actually teach all highschool subjects myself without resorting to expert-designed curricula, the level of that education would be not be what I have in mind for my children.

 

Again, I did not necessarily mean "expert" in every subject area, which most likely require a master's in each subject. But I do think it's doable to reach a certain level in every subject area, to where you could teach a course in it, where your knowledge equalled the average high school teacher's knowledge.

 

Let me reiterate that this is just something I am thinking through. I am NOT indicting homeschooling high school (because I do think it is usually the best approach), and I am not trying to make anyone feel guilty. I just want to give MY children the best education that I possibly can.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

In the book by Liping Ma, the American teachers did not have fluency in even elementary mathematics, and I bet that seriously limited their students.

 

I think that many grad students do have the level of knowledge that I am talking about.

 

I would say that history especially does require what you call "fluency." How else could you make connections and reach higher levels of understanding?

True, but it was also tied into the curriculum they were using. Many (probably most) of us were taught the same way the American teachers in Liping Ma's book were but we can do better because we have and use superior resources. We aren't teaching just from our limited knowledge and experience but also using the resources available to us.

[cathmom]

I could imagine - just guessing here- that your children might have learned more material, gone deeper, etc - but OTOH I also imagine a definite trade-off: students who self- study acquire valuable skills in teaching themselves which a teacher-taught student may not necessarily obtain.

I do not share your general skepticism with respect to autodidactic learning because I have seen great examples of people who self-study subjects they are passionate about. Many of the most successful college students are actually working this way; often really gifted students use the professor for inspiration, questions etc, but do not NEED class. (I know university professors of physics who essentially taught themselves while being enrolled in college)

I assume it is, like so many things, a matter of personality: an introverted and intrinsically motivated student may do great using textbooks in his room - whereas an extraverted student who would require more external motivation would thrive in a classroom atmosphere or at least with a teacher-person.

 

Thank you for discussing this with me.

 

I think this may be colored by the fact that my oldest dc is 100% extraverted. Seriously - that's how he scored on the Myers-Briggs, which was no surprise.

 

However, I am introverted. In high school, I was sick and missed my finals. My father was helping me study for my QPS final (quantitative physical science). I asked him how he could help me when he hadn't taken the course. He had an engineering degree and sat with me and went through the book. I had told him in advance that there was one chapter I didn't get at all (I had failed the test). But when we got to the end of the book, I couldn't tell him which chapter it was, because with him explaining it to me, I understood it all.

 

I study by myself ALL THE TIME. This summer I worked my way through a graduate level text on teaching foreign languages to children. I took notes on it, then went back and took notes on my notes: what I could apply to the class I'm teaching, to my older dc, to my younger dc. But I would have given my eye-teeth to have someone to discuss it with!

 

A year ago I took an online, introductory course on the Orton-Gillingham method. Yes, I learned. But I know that I would have learned MORE if I had taken it with someone or been in a class.

 

I always had interesting thoughts and made connections off of things other people said, things my teachers said in class. During the calculus class I took in college (which was awful) I still took some really interesting notes on how Jesus was evident in calculus.

 

I've never been interested in environmentalism or "green" issues. Then I taught at a school where that was the focus, and by the end of the year, guess who was learning about environmentalism and reading Collapse? Me.

 

I guess that my main issue is that I don't want to limit my children in any way, if at all possible.

[cathmom]

True, but it was also tied into the curriculum they were using. Many (probably most) of us were taught the same way the American teachers in Liping Ma's book were but we can do better because we have and use superior resources. We aren't teaching just from our limited knowledge and experience but also using the resources available to us.

 

I think if they understood their subject, it wouldn't matter what curriculum they were using. Some of them didn't even know how to calculate the problems, let alone teach them!

[cathmom]

Well, I didn't say that! Wouldn't any homeschool mother worth her salt wish that she were more than adequately prepared to be an expert in all subjects? On the other hand, isn't it also true that most of us are homeschooling because we want more for our children than we were able to reach for ourselves?

 

Stating that I'm not ready to be an expert in all subjects is nothing like saying that I don't feel a need to learn.

 

I would love to acquire more knowledge, but I won't be able to do so before my son starts high school in a few months! His education won't wait for me to catch up. I expect my younger children will enjoy the benefit of a more knowledgeable mother, but I won't be able to go to college before they start high school, either.

 

I do not lose sleep over this. I can't remedy the situation; I can only do my best with my own talents and skills.

 

 

 

 

 

I did not mean to offend you, if I did. That was an honest question!

 

I understand what you mean. I have one in high school right now. I wasn't suggesting that anyone lose sleep over this, and I understand that we are all learning, and that in fact, that is one of the best benefits of homeschooling!

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I think if they understood their subject, it wouldn't matter what curriculum they were using. Some of them didn't even know how to calculate the problems, let alone teach them!

I agree that if they understood their subject completely the curriculum they were using would be less important. However, since they didn't understand their subject curriculum could have made up for their deficiencies.

[Michelle in AL]

There are online options that have a classroom environment where the teacher is interacting a couple times a week with the students and the students are interacting with each other. They are adequately able to express their passion for the subject as a teacher and IMO teach the children well.

 

My dd has taken other online options with less student interaction, but the teacher is still very involved via video lecture and online notes. She's done well in these classes too.

 

The least amt of learning comes with minimal interaction IMO.

 

Online classes of this type are expensive and if I couldn't afford them I would feel I was possibly short changing my dd.

 

I feel better about teaching my youngest more, since I've taught my oldest for yrs in math and science. I do outsource once they get to precal.

 

I do see your concern and would have to seriously consider school if I couldn't outsource or at least feel comfortable in teaching the basics of what I consider the student's classes that matter the most. For us it's math, science and lit. I've come to peace with it by mostly focusing on lit and studying science one week ahead of them until I'm comfortable teaching it. I teach math as we go. I out source science after chem.

[cathmom]

Interesing question. I would probably disagree with the premise that a) one person could *master* high school content in all subject areas (in time to be able to teach it to upcoming kids! :tongue_smilie:) and b) mastering it and teaching it all would be optimal.

 

What constitutes the optimal educational experience? So many factors here. And, really, advantages and disadvantages to any one method. While tutoring is great, exclusive tutoring would prevent a student from learning that takes place in rich group discussion, ifrom public speaking or presentation opportunities, from being challenged by a peer that is brighter or more hard working. But then, a student in only group learning experiences would miss the huge advantages of tutoring.

 

I think there is a lot to be gained from having more than one teacher. Well-selected outside teachers bring can bring advantages to your student that having one teacher from K-12 would not have. Perspective, different teaching styles, different expectations, different examination styles to name a few.

 

Lisa

 

Thank you for your thoughts! Good point about having different teachers. In our homeschool, though, that's really not going to be too possible, which is one of the reasons that I am thinking this through.

[cathmom]

I agree that if they understood their subject completely the curriculum they were using would be less important. However, since they didn't understand their subject curriculum could have made up for their deficiencies.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. :001_smile:

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I did not mean to offend you, if I did. That was an honest question!

 

I understand what you mean. I have one in high school right now. I wasn't suggesting that anyone lose sleep over this, and I understand that we are all learning, and that in fact, that is one of the best benefits of homeschooling!

 

Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't mean to sound offended.

 

I guess my initial thought was that most of us on this board are too late to do anything dramatic about our deficiencies in time for our own children to benefit.

 

I wish someone could go back and tell my teenaged self that I would one day homeschool my children. I think I would have made some different choices! Or even my 23yo self. (That's how old I was when I began homeschooling.) I thought it would be so easy, but back then my only goal was to do slightly better than the public school.

 

Then I discovered classical education at home, and since then I've never been good enough. Won't be.

 

These days I am considering my future grandchildren. They will have truly free and independent fathers, logical of mind, trained in faith, and nourished on the best that the history of the Western world has to offer. These grandchildren will have opportunities that my sons and I only imagine, because their fathers will be better judges of the influences in their lives and the worth of sundry dreams and pursuits.

 

"Grandma" will be that funny old lady with all the cats who had made all the uncles learn Latin when they were little boys. That's probably all I'll be to those free and educated little ones! They won't understand that I've given my entire life to move my children from trailer-park poverty to Parnassus in one generation.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. :001_smile:

So, how do you think a parent who has the same deficiencies as those American teachers can teach her students as Liping Ma suggests?

 

ETA that I use this example because you brought up Liping Ma and I see many who were in the same predicament as the American teachers in Liping Ma's book who are giving their children the type of math education that Liping Ma describes as being taught by the Chinese teachers. What is the difference if the teachers and the parent have the same mathematical deficiencies? The difference I see is that the parent is utilizing resources that the teachers aren't. Why wouldn't the teachers utilizing these resources not be beneficial to him/her?

Edited November 16, 2010 by Cheryl in SoCal

[Renee in NC]

If I were going to homeschool high school still, my ideal situation would be a group of moms/dads getting together to teach what they *were* knowledgeable in. For example, cathmom, you could teach languages. Someone else would teach English, another Math, I could teach Biology (and Psychology!), and on down the line. Even getting together once a week for each subject, talking through it, going over problem areas, etc. would be good.

 

That is because I agree with you. I don't think that *optimal* learning necessarily comes from a textbook or a video course and definitely not an online course for most students. Interaction is key and if I remember correctly, SWB says something similar in TWTM. I am learning (and re-learning) a lot of material on my own right now. There are courses that cover this material available, and some are very good. I don't plan to buy them, however, because a video, even by someone very knowledgeable in their field, isn't going to offer me what I really need. I need someone to explain things a different way, discuss them with me, answer my questions, etc. I even took Microeconomics years ago, but I am still having to re-learn it and I am finding it more difficult than it would be if I had an economics professor.:D

 

I see a trend in homeschooling to do *everything* yourself. The idea is that if you have the right curriculum, you can teach anything and everything. I have seen this applied to speech therapy, occupational therapy, reading tutoring, etc. Yes, it can be done, but I don't think we can do it at the same level as someone trained in those fields (and passionate about it) just by using a good curriculum. I think this is true in most subjects, not just foreign languages.

 

Maybe I am just stuck with the education model we have today where an "expert" person teaches another person what they know, who teaches another person, and on down the line. Especially in upper-level college courses, many teachers are even more specialized - they focused on American History or even a more specific period of American History and are an expert in that field.

 

However, to your situation - I don't know how you could master all the highschool level material ahead of time unless *you* had a teacher. I do think you could definitely do better than staying a lesson ahead, though. Even using the MIT Opencourseware for Biology would put you in a much better place when teaching Biology to your high schoolers, even if they were using something like Apologia which is supposed to be self-teaching.

 

I know it sounds like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth by saying you should learn from an online source in order to not use an online source for your child, but you will be learning at a higher level. If you can hit the high points of college Biology, you can cover high school level pretty well. Then you will have enough knowledge to help them make the connections and really learn the material.

[Jane in NC]

 

What I am wondering is, what could my children's education be, if I -as their teacher/facilitator/whatever - master high school content in all of the main subject areas?

 

 

 

Herein lies the problem with your supposition: mastery of high school content in all main subject areas is just one step of the process. I believe that this is what Regentrude was saying with regard to teaching physics. It is one thing to understand the content of a high school course, but far greater knowledge beyond this basic level of material is needed to teach the course well.

 

I'll be honest. This is the problem that I have with most high school math teachers. They may have undergraduate math degrees but I see their knowledge of mathematics as limited.

 

One of the things that I tried to do as I facilitated my son's high school education was help him see connections between disciplines and how the lens of history alters perceptions. For us, the WTM was a great help in that it gave us linchpins around which our educational process could flow. My degrees are in math, but I had the good fortune of a well rounded liberal arts education. I certainly had not mastered all high school content (particularly in subjects like biology which has radically changed since my high school days or foreign languages in which I am far from fluent!) But I knew enough to set the Aeneid as one of the cornerstones for my son's high school education. He read a translation in 9th and listened to Vandiver's lectures on the work. He revisited the themes in 10th while reading Inferno. By the time 12th rolled around, he read the work in Latin. By this point, he had surpassed my limited knowledge of the subject and I had to call upon an outside expert. Yet the path to the expert began with my basic plan, my initial teaching and then my son's own self education.

 

In a perfect world, he would have had access to that expert all along. If he had attended the local public high school, there would have been no such expert. The "best" private school within an hour's drive only offers Latin I & II--no Aeneid there.

 

So we chose to do the best we could with the our perhaps inadequate tools. I fear that ideal education is rarely achieved. Further, none of us stops learning. The goal for high school should be foundational not only in knowledge but in the learning process so that one can continue to learn--whether in a classroom or on one's own.

 

Consider this: if I were an English instructor teaching my students about John Donne sonnets, I would have taught one thing at age 25 and something completely different twenty years later. The knowledge of Donne's work is one thing; the wisdom of life is another. Which is to say that I do not what is best. Is it the discussion led by the bright young teacher who brings vibrancy to old works or the discussion among the generations at a dining room table where life has been witnessed in many forms?

 

I'm rambling...

[jld]

I don't think kids really need mastery of material in high school. They're really just starting their studies at that level, and a good intro class is okay. It will go deeper in college, and really deep in grad school, if they decide to take it that far.

 

But my goals probably are not as high as many here.:D

[Ester Maria]

Short answer - I second Renee; long answer - continue reading.

I see a trend in homeschooling to do *everything* yourself. The idea is that if you have the right curriculum, you can teach anything and everything.

I also see that trend and I'm not sure I like it: in one hand, of course that one wants to support people willing to learn and grow past what they had learned as young adults, acquire and possibly transmit new knowledges (who was it that said, "you teach the best when you're the most in a need to learn"?); on the other hand, one cannot NOT be realistic about what can be expected from an average homeschool mom without unlimited time and resources.

 

Generally, I have no problem with mothers "facilitating" learning and acting as sort of intermediaries in the whole process - if children are capale of getting through the material themselves. You can only teach what you know, and you need greater proficiency in the subject as a whole, in its context, than only the immediate content you're teaching, to teach well. On the other hand, there are children who are quite capable autodidacts at that age and who might master the material on their own.

(What DOES irk me in that situation is grading more than teaching itself, as I vehemently believe that one shouldn't grade something they haven't gone through and something they don't know themselves, as in my eyes that equals intellectual dishonesty - "signing" a grade you cannot truly give, because you don't know the material that that grade stands behind. That's, in my view, the most problematic thing about homeschooling in the first place, but I won't go there deeper as we've had separate threads that dealt with it.)

 

Basically, outsourcing is the way to go once you hit the wall with regards to your abilities and/or will to acquire those abilities - finding other people to guide or oversee the process for you. It's perfectly normal that those will increase as the child is growing up, the content is getting harder and more specialized.

[cathmom]

I don't think kids really need mastery of material in high school. They're really just starting their studies at that level, and a good intro class is okay. It will go deeper in college, and really deep in grad school, if they decide to take it that far.

 

But my goals probably are not as high as many here.:D

 

Not the kids, the mom.

[Renee in NC]

Not the kids, the mom.

 

Right, because that flows with what Jane in NC said - to effectively teach you need knowledge at a much higher level.

 

What I was proposing was in between being an expert and keeping "one lesson ahead" - since the option for outsourcing isn't available, then for me, the next best option would be to really know the material before your child even starts the course. My example was Biology - mom completes an entire Biology course *before* her student ever starts Biology. It helps you to see where the course is going and how the different areas connect together.

 

cathmom, I think your example of reading, notetaking, etc. the textbook for teaching children languages was a good one. You went well beyond staying a lesson ahead in the textbook. I was planning to do the same thing in Latin - work through Wheelock's myself (with the extras) in preparation for teaching Latina Christiana. Even with the DVDs available, there would come points in the course that I would need to be able to see the big picture in order to help with a particular area.

 

It seems that many people *do* outsource a lot of high school courses/work. Since that isn't possible for you, you have to look for what you can do to make the high school courses the best you can give them.

[Nan in Mass]

I really want to read this thread. I am not going to be able to get to it for a few days, so am posting this without reading. If it is a total repeat or off topic or something, forgive me. This is something that everyone here has had to listen to me squirrel about for a few years now. The middle child's brain was wired a bit differently, so I had a fair amount of confidence that me teaching something badly or him learning on his own or me "interpreting" a textbook for him was still better than a classroom learning situation. An excellent private tutor for each subject would have been the best, but that was beyond our means. The youngest is a different story. As the youngest approached high school, I began to climb trees in a panic, as Lisa (swimmermom) puts it. She keeps having to remind me that that is a useless excersize. Corraleno and KarenAnne and others remind me that there is value in leaving the child to direct their own learning, even if it leads to a lot of blundering around and struggling. People like EsterMaria remind me of the value of having a knowledge base. TWTM reminds me that without certain academic skills, my child will hit a wall, probably about high school. I think this issue is largely one of efficiency. How efficient do you need your child's education to be? Is your child ever going to be in a classroom or work situation where he needs to be able to learn fast? If so, he will need good basic academic skills and some sort of basic knowledge base by the time he leaves high school. TWTM explains one way to do this. I wish I had understood this better when I began homeschooling. I began to get nervous about what we weren't doing and tried to rush things rather than meet my children where they were, skills-wise, and then had to circle round and redo those basic steps later or give up on things or whatever. A classroom teacher is often teaching a class which contains students with less than good academic skills, and consequently is forced to resort to spoon-feeding or teaching to the test. I think you get this less with skill-based subjects like math, fine arts, and foreign language. In subjects like science and English, which contain a skill-based half and a knowledge-base half, the skills-based half often gets skipped because it is harder to teach (writing, speaking, arguing, experimentation). Some subjects, like history, actually have a skills-based half as well, but our culture's educational expectation is that the subject will be taught knowledge first, then skills, and the skills part often isn't taught until college. I think, in general, it is easier for homeschoolers to learn the knowledge half of a subject at home. This is why writing, foreign languages, science labs, musical instruments, and math are often farmed out. My family is wired such that most of us can throw something into short-term memory fairly easily, but it takes an absolutely enormous amount of effort to get anything transfered from short-term memory to long-term memory. This makes me very, very leary of the value of teaching my children content in a traditional text-based way. We forget it all as soon as we are finished with the chapter. TWTM approach of using a spine (which one doesn't try to memorize) and lots of extra materials seems to work better for us. The problem with this approach is that it is not the most efficient way to cover material. Textbooks are. Since I know that textbooks won't work in the long run for us, I am less tempted to use them in a traditional fashion than many people here. Instead of trying to do all subjects well, I have compromised. We can't afford a private tutor. We are not willing to make the family sacrifices involved in putting the children into private school. Public school is out (tried it and it was a disaster and I'm not willing to risk it again). That leaves me cobbling together some sort of home education as best I can. I know I can't teach everything well, so I have different focuses for different subjects. We are more of a science/math/art/music family, so I am happy to leave my children to teach themselves inefficiently in history and literature. They won't need to meet up with someone else's educational system in the future in those subjects. I teach the skills subjects like writing and math with the help of a good textbook (which I interpret and make sure the child does properly) until they get beyond where I want to go, and then turn them over to the community college. I outsourced music. I am not trying to get far in art, just trying to teach them to draw, which I can do, so I did that. I am leaving them to learn this subject themselves later if they wish. What I call moderns (social justice, peace, current events, global issues, anthropology, geography, etc.) I leave mostly to experts in a non-classroom situation. We aren't too ambitious foreign language-wise, so I mangle that myself along with throwing the children into immersion situations from time to time, or try to find a tutor. I try to do basic academic/study skills, with the help of gymnastics. PE and health is gymnastics. Religion gets done in a family context. That leaves science and technology, which send me up trees regularly. My goal is to get the children to the point where the community college can take over. Meanwhile, I have the more nebulous goals of having them be interesting, alive, involved, curious, creative, knowledgable, hard-working adults who are doing some high level projects, and trying to get them into a fairly interesting college. Not going to school is a fairly good way of achieving the first of those things.

 

So, this has been a weird mishmash of thoughts, probably not terribly useful to anyone, but it will be notes for myself for when I get back to read the whole thread in a few days.

-Nan

[elegantlion]

I would feel a bit more at ease if I were an expert in more subjects. As it is I will have to get creative in how to outsource when/if necessary also because of budget.

 

I guess my ideal is to have a lot of resources on hand. When/if ds gets to the point he is above my ability to discuss or facilitate I'll find someone who can mentor at his level.

 

I can't imagine trying to homeschool high school without the internet. This board, a wealth of free resources online, and the ability to research anything in moment is a vital resource.

 

IMO there is no shame in telling a child I don't know, but let's find out together. My son wanted to learn Japanese, I found a text and video series to facilitate and told him we would learn together. Would I feel comfortable doing that with upper math and science? Probably not, it would slow down the process, so I find resources to help. Because I have more time than money I keep list of free resources from those who would be considered experts.

 

Great question.

[creekland]

I do not share your general skepticism with respect to autodidactic learning because I have seen great examples of people who self-study subjects they are passionate about. Many of the most successful college students are actually working this way; often really gifted students use the professor for inspiration, questions etc, but do not NEED class. (I know university professors of physics who essentially taught themselves while being enrolled in college)

I assume it is, like so many things, a matter of personality: an introverted and intrinsically motivated student may do great using textbooks in his room - whereas an extraverted student who would require more external motivation would thrive in a classroom atmosphere or at least with a teacher-person.

 

I work in our local high school seeing the full variety of math/science classes as well as a few others (I'm actually in an 8th grade English room now [on break] - way out of my field - but good for experience.) Due to my experience in our high school I've opted to homeschool my own for those years with the exception of my youngest who had other issues going on in his life, so returned to high school after 4 years of being homeschooled.

 

What I see from the vast majority of students here is a lack of love for learning. They want to know the minimum amount to get by and that's only IF they even care about that. If they aren't spoon fed the info, they seem to have lost any ability to think something out for themselves. This runs across the board in subjects. When they are learning something, they want to memorize to take the test - not actually learn by my definition. While most teachers do know their subject, they are sometimes constantly fighting behavior issues and rarely get time to do more than the basics with their students. They often have time constraints - if they want to go deeper into something, it means cutting something else out.

 

Interestingly enough, my now ps 9th grader has even come to ME and discussed the lack of desire to learn on the part of his classmates and the shallow coverage in many of his classes. We've talked and he's now going deeper into his favorite subjects himself - not for a grade - just to LEARN. I'm pleased.

 

"I" picked self-learning for my own students even in subjects where I could have taught them (math/science especially). I'm around to answer questions, grade tests, look over labs, and have discussions, but they do the actual learning. I picked that method because a majority of the great thinkers/accomplishers/etc, in history were self-learners (eg George Washington Carver), and I find students that do the self-learning to be far more knowledgeable than their spoon fed counterparts. Those that do well in ps are almost always self-learners who do more (on their own) than the teacher requires. Some in our "gifted" program do whole courses by themselves hardly ever stepping foot inside the actual classroom (essentially the same as my homeschooling). I pick the curricula. I pick movies or documentaries to supplement. We always discuss. In general, however, they are on their own.

 

It's paid off beautifully. My oldest feels he has been far better prepared for college than this ps counterparts. My middle son is doing superbly in his cc classes. My youngest has even taken what he learned (self learning) while being homeschooled to further what he's doing in ps.

 

I have no regrets... yet, I will agree that languages are one area where it's definitely helpful to have outside teaching due to the nature of what is being learned.

 

Until ps can figure out how to reignite the fire to want to learn, little will improve no matter how much money is thrown at it. Some teachers can do it to a degree... but definitely not the majority nor does one teacher inspire all.

[NineChoirs]

I knew I couldn't teach my oldest son at the High School level. His knowledge of math & science far surpassed my own. Staying one lesson ahead of him would have been pointless. His understanding is easily at a college level. He would find errors in the textbooks and in the answer keys. He would openly disagree with math methods being taught. It was like he was speaking a foreign language. I am fairly proficient with math, but there was no way I could keep up with him.

 

Our local public High School uses only certified AP teachers for the AP classes. My son opted for all AP classes (including English). His teachers are amazingly accomplished in their fields. His math teacher is a hard lined, no nonsense mathematician. She challenges him in ways I never could. She will give him advanced math sheets for homework which he has to figure out how to do on his own. She doesn't grade for accuracy but for effort. She goes over the sheets with him the next day and discusses them in depth. This is something I never could have done. He will also start college with some of his college credits already out of the way. He will be better prepared than if I had taught him at home. All of his other AP teachers challenge and push him as well.

 

In my daughter's case however I feel I can teach her. Her strong subjects are ones I feel confident in being able to teach, and teach well. So all of this may depend strongly on the student. A lot of parents find success in a mixture of the two. Outsourcing some subjects, while teaching some at home. I know a family that was certain they could homeschool 100% through High School without any problem. The mom used to be a math teacher and currently tutors math, the dad has a graduate degree. They are both very intelligent and successful. Their kids would have their college tuition (to a great college) paid for in full by the father's job. Now the oldest is a junior at home in High School and they are saying they don't think college is important and they don't want their kids going :confused:. Something in that situation went terribly wrong.

 

It is definitely a scary decision. These four years can make or break a child's future. It seems to be an overstatement but it really isn't. Right or wrong, it is the way society is currently set up. I think whatever the decision is, it shouldn't be made lightly.

[NineChoirs]

Also just to add; In the High School here the AP teachers are given free ability to remove any student from the classroom for any reason. They all made it very clear during the open house at the beginning of the year that they would use that ability. They said that by the end of the year if they only had two students left in the class who wanted to learn then that would be fine with them. In order to remain in the class, participation & effort is 100% required. They will work with struggling students (unless it is clear the student needs to take a step back) but they will not deal with lazy or unruly students. This was very encouraging for my husband and I to hear. My son said within the first two weeks the class size was almost halved. Now the students who are left are very serious about learning and extremely well behaved.

[creekland]

Also just to add; In the High School here the AP teachers are given free ability to remove any student from the classroom for any reason. They all made it very clear during the open house at the beginning of the year that they would use that ability. They said that by the end of the year if they only had two students left in the class who wanted to learn then that would be fine with them. In order to remain in the class, participation & effort is 100% required. They will work with struggling students (unless it is clear the student needs to take a step back) but they will not deal with lazy or unruly students. This was very encouraging for my husband and I to hear. My son said within the first two weeks the class size was almost halved. Now the students who are left are very serious about learning and extremely well behaved.

 

I'm envious. Here in all classes a student must stay in even if they have no interest and are utterly failing. Our school doesn't offer AP, but they do offer a few classes which some colleges (a few - almost totally state schools) will give credit for. Even in those classes students that are failing need to remain in the classroom for the duration of the class. If we could ditch behavior/effort problems I think all students would benefit (even those that don't want to be there).

[NineChoirs]

I'm envious. Here in all classes a student must stay in even if they have no interest and are utterly failing. Our school doesn't offer AP, but they do offer a few classes which some colleges (a few - almost totally state schools) will give credit for. Even in those classes students that are failing need to remain in the classroom for the duration of the class. If we could ditch behavior/effort problems I think all students would benefit (even those that don't want to be there).

 

 

It's a huge benefit, especially when you see how bad the middle schools are. Not separating the kids is huge disservice to the kids who are actually there to learn. I have no idea what we would do if we didn't live in such a good school district. I guess we would have to hope & pray he could get a good scholarship to a private school.

[mims]

I hope I'm not interrupting the discussion or sidetracking your thoughts . . . This post stuck out to me. When I think of the hours and hours you would need to do this I immediately think of the limited hours in a day. This is not along the line you are questioning but how else are you limiting your family if you have to spend that many hours to stay ahead and delve deeply into subjects? High standards in education is important but don't forget real life. At what point do you say I want them to have a really strong basis, I want them to know how to think and learn but they are not going to learn this area as much as I would like because real life is important?

Just some thoughts as you agonize over not being able to be all you would like!

[jld]

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you felt you needed to master all the hs content so that you could more effectively help your children master hs material as well. I'm just saying I don't think it has to be mastered. But that is my low expectations approach.:D

[cathmom]

I hope I'm not interrupting the discussion or sidetracking your thoughts . . . This post stuck out to me. When I think of the hours and hours you would need to do this I immediately think of the limited hours in a day. This is not along the line you are questioning but how else are you limiting your family if you have to spend that many hours to stay ahead and delve deeply into subjects? High standards in education is important but don't forget real life. At what point do you say I want them to have a really strong basis, I want them to know how to think and learn but they are not going to learn this area as much as I would like because real life is important?

Just some thoughts as you agonize over not being able to be all you would like!

 

I don't think I'm agonizing LOL, and believe me, I'm not one to forget about everyday life. However, lately my dh and I have been discussing the excellent education we want our dc to have. My number one priority is to homeschool excellently, and all other priorities must fall in line. If I don't do what I can in order to provide that, then the sacrifices that we have made FOR YEARS aren't really worth it.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you felt you needed to master all the hs content so that you could more effectively help your children master hs material as well. I'm just saying I don't think it has to be mastered. But that is my low expectations approach.:D

 

I don't know what I am saying anymore LOL. The 2 yo decided not to sleep last night and now I'm a mess. I'm too old to stay up that late, I think.

[cathmom]

So, how do you think a parent who has the same deficiencies as those American teachers can teach her students as Liping Ma suggests?

 

ETA that I use this example because you brought up Liping Ma and I see many who were in the same predicament as the American teachers in Liping Ma's book who are giving their children the type of math education that Liping Ma describes as being taught by the Chinese teachers. What is the difference if the teachers and the parent have the same mathematical deficiencies? The difference I see is that the parent is utilizing resources that the teachers aren't. Why wouldn't the teachers utilizing these resources not be beneficial to him/her?

 

Well, this isn't really the thrust of this thread, and it's been discussed a lot on the K-8 board. So I will take a pass for now, on this.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Well, this isn't really the thrust of this thread, and it's been discussed a lot on the K-8 board. So I will take a pass for now, on this.

 

I didn't bring this up; I was responding to your post (quoted below). While it can be limiting I don't believe it has to be. I actually think it's a good example of how we can reach beyond our inadequacies and do better than the "experts" by researching and taking advantage of the resources available to us.

 

In the book by Liping Ma, the American teachers did not have fluency in even elementary mathematics, and I bet that seriously limited their students.

[jld]

 

 

I don't know what I am saying anymore LOL. The 2 yo decided not to sleep last night and now I'm a mess. I'm too old to stay up that late, I think.

 

I hear you! I'm not sure having a baby at 38 was the best decision I ever made! Oh, not really; we love him to pieces. But I'm starting to see the benefits of moving on from babies . . . :)

 

Jean, I'm just saying, like others, that it's not realistic for one person to master 5 or 7 different areas. Her kids can get a good enough education to go on to college without the parent being so sage. I can't overwhelm myself thinking about all the ways I'm inadequate as a parent and teacher; I do what I can and try to forgive myself for the rest. We just aren't perfect, and I don't think our kids need perfection.

 

I'm sure you're doing fine. Your kids are really lucky to be homeschooled!:)

[cathmom]

I didn't bring this up; I was responding to your post (quoted below). While it can be limiting I don't believe it has to be. I actually think it's a good example of how we can reach beyond our inadequacies and do better than the "experts" by researching and taking advantage of the resources available to us.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm just really too tired to think about this that deeply. I'm getting the impression that you and I got entirely different things from that book. I think the incredibly limited understanding of the teachers can only lead to limited understanding on the part of their students. It's really shocking, that book. If they can't even calculate division of fractions, how are they going to teach it? And when their students have questions, how will they answer them?

 

I've done a lot of research on Montessori education, and one of the things I really like about it is that a large part of the teacher training is the teacher mastering the curriculum so that he or she thoroughly understands all of it.

 

Curriculums are not the be-all, end-all. They have mistakes. A parent who doesn't know the subject will most likely not catch the mistake.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I'm sorry, I'm just really too tired to think about this that deeply. I'm getting the impression that you and I got entirely different things from that book. I think the incredibly limited understanding of the teachers can only lead to limited understanding on the part of their students. It's really shocking, that book. If they can't even calculate division of fractions, how are they going to teach it? And when their students have questions, how will they answer them?

 

I've done a lot of research on Montessori education, and one of the things I really like about it is that a large part of the teacher training is the teacher mastering the curriculum so that he or she thoroughly understands all of it.

 

Curriculums are not the be-all, end-all. They have mistakes. A parent who doesn't know the subject will most likely not catch the mistake.

I don't mean to say that curriculum is the be-all, end-all. I think that's one reason many here tend to use multiple curricula. I do think they (and other resources) can make a big difference. Do we read Liping Ma's book and say, "Oh well, all the teachers in the schools and I were taught the same way that the American teachers in her examples were so our kids are doomed to a similar education and there is nothing we can do about it?" On the contrary, I see it as a tool used to point out the problems and so we can remedy them. There are many parents on this forum who are teaching their children math conceptually because they read Liping Ma's book and used the resources necessary to change the way they teach math. My children are not receiving the same education I did (thank goodness, I was taught Touch Math:blink:, Social Studies, etc) because of the resources I'm using (which is including but not limited to curricula).

 

I see Liping Ma's book as pointing out the problem so we can do something about it. Why isn't self-education and purchasing the resources we need to change the way math is taught the answer? If it's not, what are all the teachers who are like the American teachers in her book going to do? See the problem but do nothing?

 

ETA, sorry about your 2 year old and no sleep. I completely understand!

Edited November 17, 2010 by Cheryl in SoCal

[cathmom]

I don't mean to say that curriculum is the be-all, end-all. I think that's one reason many here tend to use multiple curricula. I do think they (and other resources) can make a big difference. Do we read Liping Ma's book and say, "Oh well, all the teachers in the schools and I were taught the same way that the American teachers in her examples were so our kids are doomed to a similar education and there is nothing we can do about it?" On the contrary, I see it as a tool used to point out the problems and so we can remedy them. There are many parents on this forum who are teaching their children math conceptually because they read Liping Ma's book and used the resources necessary to change the way they teach math. My children are not receiving the same education I did (thank goodness, I was taught Touch Math:blink:, Social Studies, etc) because of the resources I'm using (which is including but not limited to curricula).

 

I see Liping Ma's book as pointing out the problem so we can do something about it. Why isn't self-education and purchasing the resources we need to change the way math is taught the answer? If it's not, what are all the teachers who are like the American teachers in her book going to do? See the problem but do nothing?

 

ETA, sorry about your 2 year old and no sleep. I completely understand!

 

Of course they're not supposed to do nothing! I don't think I was suggesting that they should. I'm not sure where you got the idea I thought that. I'm confused. :001_smile:

 

I don't want anyone to think that I am against homeschooling. We have always planned to homeschool all of our dc all the way through, and I can't see anything changing that. We decided once, and that's it.

 

I can tell the difference in the areas where I have excellent knowledge and where I don't. And I'm no longer comfortable with only seeing myself as a facilitator. My current high schooler is most likely going into a science field. I need to expand my knowledge of science so that I can help her effectively, and I am thinking that it would be a good idea to have a decent level of understanding in all major high school areas, like bachelor's level. I don't think that's so crazy or undoable. I wondered if anyone else felt this way. Apparently not!