Rethinking some areas...

[cathmom]

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

 

 

 

You didn't sound offended - I was just afraid that I had offended you!

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

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!

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you thought they should do nothing! The impression you gave me was that curriculum and resources would be of little or no help. I'm on my phone so I can't quote another post. I was trying to explain how I think we (and they) can use the resources available to us to rise above our weaknesses.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

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!

 

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:

This is the exchange to which I was referring.

[mcconnellboys]

I think foreign languages are one of the few areas where you would see this sort of difference. My son went back to a private school as a sophomore. He had done Spanish I at home and he was able to go into the sophomore level class without difficulty and make good grades.

 

He was inducted into their honor society and allowed to take an honors level course the next year. But he said that his junior year teacher actually wasn't nearly as good in *teaching* Spanish as his sophomore teacher had been and he felt that he actually lost ground during that year.

 

Science and higher level maths can also be challenging for homeschoolers. A lot of them get around that (and languages) by doing dual enrollment courses at area community colleges, online classes, etc.

 

I was very disappointed at my son's school to find that biology often is no longer considered a lab science and there was no real lab work associated with his class.

 

When he took chemistry and physics, even though they were supposed to be lab classes, there was very little done in the labs and the teachers were abysmally bad.... Would he have learned more if he would have stayed at home? I certainly would have tried to make sure I obtained programming for him that would have been more meaningful....

[Julie in MN]

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?

 

My perspective comes from having *started* homeschooling with a high schooler who went from being an A/B student to failing 9th grade, with no one bothering to notice until I started inquiring. (At the same time, I had an advanced 12, both grader and a little 1st grader, both still in the public schools.)

 

I immediately felt, and still feel, that a homeschool education is FAR superior to what I saw in public schools. Even looking back on my own public school education (in at least 8 different schools), and extending through all three of my children's public school experiences, in which I was closely involved, I am convinced that homeschooling can be and often is superior.

 

The amount of knowledge I saw in public high school teachers was not impressive to me, I'm sorry. First impressions might be good, but in the day-to-day I saw weak skills and even weaker methods of conveying those skills. I also saw busy teachers, overwhelmed teachers, punitive teachers, inexperienced teachers, rigid teachers, and teachers with their hands tied. The number of truly quality teachers/classes I have seen over the years can EASILY be outnumbered by the number of quality courses most homeschoolers are teaching their children over the years.

 

And from talking with the children who have been educated in public and private schools, the amount of knowledge they have actually absorbed is not as impressive as what I learn from talking to home educated kids. I have a lot of experience talking with kids, from being a "neighborhood mom" to being a Girl Scout leader to being a tutor in an international tutoring program. I've not seen these well-educated whiz kids. I'm seeing homeschoolers easily compete in the knowledge department.

 

I'm not convinced the grass is greener anywhere else, especially in high school. JMHO,

Julie

Edited November 17, 2010 by Julie in MN

[Diviya]

Cathmom,

I know what you mean. It's something I think about, and it's why I'm not sure yet if we will homeschool high school (we have a ways to go yet :) )

in the best private high schools, most of the teachers are very knowledgeable, and passionate about their subjects. They can keep a discussion going, spark students' interests with interesting questions and connections, push students to realize their potential, inspire them, make them think and question their assumptions, things like that. That is what I want for my children, and I think that is what you are driving at, and I think that most people here actually agree with you (at least as far as educational goals).

But, that best private high school is not a possibility for many people. So then, the question becomes not "can you match or exceed the best private school?" but rather "can you do better at home than your best affordable option?" and it seems that the answer in many cases is yes. And in answering yes to that, the next question is how much knowledge do you as a parent need to do better. And there I think the answer is that more knowledge is always better, but you can still do a good job as a facilitator even with imperfect knowledge, as long as you recognize your limitations and try to compensate for them. In some cases it is not enough, but maybe even then, as long as you are honest with your children, they can get enough to get them to college and get what they really need there. If you have given them the academic skills, the content can come later.

Anyway, not sure if this was coherent, just wanted to let you know that somebody else feels as you do. And I'm not trying to put words in anyone else's mouth :)

[cathmom]

My perspective comes from having *started* homeschooling with a high schooler who went from being an A/B student to failing 9th grade, with no one bothering to notice until I started inquiring. (At the same time, I had an advanced 12, both grader and a little 1st grader, both still in the public schools.)

 

I immediately felt, and still feel, that a homeschool education is FAR superior to what I saw in public schools. Even looking back on my own public school education (in at least 8 different schools), and extending through all three of my children's public school experiences, in which I was closely involved, I am convinced that homeschooling can be and often is superior.

 

The amount of knowledge I saw in public high school teachers was not impressive to me, I'm sorry. First impressions might be good, but in the day-to-day I saw weak skills and even weaker methods of conveying those skills. I also saw busy teachers, overwhelmed teachers, punitive teachers, inexperienced teachers, rigid teachers, and teachers with their hands tied. The number of truly quality teachers/classes I have seen over the years can EASILY be outnumbered by the number of quality courses most homeschoolers are teaching their children over the years.

 

And from talking with the children who have been educated in public and private schools, the amount of knowledge they have actually absorbed is not as impressive as what I learn from talking to home educated kids. I have a lot of experience talking with kids, from being a "neighborhood mom" to being a Girl Scout leader to being a tutor in an international tutoring program. I've not seen these well-educated whiz kids. I'm seeing homeschoolers easily compete in the knowledge department.

 

I'm not convinced the grass is greener anywhere else, especially in high school. JMHO,

Julie

 

I would like to clarify that the Swedish "class" we took consisted of my dd, me, one other lady, and the teacher. It wasn't really a class.

 

I agree that in many cases, homeschooling is superior to public school. That isn't what I am talking about. Yes, there are teachers in schools who are not passionate, who don't care about their subject or their students. I think I what I do is already better than that. But I'm wondering if it could be better!

[cathmom]

Cathmom,

I know what you mean. It's something I think about, and it's why I'm not sure yet if we will homeschool high school (we have a ways to go yet :) )

in the best private high schools, most of the teachers are very knowledgeable, and passionate about their subjects. They can keep a discussion going, spark students' interests with interesting questions and connections, push students to realize their potential, inspire them, make them think and question their assumptions, things like that. That is what I want for my children, and I think that is what you are driving at, and I think that most people here actually agree with you (at least as far as educational goals).

But, that best private high school is not a possibility for many people. So then, the question becomes not "can you match or exceed the best private school?" but rather "can you do better at home than your best affordable option?" and it seems that the answer in many cases is yes. And in answering yes to that, the next question is how much knowledge do you as a parent need to do better. And there I think the answer is that more knowledge is always better, but you can still do a good job as a facilitator even with imperfect knowledge, as long as you recognize your limitations and try to compensate for them. In some cases it is not enough, but maybe even then, as long as you are honest with your children, they can get enough to get them to college and get what they really need there. If you have given them the academic skills, the content can come later.

Anyway, not sure if this was coherent, just wanted to let you know that somebody else feels as you do. And I'm not trying to put words in anyone else's mouth :)

 

I like the entire bolded part! Thanks for posting!

[memphispeg]

I thought about this as well, when I decided to homeschool my dd for her jr. and sr. highschool years. It is rather scary.

I would love to be able to "teach" her more but, I do not have the time to re-learn everything. What I could do though is research all the text books (thanks to this forum) and find the ones that best-suited my dd goals and learning style. The web is a marvel too for ferreting out curriculum schemes and actual work in most of the subjects. My one regret though is foreign language. She is taking one that I do not know, so we are doing the OSU german course. I just decided to let that be as it may be.

Around here, the best education and teachers are probably at the private schools. They are where all the best ps teachers end up once they've put in their time in the school system. They have fabulous expertise. If I had a choice money-wise and it was not so late in the game, I would have sent her there.

With my dd being older, she can learn to teach herself. If there are problems, we have been able to find web resources that answer them so far. We just cross our fingers and hope for the best. College is just around the corner so, learning to learn is what she should be doing.

[Michelle in AL]

I do think I know how you feel, if you can't afford the best options in homeschooling or master the subjects you'd like to teach then is public school better?

 

I think you have to look at the quality of schools and the students they turn out in your area. Yesterday was my first tutoring session with ps 4th grade. I was shocked by what my student didn't know: spelling was very creative and rudimentary, didn't know multiplication facts past x5 etc. The quality of the work they took home was OK for math, poor for other subjects. Would this translate into high school?

 

If you ask the kids around here, there are 2 good teachers at our high school. The rest are below par. The majority of the young adults in our community aren't the brightest. Your area may be different. After being exposed to ps yesterday though, I realized that I can do better than ps without outsourcing even. It takes some weekly, daily studying on my time, but I'm motivated to learn and I hope my kids see that and that it in turn motivates them.

[beaners]

 

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!

 

 

I don't think it's possible for all people, but I know that I personally have the potential for that level of mastery across all of the normal high school classes, if that is something I desire. At this point it is, but I have a solid decade between now and the time my first hits high school. My view on that may change a little over time, or it might not. I want to have that knowledge for the sake of my own curiosity in addition to the potential benefit it would offer my children, which makes me hope that I'll be less likely to abandon the idea.

[cathmom]

I do think I know how you feel, if you can't afford the best options in homeschooling or master the subjects you'd like to teach then is public school better?

 

 

 

Public school in my area is not better. I don't know what the "best options" in homeschooling would be. It seems to me that my best option and their best option is for me to expand my knowledge in every area.

[Renee in NC]

Public school in my area is not better. I don't know what the "best options" in homeschooling would be. It seems to me that my best option and their best option is for me to expand my knowledge in every area.

 

I think you may be right. I don't think it would be as difficult for you to do this, even with the time constraints.

[FaithManor]

Here is what science and math look like at our local public school and this info is directly from the assistant head of the math department:

 

75% of the students signed up for algebra 1 can not remember the process for dividing fractions and do not have their multiplication tables memorized. Most have very poor computational skills and are not capable of algebra 1 so they are given a credit of algebra 1 but are actually getting another round of remedial math and pre-algebra. Most of the kids that then go into geometry can't do algebra 1 so the geometry teacher explains proofs on the board (usually only one or two because there is so much class disruption and she has ZERO classroom control) and then gives the students the answers to their homework. So, everyone gets A's in homework which means if they fail tests, she weights it in such a way that they can still get a C. (Two years ago, the geometry teacher was let go - this person was very good - so that the district could then later say "oops we needed her" and hire the first newbie they could find with a math qualification and that person is not cut out for classroom teaching.)

 

He then inherits them for algebra 2. Of the 100 students, he will have 20 who can actually manage algebra 2. He made the unpopular decision to teach to the twenty that can and then offer tutoring after school for the others figuring that the 20 who can and are motivated should get his best and those that can't after two or three years of high school, probably aren't going to get it even if he dumbs down to their level anyway. So, he's under fire because so many of the students in his classes are failing. However, those that take him up on his offer of tutoring are at least getting solid algebra 1 skills and some geometry. He does give them credit for coming to tutoring and completing those assignments.

 

Many of the kids graduate with "junior high level" science. They take life science which is a really dumbed down class. Then physical science which has been sanitized to remove all math (so no converting even between units of measure), and then botany which is again, so basic that one does not need an ounce of chemistry to complete. Biology is offered and is closer to what high school biology used to be but many kids reject it because "it's too much work". He brought a life science exam home for his homeschooled kids to look at. His 4th grader aced the exam having never seen the text.

 

In lab based sciences, the kids are only in the lab once or twice per quarter because "lab skills aren't included in standardized tests" and the administration has dictated that kids don't need to understand science. The teachers just need to cover the vocabulary and give vocabulary only based tests....matching and multiple choice.

 

DD, as a junior, "taught" the chemistry and advanced chemistry classes for the local P.S. because the teacher assigned to it had a certification in science education but had been such a poor mathematician in college, managed to get this qualification without taking any math based science classes. She did not understand chemistry and openly acknowledged to the class that she could not teach it. Dd's best friend, a highly motivated and VERY FRUSTRATED college bound student, would bring her chemistry text to dd in the evenings. DD would teach her the material in the chapter and try to give her several ways to explain a problem. She would then give b.f. an "assignment" to give the class. Best friend would go to school the next day and "teach" her classmates. The teacher sat at the desk and either tried to do the work too, or did grading for other classes. The only responsibility the teacher had for the class was maintaining the gradebook and since all assignments were graded by best friend and dd, she literally only had to enter grades. DD got thank you notes from the other college bound kids in best friend's class because they really needed this class for their intended majors and were afraid they'd fail college chem without the background. I don't know if the principal knew about it but I find this so ridiculous and outrageous that there aren't words for it. Oh, dd did not get a thank you note from the teacher.

 

At least in our area, having a "qualified" teacher assigned to the class does not mean any real learning will take place or that this individual is actually capable of teaching the material. Unless a person has some stellar, preparatory, serious charter school or can afford a private prep school, the student is far better off at home with a parent who cares and who has taught that child how to learn and provides a really good curriculum to guide them through the material. As long as there is progress and a schedule in place to cover the material, ie. the parent isn't lazy and is focused on helping the child succeed and not "unschooling" in it's loosest sense, then in my estimation homeschooling has to be better even when the parents aren't expert enough to teach all of the material.

 

Faith

[JenC3]

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

__________________

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.

 

I think critical thinking instruction is the key to any humanities instruction. The logic stage offeres the opportunity to lay down a CT foundation and then the further instruction/application should come in the HS years.

After 8 years of studying history I will feel pretty confident with the HS cycle.

 

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.

 

I completely agree. My HS math teacher were terrible and I'm relearning math right now from the bottom up. That said I will only be able to get my 3 through Algebra and my dh can get them through trig. I'm also lucky that my MIL has an MA in Math and can teach them college level math in HS.

 

 

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.

Right. It seems that cathmom is trying to provide a college education, for mastery in one's subject is not usually attained at the HS teacher's level, even one with an MA, since that MA is usually an Ed degree, not in the subject area.

 

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 fortunate that my dh has a Ph.D in English, my MIL has one in math, and my BIL's background is in the sciences. Also if my dc need an area of HS expertise that I, dh, or MIL can't provide, I will outsource. One of my main concerns is to teach them how to learn and to read and write well and to understand mathematics. One can delve into higher science and history if the foundation is covered. I did very well in history in college and almost double majored, yet I barely remember my hs ed in history.

[Guest Barb B]

[ 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!

 

Yes, I know I think I know what you mean. My ds (12th) is most likely majoring in engineering. Thankfully, we have a science teacher in town who is an expert in the field and for most of his science he has gone there (expect physics we did at home). Now in 12th grade she is overseeing him doing a "senior research" project. I am so thankful for this!

 

All the other subjects I have done at home. I wish I had a bachelor's understanding of Math, English, spanish . . . My response to this feeling is to go through all the subjects my dc do. So, my son is now reading Hamlet - so am I. Ds is in calculus - I read and do the textbook problems too (no way I could grade his tests if I didn't lol). Is this the perfect way to educate - by no means. But I have realized it is the best I can do and since I know my dc better then any outside teacher would - I believe that is still is the best way.

 

So, I will not bog down the post with examples from our homeschooling experience. But to answer your thought that no one must feel the same way - YES! I do. My consolation is that I know that the public high school he would go to - the teachers don't have any more knowledge then I and sometimes it is painfully obvious that they don't know how to teach what they do know.

 

Barb

[NineChoirs]

Originally Posted by Diviya

Cathmom,

I know what you mean. It's something I think about, and it's why I'm not sure yet if we will homeschool high school (we have a ways to go yet :) )

in the best private high schools, most of the teachers are very knowledgeable, and passionate about their subjects. They can keep a discussion going, spark students' interests with interesting questions and connections, push students to realize their potential, inspire them, make them think and question their assumptions, things like that. That is what I want for my children, and I think that is what you are driving at, and I think that most people here actually agree with you (at least as far as educational goals).

But, that best private high school is not a possibility for many people. So then, the question becomes not "can you match or exceed the best private school?" but rather "can you do better at home than your best affordable option?" and it seems that the answer in many cases is yes. And in answering yes to that, the next question is how much knowledge do you as a parent need to do better. And there I think the answer is that more knowledge is always better, but you can still do a good job as a facilitator even with imperfect knowledge, as long as you recognize your limitations and try to compensate for them. In some cases it is not enough, but maybe even then, as long as you are honest with your children, they can get enough to get them to college and get what they really need there. If you have given them the academic skills, the content can come later.

Anyway, not sure if this was coherent, just wanted to let you know that somebody else feels as you do. And I'm not trying to put words in anyone else's mouth :)

 

 

 

I like the entire bolded part! Thanks for posting!

 

:iagree:

Edited November 17, 2010 by NineChoirs

[Michelle in AL]

Khan Academy really helps me study subjects in order to teach my kids, especially in science.

[FloridaLisa]

Cathmom,

I know what you mean. It's something I think about, and it's why I'm not sure yet if we will homeschool high school (we have a ways to go yet :) )

in the best private high schools, most of the teachers are very knowledgeable, and passionate about their subjects. They can keep a discussion going, spark students' interests with interesting questions and connections, push students to realize their potential, inspire them, make them think and question their assumptions, things like that. That is what I want for my children, and I think that is what you are driving at, and I think that most people here actually agree with you (at least as far as educational goals).

But, that best private high school is not a possibility for many people. So then, the question becomes not "can you match or exceed the best private school?" but rather "can you do better at home than your best affordable option?" and it seems that the answer in many cases is yes. And in answering yes to that, the next question is how much knowledge do you as a parent need to do better. And there I think the answer is that more knowledge is always better, but you can still do a good job as a facilitator even with imperfect knowledge, as long as you recognize your limitations and try to compensate for them. In some cases it is not enough, but maybe even then, as long as you are honest with your children, they can get enough to get them to college and get what they really need there. If you have given them the academic skills, the content can come later.

Anyway, not sure if this was coherent, just wanted to let you know that somebody else feels as you do. And I'm not trying to put words in anyone else's mouth :)

 

You know, (and I'm not directing this necessarily to you Diviya, but to this entire discussion), I think that the *best private school* is in every practical reality, an ideal. I've known some excellent, excellent private schools. But none were perfect. There are always disadvantages and imperfections to each option and choosing one means that you forfeit something else. Also part of the consideration for our family has been the multitude of qualities outside of academics that it takes to grow a young person into the adult.

 

 

Lisa

Edited November 18, 2010 by FloridaLisa
Hate seeing my typos in a block quote.

[Diviya]

You know, (and I'm not directing this necessarily to you Diviya, but to this entire discussion), I think that the *best private school* is in every practical reality, an ideal. I've known some excellent, excellent private schools. But none were perfect. There are always disadvantages and imperfections to each option and choosing one means that you forfeit something else. Also part of the consideration for our family has been the multitude of qualities outside of academics that is takes to grow a young person into the adult.

 

 

Lisa

 

Yes, I absolutely agree.

[Guest normapomero]

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.

 

----------

The Eiffel Tower Telephone

Edited November 24, 2010 by normapomero

[LoriM]

After reading this thread, I just wanted to comment that I long for the days when I home schooled (the girls are 18-sophomore in college and 21-married/graduate from college now), although I teach full-time in a terrific private school, with brilliant colleagues who are masters of their material. What is missing is that parent-child connection...a shared passion for life, learning and language. Most of my students have such a different life-focus than my own family does/did, it is impossible to teach at the level of "expertise" that is being discussed here. When students leave school each day and head off to cheerleading practice for 3-4 hours, or two different sports team practices, or even (sigh) spend their entire evening playing role-playing games, no amount of brilliance of instruction overcomes that.

 

I think what you are ignoring is the trinity (she says tongue-in-cheek to a Catholic mom!) of teacher-material-STUDENT. Education occurs with beauty and truth when the three are in harmony and focus. Yes, a teacher must work to facilitate understanding and clarity of material, using good information from a variety of experts with a strong breadth and depth of study in the field...but a student must ENGAGE, and I think that happens better in homeschooling or tutorial/ mentoring education than nearly anywhere.

 

Yet I persevere.

 

Off to teach,

 

LoriM

[Renee in NC]

After reading this thread, I just wanted to comment that I long for the days when I home schooled (the girls are 18-sophomore in college and 21-married/graduate from college now), although I teach full-time in a terrific private school, with brilliant colleagues who are masters of their material. What is missing is that parent-child connection...a shared passion for life, learning and language. Most of my students have such a different life-focus than my own family does/did, it is impossible to teach at the level of "expertise" that is being discussed here. When students leave school each day and head off to cheerleading practice for 3-4 hours, or two different sports team practices, or even (sigh) spend their entire evening playing role-playing games, no amount of brilliance of instruction overcomes that.

 

I think what you are ignoring is the trinity (she says tongue-in-cheek to a Catholic mom!) of teacher-material-STUDENT. Education occurs with beauty and truth when the three are in harmony and focus. Yes, a teacher must work to facilitate understanding and clarity of material, using good information from a variety of experts with a strong breadth and depth of study in the field...but a student must ENGAGE, and I think that happens better in homeschooling or tutorial/ mentoring education than nearly anywhere.

 

Yet I persevere.

 

Off to teach,

 

LoriM

 

I would agree. I am obviously not a homeschooling mom to my 3 elementary age dc anymore, and next year my 12yo will go to school. Even so, we will still be a homeschool family in spirit, because you can't get away from that when it has been your entire life for 8 years. So, maybe, just maybe, some of mine will be that engaged student, because we will still be learning, experiencing, and loving the same way we have in the past (just with less stress on Mom!)

[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.

 

I find it fascinating that several are making this distinction, as though by the very situation of having an engaged teacher who knows his or her topic thoroughly means that a student is not learning how to learn. I don't think those are mutually exclusive.

 

 

I think what you are ignoring is the trinity (she says tongue-in-cheek to a Catholic mom!) of teacher-material-STUDENT. Education occurs with beauty and truth when the three are in harmony and focus. Yes, a teacher must work to facilitate understanding and clarity of material, using good information from a variety of experts with a strong breadth and depth of study in the field...but a student must ENGAGE, and I think that happens better in homeschooling or tutorial/ mentoring education than nearly anywhere.

 

 

 

Thanks for your comments! I wouldn't look at it as "ignoring the student's role" but as "considering the role of the homeschooling parent in more depth" - just as it's possible to do an indepth study of the role of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, without feeling like by doing so one is ignoring God the Father and God the Son. I completely agree that the model of homeschooling/tutoring/mentoring most likely has the best outcomes. I have also taught high school, so I know where you are coming from. One of the very biggest arguments for homeschooling is that it separates the learning from all the other issues at school: fashion, friends, lunch period at 10 AM, bullying, trying to be "cool" by not taking things seriously, etc.

 

I was thinking also that, since I don't have the breakdown of my dc's ages in my signature, people may not realize that my children are basically in 3 sets: my oldest, who is in college, then my two girls, who are middle school/beginning high school, and then my four younger dc, the oldest of whom only just turned 7. I have a good many more years of homeschooling my dc, and I live rurally, and we don't have much extra money. So, for my situation, in order to give my dc the best education I can, this makes sense. It may not make sense for others to consider doing this if they have other options or their dc are nearly grown.

 

On a "what can I do right now?" level, I plan to:

 

1. Read the entire text for Physical Science that my current high schooler just started.

2. Outline a course of study equivalent to a bachelor's degree in Biology, which is most likely the area that she's interested in majoring in, and begin learning the material and reading widely in the field.

3. When I get my tax refund, I plan to buy the next several levels of MUS, so I can watch through them to refresh my math memory.

4. Consider starting a blog to chronicle my efforts LOL.

 

That will get me started, filling in the main holes that I have. Thank you all for your thoughts on this thread!

[creekland]

Originally Posted by normapomero

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.

 

I find it fascinating that several are making this distinction, as though by the very situation of having an engaged teacher who knows his or her topic thoroughly means that a student is not learning how to learn. I don't think those are mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive, but what I'm seeing from the vast majority of students in ps where I work now is that most students will only learn if the info is spoon fed to them. Then they only want to learn what is going to be on the test. If it's "too hard" they won't care and won't make an effort of any sort. These aren't "academically challenged" kids, they are smart and capable, but the system and life over the years has conditioned them to have short attention spans and little desire to actually learn much - especially if their interest is low.

 

My son actually reported that one girl in his French class never does the homework or studies and is proud of her "C." She told him she didn't want an A because she didn't want people to think she was a geeky nerd. I was a little concerned about the peer pressure with that, but at the moment, my son is relishing being a geeky nerd. However, he said that there isn't a single.other.student in his French class that actually takes a good interest and seriously wants to learn the language. I asked him if it were a teacher issue (boring, or whatever) and he said, "definitely not." Some do what is needed to get an A, of course, but even of those, kids often only care about the grade, not the actual learning.

 

The boys said there were two new girls that joined the chess team yesterday in practice. I asked if they liked chess or were good at it and was told, no. My boys overheard them telling others that they merely wanted a sports letter to go on their jacket and to have an ec to put on college apps. One is totally new to chess. The other is almost new to it. Neither is likely to get a letter as you have to be on the competitive team for that (just 5 students allowed - determined by games), but I'm sure it'll still go on their college apps.

 

It's a whole 'nother world in my high school from what I experienced 30 years ago. In my high school classes we got together to study (unheard of here) and often had to do research outside of class to complete assignments. This was in the day when that meant asking for a ride to the library - even a nearby college library a couple of times. That's all unheard of now too. Research is done in class using the internet. Writing is usually done in class too. (All subjects.) My son very rarely has homework of any sort and certainly doesn't need to find a study group to belong to. He finds the tests so easy that he rarely needs to study.

 

It's no surprise that most graduates of our ps have troubles when they go to college - even cc.

 

And our school tends to be average for our state. Our state tends to be average for our country. Our scores come in slightly below average for college bound students, but just slightly. If you listen to the admin or local parents, our high school is VERY good...

[cathmom]

Forgot to add...

 

I'm also thinking of putting together a high school "works in progress" group, where both the parents and the students would get together to discuss what they've been learning, make presentations, etc. I think once a month would be good. Ideally the parents would have a range of specialties, so that each one could be the "moderator" for that subject.

[Laughingmommy]

They won't understand that I've given my entire life to move my children from trailer-park poverty to Parnassus in one generation.

 

Your whole post was so moving, I had my husband come and read it, too. So poetic, too.

 

Thanks,

Pei

[Laughingmommy]

Thanks for this thread, the discussion has been very interesting.

 

My kids are young still (10, 8, 2, 1), but here I am on the high school board, precisely because I'm aware that preparation for later requires an enormous amount of planning and learning on my part. I just started teaching the kids more formally a couple of months ago, and in this short amount of time, I see very clearly that the kind of academic education I envisioned for them originally (one that was engaging, interesting, fun, and better than whatever they would get in public or private school) isn't going to cut it. Their visions of their own futures require much more than that. They have clarity of mind and intention that dismisses their education being just better than so-so. They really want to learn.

 

Perhaps I will always play catch-up with them. And that's a great thing. To me, it would be a sign that their earlier education took them further than my reach. And while I recognize that I can't be everything to everyone (when it comes to homeschooling), I would still like to try my very best. I do feel like I'm here to facilitate their education. Properly facilitating an education requires that I have enough expert knowledge to make good choices. This is a lame example, but my kids taught themselves to read. I facilitated by carefully monitoring what they were doing and how. I also made sure resources were available to them. It would've been easier, I think, if I had just taught them myself. Then I would have a "curriculum" and a way to help them through difficulties directly. As a facilitator, my hands were really tied. I had to read their minds, almost, in order to figure out whether they were having trouble, and what that trouble might be. Likewise, I imagine that for more advanced subject matters coming up in high school, I'll need to be much more expert than merely familiar with high school materials. Facilitating requires far more thinking and guessing. Students don't always know why they're having difficulty or sometimes even that they are having difficulty. They will figure it out enough by college, maybe even by the time they tackle community college. Before then, I think active observation is really necessary, and that requires my having enough academic knowledge to evaluate what I observe.

 

But that's just me, inexperienced homeschooler with really sensitive kids.

 

Pei

[cathmom]

Thanks for this thread, the discussion has been very interesting.

 

 

Perhaps I will always play catch-up with them. And that's a great thing. To me, it would be a sign that their earlier education took them further than my reach. And while I recognize that I can't be everything to everyone (when it comes to homeschooling), I would still like to try my very best. I do feel like I'm here to facilitate their education. Properly facilitating an education requires that I have enough expert knowledge to make good choices. This is a lame example, but my kids taught themselves to read. I facilitated by carefully monitoring what they were doing and how. I also made sure resources were available to them. It would've been easier, I think, if I had just taught them myself. Then I would have a "curriculum" and a way to help them through difficulties directly. As a facilitator, my hands were really tied. I had to read their minds, almost, in order to figure out whether they were having trouble, and what that trouble might be. Likewise, I imagine that for more advanced subject matters coming up in high school, I'll need to be much more expert than merely familiar with high school materials. Facilitating requires far more thinking and guessing. Students don't always know why they're having difficulty or sometimes even that they are having difficulty. They will figure it out enough by college, maybe even by the time they tackle community college. Before then, I think active observation is really necessary, and that requires my having enough academic knowledge to evaluate what I observe.

 

But that's just me, inexperienced homeschooler with really sensitive kids.

 

Pei

 

That's interesting. You are describing a lot of what a Montessori teacher does (I've done extensive reading on Montessori). They are always actively observing the dc in their class, so that they can present new materials/lessons at the correct or appropriate time for that child.

[Jenny in GA]

I've only read some of the replies, and I've never had a teenaged child.

 

But my response is, "Umm ... were my high school teachers "experts in their field"?? Are you kidding me!??

 

For US History, about once every 2-3 weeks, the teacher would write a list of terms on the board and tell us to copy the definitions out of the book. We spent the vast majority of our time doing "fill in the blank" worksheets. We were told to read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. I was almost the only person in the class who actually read it. We were given one ten-question T/F test on it. That was it. The book was never discussed in any way, with the teacher or with each other. We never were asked to even write a single sentence about it or our thoughts on it.

 

Yeah, a real history expert there!

 

I could go on, but I won't. Oh, and this was a supposedly top-rated high school.

[cathmom]

I've only read some of the replies, and I've never had a teenaged child.

 

But my response is, "Umm ... were my high school teachers "experts in their field"?? Are you kidding me!??

 

For US History, about once every 2-3 weeks, the teacher would write a list of terms on the board and tell us to copy the definitions out of the book. We spent the vast majority of our time doing "fill in the blank" worksheets. We were told to read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. I was almost the only person in the class who actually read it. We were given one ten-question T/F test on it. That was it. The book was never discussed in any way, with the teacher or with each other. We never were asked to even write a single sentence about it or our thoughts on it.

 

Yeah, a real history expert there!

 

I could go on, but I won't. Oh, and this was a supposedly top-rated high school.

 

From the OP:

 

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.

[Cabertmom]

I find myself agreeing with many different posters in this thread and feeling the agony of so many as well. Just a few random thoughts to add if I may....

 

There is no way that any one human being will ever be an expert in everything, and everything (the sum total of human knowledge) is so much vaster now than it was even 100 years ago in some senses at least. That said, I find myself constantly in a dilemma regarding not only what I should know but also what my children should be learning. Like CathMom said, I don't want to limit my children, but isn't it also somehow limiting to spend hours each week on an Apologia Biology textbook (for example) that makes it impossible for my teenaged daughter to have enough time to pursue her pretty amazing ability to come up with completely new forms of arts and crafts, like crocheting in 3D the first time she picked up a crochet hook? I'm not saying that 3D crocheting is particularly important in the greater scheme of things, but having time to pursue one's own interests deeply, whatever they may be, is important. And there's only a finite number of hours in a day or a week or until the SAT tests or college or life-after-college.

 

I am reminded distinctly of the difference between two people whom I know well. The first is an organist. He knew at the age of 4 that he wanted to be an organist when he grew up. He knew it when his father, a professional violinist, asked him to play an A on the organ, and he first sat on the bench of that grand instrument and beheld it up close and personal. He is now a very successful professional organist who went to a music conservatory and won't ski or do several other things because he could injure his fingers. His art is his life, and it brings him joy.

 

On the other hand, someone else I know well, at least equally brilliant, has held a wide variety of positions and was always happy doing each one. He is interested in everything and seems to "get" everything with ease. He has several strong interests but delves deeply into whatever he is doing at the time with passion, yet he is also happy to move onto something else.

 

Each of these is a model for a good way to lead life, but what is not possible as far as I can tell is to have the single-mindedness of the organist along with the broad-spectrum knowledge of "everything." No one has the time and few people have the ability for the type of indepth study of everything that my friend, the organist, attained.

 

So we have to choose, and I'm not talking about us as homeschooling parents. Rather, I'm talking about the children under our care. There is a certain amount of knowledge that everyone ideally would have in order to be a well-educated individual in all sorts of areas, but how much is that? And what happens if it gets in the way of the ability to delve deeply into one or two or three areas of deep interest?

 

If Brother Mendel had not had time to putter in his garden, we might be a few hundred years less knowledgeable about genetics.

 

If Edison hadn't failed school and had a mother who gave him the basement to use as a lab, I probably wouldn't be writing this at 9:38 at night.

 

I guess I'm arguing for the delving deeply model; yet, partially out of fear, our family continues to live the jack-of-all-trades model with my children, and that frustrates me a lot. The love of learning spark is going out of my 15-year-old's eyes as she aims just to get done before dinner time with all the stuff she is loaded down with.

 

At the same time, it isn't possible to know what one finds deeply interesting until one has at least a rudimentary knowledge of many different areas of knowledge--unless you happen to climb onto an organ bench at age 4.

 

As for the question of high school experts, my husband teaches at a private high school, and he is an expert in his field--one who is passionate about what he teaches and seeks to help his students learn, but he is so often frustrated by the students who just want to know what's going to be on the test because that is the model they have been taught, explicitly or implicitly--that the only learning that counts is learning that will be regurgitated on a test and then forgotten so they can get a decent grade and move on.

 

Over and over again, I see homeschoolers who put their kids in school, hoping that the high ideals they have for their children's education will be better met by someone else, finding that they aren't, taking them out of school, and repeating the cycle, never quite satisfied.

 

For now, we will keep homeschooling. Maybe someday the line dividing the real and the ideal in our educational endeavors won't be so broad. Meanwhile, we'll keep plugging along.

[GMB]

At present, my evolving homeschool paradigm is best described by a quote attributed to Frances Bacon: "We never understand a thing so well, and make it our own, as when we have discovered it for ourselves."

 

I see my role as facilitating the discovery process, but I recognize that I cannot force discovery to happen. A Calculus professor was present when I discovered a love of mathematics as a college freshman. Although part of my discovery environment, he was not the cause. Decades later, I have a plan to take dd14 straight through Calculus. I have successful-but-brief experience teaching middle school, high school, and college math classes. I was once a paid tutor. Yet dd14 does not love math and resists teaching and tutoring from me. Second semester Algebra 1 proceeds slowly! I want to force discovery to happen, but I'm powerless.

 

I suspect that parental expertise does not necessarily guarantee optimal student learning. Similarly, I suspect that lack of parental expertise does not necessarily guarantee poor student learning. Optimal learning environments probably vary by family, but I surmise that none require parental expertise across all, or most, subject areas.

 

Apologies if this not coherent: I am up way past bedtime on a work night!