Is 2 hours of daily academics enough for normal kids?

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

:iagree:

 

And I do care, just as I care about failing schools.

 

Bill

 

 

Bill, how do the conversations about poor educational situations sound in Public School World? Is the subject as taboo as it is among homeschoolers? We've lost all ability to compare in Homeschool World. The right to do a good or poor job is sacrosanct. I get the impression that ps'ers can't talk about it, either, for different reasons. What is your experience?

 

Back to the topic: I've been thinking about this thread all evening. Today, for example, my oldest son and I spent an hour reviewing an Algebra lesson. That's after he studied the lesson, watched a video on the topic at Khan Academy, and labored over problems for over an hour. He got most of the problems correct, but needed some serious talk-at-the-blackboard time concerning the missed concepts. That's normal for us. Not every day, or I'd think he wasn't ready for this course, but often enough that I'd never say he could do math in 20 minutes per day.

 

#3 son wanted to talk about comparing Aztec human sacrifice, Jewish animal sacrifice, and Christian spiritual sacrifice for half an hour today. He is 10 years old. If the mother in the OP spent that time, her child would be left only 1.5 more hours to have read the book about Aztecs in the first place, not to mention all the other subjects. Impossible!

[Pamela H in Texas]

I want to say that it isn't that I don't care. I simply don't believe it's my business (where, btw, I do think public schools are all of our business). But I do care about ALL children. I want at least good enough, if not the best, for all. But I don't get to decide what that is for other families.

 

Additionally, most people consider Calvert to be a pretty full curriculum, not quite classical; but definitely on par to above public schools. The Swann family all used this curriculum for 1st through 8th grades. They then used correspondence schools for high school and college. The family schooled three hours per day daily. The first seven children had their Master's degrees by age 16 (I'm not sure about the last three, but they were all in college as young teens).

 

So fewer hours doesn't mean they are lacking an education just like it doesn't mean someone pushed for their child to graduate early. In fact, many kids are held back to some degree even if they do graduate early. Never missing a single lesson, much less skipping a grade probably means that Swann kids were held back to some degree rather than pushed. My own daughter also was held back by our choices yet graduated early (and didn't to nearly as much formal school time as most kids represented on these boards).

 

Anyway, so it just depends. A LOT.

[catz]

 

#3 son wanted to talk about comparing Aztec human sacrifice, Jewish animal sacrifice, and Christian spiritual sacrifice for half an hour today. He is 10 years old. If the mother in the OP spent that time, her child would be left only 1.5 more hours to have read the book about Aztecs in the first place, not to mention all the other subjects. Impossible!

 

But for me, I wouldn't count this conversation as "school". We have conversations like this at our house all the time and that's just life. So I'm wondering if the OP is referring to a family like this? I saw after the fact that she was referring to ages 10+. I'm going to up my 5th grader's work load this fall, but not in a crazy way. A little more assigned reading, a little more independent science of some kind (TBD). I feel like 7th grade/age 12 is where we'll start making some bigger jumps in work load.

[Teachin'Mine]

I have heard more than one hs mother say her perfectly normal child (middle elementary school through High School) is being challenged by only 2 hours (maximum) of academics a day. These are not families in crisis or children with physical, mental, or emotional challenges.

 

How do you respond to this?

 

The poll was about a 10 yo and for that age, I think that it's absolutely reasonable to provide academically challenging work within two hours of formal school time. IMO, at younger ages especially, a lot of learning happens other than during formal schooling times. I'm assuming that this child would be reading on their own and going on field trips and in other ways pursuing interests. I think it would be much harder to fathom that a high schooler is challenged by only 2 hours of schooling. In one or two subjects - yes, but not across the board. One subject alone can take two hours. But we've met quite a few homeschoolers in high school doing two hours or less.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

But for me, I wouldn't count this conversation as "school". We have conversations like this at our house all the time and that's just life. So I'm wondering if the OP is referring to a family like this? I saw after the fact that she was referring to ages 10+. I'm going to up my 5th grader's work load this fall, but not in a crazy way. A little more assigned reading, a little more independent science of some kind (TBD). I feel like 7th grade/age 12 is where we'll start making some bigger jumps in work load.

 

So the assigned reading would be counted as 'school' but the related discussions, maps, extended research, etc. would not? Would a related writing assignment be counted as school, then?

 

Obviously, it comes down to teaching style as much as anything else. In my family, the part where we talk everything to death is the largest part of our homeschool. They have daily assignment sheets to work through on their own, and then I have one-on-one discussion periods with each. They are actually learning the most when we discuss their lessons, both by gathering additional information from me and by turning the topic over in their minds until they are able to share their own thoughts.

[Jenny in GA]

Coming back to this thread and just had another thought:

 

When I was in high school, I knew some people who were on a "work-study" program their junior or senior year (I couldn't do this myself because I didn't have a car.)

 

I remember specifically one girl I was friendly with, for example, who came to school every morning and took two classes: Senior English and Chorus. She then drove to her part-time job. I don't think the employer was tied into any course or was directly related to the school in any way; it was just a part-time job.

 

This girl graduated just fine and went to college and graduated college.

 

I'm not really trying to make a point one way or the other. I just suddenly remembered it while reading this thread and thought I'd throw it out there.

[Parrothead]

I'm with the not my business camp, but I'm also of the mind that if the child is at grade level and doing well it doesn't reflect badly on homeschooling in general.

 

I also think there are too many variables to your question. Two hours in second grade should be plenty. Two hours at one of the high school level, probably not enough time. Then again, if a high schooler has no intention of going to college, is possibly gifted in one of the arts and gets 2 hours of formal academic instruction with homework done in his own time it may be enough. Too many variables.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Parrothead

[Rosy]

I would not address it with someone who wasn't interested in my opinion, but no, that isn't enough.

 

It might be enough to meet high school diploma requirements, but the question was whether a 10+ year old child can be adequately challenged in all necessary subject areas in 2 hours or less. I personally believe that any student over 6th grade should be spending a bare minimum of 30 min a day on math until they've finished at least pre-calc. They should also be reading 30 min a day minimally, not including content subject reading. That leaves 1 hour for everything else, and again, that's an extremely bare minimum.

 

The only exception I can see is if a high school student opted to spend his/her last 2 years at the skills center learning a trade. But it doesn't sound like that's what the OP is talking about.

 

I can also see allowing a student to only do 2 hours of formal schooling a day if they were a "true unschooler"--someone who spent his/her time learning through life--volunteering, gardening, reading quality books for pleasure, interning, studying animal specimens, etc and did minimal video games or TV watching. It wouldn't be my first choice for my kids, but I would consider that a viable educational option.

[texasmama]

I do not agree with this practice for my own kids, and I would not respond because these are someone else's kids.

[Geo]

I've got all I can worry about right here at home.

 

I'd probably just give the mom the fakey smile I'm giving to the whole world these days.

 

You too, huh? :001_rolleyes:

[Rosy]

Additionally, most people consider Calvert to be a pretty full curriculum, not quite classical; but definitely on par to above public schools. The Swann family all used this curriculum for 1st through 8th grades. They then used correspondence schools for high school and college. The family schooled three hours per day daily. The first seven children had their Master's degrees by age 16 (I'm not sure about the last three, but they were all in college as young teens).

 

So fewer hours doesn't mean they are lacking an education just like it doesn't mean someone pushed for their child to graduate early. In fact, many kids are held back to some degree even if they do graduate early. Never missing a single lesson, much less skipping a grade probably means that Swann kids were held back to some degree rather than pushed. My own daughter also was held back by our choices yet graduated early (and didn't to nearly as much formal school time as most kids represented on these boards).

 

Anyway, so it just depends. A LOT.

But (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't the Swanns school through summer? 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 days a year is way different than 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, 36 days a year. If I'm right, the Swanns would be schooling over twice as much as the hypothetical family we're discussing. And the OP said "less than" 2 hrs/day, which could possibly mean an hour or less some days.

[Karenciavo]

my response is pass the bean dip unless they ask my opinion.

[chiguirre]

I personally believe that any student over 6th grade should be spending a bare minimum of 30 min a day on math until they've finished at least pre-calc. They should also be reading 30 min a day minimally, not including content subject reading. That leaves 1 hour for everything else, and again, that's an extremely bare minimum.

 

 

If you allowed history or science reading in that 30 minutes, you may well be able to get a decent education in 2 hours a day. If you also do a lot of extracurriculars and field trips and spend your tv time with documentaries and science shows, you might be able to get a very solid education. It depends on the kid and the family environment.

[Laurie4b]

I voted other because it depends on the age of the child and what you call "schooling."

 

In the early years (through say 3rd grade), I would say it is plenty in terms of "sit down for school time." I would still assume outside reading and enrichment activities, though not necessarily structured. It's a ridiculous figure by high school of course. In between, it increases some each year.

 

When my oldest was young, I felt a little guilty about not doing more than a couple hours of formal schooling, but later realized that activities he was doing instead (creating elaborate dramas with his Playmobils, for instance) was laying the groundwork for academics (writing in the case of the Playmobils. I would overhear him say things, like, " 'Walk the plank me hearty, " said the captain gruffly.' "

[Live2Ride]

I personally do not feel that you can give a solid basis with only two hours a day if you are only doing 5 days a week. I think those that do spend little time, have children that are spending their time doing other learning and studying on their own...to me someone saying that they only spent 2 hours total each day and that's it, seems a bit unreal...especially if their kids are just vegging the rest of the day. That seems unproductive to me and not what homeschooling is about.

[Night Elf]

I chose other. What some homeschoolers choose to do should not reflect on all homeschooling anymore than someone's bad parenting choices reflect on all parents.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

You too, huh? :001_rolleyes:

 

Yeah. It isn't very attractive but I can't seem to help it. I'm in an unshakeable funk!

[Spy Car]

Bill, how do the conversations about poor educational situations sound in Public School World? Is the subject as taboo as it is among homeschoolers?

 

Not at all. Of course the nature of the conversations shift depending on whether one is in a very good school, an average school, a bad school, or somewhere in between.

 

But there is a lot of talk about schools. Most parents at our school are very satisfied with the education there and, I am the odd-ball. Not to say I'm not happy (I am) but I have higher standards.

 

We've lost all ability to compare in Homeschool World. The right to do a good or poor job is sacrosanct. I get the impression that ps'ers can't talk about it, either, for different reasons. What is your experience?

 

With the parents I know in our area (which is mostly successful middle to upper middle class types) the comparisons (among schools) is almost obsessive. Even wondering which teacher one might get for next year causes some anxiety (ask me how I know :D).

 

I doubt many parents (but perhaps a few) compare the schools with what home schoolers are doing. However home schooling is (from my perception) being seen as a more and more of a "mainstream" option these days, rather than the strange fundamentalist-type lifestyle it once was.

 

I just think few PS parents are aware of the educational options we all enjoy. Most parents who feel the need to supplement find a book at Barnes and Noble, or add Kumon, or farm-out the job.

 

I have tried to turn people on to some of the good stuff, but really haven't had any takers.

 

Bill

Edited July 28, 2011 by Spy Car

[chepyl]

My son could complete first/second grade level work in one hour or less last year. He was five and would have been in prek by ps standards. When we got to adding/subtracting 2-3 digit numbers, I had him do 4 problems a day. It took less than 10 minutes. I will have to limit HOM this year because I do not want him into algebra too early.

 

He also finishes his other work early. I work him 1-2 years "ahead" but I also try to slow him down. If he is still like this In a few years, 4 hours will have him out of high school too early for me.

 

Is he challenged? Somewhat, but I was never really challenged academically until my master's program. It depends on the student and I would not judge unless I knew the kid.

[Rosy]

If you allowed history or science reading in that 30 minutes, you may well be able to get a decent education in 2 hours a day. If you also do a lot of extracurriculars and field trips and spend your tv time with documentaries and science shows, you might be able to get a very solid education. It depends on the kid and the family environment.

I was thinking that 30 min would be for English. And I would count all of those things you listed as school to some degree. Not necessarily an ideal education, but still an education. I did address unschooling in my post.

[Night Elf]

But (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't the Swanns school through summer? 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 days a year is way different than 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, 36 days a year. If I'm right, the Swanns would be schooling over twice as much as the hypothetical family we're discussing. And the OP said "less than" 2 hrs/day, which could possibly mean an hour or less some days.

 

Actually, they schooled 6 days a week. I think holidays were days off, but I don't think they took like a week or more at any time. I just gave the book away so I can't check it.

[Ester Maria]

Didn't the Swanns only do 3 hours per day? They certainly seemed to give their children a HS education superior to what many (if not most) HS families do without spending 6-7 hours per day at it.

Actually, I am not sure about the details in their case, so I cannot comment on that.

 

What I do know that I personally cannot have my children work less than six hours daily. That is the minimum, seriously.

 

The last time I did Bible with my middle daughter it took us nearly two hours to get through two chapters of Biblical text. This is a very bright child. The text is in Hebrew, alongside it there is a regular Israeli textbook which breaks it down with guided reading questions, plus we have a few layers of commentaries. The kid has some language difficulties - we go over the text, dictionary, paraphrase it into modern Hebrew. She gets stuck. I have her translate, I see what is her problem, have her analyze the sentence, it clicks. We go back to paraphrasing it into modern Hebrew. I make sure we have a primary understanding of the text, the literal one. A pause to have a drink. Then we do the guided questions. She has problems articulating her thoughts in Hebrew. She is good with technical, find-the-quote type of questions, but gets stuck on intra-Biblical connections, does not recognize earlier things. We go over some other parts of the text, make some connections, I mentally kick myself for God knows which time for not having done this Bible thing properly in the earlier years which is why it is so hard for her to recall the details they insist on. Done with the review questions, some time to discuss, I even allow her to switch the language the get the most out of her, conceptually, on the highest level of personal understanding she can attain, though I still help her formulate it in Hebrew. Nearly two hours passed, I kid you not - and this is a bright child.

 

Now, mind you, we do not do Hebrew every day, nor does it get this intense every time we do. But if I want her to actually understand the text rather than just breeze through factual comprehension questions (the lowest level of knowledge), I cannot not have her go through this process once a week or so, and even assign some of that for her own work. Hebrew alone in this scheme would eat up an entire day's worth of schooling.

 

Last time I did literature with the other kid it was also pretty much two hours straight, and she had the material prepared in advance. Went through the text mentally and its main landmarks, discussed the form, got to the content, isolated the idea and discussed other instances in which we met it and how it seems to have evolved over the time, compared it in the classical Western philosophical tradition with the Judaic one, went through all sorts of rabbit trails along the way, and before we knew, two hours were gone in that mixed literature / philosophy session.

 

They NEED it. They NEED my active engagement. They NEED concentrated periods of going over things with me in active, concentrated discussions. To get there in the first place, first they need an ample preparation, in terms of their own individual work.

 

We school 6 days a week, 6-7 hours daily when averaged out (though it is hard to track as they self-schedule and laze some days and hyper-focus other days, but this would roughly include our sessions together and their preparation, though not all of the assigned reading or most of their own rabbit trails), over 35 weeks - but even if I were to imagine we were doing the bare basics and taking a way more relaxed approach, I still cannot fathom doing school 2-3 hours a day and get results I would be happy with.

 

I mean, they do school on average 2-3 hours daily - even less so - but only if you count active work with me / DH / tutor and not the individual preparation time for those sessions, which is at least as much and often closer to a double. I honestly do not think it is realistic to give a solid education in that time span - a very subpar meeting of the bare basics, maybe, but honestly, not much more than that.

 

You can do Hebrew via a darned software which teaches nothing other than a few cute pictures and sentences in cultural isolation, or you can do it the way I described Hebrew above. We are talking about several orders of magnitude of difference here.

You can find something which will get English done in half an hour a day, or you can get a thorough WTM-style language and literature education. Again, orders of magnitude of difference.

 

So even if I somehow can imagine being done in 3 hours for high school, those 3 hours, if they would indeed be the totality of one's academic learning, would bring about what I consider a subpar academic preparation, several orders of magnitude below what I consider ideal, or in some cases even acceptable. Just HOW can you do intense textwork for language, literature and history, a "concrete" science and a solid math program in 3 hours, 5 days a week, 180 school days? Elementary, yes; maybe you can even squeeze the middle school into that mold, though I become suspicious at this level already; but high school? HOW?! :confused:

 

If the Swanns managed to produce an exceptionally good education in 3 hours a day, they probably did 6 days a week and no breaks? That is the only way I can imagine it being done. And, I assume, concentrated 3 hours one-on-one without interruptions? Were assigned readings a part of that? It would be good to know some specifics on their family dynamic, actually. I need to read a bit about them.

[tomandlorih]

I do not know the family so I do not have enough info to make that kind of choice. I know that in our family we probably only do "daily academics" for about 2 hours a day but that does not include the hours upon hours my dd spends buried in books of all kinds. Our family also lives a lifestyle that has us "teaching" our children at all hours of the day and night. Heck we start even in the diaper stage teaching them all the body parts and left/right feet. We teach them to observe around them. I have had conversation on civics in the car.. My dd has attended more plays than some adults I know(and even been in 2 of them). Been to ballets, musical performances and cultural events.. etc. etc. etc.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that you can't just make blanket judgments about the quality of an education based on the time involved. Just look at how many hours some kids are in public school......

[Maverick_Mom]

I can't say what's right or wrong for another family. For all I know, they're super-geniuses or they've figured out some osmosis-based form of learning that transpires while they sleep with their textbooks under their pillows. :D

 

However ... I have noticed over the years that some homeschoolers seem to take a great deal of pride in how little time they spend on formal learning. Their mantra is "...and we're done by lunchtime!" When I was young(er) and insecure (read: yesterday :lol:), I took that to mean that we were highly inefficient and/or just plain stupid because we sometimes worked till 5 PM.

 

On a practical note, I think that "quality" learning time necessitates a certain "quantity" of time. What that looks like for someone else, I cannot say. I just know what it "feels" like for us.

[Stacy in NJ]

of the day? For many folks learning is part of their daily lives. They maybe reading, playing games, doing projects, researching something they're interested in. If they're vegging out in front of the TV or playing video games for 12 hours, that is probably a problem.

[Crimson Wife]

We school 6 days a week, 6-7 hours daily when averaged out (though it is hard to track as they self-schedule and laze some days and hyper-focus other days, but this would roughly include our sessions together and their preparation, though not all of the assigned reading or most of their own rabbit trails), over 35 weeks - but even if I were to imagine we were doing the bare basics and taking a way more relaxed approach, I still cannot fathom doing school 2-3 hours a day and get results I would be happy with.

 

You're choosing to only do 35 weeks per year. This obviously works for your family, but others find that doing 50 or so weeks of shorter days is more effective for their children. I'd rather get 2-3 hours of high quality formal academics per day and go year-round than try to do a 6-7 hour school day for 9 months. I've found that the law of diminishing returns applies to the length of the school day for my kids.

[jewellsmommy]

Speaking in general, because there are not many specifics here:

 

It really would not be my business to lecture/convince/chastise/educate another parent on this unless asked. I would care, but would have to care in silence.

 

Philosophically, in general, I do not believe that 2 hours would be enough. Especially if we were speaking of 5th and up. Some would probably say that I make my dc work too long. On average dd does 4hrs a day 4 days a week and 2 hrs on the 5th day. Ds does a little less because he needs more breaks. This does not include reading time. I am not saying that it is impossible to thoroughly educate in 2 hrs a day given certain circumstances. I just don't believe it is the best course of action for my dc. I think that the amt of time they spend doing school should steadily increase through the yrs. It would seem like a big jump to go from 2 hrs a day in high school to a full college day. They need to work up to that level of stamina and focus capability. kwim?

[Ester Maria]

You're choosing to only do 35 weeks per year. This obviously works for your family, but others find that doing 50 or so weeks of shorter days is more effective for their children. I'd rather get 2-3 hours of high quality formal academics per day and go year-round than try to do a 6-7 hour school day for 9 months. I've found that the law of diminishing returns applies to the length of the school day for my kids.

But it is not equivalent, if we look at the math:

 

6 days a week x 35 weeks = 210 school days

5 days a week (I assume) x 50 weeks = 250 school days

 

210 x 7* = 1470 hours

250 x 3* = 750 hours

 

* I am considering our upper estimates - in my case at least, rounding it to 7 hours daily is a fairly generous estimate as there may still be some reading left.

 

In the final result of hours put into school, in spite of my 35 weeks (i.e. 42 weeks if you translate it to 5-day weeks), I actually do about double the number of hours that one would do with 3 hours in fifty 5-day weeks.

 

And then the weeks spent out of school are not necessarily deprived of any "schoolish" content - they read, travel, spend time abroad and socialize, they even attended schools which were not "theirs" abroad (perfect for language / culture learning, by the way) and participated in projects, they sometimes actively learn during holidays, especially if staying by relatives / family friends with a learning culture in their homes as well, etc. In fact, many days when they are supposedly not schooling they actually end up doing an academic hour or even a few. ;)

 

I think your approach would fit younger grades perfectly (I see you have little ones, of course that you would not do 6-7 hours a day with them), but when you hit middle, especially upper middle and high school years (like the OP said, we basically talk about 10+ year olds, not littles), the correlation between quality and quantity really does become a lot more obvious (something not so obvious in the younger years, as the content is overall more about "life" and less about academics in isolation). I am fairly skeptical of such a dynamic on a *high school* level, though, 750 just cannot equal 1470, things really take tangible amounts of time to be done well, even with very bright and precocious DC. Even if we take off some of that by saying that I do more than what is the usual load (but then again, my kids are weaker or do less intensely some other areas), I still think the difference is just too huge for a high school level, I do not see how 3 hours daily can do it. I would say 5 is the minimum for high school, maybe 4 - 4 and half (assuming five subjects: English, math, a science, a history, and an elective or foreign language) if you have one of those kids that work non-stop once at something and breeze through things much sooner, but even that is a very, very generous estimate, I think, both in terms of doing only five subjects and assuming they can take so little continuously. I am trying to toy with this idea, but I still cannot see how it can possibly be lower than that.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Lizzie in Ma]

No, it is not enough. I can't imagine doing a college prep level of education (which is what I do) with that little academics.

 

But I wouldn't bother responding to the mother. 1. You don't know exactly what she's counting as "academics". She could be not counting all reading, arts, sports and other things common in a school schedule. 2. Many people (in p.s. as well as homeschool) are only trying to meet educational minimums. You could probably meet those on only 2 hours a day. 3. Do you really know the child is "perfectly normal"? Perhaps he has a photographic memory and only needs to glance at the material to have it down pat. . . 4. It really would be none of my business.

 

:iagree:

My 5th grader takes about 4 hours or more. That includes independent work, read aloud and discussion time and independent school-related reading.

My 10th grader pretty much is working from 9:30-4:30 and that also includes everything. Online classes, discussion time, all her other subjects and breaks. She, more often than not has another hour or so of reading to finish also.

[RoundAbout]

So even if I somehow can imagine being done in 3 hours for high school, those 3 hours, if they would indeed be the totality of one's academic learning, would bring about what I consider a subpar academic preparation, several orders of magnitude below what I consider ideal, or in some cases even acceptable. Just HOW can you do intense textwork for language, literature and history, a "concrete" science and a solid math program in 3 hours, 5 days a week, 180 school days? Elementary, yes; maybe you can even squeeze the middle school into that mold, though I become suspicious at this level already; but high school? HOW?! :confused:

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

I only have my own high school experience to go on which included 5 core college preparatory subjects - Math, Science, History, English, and French plus an elective like Art or PE. These were at the honors or AP level but I'm not sure that matters as I would hope that those in the non-honors courses found their classes challenging to their level. There was no fluff, no wasted time, and a fair amount of outside homework, studying, writing, and reading (averaging maybe 2 hours a night). This was a very average suburban school.

 

Obviously not everyone needs or wants to do this but I don't see how a program that equals 25% of my own high school experience could be challenging or even adequate.

Edited July 28, 2011 by RoundAbout

[WIS0320]

Daisy, you are much kinder than I. I believe that kids deserve an education. The child you mentioned didn't get one. That really does reflect poorly on whatever education system the parents have in place...unfortunately, in this case, it is homeschooling.

 

Ria

 

:iagree:

 

There are lots of forms of child neglect and abuse. 15 years old and not able to read is certainly educational neglect.

 

2 hours per day seems reasonable for early elementary but I assume we will spend more time as my kids get older.

[Daisy]

:iagree:

 

There are lots of forms of child neglect and abuse. 15 years old and not able to read is certainly educational neglect.

 

2 hours per day seems reasonable for early elementary but I assume we will spend more time as my kids get older.

 

Did you read my reply to Ria? I stated that I threatened to call CPS and report them for educational neglect if they didn't not immediately get the 15yo academic help.

 

My point was that there are clearly times when a child is NOT receiving an education and times when the parents are doing just the bare minimum. When a child is not receiving an education at all I do not think it poorly reflects on homeschooling because they are NOT homeschooling. They are truant just as much as if they had enrolled their child into ps and then never sent them.

 

To ignore when a child is receiving NO education is not kind. It is TERRIBLE and I would never do it. DH (ps teacher) and I are far too passionate about education to turn a blind eye to a child who is not receiving any.

[In The Great White North]

We spend more than two hours a day, but we also do way more than the state requires.

 

The key to doing only two or three hours a day is the "on grade level" statement. One could, easily, meet the state academic requirements in two hours a day, even at the high school level.

 

Back in the day, we were only permitted 5 classes per semester (in high school.) The classes were 50 minutes each, minus 5 minutes to get settled in the beginning and 5 minutes to pack up at the end of each class: total three hours (not deducting navel gazing time.)

 

This included the mandatory gym classes, and could be filled with other non academic classes like home ec, shop, art, etc.

 

The only homework I ever brought home was papers that had to be typed on a typewriter (before laptops) and studying for the occasional test.

[Dmmetler]

This kind of reminds me of the debate over practice time in music ed.

 

My usual advice to parents is that you don't want to start private lessons until you're ready to practice, with your child, at least 30 minutes a day., 6 days a week, and to expect to increase this over time. Now, if you're talking a 3 yr old, that 30 minutes won't be all at one time-it might be several 10-15 minute sessions, but you should still plan to put in the time. That doesn't count listening time, either-that's actual, focused practice time.

 

But, when I've posted that recommendation in response to "Should I start lessons with my 5 yr old" on local homeschool boards, I got a bunch of responses to the effect of "My child only plays 5-10 minutes a day, 2-3x/week and is doing fine". But the same parents will make comments about how "talented" my DD is or how it "shows that she has music genes". The only primary difference is that my DD practices as much or more a day as their child does in a week-because for us, piano is a required part of our day. I think the primary difference is that I'm not using piano to check off the "music" box on my homeschool plan, I'm expecting my DD to make it to at least a minimum level of proficiency in piano.

 

I think the same is true in other areas. If your goal is to finish a 9th grade Spanish curriculum to the level that the student can pass the end of grade test at the level the local schools expect, but not actually speak or read Spanish well, you can check off that box pretty fast. If your goal is actual proficiency in the language, it's going to probably take MORE time to learn Spanish well at home than the Spanish 1 class at the local high school will take.

[Lady Florida.]

Other. It's not my business. What's enough for one child is not enough for another and too much for yet another. I've seen unschooled children who were "unparented" rather than unschooled, and whose futures I worry about. I've seen unschooled children who don't "sit down and do" any academics, yet they are well-rounded and articulate and educated enough to go to college if that's their choice. I've seen school-at-home children who are well-rounded and articulate and educated enough to go to college if that's their choice. I've seen school-at-home kids who memorize but don't learn, and whose futures I worry about. It's not up to me to decide the appropriate time for another homeschool family to spend on academics. It's not up to me to decide what educational method or style is best for another homeschool family. Just like it's not up to any other homeschooling parents to decide what is best for my son.

[Mama2Many4]

I don't know, I have an almost 8 year old and 6 year old. We're doing 3rd and 1st and it's takes me about 1 hour total with my 1st grader and 2 1/2 hours total with my 3rd grader. Now that is total seatwork. That doesn't include art projects, history projects, research, and breaks. So if they aren't doing any of those other things and are JUST doing the workbook stuff straight through ,then yeah, I think that would be enough. As long as the kids are getting what's in the lesson, I don't see a problem.

[justamouse]

Didn't the Swanns only do 3 hours per day? They certainly seemed to give their children a HS education superior to what many (if not most) HS families do without spending 6-7 hours per day at it.

 

Who are the Swanns?

[Joanne]

The poll is a simple opinion question. Is 2 hours enough?

 

The content of the OP surveys how posters would "respond".

 

I do not believe 2 hours to be enough for the ages listed in the content of the OP.

 

I would not "do" anything or "respond" necessarily, unless invited to do so in a discussion regarding homeschool approach and philosophy.

[Julie Smith]

This kind of reminds me of the debate over practice time in music ed.

 

My usual advice to parents is that you don't want to start private lessons until you're ready to practice, with your child, at least 30 minutes a day., 6 days a week, and to expect to increase this over time. Now, if you're talking a 3 yr old, that 30 minutes won't be all at one time-it might be several 10-15 minute sessions, but you should still plan to put in the time. That doesn't count listening time, either-that's actual, focused practice time.

 

But, when I've posted that recommendation in response to "Should I start lessons with my 5 yr old" on local homeschool boards, I got a bunch of responses to the effect of "My child only plays 5-10 minutes a day, 2-3x/week and is doing fine". But the same parents will make comments about how "talented" my DD is or how it "shows that she has music genes". The only primary difference is that my DD practices as much or more a day as their child does in a week-because for us, piano is a required part of our day. I think the primary difference is that I'm not using piano to check off the "music" box on my homeschool plan, I'm expecting my DD to make it to at least a minimum level of proficiency in piano.

 

I think the same is true in other areas. If your goal is to finish a 9th grade Spanish curriculum to the level that the student can pass the end of grade test at the level the local schools expect, but not actually speak or read Spanish well, you can check off that box pretty fast. If your goal is actual proficiency in the language, it's going to probably take MORE time to learn Spanish well at home than the Spanish 1 class at the local high school will take.

 

Slighty off topic. I use to feel this way about music lessons. But then a great opportunity feel in our laps. So my kids are in piano lessons. But they don't practice 30 minutes a day, 6 days a week. They do about 2/3rd of that. (Unless we are away at Grammas for a extra long weekend).

 

But I started them when I did because the teacher is our next door neighbor. I wanted them to get to know the neighbor. She is also the babysitter when I have dentist, doctor appointments... Eventually I want them to practice 30 minutes a day 6 days a week. But they aren't ready for that yet. My eldest is almost at that, but my youngest isn't.

[Carpe]

Who are the Swanns?

 

Joyce Swann has home educated her ten children from first grade through master's degree programs. The Swann children typically receive high school diplomas at age eleven, bachelor's degrees at age fifteen, and master's degrees at age sixteen. All of the academic work has been completed at home through correspondence schools and external degree programs offered by major western universities. To contact Joyce, write to her at HC12, Box 7A, 116 Hwy 28, Anthony, NM 88021.

From the about the author box on this article.

[zenjenn]

The question I would ponder is how is the extra time being spent?

 

I do think it is possible for bright kids to learn all the necessary, on grade-level material in a couple hours, and as long as the kids are literate and operating at that minimal level I don't think it is anyone else's business to interfere.

 

However, just because I value individual liberty and parental rights doesn't mean I am going with withhold judgment. If a 10 year old is schooling 2 hours a day and spending the rest of the time playing video games and watching TV, yes, I think that is a huge disservice to the child, even if the child is smart enough to skate by learning the minimum.

 

Academics aside, it takes more than 2 hours a day to foster creativity, curiosity, responsibility, independence, etc.

 

Now if that bright child is mastering the fundamental academics in 2 hours and then that family is spending the time, say, learning about animal husbandry, agriculture, running a business, or whatever else, I don't have a problem with that.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Now that I have homeschooled through the logic stage and am tackling the rhetoric stage, I find that my curiosity about the Swann family is renewed.

 

I understand they used Calvert for K-8, but what was high school like? How did all of their children graduate from high school at age 11? I understand 'gifted' kids, but all ten Swann children were capable of high school level work at ages 8-11? Really?

[Crimson Wife]

But it is not equivalent, if we look at the math:

 

6 days a week x 35 weeks = 210 school days

5 days a week (I assume) x 50 weeks = 250 school days

 

210 x 7* = 1470 hours

250 x 3* = 750 hours

 

 

My high school did 180 days, 6 hours of class time on M, T, Th, F and 4 hours on W. That would be 1008 total. Subtract out 3x weekly mandatory PE and 2x weekly study hall on the days when I did not have the lab portion of science, and that's 864. If you figure that there are at least 30 minutes wasted per day in classroom administration tasks (e.g. collecting and returning assignments) and that's another 90 hours lost and you're pretty darn close to that 750 hour mark.

[LeslieAnneLevine]

I don't see a problem with it. Not everyone follows a rigorous classical model of education. Plenty of responsible homeschoolers do not do hours and hours of academic work everyday.

[mazakaal]

I can't imagine getting everything for a 10yo done in 2hrs/day unless you school year round, 6 days a week. Or if you only count, say 2 hours in the morning of math and English, and the kids do more self-directed study in the afternoon that isn't counted into the time because it's just them exploring things they're interested in in science, history, geography, etc. So 2hrs/day of bookwork, but more time is spent on reading and researching, etc.

[HS Mom in NC]

Thank you for your comments about this poll. It's always good to get a variety of responses to better understand what other people are thinking.

[Maverick_Mom]

Now that I have homeschooled through the logic stage and am tackling the rhetoric stage, I find that my curiosity about the Swann family is renewed.

 

I understand they used Calvert for K-8, but what was high school like? How did all of their children graduate from high school at age 11? I understand 'gifted' kids, but all ten Swann children were capable of high school level work at ages 8-11? Really?

 

I'm pretty sure they used the American School program for high school.