compared to what's taught in ps......

[HappyLady]

I've been hearing for a long time now how kids these days are taught things in lower grades that we (people my age and older) were taught in higher grades. I'm wondering, is what's taught in a homeschooling curriculum on par with what's taught in ps? Are the different sources of hs curricula constantly updating what should be taught based on what's being taught in ps or is a hs curriculum more slow paced and more on par with what I was taught? Am I making sense? :001_huh: :)

 

I plan on starting out with a boxed type curriculum (like Calvert) and I'm wondering if when my DD is in "second grade" will she be learning what other second graders are? Or does it depend on the curriculum? Are others more advanced in what they want you to teach?

 

I know the beauty of homeschooling is you can teach what you want and you can base it on how what you feel your child can handle, but I'm so new with this (haven't officially started) so I'm really going to need a curriculum I can follow along to until I really feel comfortable branching off on my own. I just want to make sure my kids don't fall too far being their ps peers!

[OrganicAnn]

Most states have a listing of what is supposed to be taught in each grade on the Department of Education for your state.

 

It really varies from state to state and from even from community to community. But most 1st grader will be learning addition and reading no matter where you go. But some of the other subjects can vary.

 

Also there is skills and content. Skills are things like addition or paragraph writing. Content is Revolutionary War or state history.

[Mrs Mungo]

Those who follow TWTM teach their kids about ancient history instead of teaching them about "community workers." My kids have learned totally different things than they would in public school. I am okay with that.

 

Reading TWTM would give you an extremely good idea of what lots of people on this board are teaching their kids.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree:

 

It's not so difficult to also learn about community workers also. ;)

 

I mentioned it because my eldest missed that question on the first grade ITBS. It asked "which one is a community worker?" It had a picture of a construction worker, a waitress and a postal carrier. They wanted postal carrier. DD guessed construction worker because we had studied Rome and she knew the Roman roads were built with roads, paid for by taxes, just like today. So, that made sense to her. It makes sense to me too. Some of that vocabulary is peculiar to the school system.

[Mrs Mungo]

That was a weird sentence with the roads and taxes. I have to stop typing on my phone.

[PiCO]

I mentioned it because my eldest missed that question on the first grade ITBS. It asked "which one is a community worker?" It had a picture of a construction worker, a waitress and a postal carrier. They wanted postal carrier. DD guessed construction worker because we had studied Rome and she knew the Roman roads were built with roads, paid for by taxes, just like today. So, that made sense to her. It makes sense to me too. Some of that vocabulary is peculiar to the school system.

 

This is an example of why public schools need to teach to the tests. I was very surprised with the "test prep" one year when I was using a virtual charter school. The way the "reading" and "writing" sections were set up were really strange. Without doing the test prep, I would have flunked the 3rd grade reading & writing tests. Kind of strange and useless if you ask me.

[AdventureMoms]

I mentioned it because my eldest missed that question on the first grade ITBS. It asked "which one is a community worker?" It had a picture of a construction worker, a waitress and a postal carrier. They wanted postal carrier. DD guessed construction worker because we had studied Rome and she knew the Roman roads were built with roads, paid for by taxes, just like today. So, that made sense to her. It makes sense to me too. Some of that vocabulary is peculiar to the school system.

 

I would have gotten that wrong. I'm not familiar with the specific term "community worker" I guess. I'd have assumed it was someone who worked in or with the community. Any of those three seem a reasonable answer.

[PiCO]

I've been hearing for a long time now how kids these days are taught things in lower grades that we (people my age and older) were taught in higher grades.

 

I think this is the push, but nothing going on that isn't recommended in TWTM. For example, I was talking to a kindergarten boy last week who was writing in a journal daily and reading early readers. When I was in kindergarten, my class was learning the names of letters. My mom taught me to read.

 

I don't think it's a problem for some kids, but I do think it's too much for a LOT of kids. Some kids are just not ready to read (or sit still long enough to learn) at 5. A lot of families in my area hold kids out of K for an extra year, because they don't want an ADD diagnosis for their normal active child.

[Ellie]

I have never bothered to compare instructional materials written by and for homeschoolers with instructional materials written for public schools. I don't believe there's a point.

 

Statistically, homeschooled students do better on standardized achievement tests than their public schooled counterparts.

 

And public schools continue to produce functionally illiterate high school grads. I don't know how that could be, if public schools are supposedly requiring more academically in the lower grades, but it is so.

 

Even if there were truly some sort of higher achievement going on in the lower grades, it wouldn't matter to me, because homeschooling isn't only about academics. :-)

[Myeightkiddies]

I mentioned it because my eldest missed that question on the first grade ITBS. It asked "which one is a community worker?" It had a picture of a construction worker, a waitress and a postal carrier. They wanted postal carrier. DD guessed construction worker because we had studied Rome and she knew the Roman roads were built with roads, paid for by taxes, just like today. So, that made sense to her. It makes sense to me too. Some of that vocabulary is peculiar to the school system.

 

There are community (city/county) construction workers (road, maintenance, utility, etc.). ;) That test is wrong!

 

We supplement our History with US Geography and State History. For community studies, we use Rod and Staff's Grade 3 Social Studies, which is called Understanding Our Community. It's a thin book and easy to use as a supplement.

[Jenny in GA]

 

And public schools continue to produce functionally illiterate high school grads. I don't know how that could be, if public schools are supposedly requiring more academically in the lower grades, but it is so.

 

 

I have never understood that either. I constantly hear two different things from all kinds of sources:

 

1) PS kids are learning much more, much earlier, and much more impressively than a generation ago

 

2) High school graduates are woefully undereducated, to the point of being almost illiterate

 

Huh?

[Jenny in GA]

And to answer the question -- I have wondered that myself, and I don't exactly know. I would think it varies between school and even classroom.

 

I will say that, for myself, both First Language Lessons and Writing With Ease (and what I've seen so far of MCT LA) are WAY above what I was doing in those grade levels. And I was in advanced LA classes at what was considered to be a top-notch school. If public schooled kids are diagramming sentences and learning about predicate nominatives and indirect objects in third or fourth grade, well then schools have changed a lot since I was a kid.

[jennynd]

I mentioned it because my eldest missed that question on the first grade ITBS. It asked "which one is a community worker?" It had a picture of a construction worker, a waitress and a postal carrier. They wanted postal carrier. DD guessed construction worker because we had studied Rome and she knew the Roman roads were built with roads, paid for by taxes, just like today. So, that made sense to her. It makes sense to me too. Some of that vocabulary is peculiar to the school system.

This is the type o f thing make people like Steve Job quit school. Things just don't make sense in a mass production environment. I see the same thing in my DS school math curriculum. What they thing is " outside the box" is really word games rather than mathematical thinking.

[EKS]

It's important to keep in mind that just because kids are being taught something in earlier grades does not mean that they're actually learning it at that time.

[Anne in CA]

I have never understood that either. I constantly hear two different things from all kinds of sources:

 

1) PS kids are learning much more, much earlier, and much more impressively than a generation ago

 

2) High school graduates are woefully undereducated, to the point of being almost illiterate

 

Huh?

 

In my experience both are absolutely true.

 

AP classes and IB programs are very good in the local high schools in my area. Those programs are graduating young people with EXCELLENT educations. I believe the are inefficient, they require huge amounts of homework to the point that sports or scouts is impossible with too many AP classes or when you do the IB program. But I have met stellar kids in my own community who did these things. These programs limit the number of students, and teacher's and administrator's kids are first, no matter what party line you are given. Next are wealthy people who will take legal action if their kids are excluded. Last a few normal kids who are lucky enough to have assertive parents can get in.

 

My older dd did mostly average classes in our local high school and it was scary how easy those classes were. I fought to get her into Honors classes the last year of high school because regular English classes were doing worksheets on what a verb is and that sort of thing. Group work that she brought home blew my mind. Other kids in those classes could not read well, write, or spell.

 

The math classes my dd had in our local high school were calculator instruction only. My dh is an engineer, so my dd had help, but I felt sorry for other kids.

 

So I do believe that both are true, many functionally illiterate kids are graduating, and they are given help with their CIMs, I know my oldest was given "help" during her essay for certain. But I also know that many kids are getting a great education in their local public schools.

I have never understood that either. I constantly hear two different things from all kinds of sources:

 

1) PS kids are learning much more, much earlier, and much more impressively than a generation ago

 

2) High school graduates are woefully undereducated, to the point of being almost illiterate

 

Huh?

 

I hear conflicting evidence on this subject all the time. I suspect that was is really going on is there is a much greater difference between the high end of the spectrum of graduating seniors end and the low end than there used to be. At the high end, the "bright" kids are doing so much more work than I ever did. Graduating with ten or more AP classes, taking AP classes as high school freshman(!), participating in many extracurricular activities, not just sports, but all kinds of honor societies, etc. etc. etc. Maybe these kids at the top aren't learning much more, who can tell? But they certainly are doing much more.

 

But for whatever reason (and I don't want to speculate about why in this post), the lower (and maybe the middle?) kids seem to slide by, getting passed on from grade to grade without learning the minimum amount of what they should.

Edited December 5, 2011 by GGardner

[Bluegoat]

I think in many places kids are expected to be learning skills earlier. Here, when I was in school, kids were not expected to read in K, but in 1 or it was even ok if it was 2.

 

Now they have to be so far along in K, or they will be behind in 1, and not able to meet the requirements in 2 which assume they are readers - so my reading resource friend tells me.

 

I do not consider this a matter of ps kids being higher achieving. I consider it a matter of ps giving inappropriate guidelines that will ultimately have no benefit and quite possibly cause harm.

 

A big plus to homeschooling for me is avoiding this sort of "early achievement."

[Word Nerd]

I have never understood that either. I constantly hear two different things from all kinds of sources:

 

1) PS kids are learning much more, much earlier, and much more impressively than a generation ago

 

2) High school graduates are woefully undereducated, to the point of being almost illiterate

 

Huh?

 

It only seems odd that both of these can be true if you are under the illusion that schools are all identical and PS students are cookie cutter images of one another.

[ElizaG]

The boxed curriculum I'm most familiar with is Seton (similar to Calvert, I think, but Catholic). They aim to provide a solid, "old fashioned" education including formal grammar, history, etc., while also teaching the skills that are needed for current standardized tests. It can be a bit much, IMO. In particular, I've found that their writing and speaking assignments are ahead of what I'd expect. For instance, students are supposed to be writing book reviews in 2nd grade, and giving persuasive speeches at the beginning of 3rd grade.

 

We aren't sending in any work for grading at this age, so I just skip the parts that don't seem age appropriate.

[Pamela H in Texas]

IME, children in schools are exposed to things much earlier than they were in years past, but they are actually LEARNING the material a little later and they don't seem to be learning it was well. My guess on why this is the case is the amount of material children are being exposed to versus what is reasonable for them to retain. Yes, my little girl is exposed to a LOT more than I was in Kindy or even first grade. One thing I think is good about it is that it allows an advanced student exposure to some interesting things in various subjects. However, when you look at a 4th grade classroom, they still are being exposed to a lot more; but they have LEARNED a good deal less. So they are still working on 2nd and 3rd grade materials because they aren't spending enough time on those things while spending time on later concepts. And by 10th grade? It is sad :(

 

Anyway, as for many of the materials homeschoolers are using? They typically don't have all the extras and are much more solid each step of the way. Additionally, some key ones are advanced also (comparatively). So a homeschool student may very well be CONSIDERABLY further ahead by mid to late elementary.

 

JME having homeschooled two kids all the way through and having worked in the public schools in recent years.

[mom2scouts]

It's important to keep in mind that just because kids are being taught something in earlier grades does not mean that they're actually learning it at that time.

:iagree:I've had four kids in public school. They *introduce* things earlier, but I don't think many of the kids really *learned* it. For example, kindergarten journaling is often just drawing pictures and trying to write a few words. In first grade they are expected to start writing sentences and paragraphs which is difficult for kids who haven't been taught spelling or writing technique. I'm impressed that teachers can even read what most of them are trying to say! Division may be introduced in third grade, but many of the students are still drawing pictures to figure out multiplication problems. Science and history were a joke in my younger son's school because everything was about teaching enough reading and math to do well on the standardized tests.

[regentrude]

I have never understood that either. I constantly hear two different things from all kinds of sources:

 

1) PS kids are learning much more, much earlier, and much more impressively than a generation ago

 

2) High school graduates are woefully undereducated, to the point of being almost illiterate

 

Huh?

 

What you write has been exactly my experience with our local public schools here in the US which my kids attended through 5th/6th grade.

Both statements can be true, because of the crazy structure of the educational system in the US:

push for early academics and high standards in elementary, coupled with no learning whatsoever in the middle grades, and a dumbed down high school curriculum.

 

End of 4th grade, my kids were ahead of their same age peers in our home country.

Fall of 6th grade, they were one year behind in math. (That's when I pulled them out)

The average US high school education (not AP) corresponds to 10th grade back home.

Edited December 5, 2011 by regentrude

[EKS]

What you write has been exactly my experience with our local public schools here in the US which my kids attended through 5th/6th grade.

Both statements can be true, because of the crazy structure of the educational system in the US:

push for early academics and high standards in elementary, coupled with no learning whatsoever in the middle grades, and a dumbed down high school curriculum.

 

End of 4th grade, my kids were ahead of their same age peers in our home country.

Fall of 6th grade, they were one year behind in math. (That's when I pulled them out)

The average US high school education (not AP) corresponds to 10th grade back home.

 

Yes--what I've seen over and over again is that in math kids in the US peak out in 4th grade and after that it's all downhill. Frankly, it's pretty easy to be ahead in the early grades.

[imagine.more]

In my experience both are absolutely true.

 

AP classes and IB programs are very good in the local high schools in my area. Those programs are graduating young people with EXCELLENT educations. I believe the are inefficient, they require huge amounts of homework to the point that sports or scouts is impossible with too many AP classes or when you do the IB program. But I have met stellar kids in my own community who did these things....

My older dd did mostly average classes in our local high school and it was scary how easy those classes were. I fought to get her into Honors classes the last year of high school because regular English classes were doing worksheets on what a verb is and that sort of thing. Group work that she brought home blew my mind. Other kids in those classes could not read well, write, or spell.

 

 

Yes, I definitely think this is part of it. There's another aspect to this "PS students are doing more advanced work younger" and "PS students are often woefully undereducated upon graduation" oddity. TWTM touches on this, and I've seen it myself with my students. The kindergarten-4th grade standards are outrageously advanced, my kindergarteners were expected to write an "essay" by the end of the year! Their math curriculum had them doing advanced concepts while just touching on the basic addition facts. So what happens is these kids who were pushed into advanced math and writing early did not spend time doing memorization and practicing skills. So when they get to middle school the teachers gasp and freak out because they realize Johnny, who's got all A's and has done bits of algebra here and there and can write a fun story, is still counting on his fingers because he never memorized math facts and cannot tell a noun from a verb.

 

In general our public schools think memorization is boring and mean to inflict on little kids who ought to be creative. So they don't. The kids create all day, but they create crap. Then when higher level work is required in middle/high school the kids are ill equipped to handle it because everything in their education has been shallow up until then with no eye to the future depth of knowledge they will need. They have no foundational skills like phonics, math facts and experience with math manipulatives, and grammar. So in middle/high school the well-meaning teachers say "well since the kids don't know phonics and grammar maybe we should backtrack and study that so they have the foundation". But studying phonics and grammar at 13 and 14 is criminally boring and mean to inflict on kids whose minds are more interested in questioning and logic so they don't get far and much of the year is wasted. By the time the kids get to high school their teachers are saying "so you know a little grammar and just a little creative writing, what did those middle school teachers do all that time?!" and again end up backtracking, saying "well since the kids never learned how to outline or summarize I suppose we'll go back and practice that."

 

So yes PS first graders often know more things than HS first graders in my opinion, but because there is no foundation or depth to the knowledge PS students often end up behind HS students by graduation.

[scrapbookbuzz]

1)

 

PS kids are learning much more, much earlier, and much more impressively than a generation ago

 

 

 

 

They may be being told or taught more in lower grades than when you and I were in school but that doesn't mean they are actually learning the material.

 

When my kids were in public school last fall, they had already learned everything that particular school was trying to teach them. So in our case, my homeschooled children were way ahead of their peers. Even my daughter who "qualified" for spec ed in math and reading. She was STILL ahead of everyone in those classes! And that's why they're both home again.

 

Also, I agree with a pp (previous poster) that comparing homeschool curricula with public school curricula is useless. They come from two different trains of thought. ;)

[FaithManor]

What you write has been exactly my experience with our local public schools here in the US which my kids attended through 5th/6th grade.

Both statements can be true, because of the crazy structure of the educational system in the US:

push for early academics and high standards in elementary, coupled with no learning whatsoever in the middle grades, and a dumbed down high school curriculum.

 

End of 4th grade, my kids were ahead of their same age peers in our home country.

Fall of 6th grade, they were one year behind in math. (That's when I pulled them out)

The average US high school education (not AP) corresponds to 10th grade back home.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I think that very likely the problem lies with the push at the beginning. Though the children are exposed to much, they are rushed through the basics. Without that foundation, later learning falls into shambles.

 

As for homeschool curriculums, we are WTM on steroids all the way. So, in the early years, our children new much more world history and science, but would have scored behind in math and some language skills because I believed slow and steady. We maintain, to this day, a mastery approach to fundamental skills. My children are WAY ahead of their peers in abilities at this stage because they have those foundational skills on which to build and build rapidly.

 

My cousin moved here from England when his daughter was in the 4th grade. She was WAY behind in mathematics according to the American model. However, now as a 9th grader, she is an amazing student at a prestigious prepatory high school. Her parents tutored her through through the 6th grade in mathematics and those astounding reading/language basics she learned in England served her well. Many of her peers are languishing under the weight of expectations at her school and these kids are the best and brightest of the middle schools that feed the student body of the prep school. Yet, despite their 4.0's and accolades 6-8th grades, many of them are barely making it at a school whose high school is modeled on a European educational philosophy. She is thriving.

 

The rush to advanced concepts does not serve a child well when the foundational skills required to truly understand those advanced concepts is not present. That's one of the most fundamental flaws of the American system.

 

Faith

[regentrude]

I think that very likely the problem lies with the push at the beginning. Though the children are exposed to much, they are rushed through the basics. Without that foundation, later learning falls into shambles.

 

I see an actually bigger problem with the missing learning in the Middle grades. Our elementary school was pretty good and thorough, I can really not complain. They did not rush, there should have been sufficient time to master the material.

BUT: come 5th grade, they did nothing. In math, they reviewed until Christmas. Then they had four weeks of new material in January. In February, they started practicing for the state standardized tests which are given in April. Then they had four weeks until the end of the school year during which not much happened.

This pattern is the same in pretty much all subjects throughout Middle school. I do not blame a child who, after spending three years on pre-algebra (fractions in 5th and 6th and 7th grade and maybe 8th) is fed up with math and has lost any interest completely because it has been so incredibly boring.

At a time when the students should develop habits to succeed in a challenging high school education, school does little more than babysit. At a time when students begin to develop their academic interests, any spark that exists is extinguished through the endless repetitions. These are three or four wasted years, during which students become accustomed to little work, little effort, praise for mediocre accomplishment and school being boring. And then they enter high school with this very mind set. No wonder they don't accomplish much there.

 

(Back home, elementary school is more relaxed, but the learning curve actually gets steeper in 5th grade and the work more demanding - instead of vice versa.)

Edited December 5, 2011 by regentrude

[Mrs Twain]

This is what I do which I consider to be the best of both worlds (homeschool and public school).

 

I plan my homeschool curriculum based on my philosophy. I use a lot of WTM materials, and I also use various other things. With this, I consider that my children are getting a quality education, including things not taught well in public schools (writing, science, history, geography, etc.).

 

I also use the The Core Knowledge K-12 Sequence and my state Standards of Learning as a checklist to see how much of it I have included in my year. If there are a few additional things on the Sequence or the SOL's, I use part of my last few weeks of school to go over these areas. I do this not because I think the public schools are better than what I am doing, but I want my kids to be prepared for whenever they may reenter the public schools or go to college. I want them to have the standard, accepted fund of knowledge that the general population would consider as a baseline in order for my kids not to be classified as "behind." I realize that a lot of homeschoolers disagree with this idea, but it gives me peace of mind since I am not constantly worrying about what the kids down the street are learning and if they are learning more than my kids. I know what the kids down the street are learning, and I know my kids know all of that information plus a ton more.

 

Of note, however, I do not include things I think are ridiculous which the public schools do. Examples would be things like what the schools consider is the definition of a family, or various other p.c. type of influences.

 

I also give my kids a standardized test once per year. I want my kids to learn test taking skills and be used to formal testing. This way, I hope they will be well prepared for when it comes time for taking the SAT or other standardized tests. Standardized tests are very important for homeschoolers because they may be one of the few objective sources for which colleges can judge homeschoolers. Also, many fields require board-type of exams...

 

If you are interested in looking at the Core Knowedge Sequence, you can download it for free here:

http://www.coreknowledge.org/download-the-sequence

[EKS]

I see an actually bigger problem with the missing learning in the Middle grades.

 

:iagree:

 

I also think that all of this raising of standards at the high school level (for example requiring students to take Precalculus or four AP courses) is focusing on the wrong thing. It's K-8 (and like you said mostly 5-8) that's the problem.

 

I firmly believe that most people could do very well in their lives and jobs with a *solid* K-8 education. In fact, if we could accomplish this, high school could go back to being optional and more rigorous. Then a high school diploma would actually mean something again. And college could stop being the new high school.

[DianeW88]

Those who follow TWTM teach their kids about ancient history instead of teaching them about "community workers." My kids have learned totally different things than they would in public school. I am okay with that.

 

Reading TWTM would give you an extremely good idea of what lots of people on this board are teaching their kids.

 

:iagree:This. My kids WTM education has gone so far beyond their peers PS education in my area that it isn't even funny. My friend phoned me the other day to let me know that my son had just explained the history and background of the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington they have hanging in their family room. They had no idea why it was unfinished (or even who painted it). She was so impressed that my 5th grader knew all about it. I sent happy vibes and sparkly good feelings in SWB's direction. :D

[MrsJewelsRae]

This is fascinating to read, and tbh, I've often wondered about the contradiction that is so widely touted by hs'ers that ps is pushing little kids too hard (which I agre- I have friends whose 5-6 yr old have anxiety and headaches) and yet high schoolers are graduating nearly illiterate (which I really cannot say whether that is true, but I have met several graduates recently who have no idea who Jane Austin is or Louisa May Alcott!!! They are not at all familiar with classics except for Shakespeare). Don't even get me stated on history! I think it is a crime that ps has so many students that hate history!! How can you hate history!? Because they turn it into a full and boring memorization of dates and names in order to pass a test, no doubt. Every hs kid I know loves history.

 

Whatever the case may be I do believe that kids are getting more homework then ever. What is the point of all the homework? I watched some of the documentary "Race to Nowhere" iirc, and the idea is that the students are under tremendous pressure,etc. Is this because the

Middle school grades are not preparing them for this? The curriculum is too rigorous? The material too advanced? I'd love to get some ideas from other hs moms who are a little more familiar with the system as to what they think about that.

 

(please ignore any spelling mistakes, still getting used to typing on my iPhone)

Edited December 5, 2011 by MrsJewelsRae

[ZooRho]

I mentioned it because my eldest missed that question on the first grade ITBS. It asked "which one is a community worker?" It had a picture of a construction worker, a waitress and a postal carrier. They wanted postal carrier. DD guessed construction worker because we had studied Rome and she knew the Roman roads were built with roads, paid for by taxes, just like today. So, that made sense to her. It makes sense to me too. Some of that vocabulary is peculiar to the school system.

I agree the questions are very school based. I remember one with my oldest about if you wanted to learn about something where would you look.

 

and ds answered a book, but I think the answer was enclycopedia. Well to us if we wanted to learn about something we went to the library to get a book about it.

[Spy Car]

It only seems odd that both of these can be true if you are under the illusion that schools are all identical and PS students are cookie cutter images of one another.

 

:iagree:

 

There is a wide variation in public schools from highly functioning to the failing. Probally not completely dissimilar to home-schools in that regard.

 

Bill

[regentrude]

I hear the same extremes. It makes no sense. Which is it?

 

It makes perfect sense: too much and too early push for academics in elementary, no learning in Middle school, dumbed down high school.

Both are correct: pressure on the little kids, nothing to show for after 12th grade.

End yes: both coexist within the same school district.

[Spy Car]

It makes perfect sense: too much and too early push for academics in elementary, no learning in Middle school, dumbed down high school.

Both are correct: pressure on the little kids, nothing to show for after 12th grade.

End yes: both coexist within the same school district.

 

I don't think that's it. Instead I think you have relatively affluent schools with high parent involvement where children tend to thrive and relatively poor schools with relatively low parent involvement where children tend not to thrive. There are exceptions to the rule, but it is certainly the prevailing situation in our school district which runs the gambit.

 

I'm sure there is a pretty wide achievement gap in the home-schooling world as well.

 

Bill

[regentrude]

I don't think that's it. Instead I think you have relatively affluent schools with high parent involvement where children tend to thrive and relatively poor schools with relatively low parent involvement where children tend not to thrive. There are exceptions to the rule, but it is certainly the prevailing situation in our school district which runs the gambit.

 

I'm sure there is a pretty wide achievement gap in the home-schooling world as well.

Bill

 

I am referring to the same schools. In our town, we have three practically identical elementary schools (we have no "affluent" or "poor" schools. all mixed). One Middle school. One high school.

I observe the early push, the missing middle, and the mediocre high school all in the same school district, with the same parent mix.

 

ETA: And I observe the average outcome of high schools every semester when I see out incoming freshmen, who probably are mostly from families with involved parents, coming from a variety of schools.

Edited December 5, 2011 by regentrude

[stripe]

I share the general sense of confusion.

 

It makes perfect sense: too much and too early push for academics in elementary, no learning in Middle school, dumbed down high school.

Both are correct: pressure on the little kids, nothing to show for after 12th grade.

End yes: both coexist within the same school district.

 

I tend to agree with you; remember the senator (?) from Utah who said 12th grade should be eliminated because no one learns anything anyway.

 

I think there's also a rush to get to the "impressive" stuff, so learning letters or how to read or basic arithmetic must be hurried, but these skills are never mastered so the "good stuff" is built on a flimsy foundation and eventually peters out. Personally I think middle school is greatly underdeveloped, and that age is a great one. Maybe schools yield to puberty??

[Spy Car]

I have a child in what I'd call a high-functioning public elementary school and I'm not seeing the kind of crushing early-learning happening there that is being described in this thread. There seems to be a "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't" attituite towards the public schools here that I don't quite get.

 

Plenty of of here (myself included) are accelerating our children's educations at home, and that is considered a "good thing" (generally speaking) but dare the highly-functioning public schools get children reading well in Kindergarten and they are pilloried.

 

Bill

[Lang Syne Boardie]

My cousin has been an early elementary teacher in our local public schools for over a decade. She agrees with regentrude.

 

In her opinion, our local elementary schools are very good for K-4, but then the ball is dropped for 5th-8th. She feels that they get the kids off to a really good start and then their school experience just fizzles into mediocrity after 4th grade.

 

If test scores prove anything, she's right. Our schools are in the top 10% of the state in reading and math for K-4, and then begin to drop off dramatically until our high school scores are abysmal. Our middle school, jr. high and high school are on academic probation and have been for several years.

[regentrude]

I have a child in what I'd call a high-functioning public elementary school and I'm not seeing the kind of crushing early-learning happening there that is being described in this thread. There seems to be a "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't" attituite towards the public schools here that I don't quite get.

 

Plenty of of here (myself included) are accelerating our children's educations at home, and that is considered a "good thing" (generally speaking) but dare the highly-functioning public schools get children reading well in Kindergarten and they are pilloried.

 

Bill

 

I do not see it necessarily as a bad thing to have challenging elementary school (in fact, I wish my kids would have had even more challenging school work)- as long as they also work with children who are not ready at age 5 for rigorous academic work. (There are kids who would easily learn to read at age 7, but trying to teach them at age 5 is like pulling teeth and will cause endless frustration to child and teacher.)

What I see, however, is how incongruent it is to put all push and acceleration into the early years and to completely drop the ball as of 5th grade. THAT makes no sense. The striving for a rigorous elementary education is wasted if these standards are not sustained throughout the school years. (I have seen no data that the early push for academics in the US compared to other countries translates into any measurable advantage of the American students over others at age 11.)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I wonder why that is though. Could it be they feel they need to catch some kids up? I don't get it, but I can kinda see that from my own education growing up. K-4 was getting the basics down and then 5th - 8th was some kind of weird blur. High school was a huge jump. I often took courses (especially science and math) that had expectations that seemed to come out of nowhere. Meaning I wondered what up until that point prepared me for it because I did not feel prepared.

 

I'm not involved with our ps at all, so I don't have any idea what goes wrong. My cousin and her early elem. colleagues think the middle school teachers are just lazy, but I can't quite believe that's all there is to it. LOL

 

I don't know any middle school teachers. I've often wondered if they would criticize their students' lack of preparedness and blame it on the elementary schools!

[Farrar]

I think the traditional wisdom around here is that kids in "good" ps are doing too much too early so that there is more knowledge and skills in the early grades, which makes for a poor foundation. The idea behind many homeschoolers' methods is that you have to do less but do it better in the early grades. Now, whether that's true or homeschoolers deluding themselves (or even both depending on the individual), that's for one to decide on one's own.

[Snickerdoodle]

I'm not involved with our ps at all, so I don't have any idea what goes wrong. My cousin and her early elem. colleagues think the middle school teachers are just lazy, but I can't quite believe that's all there is to it. LOL

 

Well, if the kids are anything like the ones I see leaving the middle school and high school near here, it's not a big surprise to me. A lot of these kids have behavior that is really off the deep end. Sometimes I think it must be a brave soul to be a middle/high school teacher in these parts.

[Spy Car]

I do not see it necessarily as a bad thing to have challenging elementary school (in fact, I wish my kids would have had even more challenging school work)- as long as they also work with children who are not ready at age 5 for rigorous academic work. (There are kids who would easily learn to read at age 7, but trying to teach them at age 5 is like pulling teeth and will cause endless frustration to child and teacher.)

What I see, however, is how incongruent it is to put all push and acceleration into the early years and to completely drop the ball as of 5th grade. THAT makes no sense. The striving for a rigorous elementary education is wasted if these standards are not sustained throughout the school years. (I have seen no data that the early push for academics in the US compared to other countries translates into any measurable advantage of the American students over others at age 11.)

 

I'm just not seeing "rigorous academic work" happening in Kindergarten.

 

I our case I wanted more challenge, so I provide that at home. What I did see was a marvelous and richly rewarding experience for the children in my son's school. Where the balance of learning and fun was something to behold. He had a wonderful experience that I found not have reproduced at home (even if I could "beat" the math instruction.

 

I just don't see the stereotype of the spirit-killing elementary schools that grind the children with academic rigor (or conversely only teach them about postal workers) as reality. There are a wide range of schools. Some a pretty good and some are places none of us might want to send our children.

 

Bill

[Elizabeth in WA]

I have a child in what I'd call a high-functioning public elementary school and I'm not seeing the kind of crushing early-learning happening there that is being described in this thread. There seems to be a "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't" attituite towards the public schools here that I don't quite get.

 

Plenty of of here (myself included) are accelerating our children's educations at home, and that is considered a "good thing" (generally speaking) but dare the highly-functioning public schools get children reading well in Kindergarten and they are pilloried.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: Also, at least in the 1st edition WTM that I read cover to cover repeatedly when my oldest was young, the WTM recommends teaching four year olds how to read and strongly implies (implied?) that most normal four year olds could learn to do so. That is the age at which I taught all mine to read, so I'd be hard-pressed to criticize schools for teaching 5 and 6 year olds to read.

[Sputterduck]

Those who follow TWTM teach their kids about ancient history instead of teaching them about "community workers." My kids have learned totally different things than they would in public school. I am okay with that.

 

Reading TWTM would give you an extremely good idea of what lots of people on this board are teaching their kids.

 

I'm not just okay with that. I'm Thrilled with that!

 

My son and I had a "resource teacher" assigned to us when he was enrolled in homeschool charter school. She explained that they taught children is this order: themselves, their community, their state, their country, and then the world. My first thought was, "No wonder children are so focused on themselves nowadays..." I suggested that maybe teaching things in order time-wise and as part of a bigger picture made more sense. I gifted them with a copy of The Well-Trained Mind before we disenrolled. I specifically teach in a manner that is not centered around my son and his world view!

[Spy Car]

:iagree: Also, at least in the 1st edition WTM that I read cover to cover repeatedly when my oldest was young, the WTM recommends teaching four year olds how to read and strongly implies (implied?) that most normal four year olds could learn to do so. That is the age at which I taught all mine to read, so I'd be hard-pressed to criticize schools for teaching 5 and 6 year olds to read.

 

Exactly!

 

Bill

[scrappyhappymama]

I think this is the push, but nothing going on that isn't recommended in TWTM. For example, I was talking to a kindergarten boy last week who was writing in a journal daily and reading early readers. When I was in kindergarten, my class was learning the names of letters. My mom taught me to read.

 

I don't think it's a problem for some kids, but I do think it's too much for a LOT of kids. Some kids are just not ready to read (or sit still long enough to learn) at 5. A lot of families in my area hold kids out of K for an extra year, because they don't want an ADD diagnosis for their normal active child.

 

On the bolded point, I disagree. TWTM model actually discourages the type of "creative" writing for early elementary that is so popular in the schools now.

 

It is not a matter of high achieving or not high achieving, but rather *what* children in K and 1 and 2 are being taught. I think those of us who follow or are at least somewhat guided by the WTM approach would be hard pressed to advocate for a better late than early approach, considering the rigor involved in TWTM.

 

However, the difference here seems to be in the educational approach taken. Many of us homeschool because we are disenchanted with the public school model and believe our children will be (for whatever reason) better educated at home.

 

To the OP, I'd recommend doing some reading on various educational philosophies and approaches, and determining what meets your educational goals for your child. You may find that you will become less concerned about whether your child is meeting the standards of your local public school, because you have chosen to focus instead on different priorities. On the other hand, if you are inclined to match the public school approach and schedule, but are homeschooling for other reasons (social, health, family dynamic, etc), then there are plenty of resources to help you "school at home" and to feel confident your child is not falling behind, based on that metric.

 

I think in many places kids are expected to be learning skills earlier. Here, when I was in school, kids were not expected to read in K, but in 1 or it was even ok if it was 2.

 

Now they have to be so far along in K, or they will be behind in 1, and not able to meet the requirements in 2 which assume they are readers - so my reading resource friend tells me.

 

I do not consider this a matter of ps kids being higher achieving. I consider it a matter of ps giving inappropriate guidelines that will ultimately have no benefit and quite possibly cause harm.

 

A big plus to homeschooling for me is avoiding this sort of "early achievement. "

 

I agree with the bolded here. I honestly believe that the ps model works really well for some students, but for students who do not fall within the statistical norms in some way, it performs really poorly. One of my elementary sons, I am convinced, would have done just fine in public school, and would probably have excelled. He just has a very compliant and willing to please personality and a lot of self motivation to do well at whatever he tries. One of my other sons, I am also convinced, would be failing miserably in school. He is also bright and willing to please, but personality-wise would have been slapped with a label quicker than a flash. At home, we have taken things at a much easier pace, and spent time studying other topics of interest while he matured into some of the more academic pursuits. An across the board "early achievement" model is just not ideal for every student and leaves many children feeling stupid and inadequate, setting a terrible precedent for the rest of their academic career.

[Spy Car]

On the bolded point, I disagree. TWTM model actually discourages the type of "creative" writing for early elementary that is so popular in the schools now. [/Quote]

 

It's true that at least at our school the writing model used runs counter to TWTM methods. However, I think it is also true that were you to poll parents at our school that they would be most happy about their children's progress in writing above all other academic subjects.

 

I think I'd be in the same camp, although I prefer more traditional grammar taught in a more systematic way than we are getting in school (and use MCT to remedy this). But over-all I'm very impressed with the level of writing being developed across all the grades in our school. Writing is the strongest suit there from my perspective.

 

And it is not all "creative writing" (as if that should be a bad word) as the kids are gently introduced to academic writing early on and this is a pretty strong skill with most when they commence to Middle School.

 

Bill

Edited December 5, 2011 by Spy Car

[GingerPoppy]

I honestly believe that the ps model works really well for some students, but for students who do not fall within the statistical norms in some way, it performs really poorly. One of my elementary sons, I am convinced, would have done just fine in public school, and would probably have excelled. He just has a very compliant and willing to please personality and a lot of self motivation to do well at whatever he tries. One of my other sons, I am also convinced, would be failing miserably in school. He is also bright and willing to please, but personality-wise would have been slapped with a label quicker than a flash. At home, we have taken things at a much easier pace, and spent time studying other topics of interest while he matured into some of the more academic pursuits. An across the board "early achievement" model is just not ideal for every student and leaves many children feeling stupid and inadequate, setting a terrible precedent for the rest of their academic career.

 

:iagree:

 

I feel my daughter was/is one of those kids. As a "young" kid in each grade (b-day just 2 weeks before cut off) and with her particular personality, she was getting B's but withering inside. She felt stupid. I fully believe this was setting a terrible precedent, so I pulled her. Feeling stupid also left her with the idea that she hated learning. That's being remedied.