Your secret pedagogical theory about homeschooling benefits?

[kubiac]

For a while last month, I nursed the theory that homeschooling is brilliant because the teacher-student ratio in homeschools is outstanding, better than anything you'll find in any institutional school (and even supersize families like the Duggars are still doing pretty great compared to public schools).

 

But now as I'm reading Donalyn Miller's The Book Whisperer, I'm starting to suspect that the prevalence of reading aloud and the sheer quantity of free reading time must be an elemental factor in homeschooling success.

 

OK, so I'm definitely fickle in my theory-picking, but do you have a secret (or not-so-secret) pedagogical theory about why homeschooling consistently yields such good results? What would you tell the Freakonomics writers or Malcolm Gladwell to investigate if they wanted to report on this?

[serendipitous journey]

1. Children of homeschoolers have parents with the resources and personal dedication to homeschool them. -- totally not arguing that homeschooling families are all financially comfortable; just that they, by virtue of circumstance or sheer determination, do acquire the necessary resources to get by and educate the children in the process.

 

2. ??? all that reading could be it ...

 

3. Less exposure to peers?

 

:bigear:

[MomatHWTK]

Parents who are involved = kids who learn

 

 

(regardless of instructional setting)

[Danielle1746]

Parents who are involved = kids who learn

 

 

(regardless of instructional setting)

 

:iagree:

[usetoschool]

A focused, personal education with the curriculum that fits the kid best, at the time that works best, under the conditions (one of my kids like to sit at a table and do worksheets, some like to lay on the trampoline and read) that work best.

 

Time to work on problem areas so there are no gaps and a dedicated teacher who sees the gaps.

 

And I agree with the amount of reading - in our case anyway.

[Julie Smith]

For a while last month, I nursed the theory that homeschooling is brilliant because the teacher-student ratio in homeschools is outstanding, better than anything you'll find in any institutional school (and even supersize families like the Duggars are still doing pretty great compared to public schools).

 

But now as I'm reading Donalyn Miller's The Book Whisperer, I'm starting to suspect that the prevalence of reading aloud and the sheer quantity of free reading time must be an elemental factor in homeschooling success.

 

OK, so I'm definitely fickle in my theory-picking, but do you have a secret (or not-so-secret) pedagogical theory about why homeschooling consistently yields such good results? What would you tell the Freakonomics writers or Malcolm Gladwell to investigate if they wanted to report on this?

 

I go with the reading time.

 

Mind you it is reading time on a one on one or small group basis.

[SunnyDays]

Customization of the student's education. You can personalize the child's pace, curricula, activities, hours, etc. to fit their levels and learning styles.

 

But I think all the other answers play a role as well.

[CatholicMom]

1. Super customization of the child's education. Homeschool moms are constantly considering whether they should be move faster through the material, move slower, have more review, are constantly aware of learning gaps.

 

2. Parents have a vested interest in their own children's success/are publicly accountable for the success or failure of their children, versus little to no accountability for public school teachers. How many kids slide through to the next grade because the teacher CAN? One of my theories about public school is that teachers who only teach one grade (worse yet - one subject of one grade!) are bound to feel almost zero accountability for what the kids learn in that one class. They have much less motivation, see much less long-term fruit for their efforts, so it's human nature to not put IN the effort when that is the case. How easy it is to just let the kids "pass" on to the next teacher and let it be their problem. Whereas if kids had one teacher who taught from K-12 ALL subjects (this sounds crazy, but that's what homeschool moms do, and they do it successfully!), it would be painfully obvious who the bad teachers are and who the good teachers are by each graduating class. Suddenly teachers would get their rears in gear, if for no other reason than because they don't want to be embarrassed come SAT time when their class of kids that they've had since Kindergarten can't pass their tests! Obviously, then we could also have some real repercussions for teachers who aren't doing their job well. It wouldn't be so based on speculation anymore, it would be crystal clear who was doing their job well and who isn't. Back to homeschooling, though... homeschooling moms don't have luxury of saying, geez, Jimmy has a really hard time with this and got all C's but I will pass him onto 5th grade... and never worry about it again. Homeschool moms not only want Jimmy to understand because he's their kid (!) but because whatever Jimmy doesn't understand this year and mom lets slide, she knows will come back to haunt her next year, and the next, and the next. She's in it for the long-haul and can't pass him off onto the next teacher.

 

Phew. You want theories... I got em! :lol:

 

There are a lot of reasons... hand-picked curriculum, lack of peer influence (e.g. homeschool kids aren't as concerned with being "cool," aren't aware of what's UNcool - like reading whatever books that might be considered "nerdy," don't easily get in with the wrong crowd, etc), parents who value education, 1 on 1 attention, a lot more "living books," lack of embarrassment to ask mom a question or say "I still don't get it." I would also argue that homeschoolers are usually educated using more interesting materials! I think I would have loved history if I had read about it from some of the really cool picture books and encyclopedias I've read to my kids. When I was a kid, I had never even SEEN one, that I remember! So sad.

 

But the above accountability theory is my most interesting theory of recent times. lol

Edited May 8, 2012 by TaraJo29

[Random]

Parents who are involved = kids who learn

 

 

(regardless of instructional setting)

 

:iagree:

 

and

 

2. I don't move on to the next thing until my student understands the current thing.

[Alphabetika]

Parents who are involved = kids who learn

 

 

(regardless of instructional setting)

 

 

:iagree: Once I form my full theory, :D, I know it will have something to do with this and the larger concept of personal relationship as it relates to learning. Another poster wrote well about the parent having a vested interest and accountability for a child's education that a teacher simply doesn't have. I agree with that and take it one step further. There is something about learning from someone who not only knows you but LOVES you that makes the quality of learning different and, IMHO, deeper and stronger than learning from someone with whom you have a more institutional relationship. I think the institutional nature of the teacher-student relationship is only increasing, at least where we live, where the education is so test-driven that teachers seem to be teaching not only to the test but to the funding incentive, especially for failing schools that are in danger of losing funding if they don't bring up their scores. Teaching seems to be growing more and more impersonal, less and less about interacting with students as actual people and seeing them only as succeeding/failing, with dollar signs attached. This is a system failure, not a teaching failure, though it trickles down to teachers, of course. The larger the system, the less it can focus on the individual. Obviously, as others have stated, the opposite is also true.

 

I am not saying this very articulately, which is why I say I haven't formed my theory completely. But another component of my theory would have to do with having a consistent teacher rather than changing every year. The consistency and the umbrella of love and relationship over all of education is really big for me. I don't mean to say by this that homeschooling needs to be a lovey-dovey, sappy environment, unless that's your style. I mean it in the overarching and the foundational sense. With parental love and concern underneath and over the education, learning is just....different. And better. It may take awhile to see it, but it's there.

 

I also think that homeschooling can lead to kids with a stronger self-knowledge because of the freedom in learning homeschooling students can experience. A stronger self-knowledge leads to a better learner overall, IMHO, because it can lead to a more intrinsic sense of the value of learning as personally applicable.

 

ETA: This is an excellent thead - I'd love to see you post this question on the general forum!

Edited May 8, 2012 by Alphabetika

[Mergath]

I think it's because hsed kids are constantly in an environment conducive to learning. With a kid in public school, he might live in a home with few books, uninvolved parents, and then has to go to school to learn from an overworked teacher with stretched-to-the-breaking-point resources, and deal with bullying, peer pressure, and all that other crap ps kids have to deal with daily.

 

Hsed kids, in general, have committed parents, a good home environment supportive of learning, and a great school environment with a low teacher to student ratio, and they have all of those things 24/7. It's like advantages on top of advantages on top of advantages, all the time.

[chepyl]

1. Tailoring the education to the child. Our pace and curriculum choices are made for one child, not for the average child.

 

2. We are involved in the education of our kids. This benefit is seen in public and private schools as well. A parent who keeps up with the kids work will see the rewards in the child's progress.

 

3. Low stress. My son danced and cheered the day his standardized test arrived. I try to keep the pressure and stress level down. We can always put something off for a day or a week.

 

4. My kids get all the sleep they need. If we stay up late for an activity, they can sleep in. No alarm clocks for the kids.

 

I think all of these factors, and many others, contribute to our success.

[CourtneySue]

My "secret" theories apparently are not so secret (pretty much what others have said):

 

1. The tutorial style of education is key. Kids simply do not fall through the cracks like they do in a classroom of 25+ kids.

 

2. Individualized education. We think long and hard about what's right for each child.

 

3. How about the fact that kids that are home schooled are doing more at home than just school: chores, gardening, laundry, nature study, cooking, lots of regular field trips, they get to be around when new babies come into the house, and more. All these things make for very well-rounded individuals.

 

4. All those books and read alouds can't hurt.

 

5. The love of learning is not squelched by horrible PS history and English teachers.

 

6. I don't know if this is true for everyone, but at my house, my kids are genuinely interested in what we study. Today a box of books that I've ordered from Rainbow Resource showed up for next year and my kids started going through them right away. I told my DS that I'm planning to start using them in September. He asked me if we could start in July. What public or private school kid wants school to start in July?!?!

 

My two cents . . .

[ALB]

Pretty much the same as other replies.

-motivated teacher who truly, intensely CARES for the student's well-being and education

-customized curricula, methods

-customized pace of study

-less distraction by peers

-learning becomes a lifestyle that isn't something you stop doing when school hours are finished

-and I definitely agree, agree, agree with the reading!

[ElizabethB]

Most homeschoolers use good phonics methods and teach spelling phonetically.

 

I'm seeing a slight decline in that, and a subsequent drop in performance in my reading grade level tests of homeschoolers.

[mandymom]

Most homeschoolers use good phonics methods and teach spelling phonetically.

 

I'm seeing a slight decline in that, and a subsequent drop in performance in my reading grade level tests of homeschoolers.

 

There is a really interesting intro that Barbara Beers writes in the intro to Phonics Road that talks about the reason for this and it goes back for years. Because of reading her intro, I've really been reading more of John Dewey's writings (a pioneer of public education in the US) and see that there is a philosophy on which the public school system was founded that has fundamentally different goals than homeschooling (and even private schooling in a lot of instances). Here's a few quotes of Dewey's:

 

“The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively an individual affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat.” (The School and Society, 1899)

 

 

 

“I believe that the social life of the child is the basis of concentration, or correlation, in all his training or growth. The social life gives the unconscious unity and the background of all his efforts and of all his attainments.

 

I believe that the subject-matter of the school curriculum should mark a gradual differentiation out of the primitive unconscious unity of social life.

 

I believe that we violate the child's nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to this social life.

 

I believe, therefore, that the true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities.” (My Pedagogic Creed, 1897)

 

 

 

The reason that I think that homeschooling produces, on a whole, better academic results is that its focus is on academics and learning. The focus of the public school system is socialization and creating a malleable society of "good citizens". That's not to say that no academics take place in public schools, because it does. But after reading the writings of some of the "pioneers" of compulsory public education, I just don't think that was their primary intent.

Edited May 8, 2012 by mandymom

[sewingmama]

My theory - no child left behind.

 

The fact that homeschoolers can slow down and work with a student who is struggling is a huge benefit. In schools the teacher somewhat caters to a struggling student but they still have deadlines to meet, tests to teach to and content to cover - they can only assist so much while trying to keep up with the timelines of children who learn on grade level.

 

That is why there are remedial classes where the child is pulled from regular class -because they teacher can't slow down their teaching to make sure each child "gets it". The problem with this is that remedial classes are only 1 or 2 times a week. I found when my child struggles with something they need consistant effort EVERYDAY to overcome it and make progress.

 

My DD struggled with reading - for over a year I did consistant small steps every day - and now she is zooming along and making great progress because I didn't push her further then she could go and I didn't pass over her to keep up with the other kids. Plus kids who are sent to a remedial class have the added stigma of going to the "dumb" class which can also add to their fear and stress and prohibit their learning.

 

Of course it's the same on the opposite end -children who are gifted are often held back because the teacher has to teach to the norm and can't race ahead with one student -so the gifted student gets slowed down or placed in a gifted class again only once or twice a week which isn't enough because the rest of that week they are stuck in a slow and boring class.

[ElizabethB]

The fact that homeschoolers can slow down and work with a student who is struggling is a huge benefit. In schools the teacher somewhat caters to a struggling student but they still have deadlines to meet, tests to teach to and content to cover - they can only assist so much while trying to keep up with the timelines of children who learn on grade level.

 

That is why there are remedial classes where the child is pulled from regular class -because they teacher can't slow down their teaching to make sure each child "gets it". The problem with this is that remedial classes are only 1 or 2 times a week. I found when my child struggles with something they need consistant effort EVERYDAY to overcome it and make progress.

 

My DD struggled with reading - for over a year I did consistant small steps every day - and now she is zooming along and making great progress because I didn't push her further then she could go and I didn't pass over her to keep up with the other kids. Plus kids who are sent to a remedial class have the added stigma of going to the "dumb" class which can also add to their fear and stress and prohibit their learning.

 

Of course it's the same on the opposite end -children who are gifted are often held back because the teacher has to teach to the norm and can't race ahead with one student -so the gifted student gets slowed down or placed in a gifted class again only once or twice a week which isn't enough because the rest of that week they are stuck in a slow and boring class.

 

:iagree:

 

That, too. There is an interesting book called "One Room Schools of the Middle West" that shows correlations between the number of one room schools in a state and literacy levels. The states with the most one room schools had the highest literacy rates. I think that is partly because the children who needed to see phonics taught for 2 or 3 or 4 years in a row could see it again each year.

 

But, also, one room schools were probably also more likely to use Spellers, which I think is the best way to teach reading and spelling.

[Tanikit]

The teacher is the parent - and a parent will (almost) always care more about their own child than anyone else in the whole world will. When that parent decides to educate his/her child she will do so to the best of her ability.

 

A parent will generally have higher (and probably more realistic) expectations of her child than a PS teacher will (and this is probably more evident in children with LDs)

 

Individualised, child-tailored education with great teacher-child ratios even in large families.

 

Most homeschooled families have an environment conducive to learning so that learning occurs all day/night and all year even if taking a break from formal academics.

 

Most homeschooled families have a lot more books than families of children who are PSed and reading is encouraged.

 

There is more resposnibility and accountability for a child's education by the parents when homeschooling - parents should be involved when the child is PSed but very often they are less involved than they should be.

 

A child who is homeschooled in general has a parent who is present almost 100% of the time (and even with parents who work part time/full time while homeschooling the presence of the parent is still more than for a PSed child) Children desperately need their parents attention and interest and care to thrive both academically and in other areas of their life.

 

Homeschooled children are often taught values and beliefs by their parents and realise that these are things that matter and are important leading them to have more of a meaning in life (this applies both to those brought up in a religious homeschooling environment and those brought up in a secular environment) Having a strong grounding in ways of life and good values is improtant for a strong academic education.

 

Family interconnectedness and therefore safety and security of a child should be higher in a homeschooled environment for a number of reasons (not getting into this now) which should also lead to better academics due to less stress, nervousness and tension.

[Joyofsixreboot]

This is horrible but secretly(not so much now) I think I'm smarter than the average elementary school teacher:blush:.

 

As others said, HS teachers can also slow down, speed up, remediate, etc at the pace of each child.

 

HS teachers can choose materials that are most effective for each student vs a committee approved choice.

 

If you've chosen to HS chances are you are deeply invested in your child's education. Parental influence can't be underestimated in a public, private or home schooled child's education. Family culture is pretty predictive of academic outcome.

Edited May 8, 2012 by joyofsix

[Carol in Cal.]

:iagree:

 

That, too. There is an interesting book called "One Room Schools of the Middle West" that shows correlations between the number of one room schools in a state and literacy levels. The states with the most one room schools had the highest literacy rates. I think that is partly because the children who needed to see phonics taught for 2 or 3 or 4 years in a row could see it again each year.

 

But, also, one room schools were probably also more likely to use Spellers, which I think is the best way to teach reading and spelling.

 

Did they talk about the way that students' learning was customized? My grandmother taught in a one room school house. She taught the standard curricula, but at each child's level. I wish she had talked more about how she did it. Once she told me that she had a student who wanted to learn Russian. She already knew Latin, German, Spanish, French, and Italian, but no Russian. So she bought the standard Russian text, and studied so that she was always one lesson ahead of her student.

[Donna]

I believe there is no one factor but a combination of factors like OPs have mentioned....

 

-very low student/teacher ratio

-involved parents who feel responsible for their child's education

-ability to tailor the education to fit the child rather than forcing the child to fit the required curriculum and schedule

-ability to follow a child's interests so as to maintain a love of learning in the child

-books all over the house and reading time...parents who read

-less stress...due to ability to give the child time to pursue their extracurriculars while still having time to be a child since it takes less time to teach one child than a classroom of children so the school day can be shorter while covering more material

-ability to teach the child when they are at their best...morning, night, afternoon, throughout the year, on weekends, etc...

-ability to teach many things very hands on if that's how the child learns best

 

 

I am sure I missed a few because I read the other posts and really liked what they had to say.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Having taken themselves out of the mainstream for education, homeschooling parents are also willing to go out of the mainstream and tell their children, "No." Saying No to TV as a several hours a day feature of life is the big one, but there are many other areas. (We watch TV, but didn't much when the kids were little. And we watched very little of the "educational tv" like Blue's Clues that teaches kids that they need to watch tv.)

 

Lots of reverence for books and reading.

 

A willingness to let kids be bored until they are willing to grab a game or a ball or a cardboard box and unbore themselves.

 

Not categorizing life into learning and living spheres. Anytime is an opportunity to learn something.

 

Willingness to go way outside the box to find the right materials for the right kid at the right time. Is that some cool online resource from MIT or the National Gallery of Art? A 50 year old history book that was long ago removed from school libraries because no one wanted to check out non fiction. A tried and true math text from the 1960s that relies on teaching the math, not on making it relevant. Not being limited to the schedule that will get the maximum number of "average" students through the material and to the end of the year exam means we can dwell with our students' interests, building knowledge, skills and understanding by scaffolding it on what ignites their passions. We can push them farther or keep working with something until it finally clicks. And we're not limited to what someone at headquarters or the state capital approved. Nor are we required to change materials just because something new has come down the pike.

 

The knowledge that no one else is going to come along and "fix" my kids' learning problems. I can't just chalk it up to a bad teacher this year and hope next year is better. The flip side of this one is painful, because I can't blame problems on anyone else. But that is part of the compelling interest. And as a teacher, I can't blame a disinterested student on "those parents" because they are us. If a child is disrespectful, lazy, inattentive or defiant, that is also my problem. I can't just hang on until June and pass him along to the next teacher.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

:iagree: with all the posts.

Wanted to add that when a child is free to investigate, read, relax, make discoveries, and play for large amounts of time in conjunction with the personalized education allows the brain to take the info learned and process it.

[stripe]

This is all very well and good, but I know and know of homeschoolers who:

* do not read to their children

* do not have books in the home, or at least not for children

* never go to the library

* are not exceptionally focussed on academics

* use a boxed curriculum and do not customize it

* never go on educational field trips

*kids do not spend hours on their own interests or roaming the neighborhood freely

* do not emphasize phonics. To say most hsers do this is a mystery to me-- where's the evidence? As an example, I am reading Nancy Wallace's memoir abut hsing (Better than School) from the 1980s, and she attributes her children's success to the lack of phonics emphasis and formalized approach to lanuage arts.

 

I think it's very hard to get a feel for what most homeschoolers are actually doing or thinking, much less what their definition of "good results" are. For some people, "good results" means time to play the violin or lack of exposure to mainstream culture.

[Chris in VA]

This is all very well and good, but I know and know of homeschoolers who:

* do not read to their children

* do not have books in the home, or at least not for children

* never go to the library

* are not exceptionally focussed on academics

* use a boxed curriculum and do not customize it

* never go on educational field trips

*kids do not spend hours on their own interests or roaming the neighborhood freely

* do not emphasize phonics. To say most hsers do this is a mystery to me-- where's the evidence? As an example, I am reading Nancy Wallace's memoir abut hsing (Better than School) from the 1980s, and she attributes her children's success to the lack of phonics emphasis and formalized approach to lanuage arts.

 

I think it's very hard to get a feel for what most homeschoolers are actually doing or thinking, much less what their definition of "good results" are. For some people, "good results" means time to play the violin or lack of exposure to mainstream culture.

 

I agree with you. It is hard to say "most homeschoolers" do anything, really.

 

I disagree with those that simply loving your child parentally means you always seek the best for them--some of us are depressed, lazy, preoccupied, selfish, etc. Some don't know what to look for in curricula and just go with what someone else tells them, which may not fit the child or the family. Some are burnt out. Some aren't good teachers and are gifted in other ways. But because we love our kids, we are the best choice for teaching them...Well, not always, sad to say.

 

Overall, tho, in general...well, can we really even use those words?

 

I do think MOST children would benefit from the low ratio, less peer influence, and more sleep that MOST hsing kids get. I think those families who make education a priority, seek out and tailor curriculum to the learning style of the kiddo and the teaching style of the parent, place reasonable (and that varies...) boundaries around media, stay lifelong learners themselves, and try their best to foster connection thru listening to their kids and spending time with their kids, will have a better outcome than the average public schooled kid, even if that kid's parents do the above, also. I don't know why, exactly.

[stripe]

Not everyone homeschools for academic reasons.

 

Not all parents are sufficiently educated. There are lots of parents in the world who are illiterate and not well educated. They may be very loving and very concerned that their own children receive an education, mind you, just not in a position to do so themselves.

 

I am not sure that a good home school is necessarily better than a good brick and mortar school. I just don't know that. It's not a slam, but a musing.

[SonshineLearner]

Parents who are involved = kids who learn

 

 

(regardless of instructional setting)

 

This :) Which is why I'm burnt out reading all of the homeschooling brags on our local lists. Seriously, you care. We care, equally, about our Public school girls and our Home Educated boy :) We are involved. We care. My husband spends hours and ours reading to my son. They are all smart.... and all educated. We like aspects of both types of education. Tutoring by involved adults tends to help students, but isn't possible or wanted by all parents OR by all students. :) (in other words some teens are screaming to get to school... and they still yearn for education :))

[ElizabethB]

* do not emphasize phonics. To say most hsers do this is a mystery to me-- where's the evidence? As an example, I am reading Nancy Wallace's memoir abut hsing (Better than School) from the 1980s, and she attributes her children's success to the lack of phonics emphasis and formalized approach to lanuage arts.

 

I think it's very hard to get a feel for what most homeschoolers are actually doing or thinking, much less what their definition of "good results" are. For some people, "good results" means time to play the violin or lack of exposure to mainstream culture.

 

I have lived in 4 different states since I started homeschooling and I give out reading grade level tests to everyone I know and ask what the use to teach reading. With homeschoolers, I generally have the parents give the test, other parents get the option to have me give it if they need help.

 

When I first started homeschooling, almost everyone used a good phonics program with few sight words. Now, more homeschoolers are starting to use programs with sight words and I am seeing more problems. There are enough problems here from methods that use sight words that I taught a remedial homeschool group class for the first time, usually there are only a few students and I can work with the parents a bit to have them remediate and tutor the really hard cases one on one.

Edited May 8, 2012 by ElizabethB

[ElizabethB]

Did they talk about the way that students' learning was customized? My grandmother taught in a one room school house. She taught the standard curricula, but at each child's level. I wish she had talked more about how she did it. Once she told me that she had a student who wanted to learn Russian. She already knew Latin, German, Spanish, French, and Italian, but no Russian. So she bought the standard Russian text, and studied so that she was always one lesson ahead of her student.

 

No, but that would really interest me, too! I would love to know details about how people like your grandma taught.

 

It was more of a high level academic history. There were a few schedules of what was taught, but not how it was taught.

[Miss Tick]

There are a lot of good theories here!

 

Lately, I have been enjoying the thought that our history, science and foreign language studies, despite not being our primary focus, will have continuity from year-to-year even in the elementary grades.

[Mallorie]

Parents who are involved = kids who learn

 

 

(regardless of instructional setting)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I've seen this true when my kids were in preschool, public school, Scouting, 4H, every organization we've been involved in right down to homeschool co-ops. It's the parents who are involved in the processes WITH their kids who see the most dividends, and the most well-adjusted kids.

[CatholicMom]

Not everyone homeschools for academic reasons.

 

Not all parents are sufficiently educated. There are lots of parents in the world who are illiterate and not well educated. They may be very loving and very concerned that their own children receive an education, mind you, just not in a position to do so themselves.

 

I am not sure that a good home school is necessarily better than a good brick and mortar school. I just don't know that. It's not a slam, but a musing.

 

I think it's safe to say that most parents who are illiterate don't choose to "homeschool" in the common way we are using the term. ;)

 

And we do know this: The average home school is better than the average brick and mortar school. We know that the average homeschooled kid scores significantly higher than public school kids on standardized tests. Here is one article.

[stripe]

I think it's safe to say that most parents who are illiterate don't choose to "homeschool" in the common way we are using the term. ;)

 

The point was, there are very loving parents who cannot provide what their children needs. This also holds among the literate.

[sweetpea3829]

Such a great question!!!

 

Ok...I have a few theories.

 

One, I believe that most children's needs are not being met in a traditional classroom environment. It's not a knock on teachers, many of whom are excellent. It's more about the fact that young children are not intrinsically capable of sitting for long periods of time. They're.just.not. And that's what a classroom asks them to do.

 

I remember when I student taught 1st grade and the first day I walked in to meet my cooperating teacher. I was so disappointed to see that the children were sitting at desks...all day long. They were 6 and 7! My 6 and 5 yr olds would go out of their minds if I asked them to sit at a desk for that long.

 

Moreoever...you know what, guys? When our babies are born, and they go to the pediatrician, and we talk about milestones, what do the peds usually say to the mom or dad that's concerned that Johnny is 6 months old and not yet sitting up? They say, "Don't worry about it. Children all develop at different rates. He'll get it when he's ready."

 

We adopt this approach towards our children from birth up until they hit 5 yrs old and then suddenly it becomes, "Put 30 kids in one classroom and expect them all to learn the same thing at the same time."

 

You know what? Not all 5 yr olds are ready to learn how to read. Sometimes they're not ready until they are 7, or even 8! And it doesn't even have to mean that something is "wrong" with them. It could just be the way they develop.

 

But brick and mortar schools still expect them to learn what they are supposed to be learning because they are 5 and should be in Kindergarten.

 

You look at my four kiddos. I have a 6 yr old that is really having a hard time with accomplishing learning milestones that are age appropriate for her. Then I have a 5 yr old that is shooting off the charts. Neither one of these children would have success in a brick and mortar classroom. The 6 yr old would fall far behind. The 5 yr old would be bored stiff. It's not the teacher's fault. You can't expect one teacher to meet the needs of all 30 kids in her class. She can really only meet the needs of the kids in the middle.

 

So in part, I believe that homeschooling affords us the opportunity to provide an education that is customized for each individual learner. What could be better?

 

My next theory is about the social influences. You know what? Flame me if you must but...one of the biggest criticisms of homeschoolers is that homeschooling takes away from a child's socialization. I always chuckle when people say that to me. I DON'T WANT MY KIDS SOCIALIZED THAT WAY! Really. The peer influence and negative attitudes about respect that permeate classroom environments is not how I want to socialize my kiddos. We hold higher standards for our kids...and we recognize that the peer environment will ultimately hold much more sway over them than we will. Particularly if they have enough exposure to peer groups that we would prefer they not be exposed to. And especially during those formative years in middle school and early high school, when image is everything and fitting in is the top goal.

 

Anyways, I have more to say, lol, but my DH is giving me "the look" that says it's time to get off the computer.

[morosophe]

Honestly, the major one I think about is class size. (Since a smaller class size allows for more customization, etc., they're all linked anyhow, in my mind.)

 

The reason that the class size argument comforts me is that it makes me think that, by taking my son out of the public school, I'm actually doing those kids a favor, as well as my son. One less student for the harried teacher, right? Win, win!

 

The argument I hear back is that that's one less good student, with supportive, involved parents, who could really help a school. In my opinion, that's complete nonsense. I'm not in it to support a SCHOOL, particularly not financially, which is what it always sounds like to me. The fact that a school would insert itself between me and my son, and then expect to get attention from me because I want a good education for my son... There's just something off about that, in my opinion.

 

And as for removing my son's presumably beneficial influence from the class... Once I get over cracking up about that, considering what his "influence" with his siblings is, I would like to ask how, exactly, he is supposed to be "contributing" when the ideal child apparently sits still and shuts up. Cooperative learning may be big in other countries, but it really hasn't caught on well in American public schools, perhaps in part because of (you guessed it!) class size. (Not to mention, as loads of people have already pointed out, that the peer influence definitely doesn't run only one way.)

 

So, this really didn't have much to do with the original purpose of this thread, but that's the cause I find most comforting because, hopefully, I'm helping more than just my son by removing him from school.

 

On a related note: my state apparently doesn't have any problems with parents of somewhat "disadvantaged" children removing them from the school. When homeschool lobbyists pointed out that lowering the bar from 50% to 33% on yearly standardized tests would save a whole LOT of money on remedial teaching, that requirement was adjusted really quickly. I find that kind of funny, and really practical.

[sweetpea3829]

The argument I hear back is that that's one less good student, with supportive, involved parents, who could really help a school. In my opinion, that's complete nonsense. I'm not in it to support a SCHOOL, particularly not financially, which is what it always sounds like to me. The fact that a school would insert itself between me and my son, and then expect to get attention from me because I want a good education for my son... There's just something off about that, in my opinion.

 

 

I had a school psychologist tell me this exact same thing. He was assessing DS5 as part of a speech eval (he has artic issues) and he expressed how he wished I would consider enrolling DS because of how great an example he would be for his peers.

 

Yeah, thanks for the thought, but no thanks, lol.

[CatholicMom]

Such a great question!!!

When our babies are born, and they go to the pediatrician, and we talk about milestones, what do the peds usually say to the mom or dad that's concerned that Johnny is 6 months old and not yet sitting up? They say, "Don't worry about it. Children all develop at different rates. He'll get it when he's ready."

 

We adopt this approach towards our children from birth up until they hit 5 yrs old and then suddenly it becomes, "Put 30 kids in one classroom and expect them all to learn the same thing at the same time."

 

[...]

 

The peer influence and negative attitudes about respect that permeate classroom environments is not how I want to socialize my kiddos. We hold higher standards for our kids...and we recognize that the peer environment will ultimately hold much more sway over them than we will. Particularly if they have enough exposure to peer groups that we would prefer they not be exposed to. And especially during those formative years in middle school and early high school, when image is everything and fitting in is the top goal.

 

:iagree:

 

And whoever said people have told them that schools have 1 less smart kid with involved parents... I've never heard that one before, but I'm glad you brought it up so I know what to say in response, if I have a chance. At first it seems somewhat valid until, like you said, you realize that the point of education is to... err.. educate your kid, not support a school! The schools should exist FOR the service of families. Families do not exist for the service of schools.