2 hours homeschooling equals a whole day of public schooling

[boscopup]

I don't think that school is the only place for "socialization," but surely you recognize that there's a huge difference between having to maintain a working relationship with someone for an extended period of time (up to 12 years) and picking out a playmate on a playground, or seeing another shopper from afar at Wal-Mart?

 

My children have to have a working relationship with each other for longer than 12 years. And let me tell you, that is VERY trying sometimes. That's harder than any relationships I had to deal with in school as well. In my response to the PP, the first example I gave was siblings. She had said "learning how to deal with other people, especially people different from themselves or who they wouldn't normally choose to be around". Guess what? My oldest wouldn't normally choose to be around my middle son much of the time. They are forced to learn to get along and love each other, despite their differences. And even better, they have to spend 24/7 with each other, not just 6-8 hours a day.

 

I stand by what I said.

 

And I'll agree with KathyJo:

 

 

Sure, they may come in different colors, believe different things, and have different abilities, but we treat them all with respect, the way we want to be treated.

 

 

Exactly, exactly, exactly. My kids wouldn't think to make fun of someone for being different (and you bet that happens in public school... I well remember names I was called in Kindergarten for looking different). They haven't been exposed to people who think that way, and thus they don't think that way. They treat people with respect. They interact with people of all types the same way.

 

My kids have a severely autistic cousin (ie, he will never live on his own, barely talks at the age of 14, and the "talking" is just repeating words or phrases for things he wants, like saying "watermelon" - no back and forth conversation whatsoever). They have been around him many times, yet they have never thought of him as being "strange" or "different". They've never asked why he was different from their neurotypical cousins. They just treated him like any other kid, and it didn't bother them when he did something "different". So what exactly do my kids need to learn in a school setting about getting along with different people that they haven't learned from being out and about, having siblings, having cousins, going to church, etc.? My oldest was in school, and frankly, the kids weren't that different from him. He's learned more outside of school than in school when it comes to socializing with other people. We've seen more kids of different colors and abilities at the playground than he saw in school.

[KathyJo]

I told my 16yos that people on the forum don't think he's working long enough each day. He glared and suggested that I post on a Doctor Who forum instead.  :001_tt2:

[EKS]

I am one of those over the top homeschoolers who always finds a way to add one more thing.  Even *I* think that 2 hours per day of academic instruction is sufficient *for an average outcome* in the lower grades.  Homeschooling is *extremely* efficient.  However, what the child is not getting is peer interaction, interaction with other adults, crafty project stuff, whatever. 

 

[chiguirre]

I am one of those over the top homeschoolers who always finds a way to add one more thing.  Even *I* think that 2 hours per day of academic instruction is sufficient *for an average outcome* in the lower grades.  Homeschooling is *extremely* efficient.  However, what the child is not getting is peer interaction, interaction with other adults, crafty project stuff, whatever. 

I think most people who only hs for 2 hours a day probably have the time for park day and coop and the library craft club. They're the "out and about" type of hser. We're this kind of family. My kids work way better at a table in Starbucks while we wait for a sibling than they do at home.

[PhotoGal]

We do more than 2 hours a day, BUT that is because we are doing 2nd (and 3rd) languages, sport lessons during the day (instead of afterschool), challenging curriculum, and other things the kids would not be getting at school. If we only had to replicate what they would get in school, we could definitely do it in 2 hours. Our local publics offer math, language arts, science and social studies. A half hour of one-on-one tutoring in each of those subjects would result in at least the same amount (arguably more) than what would be learned in a whole class environment for longer time periods. Maybe take the 2 hours from Friday for library, P.E., music, art, computer, etc. Totally doable! If your child had learning disabilities, it may take longer, but the one-on-one would still be much more effective in that case, anyway.

 

For middle school, I can see needing more time, but for elementary I can see it working. I also think that homeschoolers have a harder time drawing the line between "school" and life. So if we are sitting at the table with books and paper, that seems like school. But if they are using their "free" time to read, play Scrabble, etc. - there is a gray area there. So even people who are doing 2 hours of school are not just doing 2 hours of learning, kwim?

[chepyl]

I am one of those over the top homeschoolers who always finds a way to add one more thing.  Even *I* think that 2 hours per day of academic instruction is sufficient *for an average outcome* in the lower grades.  Homeschooling is *extremely* efficient.  However, what the child is not getting is peer interaction, interaction with other adults, crafty project stuff, whatever. 

 

I don't count the peer interaction, crafty stuff, and extras as school. Because we homeschool my kids can play soccer, do competitive dance, theatre classes and performances, co-op, hang out with their friends and cousins and play together building a lifelong bond with each other rather than the kids they are placed in class with. So the 2 hours is strictly academics - that is where I think some of the issue is. Some count music practice, gymnastics, etc in the school day. If I did count all of the extra things, we would be schooling 8 hours a day.

[PhotoGal]

Another thought is that all day in a public school may result in more *teaching*, but not necessarily more *learning*. This may depend on the student to a certain extent, but I know when I taught in the classroom that the "whole class" lessons were reaching some kids, but others tended to tune out. Misunderstandings took longer to correct (kids turning in work at the end of the day instead of doing it when I'm right there). Kids could "phone it in" sometimes in the classroom, but I always expect more from my kids at home. Also, in homeschool, I am teaching them right at their level (Zone of Proximal Development), whereas in the classroom there would be a lot of time when the material was review for some students, just right for others, but over the heads of others. So that "teaching time" is mostly wasted for a large portion of the class, because it wasn't their level. I remember being so bored in school because we spent half the year reviewing the previous year's content and I was also never challenged. Working right at the kids' challenge levels make our lessons much more efficient.

[KathyJo]

Another thought is that all day in a public school may result in more *teaching*, but not necessarily more *learning*. This may depend on the student to a certain extent, but I know when I taught in the classroom that the "whole class" lessons were reaching some kids, but others tended to tune out. Misunderstandings took longer to correct (kids turning in work at the end of the day instead of doing it when I'm right there). Kids could "phone it in" sometimes in the classroom, but I always expect more from my kids at home. Also, in homeschool, I am teaching them right at their level (Zone of Proximal Development), whereas in the classroom there would be a lot of time when the material was review for some students, just right for others, but over the heads of others. So that "teaching time" is mostly wasted for a large portion of the class, because it wasn't their level. I remember being so bored in school because we spent half the year reviewing the previous year's content and I was also never challenged. Working right at the kids' challenge levels make our lessons much more efficient.

 

And, though I feel like a broken record saying it, giving children plenty of time for creative play and pursuing their own interests is NOT "just doing the bare minimum." Giving them that time is one way that I give my children something superior.

[EKS]

I don't count the peer interaction, crafty stuff, and extras as school. Because we homeschool my kids can play soccer, do competitive dance, theatre classes and performances, co-op, hang out with their friends and cousins and play together building a lifelong bond with each other rather than the kids they are placed in class with. So the 2 hours is strictly academics - that is where I think some of the issue is. Some count music practice, gymnastics, etc in the school day. If I did count all of the extra things, we would be schooling 8 hours a day.

 

Yes!  This was my point exactly!

[PhotoGal]

This thread has got my brain buzzing. Thank you all for this conversation!

 

I thought of an example of something taking longer in public school. So, I remember in school we would have a vocabulary assignment where we would have to look up 10-20 words in the dictionary and write down their definitions. Everyone had to do this - even if you knew every word already (and knew how to use the dictionary already). When we do vocabulary, I ask them to define a few words for me (aloud). If they already know one, we move on. If they don't, we review for several days until they know it. It takes 1 or 2 minutes a day. And the kids *don't hate learning new words*! They think it is fun! :)

[chepyl]

This thread has got my brain buzzing. Thank you all for this conversation!

 

I thought of an example of something taking longer in public school. So, I remember in school we would have a vocabulary assignment where we would have to look up 10-20 words in the dictionary and write down their definitions. Everyone had to do this - even if you knew every word already (and knew how to use the dictionary already). When we do vocabulary, I ask them to define a few words for me (aloud). If they already know one, we move on. If they don't, we review for several days until they know it. It takes 1 or 2 minutes a day. And the kids *don't hate learning new words*! They think it is fun! :)

 

I handle spelling the same way. We spend two weeks on every list. The first week he spells all words aloud on Monday. If he gets them all, we have a week of no spelling. If he struggles or misses some, we respell those daily. The second week is dictation that incorporates all those words and a workbook on homophones. We spend 5 minutes a day some weeks and 10 a day other weeks. His spelling is excellent.

 

For vocabulary, he reads aloud almost daily from a McGuffey reader. If he gets to a word he does not know, we discuss and look it up. Most, he can get from context which is a more effective method of vocab than copying definitions. I did that for years too! I hated it!! I have even caught him using some of that vocabulary :) We also go through Latin derivatives each week as part of that lesson. I try to think of ways to combine subjects whenever possible (science or history and writing; spelling and handwriting; writing and typing; vocab and reading) subjects are not compartmentalized as much as they were for me in school.

[chiguirre]

reported

[Meriwether]

We went to a school open house, the only thing that I admired that we have not done at home was a huge history diorama.

I never thought of something like this.  We have a pool table that we rarely use to play pool.  How fun would it be to put a piece of plywood across the top and made a diorama?  Maybe I'll do a couple of small ones and see how the kids like it first, but, man, would that be fun.

[KeepItGoing]

Can homeschool do in two hours a day what the schools do in a whole day?

 

A few examples, mostly from my experience as a student and as a public school teacher.

 

(1) When I was in 5th grade, I missed two weeks of school for a family vacation. My teacher sent assignments with me so that I could keep up. On the way back home, I did the two weeks' worth of homework, in one sitting, almost certainly in less than an hour. I could hardly believe how little material I would have covered, and how quickly I could do it on my own. When I got back to the classroom, I found it was even worse than I had thought: I was now well ahead of the class! (And this was a good school.)

 

(2) In sixth grade, my teacher used to end the day by asking us to tell something that we'd learned that day. I could find something that I had actually learned that day perhaps once every two weeks (and even then it was something trivial). This exercise made me rather depressed about the time I was wasting in school.

 

(3) My sixth-grade nephew is very excited about school right now, because for the first time he's actually learning something on a regular basis in schools. And he spent most of his elementary school years in an exclusive, very expensive private school. His six-year-old brother came home from school once in the middle of kindergarten. "I learned something today, Mom!" Apparently he hadn't had that experience before.

 

(4) When I was a high school Spanish teacher, a student of mine broke his hip and spent two weeks in the hospital. I was very worried about him because he was a C- student and he happened to miss the two weeks which set up the foundation for the rest of the year's work. So I gathered up my materials and went to the hospital and gave him a 45-minute tutoring session, in which I taught him about FIVE DAYS worth of normal in-class material. At the end of that time, I gave him a quiz—and he got an A, his first A ever. We looked at each other in shock. ("Boy, it's a lot easier when you're sitting here explaining it to me!")

 

Now, having said all that, I'll ask the next question: is homeschooling, as actually practiced, more efficient than the schools? I think this really depends on the family. The potential is definitely there. But if the mom isn't good at keeping things going well, it can be quite inefficient, which I know by experience. This year, for the very first time, I think we're being efficient at our schoolwork—and this is my 16th year of doing this! (And yes, my oldest daughter, who launched last year, is doing quite well at her university. But I do regret the disorganization of her time at home!)

 

Spy Car Bill said

What I think is not helpful, is the notion (that does exist in the homeschooling world) that "the schools are so bad that anything we do at home [meaning: very little] is better than that." I've seen these sort of comments repeatedly over the years, and it makes me cringe. I understand this does not reflect the dominant thinking on this forum (thank goodness), but the 2 hours a day thinking is (to my ears) another form of settling for mediocre.

 

I totally agree that we should not discount what the schools do manage to accomplish, and unfortunately I also find this attitude on homeschooling boards too often. As much as the schools have troubles, they do spend every day, most of the day, at least trying to educate the kids. And the kids do learn, even if they don't learn as much as we think they should. I have encountered a number of homeschooled kids who I think have not been well-served by their homeschool programs, and I'm much less of a gung-ho homeschool supporter than I used to be.

 

But two hours a day of new information—or helpful sorts of practice—is definitely more than I used to get in an excellent public school setting, even, most days, in high school. So, for me, this statement would have been true. And I'm pretty sure it would be more true today, if my kids were in the schools. But do I limit myself to two hours of teaching my kids? Of course not.

[ElizabethB]

I never thought of something like this. We have a pool table that we rarely use to play pool. How fun would it be to put a piece of plywood across the top and made a diorama? Maybe I'll do a couple of small ones and see how the kids like it first, but, man, would that be fun.

Here are some pictures for inspiration:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=history+diorama&client=safari&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=iOIzUriSDKGO2gWM_YDoBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1024&bih=644&dpr=2

[8filltheheart]

I've got no doubt (said for the umpteenth time) that people can achieve great educations at home. In the best cases achieving things no school could hope to. Did you read those posts?

 

But 2 hours a day, from my perspective, is a joke.

 

Bill

 

It isn't a joke and for the umpteenth time, people not only can, but DO, achieve superior educations at home in a fraction of the time a school could hope to achieve in a full day.  All homeschools, no.   But, seriously, the fact that all don't doesn't negate the fact that there are those that do. 

 

You have yet to address HOW my kids or Regentrude's have managed to achieve all they have if it really is impossible.   I am not doing some mysterious magic of time warping.   ;)   If we were the parents of young elementary children claiming that this approach works w/o long-term evidence, you might have a plausible position.   But, jeepers, I have a successful chemical engineer for a ds that literally spent about 1 hr per grade level on school (and he was always homeschooled and NEVER stepped foot in a school until dual enrollment)and the rest of his days were spent building/constructing (and destroying :) )/exploring ON HIS OWN without any adult control over developing his projects/connections/etc.   If this sort of approach was subpar, how did he graduate cum laude and near the very top of his engineering class?   How was he one of the few with multiple job offers at graduation?   All the other students were the product of full day school.   He was the only homeschooled student.  

 

I could continue on with the successive successes of my other children, but what is the point?  

 

Your posts really demonstrate an inability to accept alternative POV that I wouldn't have expected from you.   Simply because you haven't experienced it or are skeptical does not invalidate the evidence to the contrary.   And simply repeating what you believe over and over and over and over does not change reality.

 

FWIW, I absolutely do not accept the premise that all homeschools surpass ps and I am definitely not one to make that assertion.   I have witnessed far too many subpar homeschools.   I have seen kids that aren't doing enough daily and their high school level work is most definitely not high school equivalent.   But great homeschools do exist and they do not have emulate a ps approach or methodolgy to be extremely successful (actually I contend that they are better if they don't emulate ps!!)

 

I think the conversation has out lived its usefulness.  :p

[Impish]

I think part of the problem is the perception of what the two hours actually entails.

 

Princess is in gr 2.

 

Tazzie, gr 3.

 

Princess regularily gets done in 2 hrs or less. Tazzie *could*, but tends to waste time.

 

Here's the thing, though: I'm only counting what time they spend at the table, w/formal instruction, writing, math, journaling, science, etc. Stuff that they're *writing* down.

 

I'm not counting read alouds. Either by me or to me.

 

I'm not counting art.

 

I'm not counting time on the puter, doing language arts, math, watching enrichment videos.

 

I'm not counting any time outside the home, be it going for a hike w/Daddy, exploring ecosystems, a day spend at the science centre or museum.

 

I'm not counting time spent cooking, baking (science and math anyone?).

 

ALL I am counting is the time spent w/their butts in a chair, pencil in hand.

 

So, no I'm not being dellusional, nor is it a joke, to state that 2 hrs a day of 'school work' accomplishes/exceeds what they'd be doing in a full day of school. Not by a long shot.

[Impish]

And to add, Diva is in gr 10.

 

Her work is an all day affair, and extends often into the evening.

 

Yesterday, she spent two hours on the ph and Skype w/a good friend of mine who's an engineer, learning about thermal dynamics. In addition to all the regular stuff she did during the day.

[Spy Car]

I think the conversation has out lived its usefulness. :p

Common ground :D

 

Bill

[teeniebeenie6]

I personally can't imagine getting homeschool done in 2 hours a day and I wouldn't want to.

[Impish]

I personally can't imagine getting homeschool done in 2 hours a day and I wouldn't want to.

And I can't imagine having the kids working at the table, at their ages, for 6 hrs a day. (Look to my previous response as to what I consider applicable to my '2 hrs')

[Miss Marple]

 But, jeepers, I have a successful chemical engineer for a ds that literally spent about 1 hr per grade level on school 

 

 

This has been my reality as well.  I've always done about 1 hour per grade level...and while producing excellent results (Petroleum Engineer in top 5 of graduating class, highly recruited for internships and job offers) that schedule allowed me to keep my sanity.

 

This is an old resurrected thread that I posted in long ago.  Today, if someone were to ask me (which no one has LOL) I would suggest spending grades 1-3 focusing on reading and math.  Don't worry about structured science or history...use reading to accomplish that.  Everything else is added as fun, IMO.  The boys did art, music, baseball, basketball, etc. but that wasn't "school work".  And by 4th grade, 4 hours per day was easily enough to get all the extras added in.

 

I worry about those who stress about accomplishing everything through use of an individual curriculum (ie. 5 programs for 5 subjects) because I think burnout sets in.  For those who are schooling an only child, their reality will be far different from those of us with multiples or close in age kids.  What I said earlier when the thread was new is that it all depends on what you do in those 2 hours :)  You can accomplish an awful lot if you focus on what is important and let the other things fit in when/where they can.

 

Whether someone thinks 2 hours per day is a joke or not really isn't important or relevant (shoot, I can believe the moon is made of green cheese but that doesn't make it truth).  The evidence is clear that there are those of us who have done it and those who could not do it.  It depends on motivation (on both the parent's part and the student's part) and the student's abiltiy.

[8filltheheart]

I personally can't imagine getting homeschool done in 2 hours a day and I wouldn't want to.

 

Which is perfect for your family.   No one is telling you that it has to be done in a certain way.  We are simply explaining why it is possible with very successful, great critical-thinking/problem-solving educational outcomes.

 

You are also not in here informing those of us that have been homeschooling longer than you have even been a parent, let alone having a school age child, that we are delusional or that our educational philosophy is a joke--only evading the truth that that it has been proved successful by deflecting to derogatory comments about the POV.

 

by Miss Marple:

 

Whether someone thinks 2 hours per day is a joke or not really isn't important or relevant (shoot, I can believe the moon is made of green cheese but that doesn't make it truth).  The evidence is clear that there are those of us who have done it and those who could not do it.  It depends on motivation (on both the parent's part and the student's part) and the student's abiltiy.

:iagree:

 

[....]

I think part of the problem is the perception of what the two hours actually entails.

 

ALL I am counting is the time spent w/their butts in a chair, pencil in hand.

 

 

:iagree:  My middle schoolers spend about 2 hours on seat work, which is usually math, language arts, Greek and logic (alternating).  

When I say 2 hours, I'm not including things like:

 

4 hours my son spent this morning working on a carpentry project with his dad

history and science documentaries we watch

books we read/books THEY read

time my son has spent trying to build an RC car from plans he downloaded off the internet

hours my kids spent researching microscopic animals and observing/identifying them through a microscope

all the botany projects my daughter has all over the house

animal dissections my kids did using a biology professor's videos on Youtube

the baby praying mantises my daughter raised

nights my daughter spent last year using software to identify individual stars and constellations in the night sky

reading every book we could find about astronomy - including listening to some Stephen Hawking 

months of my daughter and son building every project in T&K Physics Workshop

the research and effort we've been putting in so we can find and take apart an old engine (because my son is interested in mechanical things)

hours my kids spend at their martial arts school, working out, learning about Korean history, learning about traditional Korean weapons

 

My kids are learning all day.  And, they love learning things, building things, making projects...  I don't want to add more seat work right now.  It would take time away from the other stuff.  I wonder, if I did try to quantify ALL the stuff they do...it would look like 12-14 hours a day of "schoolwork"!   :tongue_smilie:  

 

But, as always, everybody just needs to do what's best for their own kids and family.   :cheers2:     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[garddwr]

nm

[Miss Marple]

Just a piece of advice for those who are new to homeschooling:

 

For those who have not finished schooling their children and cannot imagine that this schedule could produce a high achieving student, let me say that my son received so many academic scholarships that he actually made money his last 2 years of college - that included room/board/books/tuition/spending money in a university ranked in the top 3 of his degree.  If you haunt the high school board, you are going to discover some very high achieving families.  Really, if you are a new homeschooler (and new parent), it is probably wise to get your information from those who have been successful already rather than those in the same boat as you find yourself in.  That's usually good advice in all aspects of life :)

 

We've all seen the families that say they homeschool in 2 hours and their kids can't read, do math, etc.  That reality doesn't discount the reality that there are those of us who can do it successfully.  

[teeniebeenie6]

Which is perfect for your family.   No one is telling you that it has to be done in a certain way.  We are simply explaining why it is possible with very successful, great critical-thinking/problem-solving educational outcomes.

 

You are also not in here informing those of us that have been homeschooling longer than you have even been a parent, let alone having a school age child, that we are delusional or that our educational philosophy is a joke--only evading the truth that that it has been proved successful by deflecting to derogatory comments about the POV.

 

:iagree:

I was actually responding to the OP and just sharing my thoughts about our family. I am definitely not telling you or anyone else what to do or saying you are not doing a good job homeschooling. If you are able to accomplish so much in so little time, then great. I don't count our homeschool time as just our seat time. We move around while learning too. I personally would rather people count the time they are actively teaching their kids rather then just the time their kids happen to be sitting.

 

It bothers me though how so often schools are described as mostly slacking off and doing nothing and used as an excuse to have super short days. I went to private schools most of my school days and our time was not mostly slacking around, wasting time, etc. We had full days of learning.

[Kathryn]

When people ask me how long we take, "two hours on a good day" is usually my reply. As others have noted, this means that we are tied to our chairs for that amount of time. Learning, questioning, engaging, etc., happen far beyond that. But, when people ask me that question, they're generally interested in how much time per my day is dedicated to schooling and not doing other things or how long DS is stuck at a table.

[....]

 I personally would rather people count the time they are actively teaching their kids rather then just the time their kids happen to be sitting.

 

Think about how difficult that would be, though!  Especially if you a gaggle of kids (I also have 4 kids).  Also, learning is not just teacher-initiated...sometimes, they learn the most when they are driven to research/try out something on their own.  And, we can't always follow along with every interest they have...every book they read, etc.  It would be impossible!  

[8filltheheart]

I was actually responding to the OP and just sharing my thoughts about our family. I am definitely not telling you or anyone else what to do or saying you are not doing a good job homeschooling. If you are able to accomplish so much in so little time, then great. I don't count our homeschool time as just our seat time. We move around while learning too. I personally would rather people count the time they are actively teaching their kids rather then just the time their kids happen to be sitting.

 

It bothers me though how so often schools are described as mostly slacking off and doing nothing and used as an excuse to have super short days. I went to private schools most of my school days and our time was not mostly slacking around, wasting time, etc. We had full days of learning.

 

I realize you weren't telling what to do which is why I posted acknowledging that.  You also stated your position affirming your own POV without belittling the POV of others.  :)

 

FWIW, approx 1 hr day/grade level until middle school (which is normally 6-8 hrs) and high school (which is normally 7-10 hrs) is the amt of time I am actively teaching my kids or they are actively engaged in studying/working and has nothing to do with the amt of time my kids happen to be sitting.    I am not doing anything I remotely consider "school" other than that.   I would read bedtime stories, go on nature hikes, etc regardless of whether my kids were homeschooled or in school.   That is called family life.  So when I state that is how much we spend on academics, it is how much time **I** spend on academics with my children.   They, however, when they are older, often choose to spend countless hours pursuing their own interests whether that be engineering a complicated pulley system or researching black holes.  But, when they are younger, it is mostly just playing.

 

FWIW, while others might have, I have never once compared our use of time compared to schools.   From my perspective, the methodology of public education is flawed and I reject the approach pretty much outright in the way we approach learning just about everything.  The relationship to time spent learning academically is not directly equated to high levels of academic achievement.    At younger ages, time spent engaged in dramatic and imaginative play is fundamental to cognitive development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills which is what ultimately leads to academic success.

[Spy Car]

At younger ages, time spent engaged in dramatic and imaginative play is fundamental to cognitive development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills which is what ultimately leads to academic success.

And when self-initiated dramatic and imaginative play is supplemented with imaginative, creative, and discovery-based activities that are facilitated by adults (and ones that capitalize on children's love of play) there is even greater cognitive development of the critical thinking and problem-solving skills than if children are ONLY left to their own devices.

 

One can (and should) have access to BOTH.

 

Bill

[8filltheheart]

And when self-initiated dramatic and imaginative play is supplemented with imaginative, creative, and discovery-based activities that are facilitated by adults (and ones that capitalize on children's love of play) there is even greater cognitive development of the critical thinking and problem-solving skills than if children are ONLY left to their own devices.

 

One can (and should) have access to BOTH.

 

Bill

 

Based on what evidence?

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

If by "imaginative, creative, and discovery-based activities that are facilitated by adults and capitalize on children's love of play" you mean

 

~reliably continuing the rhythms of the home and including the child in all aspects from gathering eggs to weeding the garden

~reading, singing, and story-telling, including nursery rhymes and favorite songs of childhood and fairy tales

~faithfully observing family, religious, and community holidays and traditions, including crafts, music, feasts, and socialization pertaining to such

~providing green spaces, trees to climb, sandbox, tire swing, river, pond, and field for children to explore and use

~providing open-ended toys and tools for children to access on their own whenever they want

~visiting interesting places, not as contrived field trips but just as part of life, with a sympathetic parent who cares about the child's perspective on new experiences

 

if that's what you mean, I agree 100%. If anything else is meant than I don't agree at all.

 

I taught preschool and cared for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers before homeschooling my own family. The organic rhythms of daily life, shared between very attached parents and children, are so, so, very superior to even the very best lessons I could ever contrive for my students at school. I was a good teacher, too. I loved my students and they loved me.  But what my children have is better.

[Spy Car]

Based on what evidence?

 

Common sense and experience. What's your evidence?

 

Children are not "lab rats."

 

I'm a fan of kids engaging in creative play, but there are obvious limits to creative play. I think it is pretty self-evident that multiple approaches to enriching children's day is superior to just one approach or another.

 

At some point being free to play unfettered just devolves into neglect. Where creating positive learning opportunities and environment where children and make discoveries, creatively problem-solve, and have fun add to the experiences of childhood. These things do not destroy their free-play. They just add another dimension to their days.

 

Is that not completely obvious?

 

Bill

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Common sense and experience. What's your evidence?

 

Children are not "lab rats."

 

I'm a fan of kids engaging in creative play, but there are obvious limits to creative play. I think it is pretty self-evident that multiple approaches to enriching children's day is superior to just one approach or another.

 

At some point being free to play unfettered just devolves into neglect. Where creating positive learning opportunities and environment where children and make discoveries, creatively problem-solve, and have fun add to the experiences of childhood. These things do not destroy their free-play. They just add another dimension to their days.

 

Is that not completely obvious?

 

Bill

Well, no, it's not obvious.

 

One can let the child have vast amounts of unfettered, unguided discovery time in his own world without neglecting him. We're not talking about children playing in the streets of Mumbai, trying to stay alive, learning creative survival techniques....we're talking about children of attentive mothers who are cared for by their parents.

 

 Also, adults who set up the creativity and play all the time do have a deleterious effect on the child's own creativity. I've seen it a million times. An adult standing by with plans in his hand labeled, "How to Build a Treehouse" is going to have a great day with the kids who join his guided discovery activity. He's going to do an awesome job of listening to their wishes, making modifications, teaching lessons, and all.

 

But a kid who has been taught how to use tools who wakes up one morning to find a load of lumber next to his favorite climbing tree, and nobody bothers him until lunchtime...that's better. Qualifiers: It's better if he has such a relationship with his parents that he will come to them for help when he wants it, and they'll give the wanted help but no more, and it's better if his self-esteem is intact and he has the confidence to work at it on his own because he's learned an awful lot through this type of experience before.

 

Have you ever read John Holt? His ideas about meddling adults destroying creativity and confidence have proven true in my experience.

[8filltheheart]

Common sense and experience. What's your evidence?

 

Children are not "lab rats."

 

I'm a fan of kids engaging in creative play, but there are obvious limits to creative play. I think it is pretty self-evident that multiple approaches to enriching children's day is superior to just one approach or another.

 

At some point being free to play unfettered just devolves into neglect. Where creating positive learning opportunities and environment where children and make discoveries, creatively problem-solve, and have fun add to the experiences of childhood. These things do not destroy their free-play. They just add another dimension to their days.

 

Is that not completely obvious?

 

Bill

 

No.

 

[garddwr]

nm 

 

[Spy Car]

Only to you, apparently.

 

You have submitted no evidence beyond your personal opinion and experience with one child.

 

More experienced parents have pointed to the outcomes with their children.

 

You have called their approach neglect. ("devolves into neglect" were your exact words)

 

I suppose we should all bow down before your superior wisdom and just accept what you find "obvious" and "self-evident" even when it contradicts our own experience?

Not just to me. This is pretty obvious to most people. WTM-world often operates in it's own topsey-turvey universe where ideologies supplant reason.

 

Bill

[KathyJo]

Common sense and experience. What's your evidence?

 

Children are not "lab rats."

 

I'm a fan of kids engaging in creative play, but there are obvious limits to creative play. I think it is pretty self-evident that multiple approaches to enriching children's day is superior to just one approach or another.

 

At some point being free to play unfettered just devolves into neglect. Where creating positive learning opportunities and environment where children and make discoveries, creatively problem-solve, and have fun add to the experiences of childhood. These things do not destroy their free-play. They just add another dimension to their days.

 

Is that not completely obvious?

 

Bill

 

1. I believe there are links to one or more studies earlier in this thread, though I don't know why you first ask for evidence and then stress that children aren't lab rats.

 

2. Why should I accept your "common sense and experience" when you reject mine as "delusional" and "a joke"? Not to mention that your experience is less than mine, and that of many other mothers here. 

 

3. Neglect?! When we're talking about creative play and time to pursue their own interests IN ADDITION TO formal schoolwork appropriate to their ages and an environment rich in literature and other learning opportunities? Should I go on? That was a completely asinine comment. 

 

4. Your kid may need or want an adult to facilitate all of his learning opportunities. Mine occasionally want help to pursue their interests, but they don't need or want Forced Fun.

 

5. Creating an atmosphere for learning opportunities is not the same thing as having an adult create activities and force said activities on children who may or may not have any interests in the activity. Every fun, learning activity that an adult forces on a child takes time away that the child could have better spent in creative play and pursuing his own interests.

 

6. And no, it is most assuredly NOT obvious that children need an adult to facilitate the sort of fun learning opportunities they need to thrive. Children who have never had these sorts of "opportunities" forced upon them do just fine without them. Maybe it's different for children who have never really had that sort of freedom.

[KathyJo]

Not just to me. This is pretty obvious to most people. WTM-world often operates in it's own topsey-turvey universe where ideologies supplant reason.

 

Bill

 

You just become more insulting by the second. That's a fairly typical response from someone who can't argue against the responses he's received.

[garddwr]

Not just to me. This is pretty obvious to most people. WTM-world often operates in it's own topsey-turvey universe where ideologies supplant reason.

 

Bill

 

There was a time when it was obvious to most people that the world was flat.

 

There was a time when it was obvious to most people that air drafts caused illness.

 

There was a time when it was obvious to most people that witchcraft caused miscarriage.

 

There was a time when it was obvious to most people that formula was superior to breast milk.

 

This is not a valid argument.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Not just to me. This is pretty obvious to most people. WTM-world often operates in it's own topsey-turvey universe where ideologies supplant reason.

 

Bill

What arrogance. Experience has spoken in this conversation, experience that you lack entirely. I would think you'd have some respect for the vast amount of success represented by mothers in this thread who have faithfully and sacrificially lived their ideologies for decades, raising children who would be a credit to anyone, but no. You insult us and call us names and refuse to learn from others more experienced than yourself.

 

Frankly, I am disgusted by this attitude.

[8filltheheart]

Not just to me. This is pretty obvious to most people. WTM-world often operates in it's own topsey-turvey universe where ideologies supplant reason.

 

Bill

 

You are correct that it is apparently obvious to the powers that control gov't educational institutions.   And our educational system and most preschools are functioning under their influence.    I am so thrilled that you embrace where that has lead the educational outcomes of most of America's children.   Even though it is predominant educational philosophy in the USA that it is the best methodological approach for cognitive development and educational success, ample evidence exists that our educational system is not one to be heralded as one to emulate.  I would argue that the evidence AGAINST ps outcomes is vast.   Embrace it for your own child.   My kids are thriving and excelling beyond grade level norms, beyond age peers.....my evidence.   :)

 

(this post has been edited.....caution.....do not try to post between games of Dominion b/c family members give a time limit of 60 seconds.  Hopefully this time it is somewhat coherent!  LOL!!  and edited to eliminate snark. ;) )

[Spy Car]

Advocates of "delay" used to tout the "Finnish miracle" until the details behinfd the surge in academic success became clear. They poured resources into creating centers where there was a blend of teacher facilitated play-based learning, and free-play.

 

Both. It works. Everywhere.

 

Bill

[ErinE]

Children are not "lab rats."

 

*snip*

 

I think it is pretty self-evident that multiple approaches to enriching children's day is superior to just one approach or another.

 

I absolutely agree. Children are not lab rats. In the US, studies of Head Start have shown that there is NO difference between children with intensive preschool and their counterparts in K-3rd. What if all the early education resources were directed to practices that actually DO effect academic achievement?

 

Many experienced parents with homeschool graduates have stated over and over that there is no need for intensive academics at a young age. They've stated that their children have had good outcomes from a relaxed early approach gradually increasing in academic intensity.

 

From the activity list posted from your local school, my kids have done something comparable, on their own, without an adult telling them what to do. They've built pyramids, forts, treehouses (with friends and real tools). They've kept insects and rodents as pets. They've grown plants and cared for them longer than a study unit or an academic year. At age seven, one child spent a hour with a Boston tour guide, impressing the adult with the depth of Revolutionary War knowledge. They've acted out skits, made up games, argued with each other and then settled their differences when I threatened to separate them. They play basketball, football, jump rope, hopscotch, ride bikes, etc. My son, with his grandfather, made a battleship and acted out the Battle of Midway in his bath. My daughter enjoys drawing pictures of pyramids, pharoahs, and Egyptian gods and goddesses. There is a lot of problem solving and creative play going on at my house simply by providing books, supplies, and time.

 

Free time does not equal neglect. My kids are fed, bathed, loved, hugged, kissed, listened to, conversed with and yet, I am neither their social director nor entertainment past our academic time.

 

The US spends more money on public education per capita than comparable countries and it has some of the poorest academic outcomes. There is experimentation being conducted on children, and it's not in the kids' homes.

[Miss Marple]

I think some are guilty of "over-parenting".  When kids are allowed to explore/play/interact without a lot of direct parental involvement, kids learn problem solving and social skills.  I'm not advocating turning the kids loose for the weekend while mom and dad head to town.  Rather allowing them to make mistakes within the framework of a secure household is far better than being the hovering parent who has input into all areas of our kids' lives.  We release our kids bit by bit.  When they show they are capable of walking, we allow more exploration. And I truly think that too many "devices" can kill our kids' imaginations. 

 

If you are parenting an only, I would imagine it might be more difficult.  I like the way the Boys Scouts do it (at least in our troop).  The boys are instructed in an activity then turned loose to try it themselves.  The adults don't hover...they are there for help when needed.  This produces a confident kid who isn't afraid to take a chance even at the risk of failing.  He knows he can get up and try again.  But if a parent is always there to tell him how to do it, he becomes dependent on that parent and will be hesitant to make decisions on his own.  Of course, I have only my own family and the families I'm associated with to verify this :)  - no hard scientific data.

[Roadrunner]

My kids went to top performing school for K that uses EnVision math and California Treuasures curriculum. This is what a typical day looked liked.

From 8:40am to 9am they greeted each other, noted weather and sorted out who was buying luch and who wasn't. From 9am to 12pm (includes 10 minutes brak), they watched EnVision math videos on the smart board, filled out about two pages of math, worked on learning the alphabet, worked on handwriting, spent some time listening to the teacher reading stories, reading instructure and some sort of writing time (journaling couple times a week). After recess they had two subjects from the list: science, music, PE, Spanish, computer lab, art (once every three weeks they had an amazing parent run art program). In PE they danced, ran...., in computer lab they usually did tuxedo drawing program (or something resembling this name), in Spanish they sang songs, in science they filled out a worksheet on a given topic (actually very well run program, but since kids never revisited the information, my kids retained zero), and amazing music teacher who did teach them how to read notes, count...

Maybe 3 or 4 times something cool happened (one parent who works for NASA and brought astronaut food), but other than that it was business as usual. It was great for a typical kid who didn't have any special needs, but nothing extraordinary. My kids already knew how to read, so a colossal waste of time for us, but ya, many kids learned a ton. There was one K classroom with a guitar wielding teacher who taught with songs and dancing and math manipulatives, but her refusal to conform to the new higher academic standards (in our case smart board led math lessons and no guitar rules) got her fired.

I just wanted to give a picture of a typical high performing classroom (not an amazing one).

We now homeschool and still spend from 8:30 to 3:00 pm on academics, but in this time I count one hour lunch, one hour of reading and all the time we spend on illustrating lesson books we are writing for history or science. Are we learning more? Not even comparable, but that's because we re learning at their level (couple of years ahead on math, on grade level on science, light years ahead in reading, on grade level in history). Are kids learning in our former school? That depends on a child. With an elimination of a gate program some of my friends' kids are having a really tough time staying awake, but others are flourishing, so it all depends I guess what you consider important or amazing or learning.

[garddwr]

Advocates of "delay" used to tout the "Finnish miracle" until the details behinfd the surge in academic success became clear. They poured resources into creating centers where there was a blend of teacher facilitated play-based learning, and free-play.

 

Both. It works. Everywhere.

 

Bill

 

Yeah, the Finnish educational results really show up negligent parents like 8FillTheHeart and Regentrude. Too bad they have neglected their children so severely and can't match the results of the Finnish system :001_rolleyes:

[8filltheheart]

I think some are guilty of "over-parenting". When kids are allowed to explore/play/interact without a lot of direct parental involvement, kids learn problem solving and social skills. I'm not advocating turning the kids loose for the weekend while mom and dad head to town. Rather allowing them to make mistakes within the framework of a secure household is far better than being the hovering parent who has input into all areas of our kids' lives. We release our kids bit by bit. When they show they are capable of walking, we allow more exploration. And I truly think that too many "devices" can kill our kids' imaginations.

 

If you are parenting an only, I would imagine it might be more difficult. I like the way the Boys Scouts do it (at least in our troop). The boys are instructed in an activity then turned loose to try it themselves. The adults don't hover...they are there for help when needed. This produces a confident kid who isn't afraid to take a chance even at the risk of failing. He knows he can get up and try again. But if a parent is always there to tell him how to do it, he becomes dependent on that parent and will be hesitant to make decisions on his own. Of course, I have only my own family and the families I'm associated with to verify this :) - no hard scientific data.

You may find this funny, but your post really made a connection with me and spurred thoughts about science. I envisioned this parallel.......

 

Far too many people (not just children) see science as doing experiments following prescribed steps and getting correct results. They are simply frustrated when whatever they were doing didn't produce said results instead of understanding that the processes reveal information even when the results are unexpected.

 

Is science defined as the replication of what we know and when replication fails, we have failed? Or.....is science really understanding that beyond the steps provided by the guide there are forces which did exactly what they do and failure means something wasn't controlled or factored? What did the outcome itself teach? Why weren't the expected results achieved? And where do those questions lead?

 

I hadn't planned on responding to anymore posts in this thread b/c apparently the moon is made of cheese ;) but your post really made me think about the above image. What types of experiences foster overcoming unexpected results and seeking independent answers into why? Does guided discovery with constant supervision with someone always ready to provide the answer? Or does independent failure followed by repeated attempts and final independent success?

[Mommyfaithe]

Never here. 2 hours of public school probably equals 4-6 hours of homeschool. My kids are sooooooooooo slllllllloooooooowwwwwww about everything. It takes us all freaking day and into the evening to get anything academic accomplished. Sorry to bust the homeschool is faster bubble!