No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned Me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen

[Julie Smith]

:iagree:And the 15-16 year old college students at my college did not fit in. Perhaps some students can and do, but these students didn't.

 

Just out of curiosity, could it be you only knew about the ones that didn't fit in?

[Jenny in Florida]

True, PS teachers have been known to say that. Doesn't mean it has never been correct.

 

Here's the thing: My daughter isn't the only early college kid I know. I'm in touch online with the parents of a bunch of kids who've all started college before age 14. And the majority of them are doing really great. They're active on campus, have friends both on campus and off, get internships and jobs and all of that stuff.

 

My daughter went through a program that accepts students as young as 12. And she's friendly with and chats regularly with lots of those kids, too.

 

Are there a few who've struggled? Sure. It's mostly the kids whose parents pushed them into early college who seem to have the most trouble. But they are definitely in the minority. And the studies that have been done all find that these kids do really, really well.

 

So, are there some homeschoolers who are socially awkward? Arrogant? Self-centered? Whatever other descriptions get thrown at this? Of course. Since those are human traits and they are human beings, of course there are going to be some of those people. But I would challenge you to show me the evidence that these kids wouldn't have been jerks even if they weren't homeschooled or did go to college early.

 

Just because there are a few people in any group who aren't as perfect as the rest of us surely are doesn't mean the group as a whole is flawed.

[Sahamamama]

Hey, where'd the 365th day go?

Duh. 365 in normal years, 366 in leap years.

 

Obviously, I'm not accelerated. :lol:

[Jenny in Florida]

Just out of curiosity, could it be you only knew about the ones that didn't fit in?

 

Or only remembers them? Or only noticed them?

 

The truth is that most of the "trads" (traditionally aged college students) with whom my daughter went to college had no idea how young she was. I suspect the ones who "fit in" just didn't draw attention.

[Sahamamama]

The more I thought about this comment, the more it bugged me. Why? I haven't met your young graduate, and you haven't met the students to which I'm referring. We're comparing apples to oranges. Why can't I say that those students were awkward? They were.

 

Then I realized it's because it sounds exactly like what public school teachers say when they attempt to invalidate homeschooling.

:confused: So I'm trying to invalidate something? :confused: I honestly don't understand the basis of your offense.

[Soror]

Are there a few who've struggled? Sure. It's mostly the kids whose parents pushed them into early college who seem to have the most trouble. But they are definitely in the minority. And the studies that have been done all find that these kids do really, really well.

 

 

I think that is the key part most find troubling about the Swann's approach, the assumption that early college is for every student. I don't think anyone has said they were categorically against early enrollment but the idea that it is the default for everyone doesn't strike me as a very prudent approach. The other thing that bothers me, and it seems many others, is the schedule that they kept in order to accomplish that goal. I think on the opposite end many here aren't really keen on radical unschooling without any formal schooling ever(as past threads have evidenced). However, I think it is about thinking what is optimal. I think people are free to do an accelerated every day approach or a laid back unschool approach but that doesn't mean I think either the best choice. If I did I would choose that path. Everyone has to do what they think best for their own family though.

[Jenny in Florida]

:confused: So I'm trying to invalidate something? :confused: I honestly don't understand the basis of your offense.

 

I'm not offended, just tired.

 

My point was that most homeschoolers bristle when public school advocates who've run out of other arguments fall back on the "well, there's more to school than academics, and we all know that homeschoolers are socially awkward" claim.

 

It sounds to me like this discussion has reached the exact same point.

 

Homeschooling isn't the right answer for every family. It doesn't have to be the universally correct choice in order to be a valid one.

 

The Swann family's educational choices -- and early college -- are in exactly the same category. It doesn't have to be absolutely right for everyone in order to be good for them.

 

Some homeschoolers are socially awkward or academically behind. That's true. It doesn't mean all or most homeschoolers have those traits.

 

The same is true of radically accelerated students.

 

When we start trying to defend a point by tossing around generalizations based on anecdotal evidence or narrow personal experience, it means there isn't anything meaningful left to say.

[Kathryn]

I think that is the key part most find troubling about the Swann's approach, the assumption that early college is for every student. I don't think anyone has said they were categorically against early enrollment but the idea that it is the default for everyone doesn't strike me as a very prudent approach. The other thing that bothers me, and it seems many others, is the schedule that they kept in order to accomplish that goal. I think on the opposite end many here aren't really keen on radical unschooling without any formal schooling ever(as past threads have evidenced). However, I think it is about thinking what is optimal. I think people are free to do an accelerated every day approach or a laid back unschool approach but that doesn't mean I think either the best choice. If I did I would choose that path. Everyone has to do what they think best for their own family though.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I'm also really confused as to how they schooled three hours a day and progressed at the rate they did. In the early years, fine, but high school? And all the talk about how college takes two to two-and-a-half hours a day. My school wasn't anywhere near Ivy, and I worked way more than that for my BA and even more for my masters degrees.

[Jenny in Florida]

I think that is the key part most find troubling about the Swann's approach, the assumption that early college is for every student.

 

I haven't read the book yet. Is that what the family argues?

 

I don't think anyone has said they were categorically against early enrollment . . .

 

Actually, several people did say that.

[Kathryn]

I'm not offended, just tired.

 

My point was that most homeschoolers bristle when public school advocates who've run out of other arguments fall back on the "well, there's more to school than academics, and we all know that homeschoolers are socially awkward" claim.

 

It sounds to me like this discussion has reached the exact same point.

 

Homeschooling isn't the right answer for every family. It doesn't have to be the universally correct choice in order to be a valid one.

 

The Swann family's educational choices -- and early college -- are in exactly the same category. It doesn't have to be absolutely right for everyone in order to be good for them.

 

Some homeschoolers are socially awkward or academically behind. That's true. It doesn't mean all or most homeschoolers have those traits.

 

The same is true of radically accelerated students.

 

When we start trying to defend a point by tossing around generalizations based on anecdotal evidence or narrow personal experience, it means there isn't anything meaningful left to say.

 

The thing is that the family writes and lectures on themselves and hold themselves up as something to emulate. Their whole gimmick is "You, too, can be like us." The discussion is whether or not others actually can or even want to. I don't recall anyone saying that the Swanns shouldn't have done it their way. I saw a lot of people saying they have no desire to do so.

[Sahamamama]

Just because there are a few people in any group who aren't as perfect as the rest of us surely are doesn't mean the group as a whole is flawed.

 

:svengo:Not sure who said that here. I certainly didn't. What I said and stand by was that certain students I personally knew who were of atypical college age did not fit in at that college.

 

I have said something similar about a close friend of mine, who was from Trinidad and went to school in the Midwest. In her own words, she didn't fit in with the black students because she was too British/Caribbean in her mannerisms. At the same time, (most of) the white students didn't want her because she was black. I don't have to agree with their assessment or treatment of her to see that she truly didn't fit in there. And she was RELIEVED when she moved in with my parents here in New Jersey.... ahh... finally, she found a way to fit in, culturally.

[shanvan]

The thing is that the family writes and lectures on themselves and hold themselves up as something to emulate. Their whole gimmick is "You, too, can be like us." The discussion is whether or not others actually can or even want to. I don't recall anyone saying that the Swanns shouldn't have done it their way. I saw a lot of people saying they have no desire to do so.

 

I can kind of see this point and it makes me wonder if I should even read the book. I don't want to add any more confusion to my mind about what approach I shoud take. I've already decided their particular approach is not a fit for us. I just wonder if reading the book would cause me to second guess. With Ds's first year of high school approaching I seem to be doing a lot of that lately.

 

Is there anything to be gained by reading the book if you aren't going to take the same or similar approach?

[Murphy101]

I have no beef with the Swanns. I will say that I think anyone trying to re-create their life in 2012 is missing the big picture.

 

What is the big picture?

 

She gave her children a solid foundational education while raising them in what appears to be a loving well ordered home. Given the number of posts on this and any other mothering/homeschooling board on how to achieve those goals, that's something we'd all like to manage and that most of us think is at least a significant part of the big picture

 

Sigh.

 

:grouphug: There might be more to college than getting the work done, but no amount of social butterfly tendencies should make up for not getting it done. The academics is the primary purpose after all.

 

And I find it annoying to say kids trying to socialist are oddities. Well experience teaches and they are their socializing. So get overt already.

 

It's the kids that sit in their room alone all day and night that would bother me far more than those that don't know all the ins and outs of social discourse.

 

And I think a lot if it is preconceived perception too.

 

I remember this coming up in another discussion, so I looked for it specifically.

On page 55 (in the paperback, 2010 edition) after describing how ill her brother had been and how her parents had spent day and night at the hospital (mother waking up at 5 am to go to the hospital until 10pm, when father arrived and sat there all night untill going straight to work in the morning) while friends were staying with her and her siblings at home, she writes:

 

"Even with these difficulties, however, the day after she brought him home, Mother put all of us back in school."

 

Meaning, after her brother came home, but still needed lots of care, school *resumed*. They were not doing school while the brother was in the hospital.

 

Yes, she does. But she also refers to her mother as her best friend and inspiration.

 

BTW, I also find her writing style a bit strange, overly formal. ETA, but who am I to complain about writing style :lol:, I cannot even manage to write in English with the same tone I would in Dutch, sigh.

 

Yes. I happen to like a formal style, but I understand I'm weird like that. Conversational too often comes across as patronizingly long winded to me. I like bullet points too.;)

 

Also, I can say it's personality too. I'm not one to have much patience for pouting or moping or self pity. Take 5 minutes. Move on. That doesn't mean I'm not scared, hurt, or crying. It means in crisis, I'd rather keep calm and keep to routine than let everything disintegrate. To us that is much more stressful and not very constructive. The more upset I am, the cleaner my kitchen. I need to be DOING something, anything, when in crisis mode.

 

Thanks for clarifying. But most kids would be doing housework during the school year as well. My husband worked on the family farm and family business before and after school, year-round. But then he didn't have much or any homework until high school. ;)

 

Oh now see? Imagine how much more time he would have has to goof and pursue his own interests if he'd only had to school 3 hours a day.;)

[stripe]

I remember meeting a few students at my college who had been homeschooled and were in college "early" (15, 16). They really did not fit in socially. Those students were awkward, introverted, arrogant/superior, and insecure. Sure, they could handle the work academically, but there's more to college than completing the work. :tongue_smilie:

 

It reminds me of Peter in Noel Streatfeild's Circus Shoes. He was badly educated at home by tutors because his aunt thought he was too precious to go to school. He believed he was pretty fantastic and better than everyone else. Of course he was totally awkward and horrendously undereducated.

 

Clearly one needs a hefty dose of humility.

 

A nice counterpoint to this was Jake Barnett, who is a kind of math and physics genius, and is getting his master's, profiled on 60 Minutes.

[stripe]

Oh now see? Imagine how much more time he would have has to goof and pursue his own interests if he'd only had to school 3 hours a day.;)

 

Well, actually through 3rd grade school was only in the mornings! ;)

[Murphy101]

She certainly taught them to read before enrolling them in first grade. But on this forum, we see so many children for whom reading just doesn't click until later. You can't just sit every child down at 5yo and teach them to read in 4 months. Obviously all 10 Swann children could, but that is not the norm.

 

She doesn't claim every child. She claims hers and *most* average ability kids. I've managed it with 6/8ths of mine so far. That's 75%. Pretty decent odds.

 

The thing is that the family writes and lectures on themselves and hold themselves up as something to emulate. Their whole gimmick is "You, too, can be like us." The discussion is whether or not others actually can or even want to. I don't recall anyone saying that the Swanns shouldn't have done it their way. I saw a lot of people saying they have no desire to do so.

 

Oh geez. SWB, and many other speakers do too! That's the gimmick of ALL of them! To get people to want to do what they are billing as an awesome methodology or program, yes?

 

I think there's some positives in there, just like with any other. Obviously if it isn't for you, then it isn't and that is that. But I see nothing disparage there. I don't understand all the vitriol.

[TracyP]

OP, thanks for the link. I have wanted to read this, but not bad enough to buy it.

 

I just started it this afternoon, and I am only two chapters in. I skimmed the thread so sorry if this is a repeat...

 

It sounds like they schooled for more than 3 hours a day. Why is everyone talking about 3 hours? Am I missing something?:confused:

 

The kids go through a grade roughly every six months, and start hs around the age of 10. They must be closer to a more standard grade/year from there. The Swann's do seem to believe that anyone could do this with "proper tutoring" which I think is a bunch of hooey. Still, I am finding it to be an interesting read.

[melbotoast]

Her dad disagreed that they needed to accelerate so much. She says he pointed out the only job you can get at 16 is working at McDonald's so he thought it would be better for them to finish at 18 or 19, but the mother overruled him.

[Kathryn]

She doesn't claim every child. She claims hers and *most* average ability kids. I've managed it with 6/8ths of mine so far. That's 75%. Pretty decent odds.

 

 

 

Oh geez. SWB, and many other speakers do too! That's the gimmick of ALL of them! To get people to want to do what they are billing as an awesome methodology or program, yes?

 

I think there's some positives in there, just like with any other. Obviously if it isn't for you, then it isn't and that is that. But I see nothing disparage there. I don't understand all the vitriol.

 

 

Vitriol? Where? I think those of you with accelerated students are defensive. Nobody is saying you harmed your children.

 

I don't see a comparison between selling a homeschool curriculum and a radical plan to cut a child's school years in half. Most children simply can't or won't be well-served by this approach.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

This is vitriol-free. :001_smile:

 

I really, really want to know what Alexandra Swann is doing now. I can't find much on Google.

 

I think the test of a methodology is what the students are like at thirty, or forty, or fifty; not what they manage at the age of sixteen. I speak from the point of view of someone who had to do a major adjustment shift from "I know I have worth because I was able to do everything at a very young age!" to "I know I have worth because.... [insert large swathes of time spent in uncertainty]."

 

That's always my question about accelerating kids...what are the long-term benefits?

 

SWB

[Murphy101]

I understand! I was not thinking of changing things just to change things, I was thinking of *adding* things (specifically: foreign languages) and thus slowing down a bit. But maybe that is my European way of thinking, an American education with only one (or NO...the horror ;)) foreign language, is very, very odd to me.

 

Oh no, I agree with you about languages. I think it's a national embarrassment how little foreign language is available, much less required in the states. But there was even less back then to choose from. I doubt it was an option regardless of whether she might have liked to add it.

 

Would you be willing to share what you learned (or pm me)? It's funny, a couple of days before this thread started, I had taken No Regrets from my shelves, specifically to glean ideas on how to work more efficiently. ETA: would Joyce Swann's new book be worthwhile?

 

Sure!

 

For me, it tipped the edge to year round schooling. It's like the moment I learned about how to pay off a house in 1/2 the time with just one more payment on principle per year. Shockingly simple and easy, yk?

 

We do the same amount of work each day, we just do it approx 10 more weeks a year. This allows them to progress at a more steady rate and allows us to relax more when they hit stumbling points.

 

Having a routine means they are FAR more active in outside activities than I would otherwise allow. We are actually much more relaxed now than we used to be before I went year round. We get up, do chores, have breakfast, dressed and at the table ready to have our morning meeting and start in on the plans I've put together by 8:30am. I'd love to sleep in, but that's just not fair to them or reasonable if we really do believe in the priorities we have set. And I like that our mornings are less frantic.

 

Not bouncing about, especially in maths and sciences. I deeply regret doing that with my oldest 2. I think one of them inherited my limitations, but bouncing never found the Right Program and just exacerbated those limitations. The other one probably would have done well with anything, but bouncing complicated things unnecessarily. I'm actually not a big fan of Abeka science or Apologia science. Truth be known I don't like either. But they have lesson plans, are well put together, and get the job done. It saves me tremendous stress and time in planning and teaching. Time better used in other ways. No one has two stick to Calvert. But sticking to what works usually pays off. My kids like science, so I guess that's not hurting their love of learning.

 

This is a difficult thing for me bc *I* get bored with it. Yes, it's the first time my 6th child has done MCP math, but *I* have been doing it for 10 years. But it isn't about me. It's about what they need and MCP works for us very well. One son briefly used MM, which I liked and he did well with. But MCP for everyone is my ideal because it works and thus saves me considerable time. He loves math, so it's apparently not harming his enthusiasm.

 

Really Swann doesn't propose anything all that revolutionary.

 

Dedication of time, developing a plan, and being consistent is what it all boils down to.:)

[ChrisOR]

Her brother Ben Swann (who wrote this homeschooling article as a recent homeschool grad back in 1998) works as a TV journalist in Cincinnati with a popular series called "Reality Check."

 

Here's his bio.

Edited August 12, 2012 by ChrisOR

[Merry]

Alexandra has a blog on this website...frontier2000.net. She is a small business owner dealing in mortgage loans. Her articles are quite interesting if you are concerned about the relationship between the government and the small business owners.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Merry, thanks! For anyone else who's interested, here's the link...

 

http://www.frontier2000.net/

 

Hadn't seen this before.

 

SWB

[Sahamamama]

I speak from the point of view of someone who had to do a major adjustment shift from "I know I have worth because I was able to do everything at a very young age!" to "I know I have worth because.... [insert large swathes of time spent in uncertainty]."

 

:grouphug: I'm still uncertain, but almost to the point where the question of why I matter doesn't matter to me. I turned 44, something snapped, I stopped listening to my mother tell me it was time to get a haircut, and voila! The new me.

 

My new me says, Enjoy your husband, your kids, and your sheep, and your parents while you have them. Wool is good, it's tangible. Who produces anything tangible these days?

 

Were you in the same generation of HSers as the oldest Swanns? It must have been another world back then, before some brilliant people in Charles City, wrote a few books about and for homeschooling.

[FO4UR]

 

That's always my question about accelerating kids...what are the long-term benefits?

 

SWB

 

 

That is what I am wondering. I see value in the discipline it takes to follow through with a program. I see value in getting an education early in life. (I raise my hand as one who dropped a Master's program when baby came along.:blushing:) To be honest, part of my initial decision to HS was influenced by the dual enrollment opportunities I saw for the HS families I knew. The idea of entering a 4yr school at 18yo as a Junior is appealing. A Master's at 22yo is not out of reasonable reach.

 

That said, at 33yo I would not want the Master's degree that I started at 23yo. I can imagine that feeling would be even more-so between 16yo and 33yo. (...I'm just now starting to figure out what I want to be when I grow up...)

[Murphy101]

Vitriol? Where? I think those of you with accelerated students are defensive. Nobody is saying you harmed your children.

 

I don't see a comparison between selling a homeschool curriculum and a radical plan to cut a child's school years in half. Most children simply can't or won't be well-served by this approach.

 

WAIT! Let me be clear:

 

NONE of my children are accelerated IMO. NONE of my children are graduating from home school before they are 18. Well none at this point anyways. Younger ones are yet to be determined in general.

 

They are both selling a certain concept of education method they believe to be good for most students. Many of the same complaints being made about Swann are the same ones I hear in other circles, or even here, about TWTM. That it's too much, too soon, too much time, not necessary, and so forth.

 

 

That's always my question about accelerating kids...what are the long-term benefits?

 

SWB

 

:) I have no idea what I want to be when I grow up yet. So I would argue long term benefits would vary by student. I think that tends to be true of degrees achieved at any age.

 

I think accelerating because they are being cattle prodded across some finish line would be a miserable daily life. (I hate cattle prodding kids. I'd rather bath the cats!)

 

But some people run just because they love to run. It's an alien thing to me because it think running in circles is rather pointless, but I hear tell it's a huge reward for some people.

 

I think accelerated learning might have been like that for them. They did it because it worked for them and they mostly enjoyed the results.

 

I'd be interested in knowing if any of the grandchildren are being home schooled and, if so, what that looks like for them.

[Kathryn]

This is vitriol-free. :001_smile:

 

I really, really want to know what Alexandra Swann is doing now. I can't find much on Google.

 

I think the test of a methodology is what the students are like at thirty, or forty, or fifty; not what they manage at the age of sixteen. I speak from the point of view of someone who had to do a major adjustment shift from "I know I have worth because I was able to do everything at a very young age!" to "I know I have worth because.... [insert large swathes of time spent in uncertainty]."

 

That's always my question about accelerating kids...what are the long-term benefits?

 

SWB

 

This is what I'm wondering as well. What is the benefit of acceleration to a terminal degree over going deeper? Why is this something that the Swanns think average child should do?

[catz]

That is what I am wondering. I see value in the discipline it takes to follow through with a program. I see value in getting an education early in life. (I raise my hand as one who dropped a Master's program when baby came along.:blushing:) To be honest, part of my initial decision to HS was influenced by the dual enrollment opportunities I saw for the HS families I knew. The idea of entering a 4yr school at 18yo as a Junior is appealing. A Master's at 22yo is not out of reasonable reach.

 

That said, at 33yo I would not want the Master's degree that I started at 23yo. I can imagine that feeling would be even more-so between 16yo and 33yo. (...I'm just now starting to figure out what I want to be when I grow up...)

 

:iagree: My kids are radically accelerated in some ways and I definitely understand lockstep grade levels don't work for some kids.

 

These kids only did 3 hours of school before college. But they had the responsibility of college level work by 12. That does not leave the time to dig into things like music, art, etc. And for a kid that is clamoring to move on, I do think it's fine. For most gifted or bright kids? Hmmm ... I don't know.

 

Is a 16 year old with a college degree really going to be able to compete with a 25-30 year old with the same degree in the marketplace? I'm not asking to be snarky - truly curious if degreed kids age 20 and under can find work in a chosen field and make a living at it? Are they living at home?

 

I keep on my current path with my kids because they're enjoying their childhood, have many extra activities they love, and because I feel like they'll get more out of college when they're more emotionally mature and have a better feel for what they what might like to pursue long term. I only have 2 kids. I'm in no hurry to get them grown up. I don't consider their childhood a race. If I thought there were other good options, I'd consider them. I feel like I would have had to grade skip my oldest several times in PS to get a good fit (he went for 2 years) and he'd have a much more "shallow" education than he can have at home.

[Kathryn]

WAIT! Let me be clear:

 

NONE of my children are accelerated IMO. NONE of my children are graduating from home school before they are 18. Well none at this point anyways. Younger ones are yet to be determined in general.

 

They are both selling a certain concept of education method they believe to be good for most students. Many of the same complaints being made about Swann are the same ones I hear in other circles, or even here, about TWTM. That it's too much, too soon, too much time, not necessary, and so forth.

 

 

 

:) I have no idea what I want to be when I grow up yet. So I would argue long term benefits would vary by student. I think that tends to be true of degrees achieved at any age.

 

I think accelerating because they are being cattle prodded across some finish line would be a miserable daily life. (I hate cattle prodding kids. I'd rather bath the cats!)

 

But some people run just because they love to run. It's an alien thing to me because it think running in circles is rather pointless, but I hear tell it's a huge reward for some people.

 

I think accelerated learning might have been like that for them. They did it because it worked for them and they mostly enjoyed the results.

 

I'd be interested in knowing if any of the grandchildren are being home schooled and, if so, what that looks like for them.

 

Sorry, I thought you had said yours were accelerated also.

 

I would think there would have been some cattle-prodding to get ten children through on exactly the same schedule. The chances of that just randomly happening seem unlikely.

 

In the forward to the book linked in the OP, she gives updates on the children and grandchildren.

[Murphy101]

Why does it matter of a 16 year old with a masters can compete with 25 year olds or not?

 

One, if they can - yay.

 

Two, if they can't - yay, enjoy a gap year or so. Go get some experience. Go on a missionary trip. Backpack through Europe. Whatever.

 

Three, if they can't or can but decide they don't want to - yay. They are plenty young enough to do something else. Heck, the average citizen will have complete career changes what.. 3 times is the current estimate now iirc.

 

Getting the degree is not the end of the line. It's one of many starts. :001_huh:

[Catwoman]

Here's the thing: My daughter isn't the only early college kid I know. I'm in touch online with the parents of a bunch of kids who've all started college before age 14. And the majority of them are doing really great. They're active on campus, have friends both on campus and off, get internships and jobs and all of that stuff.

 

I think it's great that your dd did so well on a social level, but the kids I have known who took college courses at 11, 12, and 13 may have thought that they were making friends with the 18, 19, and 20 year-olds in their classes, but even their moms realized that while the older kids were friendly, they weren't friends.

 

Most 18 year olds simply have no use for a 12yo kid outside of class. And even in class, I'm sure the youngest students are viewed more as class pets than classmates. At best, the older students are probably comparing them to their little brothers and sisters.

 

I don't mean this in a nasty way -- my ds is academically ready for some college courses right now, so this isn't an envy issue -- I just mean that unless a young student has other accelerated students of a similar age in the same college with them, they run a serious risk of not making any real friends who they can hang around with outside of class.

 

That's something that is a priority to me. I don't want my ds to be the class freak, and a 12yo in a college classroom is often viewed as exactly that.

[Murphy101]

Sorry, I thought you had said yours were accelerated also.

 

I would think there would have been some cattle-prodding to get ten children through on exactly the same schedule. The chances of that just randomly happening seem unlikely.

 

In the forward to the book linked in the OP, she gives updates on the children and grandchildren.

 

Yes and no, I have children that can score a perfect on the English portion of the ACT well before most students take it at all. I have children that are behind in math, ahead in math. I have a whole mess of a mix going here.;).

 

Overall? I don't think any of my kids are above average. It all evens out.

 

I think there is always going to be some cattle prodding no matter what. That's just kids. But I don't think it should be a constant battle and I don't think a sane woman would willingly insist on that battle every day for 26 years if that was the way it was in their home.

 

I'll do read that forward. Ty.

[Sahamamama]

I just mean that unless a young student has other accelerated students of a similar age in the same college with them, they run a serious risk of not making any real friends who they can hang around with outside of class.

 

As in something like this? http://www.mbc.edu/early_college/peg/

 

I wonder if there's anything similar for boys? Maybe one is listed here: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/early_college.htm

 

or here: http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/Article/Davidson_Young_Scholars___Guidebooks_375.aspx

Edited August 12, 2012 by Sahamamama

[Catwoman]

As in something like this? http://www.mbc.edu/early_college/peg/

 

I wonder if there's anything similar for boys? Maybe one is listed here: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/early_college.htm

 

or here: http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/Article/Davidson_Young_Scholars___Guidebooks_375.aspx

 

Well, I wouldn't send my 12yo to live away from home, but I know plenty of people whose kids go to boarding school from when they're very young, so a program like that would be great for them.

 

But yes, if I thought my ds would be around a lot of kids his own age, I would be far less hesitant to enroll him in some college courses. I'm still not entirely sure I would do it, but that would definitely make an impact on my decision.

[stripe]

That's always my question about accelerating kids...what are the long-term benefits?

 

I found the book Hot House Kids (by Alissa Quart) interesting for just this reason. The author found that most of the child prodigies crashed and burned when everyone else caught up (because, after all, these were mostly kids who were merely ahead, for example learning to read at 2.... by seven, the one trick pony isn't unique) and their lack of social skills began to cause problems. The notable exception was math prodigies, where apparently quirky behavior is much more accepted.

[musicianmom]

I read some articles about the Swanns way back in the mid-90s, when I first became interested in homeschooling. I remember reading that Alexandra actually got a job teaching in a community college when she was 17 or 18. Those who hired her never asked her age, just assumed because of her degrees that she was in her 20s, and they had a good laugh later when the truth about her age came out.

 

As to why a family would choose this route, I can think of one reason, and that is if you really want your kids to have a shot at economic independence by age 18. I see the appeal. I would LOVE for my kids to have some sort of degree or certification that they could use to start out in the real world if they're ready, rather than be forced to spend 4+ years in this weird limbo our society has created of not-quite-kids, not-quite-adults. I'm not interested in doing what the Swanns did, but I would still love to find a way to make that happen.

 

Maybe the Swanns were going for that rather than for greatness.

[catz]

Well, I wouldn't send my 12yo to live away from home, but I know plenty of people whose kids go to boarding school from when they're very young, so a program like that would be great for them.

 

But yes, if I thought my ds would be around a lot of kids his own age, I would be far less hesitant to enroll him in some college courses. I'm still not entirely sure I would do it, but that would definitely make an impact on my decision.

 

:iagree: If there was a way for my kids to do this, live at home, and have friends their own ages I'd be much more likely to do this. My oldest could be ready for CC college courses anytime. And if he were a kid pushing for more academically, I might feel differently too. Sending my young kids to live away from home for school is not an option I would pursue unless they were pushing hard for something different.

[lea1]

OP, thanks for the link. I have wanted to read this, but not bad enough to buy it.

 

I just started it this afternoon, and I am only two chapters in. I skimmed the thread so sorry if this is a repeat...

 

It sounds like they schooled for more than 3 hours a day. Why is everyone talking about 3 hours? Am I missing something?:confused:

 

The kids go through a grade roughly every six months, and start hs around the age of 10. They must be closer to a more standard grade/year from there. The Swann's do seem to believe that anyone could do this with "proper tutoring" which I think is a bunch of hooey. Still, I am finding it to be an interesting read.

 

I was thinking the same thing. They said they always started at 8:30am, schooled until 11:30am, took a break for lunch and started again at 1:30 (I think) and I don't remember when they normally stopped. They also said they covered 3 days of material in one day of schooling.

[PollyOR]

Dedication of time, developing a plan, and being consistent is what it all boils down to.:)

 

Thank you!

[stripe]

As to why a family would choose this route, I can think of one reason, and that is if you really want your kids to have a shot at economic independence by age 18.

There are other choices, though. I am not sure having a master's degree in history from Cal State Dominguez Hills is that marketable or shockingly impressive, frankly.

 

There are people who go to work at 18, full time, doing a variety of things. However, I would frankly much prefer a kid to become a journeyman in a trade and take the time to learn, say, how to wire things correctly and get started on a decent job, or become an RN? If the goal is ONLY to have a job at 18, I just don't see how the history degree is the ticket. Maybe things were different in those times than now, though. Too different for me to understand.

[melbotoast]

I was thinking the same thing. They said they always started at 8:30am, schooled until 11:30am, took a break for lunch and started again at 1:30 (I think) and I don't remember when they normally stopped. They also said they covered 3 days of material in one day of schooling.

 

I believe the 3 hours/day was in the younger trades. They schooled in the afternoon as well later.

[AdventureMoms]

This is vitriol-free. :001_smile:

 

I really, really want to know what Alexandra Swann is doing now. I can't find much on Google.

 

I think the test of a methodology is what the students are like at thirty, or forty, or fifty; not what they manage at the age of sixteen. I speak from the point of view of someone who had to do a major adjustment shift from "I know I have worth because I was able to do everything at a very young age!" to "I know I have worth because.... [insert large swathes of time spent in uncertainty]."

 

That's always my question about accelerating kids...what are the long-term benefits?

 

SWB

 

I was public schooled on a very typical schedule and had the same issues, though. My parents refused to accelerate me or let me go to college early even though I wanted to and could have, and spent a miserable 4 years in a tiny rural public hs. College was great. I was smart, in college people appreciate smart, and there were lots of folks like me. Then I graduated, moved out of academia, and suddenly at 22 had to figure out what else I could do of value with life.

 

I'm still torn on the whole thing though. Getting through earlier wouldn't have helped, necessarily, with that process, but high school would have been less miserable if I'd been allowed to move on. That said, homeschooling would have made high school less miserable, or even a school with some more challenging coursework. I am not a super-genius by any account, but my school did not deal with "above average" students at all.

[AdventureMoms]

Someone asked about the next generation of Swanns - she says in her preface that three of her siblings have homeschooled children - one is using Calvert, one Abeka, and one is in Arizona using some kind of public charter program.

[Zuzu822]

As in something like this? http://www.mbc.edu/early_college/peg/

 

I wonder if there's anything similar for boys? Maybe one is listed here: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/early_college.htm

 

or here: http://www.davidsongifted.org/youngscholars/Article/Davidson_Young_Scholars___Guidebooks_375.aspx

 

I'm always surprised more people, especially homeschoolers, don't know about Simon's Rock: http://www.simons-rock.edu/

 

It's exclusively an early college and been around for almost fifty years. I went there after my sophomore year. Most of the freshman were 15-16, though Mia Farrrow's son started the same year I did at 11, IIRC.

 

Students complete a two year degree in the lower college than can matriculate into the upper college or transfer. There is far more support for students than at most colleges because the students are all so young. It's academically rigorous, and just all-around a fascinating place.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Zuzu822

[Night Elf]

But every day is still a school day.

 

Who wants to do schoolwork on vacation, or never sleep in and lounge around all day, or just take a few months off in the summer to have no responsibilities whatsoever? Who doesn't want a Christmas break, or some time off during mid-winter to get away from the house for a while without worrying about school? Maybe some people don't care about having days, weeks, or months when they are completely off from school, but we are not those people. At all.

 

Oh my, you would think we're pitiful then! :lol: We school year round and take very few days because our school days are lighter than what I see others here doing. My ds16 is only enrolled in 4 high school classes at a time. We take every other Friday off, 2 days at Thanksgiving and 1 week at Christmas. I don't mind taking other days off as needed because some days are just plain hooky days, kwim? But they are few and far between because, again, our day isn't long to begin with.

 

I haven't read the book in a while, but I seem to recall that they actually schooled 6 days a week, and she had mandatory outside time after lessons. I should read the book again.

[garddwr]

OK, I read the book--thanks to the OP for posting the link! I am frankly surprised at how critical this discussion has been. After reading, I am very impressed by the Swann family and their dedication to making their educational vision a reality. The book doesn't come across to me as a "how to" guide for radically accelerating your children; I see instead one family's account of homeschooling as pioneers and achieving success in their own goals through persistent hard work and dedication. I find it very encouraging, not because I want to imitate them but because I also have a unique vision for my family and am working to make it a reality.

 

While I agree that the educational program they followed was relatively light in science/math, it seemed quite rigorous in the humanities. The university work especially seemed to involve a lot of research and paper writing--including a 45 page capstone project for the undergraduate degree. I wasn't required to produce anything like that! And it was all done by hand and with an electric typewriter that required the entire paper to be re-typed every time revisions were made. Oy, am I ever grateful for computers:) No, the kids didn't get Ivy League degrees--that was obviously not this family's goal. They did get degrees from reputable universities. I suspect that Mother Swann's own experience heavily impacted her desire to see her children through college and graduate degrees while they were young--she never attended college herself and apparently married around age 18 (the daughter mentions that her mother was 29 when she started homeschooling her, and that the first 7 years of her parents' marriage had been childless). She had seen women struggling to get degrees while raising their families, and wanted to give her kids a jump-start in education. I think she did a fabulous job of meeting that goal, and if there were a memorial wall for homeschool pioneers her name should have a prominent place on it.

[Tenaj]

The more I thought about this comment, the more it bugged me.

 

Then I realized it's because it sounds exactly like what public school teachers say when they attempt to invalidate homeschooling.

 

:iagree:

[Laura Corin]

 

We do the same amount of work each day, we just do it approx 10 more weeks a year. This allows them to progress at a more steady rate and allows us to relax more when they hit stumbling points.

 

 

The standard UK school system has shorter holidays than does the US one. We 'only' get around six weeks of holiday in the summer. Other holidays are longer, but on average I think the UK system has about three extra weeks a year compared to the US.

 

Over twelve years of schooling, you have an extra year of school built up. To get into university in England/Wales you need to take exams that are roughly the equivalent of APs and you then take your undergraduate degree in three years rather than four.

 

Now I don't know how the drop-out rate compares between the UK and the US, so I don't know if the pace is too fast for some in the UK. This is, however, a systemic example of a whole country that 'accelerates' due to longer school years.

 

Laura

[Urban Girl]

OK, I read the book--thanks to the OP for posting the link! I am frankly surprised at how critical this discussion has been. After reading, I am very impressed by the Swann family and their dedication to making their educational vision a reality. The book doesn't come across to me as a "how to" guide for radically accelerating your children; I see instead one family's account of homeschooling as pioneers and achieving success in their own goals through persistent hard work and dedication. I find it very encouraging, not because I want to imitate them but because I also have a unique vision for my family and am working to make it a reality.

 

:iagree:

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback the path this family chose. I read "No Regrets" a few years ago and always desired to hear more from the mother. No matter what the goals are for your family, there are some things to learn from Joyce Swann, as someone mentioned earlier, dedication of time, developing a plan, and being consistent.

 

Big thanks to Joyce Swann for sharing the principles that made their homeschooling experience a success.