Advice for 8th grade

[daijobu]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

Well, it still seems like a silly way to start. There's really NO reason to not start with vectors and work up to matrices in the usual way. Even if kids have seen it, they have probably forgotten it, since it's not an integral part of the curriculum. 

I've taught linear algebra in a few places, and I've never seen it start like that. Neither has DH. We were both pretty sorry for my sister. 

 

This discussion reminds me of  how just within the last month I wanted to come up with a motivation for my oceans loving student to study matrices and I stumbled on these lecture notes for an Oceanography class:  https://www.slideserve.com/krystal/laboratory-in-oceanography-data-and-methods  It begins with a review of matrices and vectors.  

My message to my student was that I didn't expect her to remember and use Cramer's Rule or calculate a determinant for the rest of her life.  But if she does continue to study oceans, she will have had some exposure to the topic, so she won't need to learn it completely from scratch.  

I do think some students take a more aggressive approach to studying and learning.  I remember Richard Rusczyk of AoPS recounting his time as a student at Princeton.  He said he would study the entire semester's worth of material in the first couple of weeks, when his schedule was lighter.  Usually the most challenging material is served at the end of a class, so by the time the end of the semester rolls around, he wasn't learning it for the first time.  

I just signed up for an AoPS class myself, and even though the first lecture hasn't started yet, there is a student who is already over halfway through the book and asking questions on the discussion board.  He's certainly getting his money's worth from the class, plus he's the kind of guy I would hire in a heartbeat...for pretty much anything.  

My point is, there are just people out there who are super aggressive (that's the only word I can think of to describe it) about their learning.  

[daijobu]

5 minutes ago, square_25 said:

DH's school is having this issue at the moment -- they admitted a bunch of non-traditional graduate students (mostly women), and now they are having trouble with professors who refuse to accommodate the students in any way, even though the students genuinely do NOT have the background. 

The problem is that simply admitting those students is a band-aid. That costs you nothing. Actually figuring out how to get them through the program is much harder. 

 

The cost could be a lost reputation of the university.  If students are dropping out of the class, future applicants may suspect their peers will be unprepared, or perhaps the school itself is rough on it's PhD students.  

It cuts both ways.  How many wealthy legacy applicants can a university admit, before its reputation suffers, and it becomes known as the school for dumb rich kids?  

[Arcadia]

3 minutes ago, daijobu said:

The cost could be a lost reputation of the university.  If students are dropping out of the class, future applicants may suspect their peers will be unprepared, or perhaps the school itself is rough on it's PhD students.  

Unlike the 4,5,6 year graduation rate for undergraduates, the graduation rate for postgraduates are abit harder to data mine. My husband took 3 years for his PhD (from BEng, skip masters), some of his colleagues took 5 to 7 years for PhD. 

Sometimes a high drop out rate of a relatively prestigious college might make people think the rigor is high, and actually “improve” the college’s reputation. Kind of like the acceptance rate effect. A college with an extremely high graduation rate might instead be suspected of using social promotion to get that high a graduation rate.

[Miss Tick]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

Well... here, it does depend what the kids are going for. Yes, it'll delay graduation for someone who is really going for engineering. But there are plenty of majors that require calculus that don't really need calculus (we can have a long discussion about whether this is a reasonable decision, but it's true.) In that case, having more support may make a serious difference. 

Sure, I was responding to the idea of students being accepted to engineering or similar majors and not being prepared for them. Someone already talked about the ones who couldn't cut it being shunted to humanities. That was the path my public-schooled brother took. It worked for him, although I don't know what he really wanted in the first place.

1 hour ago, daijobu said:

How many wealthy legacy applicants can a university admit, before its reputation suffers, and it becomes known as the school for dumb rich kids?  

 Are legacy applicants a big thing in graduate school also? I wouldn't have thought that, but perhaps because my background is engineering.

[Amccracken]

On 6/15/2020 at 10:35 AM, Evanthe said:

So, what I didn't realize (several years ago) was that with the relaxed way we homeschooled (before I lost my mind), my kids were getting a really good education.  I let self-doubt take over and that led to things like curriculum hopping (because X curriculum isn't good enough) and driving through curriculum when I knew we were burned out and needed a break.  It also led to me choosing curriculum that didn't match my kid, because it was considered rigorous.  Ugh.  I'm ashamed of myself!  lol.  And I know other parents have gotten into that mindset, too, because I have talked to them.

 

This ^, I really think this is where I am right now.  It started with writing in April.  I came to a point where I thought my oldest wasn't where he needed to be going into the 8th.  I started looking into writing programs, then methods of teaching writing.  From there I basically determined we had homeschooled "incorrectly" for 9 years!! :)  It so easy to jump ship from fear and self-doubt.  I made an elaborate plan to get my boys "back on track" and now with a summer break I'm finally able to look at the situation with a clearer mind.  We have an area we need to work on, I've not completely neglected my children's education.   

[egao_gakari]

9 minutes ago, Amccracken said:

 

This ^, I really think this is where I am right now.  It started with writing in April.  I came to a point where I thought my oldest wasn't where he needed to be going into the 8th.  I started looking into writing programs, then methods of teaching writing.  From there I basically determined we had homeschooled "incorrectly" for 9 years!! 🙂 It so easy to jump ship from fear and self-doubt.  I made an elaborate plan to get my boys "back on track" and now with a summer break I'm finally able to look at the situation with a clearer mind.  We have an area we need to work on, I've not completely neglected my children's education.   

I was homeschooled "incorrectly" for 6 years as a kid--the only curriculum we used was Saxon Math, and each of us had music lessons and Scouts once/week. Both parents worked. Bro and I were alone at home (well, Dad was in his home office so we weren't totally alone) and there was no TV. We just read all day, got in fistfights, ran around outside, got in more fistfights, got yelled at by Dad, and read more.

When Mom finally panicked, decided she was failing us, and sent us to PS, we both tested above grade level in math and reading, even though I had only made it through half of Math 65 in sixth grade and Big Bro was still struggling through Algebra 1 in tenth. I honestly think we would have been fine continuing what we were doing. I'd homeschool that way if DH would back me up on it, but he's got a very rigid idea of what school is (and doesn't want to give up the TV/devices), so we do a more "school at home" approach. Not my preference, but I think our dc are also going to be OK.

[8filltheheart]

51 minutes ago, square_25 said:

It's interesting... I certainly don't think that high school should revolve around giving kids an edge in college, because I think all school should revolve around love of learning.

On the other hand, I'm cognizant of the fact that some choices I make set up my kids up for success, and some choices do not, even if I restrict myself to choices that inculcate the love of learning. And in that case, I would make the choice that would give my kids the edge. 

I have found the wanderings of this thread fascinating and equally unfathomable.  The bolded sums up my initial comment.  Choices we make as our kids' primary educators impact them.  It is really that simple.  We should be cognizant of whys of the decisions we make and the repercussions of those decisions.  Those decisions don't need to be based on panic or fear or based on following other educational systems' methodologies.  For example, APs are not at all a goal in our homeschool.  That isn't a decision I make lightly.  I have the conversation with my kids. We discuss APs as an option and what doors they open and what courses during high school they close and vice versa.  Only 1 of my kids has opted to take APs (he took 2 in 10th grade).  The others have preferred the freedom to study courses during high school the way they have wanted or without the pressure of any sort of exam.

For every decision we make, our kids are the ones that live with the long-term implication behind those decisions.  They should be fully informed about what they are studying and how it compares to what their traditionally schooled peers are doing and how it measures compared to what their future goals require.  That is really the long and the short of it.  I absolutely dismiss the premise that our choices don't influence our kids or matter.  It is one thing to make informed decisions with the cooperation of our young adults.  It is quite another to simply do and then expect all things to work out without forethought to the implications.  To me the bolded sums up my initial comment that there is a wrong way to approach our children's high school educations.  The hows and whats that meet the needs of any individual student are as varied as the number of individuals involved.  I absolutely do not believe there is A right way.  But, if the needs of the individual student aren't the primary impetus, I do believe there is a wrong way.

[EKT]

29 minutes ago, Plum said:

OP if you are still reading

LoriD put together a list of some epic threads that were about this very subject. My favorites were started by NaninMass. The very first links on the motherload #1 pinned post are inspirational. If you haven't read those, start there. 

To all you people with 8th graders (or there abouts)...

For those of you with 8th graders considering homeschooling high school...

 

 

These links are super helpful! Thank you for sharing them!!

(And I always find the conversation interesting; don't mind tangents!) Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts. ❤️

[ieta_cassiopeia]

Lots of people manage to get through the entire compulsory school system without learning how to study. They also often don't learn how to self-advocate - or worse, get taught that trying to self-advocate is counter-productive. The school where I did the equivalent of middle and early high school was considered mediocre rather than poor or "underserved", but asking for help from adults, no matter how that was done or how much preparation was made by re-checking book, notes etc, invariably resulted in one of the following five responses:

1) *ignored*

2) "Sorry, I'm busy". (Then ignored if any further attempt at self-advocacy done).

3) "No, I'm not answering this question. And don't ask again because this is how the working world will be. Just answer it - perfectly." (Further attempts at self-advocacy typically resulted in detention - and no, the adult wouldn't answer the question then either).

4) "Pay more attention in class." (Then ignored if any further attempt at self-advocacy done - not even an indication if it was in the book, or which class held the answer).

5) Spending 10 minutes on an "explanation" that merely made things even more confusing.

Someone for whom those five answers are the entirety of their experience when asking questions will not resume asking questions at university - and probably not anywhere else. They don't crack open books in the university library if they think they'll understand less after they have done so. Every student at my secondary school got this from all the teachers, and because the school exam results were average, they saw no reason to change. These students actively avoid asking anything because they believe they'll be worse off if they do, or if they do ask, it'll be their friends (who may accidentally give a perfectly persuasive wrong answer to the question, or give the right answer to the wrong question, instead of the information the student needs).

As good homeschoolers, I'm sure you don't give these five answers (or if you do, it's only some of the time and always with good reason). However, it is good for a student to learn there are other adults who will also respond positively to that sort of self-advocacy. Also, to know what to do to "get round" someone who won't answer questions standing between the student and knowledge, and how to self-teach.

Colleges and community colleges would benefit from teaching these too, well, early (and well-recommended for any student not already practised in self-advocacy), given how many people from public school don't have positive experiences of self-advocacy they can draw upon. College is not the best place to learn, but better late than never - and it's the sort of need that anywhere deliberately admitting students from places where self-advocacy is not encouraged really should be meeting.

Returning to 8th grade, it's a transition year. It is good to use flexibility, and OP's idea of a nature year is likely to be beneficial. It is likely to be even more beneficial if care is taken to work upon skills that the nature year uses that are likely to be important in high school, college and adult life. Off the top of my head, these would include:

- Observation skills

- Drawing clearly

- Following a devised plan and adapting it as necessary to minor obstacles (perhaps also learning to create a plan if the student is already good at this)
- Looking at what a standard text has to say about selected topics, and practising good use of the text (said text does not have to be high school unless you want it to be, but practising with something textbooky as a supplement is a useful skill)

- Note taking (on field trips, potentially also from lessons and books)

- Doing work carefully, neatly and consistently to the best level practicable

- Managing multi-day deadlines (it is possible to start with 2-day assignments, then push out to 3-, 4-, 5- and 10-days as and when the student is ready)

- Managing multiple deadlines (not necessarily in the same subject)

- Strategies for when something doesn't make sense that go beyond "Please spoon-feed me the entire lesson"

- Different ways of recording learning (definitely have fun with this, and remember not all methods need to be written, let alone textbook-style)

- Continuing to find ways to learn the intended topic even when one does not feel like it

- Enjoying learning even as it begins to get more serious and challenging

It is likely OP started working on some/all of these well before 8th, and also likely they'll continue to be worked upon during high school. This is because none of these skills is on/off, but can be worked upon at multiple levels.

Checking how, and how fast, your student does certain things is also beneficial because this will help with planning how to distribute effort in further courses. This will reduce (but not necessarily elimininate) shocks in 9th.

[Arcadia]

On 6/13/2020 at 12:33 PM, EKT said:

So, I know that once my oldest hits 9th grade in another year, a huge portion of our homeschool academics will be shaped/bound by college prep requirements (that is, doing x years of specific sciences, x years of foreign language, etc.). So part of me just wants to enjoy this last year and do more free-flowing interest-led work while we still can. That is, things that can "count" as science for legal purposes, but that aren't super school-y, if that makes sense. (For instance, off the top of my head, I'm fantasizing about something like a year-long nature study with lots of art involved, or something similarly "feel-good.") But the other part of me suspects that in order to properly prepare my daughter for high-school level science, I should do the "smart" thing and do a typical, formal science curriculum with lab sheets and such (like Elemental Science, which I do like) for her upcoming 8th grade year. (We've definitely done some of this type of formal science thus far--my girls are familiar, for example, with the very basics of the scientific method. But I've not yet felt obligated to complete an entire science curriculum cover-to-cover. It's more something we've dabbled in up to now.

(1) College prep requirements - it varies. However whatever requirements we needed to “catch up” and fulfill can be done double quick through summer or dual enrollment. DS15 didn’t have science or foreign language in 9th grade. 

DS15 did a tentative four year plan in 7/8th grade. It has changed quite a bit and has morph to completing an associate degree before graduating high school. He is happy treating community college as his “high school”. So just stay flexible when you are planning.
 

(2) Lab reports - My teens went into AP science with zero formal science. Their AP teachers (PAH) did a good job explaining how they want the lab reports done. I am pretty sure my teens first few reports would be considered substandard but they improved as they go along (I would prep a little if their first formal lab report was for a dual enrollment science class).
What we love were the Leonardo Da Vinci drawings (a picture is worth a thousand words) https://www.leonardodavinci.net/drawings.jsp

(3) curriculum - my kids have finished some and not finished others. They read cover to cover those they have high interest in. They do only the required readings for those that they have no interest in e.g.  US History.

Even in colleges, the lecturer is unlikely to use any textbook cover to cover. Foreign languages is probably the exception. For example, DS15’s dual enrollment Japanese is covering the entire textbook and workbook over three quarters (one quarter is about 12 weeks) His math class use the same calculus textbook for two quarters but doesn’t cover every section. 
 

(4) my teens are reluctant at advocating for themselves but they build up their courage to advocate in middle school.
I would work on verbal advocacy skills before your children turn 13. I can proofread their emails before they send to their teacher but I can’t “teleprompt” them when they speak with their teachers or their community college guidance counselors face to face.

[Amccracken]

On 6/16/2020 at 2:45 PM, daijobu said:

Here's an article that's relevant to this conversation:  https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/02/21/students-educators-discuss-challenges-in-transitioning-to-stanford-from-under-resourced-schools/

It's about Stanford undergraduates who were admitted from what they now call "under-resourced schools" who arrive unprepared for the academics and can't continue in their intended fields.  When I was in college, this sort of thing was swept under the rug.  Students would breezily say they arrived intending to be premed or study engineering, but fell in love with some other humanities field instead.  

Now students are angry.  Though weirdly, they direct their anger at Stanford, rather than at their high schools that provided poor preparation:

This is a very interesting topic to me.  I've never even thought of blaming a university for being accepted but not being able to pass the classes. The article is interesting.  I'll have to think about this more.

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Amccracken
typo

[daijobu]

12 hours ago, Amccracken said:

This is a very interesting topic to me.  I've never even thought of blaming a university for being accepted but not being able to pass the classes. The article is interesting.  I'll have to think about this more.

 

This has been going on a long time, but it was often labeled by the choice euphemism.  When I was an undergrad, you would often hear stories of students who started off as premed or studying to be an engineer, but then "deciding it wasn't for them" or "falling in love" with some humanities class.  Now I'm sure that's true for many students, but I also wonder how many of them were actually unprepared for their chosen field.  

Come to think of it, is there really anything wrong with the status quo?  It's been true for a long time that there are many more people who fancy themselves doctors than there are spaces available at med schools.  We have a pretty good system that selects the best of this lot, IMO.  

[ieta_cassiopeia]

Being upfront about what it is going to take for a potential student to meet their goals (assuming these were stated), and adapting the message for different people would help. Including acknowledging that people from specific backgrounds are likely to encounter similar specific problems as others from their background... ...and what facilities are in place to help. Individual tailoring is only going to be possible for admitted students, and then only for those places with fairly small intakes, but some more generic advising (such as "students with maths scores near to our minimums will need to improve their maths skills to graduate. The help we offer for that is..." is possible even at the prospective application level.

More emphasis on the necessity of seeking questions would help too. That goes some for the colleges/universities, but especially for schools, parents and careers guidance people. I think there's a belief among colleges/universities that because they are traditionally places of research (which has asking questions of everyone and everything as a prerequisite), and they still see themselves as primarily research institutions, they don't need to spell this out. The problem with such thinking is that most students go to university first and foremost for what the universities teach, not what they research. Many of them do not know the university's perspective, leading them to extrapolate from their teaching/learning experiences (for better or worse) as an initial frame of reference. 

Furthermore, even schools that have sent children to colleges/universities since the days when only a few % of children attended them, do not always spell this out to students these days. The result is that assumptions build up that colleges/universities don't require the asking of questions from their students. A reasonable assumption if one has not been informed of reality, but very, very wrong. (I was lucky, because I was advised by school to read every how-to university success book in the library, and among the many useful items of advice in there, was the whole "ask questions", complete with detail on how to do them effectively).

A point I'd particularly like to see schools/careers guidance people/parents put across is that the majority of university staff like having students ask well-timed, on-topic questions - even if they're basic, carry obvious conceptual errors or are awkwardly-phrased. They know they don't have long to help students due to the pace of courses. Knowing what sort of confusions and errors the students in front of them today are having is recognised for the excellent teaching and learning aid it is.  Also, they are especially happy if it happens in class (because often there are 10 other people wondering the same thing but not asking, "standing behind" the 1 student who has the courage to ask). And that the anti-intellectual attitudes some students bring against inquisitive grade school students don't make their way to university because there, bullying makes the bully look bad (as it should, but often doesn't, in school).

Another thing that might help is a optional foundation year for people hoping to go into science-related subjects but who don't have enough science classes to succeed in a scientific discipline - perhaps because their admission is due to great humanities results, or because they have evidence of scientific capability that simply didn't result in an opportuity to get typical-for-that-institution scientific background. (Given the American system, allowing students to get (some of) their non-scientific electives done during the foundation year would give them the additional advantage of feeling like they're making progress on their degree, and not just burning a year's tuition on developmental courses). I'd want this to cost considerably less than a regular university year, whether due to reduced sticker price or generous scholarship arrangements, though I have no particular ideas on how to make that practicable. In the UK, there are versions of it for science, medical studies, maths, engineering... ...and even art, which is not a science, but also recognises that not every student who would benefit from an art degree necessarily studied formal art courses to college/university-entrance level at school. Of these, only the art one is standardised - all others are tailored to that institution's requirements, although passing is seen favourably by other institutions.