Homeschooling (science, teachers, require, credits)

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin

I see. You seem to feel as though you are the only person who thinks things through and makes decisions based on what YOU think is important. Your children WERE doing well where they were. It wasn't broke, and yet you're fixing it to make it BETTER. It's called weighing your options, evaluating what's important to you, and making an informed choice. Parents who choose to homeschool go through the same process. It's not as though they woke up one morning and on a whim, said "hey kids, how'd you like to stay home for some learnin'?", or that they simply forgot to sign their kids up for kindergarten. I'm going to gracefully bow out of this discussion now, because when one person feels that their own reasons for pulling a child out of a school are more valid than someone else's, it's not worth arguing over.

LOL, Oh I think others make decisions based on what is important to them. According to the census data, religious preference is the second most common reason for homeschooling. That has nothing to do with quality of education. It has to do with personal preference. Parents, clearly, make this decision based on what they want. The question is is it made for sound reasons having to do with quality of education? And does homeschooling actually result in a better education? Parents have a habit of thinking everything they do is right because they have the right to do anything they want. Thinking you're right, unfortunately, doesn't mean you are right. IMO, unless you're solving a problem, and you're not when dealing with kids who would kids who do well etiher way, I'll take the safty in numbers route. Who knows what I, as an individual, doing this by myself might miss? I'll listen to professionals who have years of experience educating children and dealing with children's issues. I think they're worth something and valuable in my children's lives.

Even as a teacher, I rely on those with more experience than me. I struggle with being the best I can be teaching three or four subjects. I can't imagine being the best teacher for my kids for all subjects and all grades. If I tried, I'd no doubt be a jack of all trades and master of none and I know it. Which is why I don't homeschool in spite of being a certified teacher. I'm good at the subjects I teach but smart enough to know I don't know it all. I would never consider giving my children one teacher for all the years of their education even is she was me. Perhaps the reason homeschooling doesn't yeild the results we'd expect is that the teacher is a jack of all trades. You can't teach what you yourself do not know.

They say it takes three years of teaching any one subject/grade to get good at it. If the teacher metriculates with the students, does she ever have the chance to get good at what she does? If I teach algebra one year, geometry the next then trig the following and calculus the next I never settle in to my subject matter. I'm going into my second year of teaching and rewriting most of the lesson plans I used last year because I know I can do better. I'd be a lousy teacher if I only ever got one pass at each subject. Because I teach the same things year after year, I have the opportunity to become very good at what I do.

Sorry for any misspellings. I misplaced my glasses and it's hard to read what I'm typing.

[lakefront]

Just jumping in to add that acceleration (skipping grade levels) is well worth considering with bright kids - there is more leeway to do this with home school or private school. Follow this link if you're interested in thorough report on the issue... ["A Nation Deceived" - after the Columbia Univ professor quote] <br><br> Covington Latin School Acceleration | Academic Benefits

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by lakefront

Just jumping in to add that acceleration (skipping grade levels) is well worth considering with bright kids - there is more leeway to do this with home school or private school. Follow this link if you're interested in thorough report on the issue... ["A Nation Deceived" - after the Columbia Univ professor quote] <br><br> Covington Latin School Acceleration | Academic Benefits

You really need to consider the social ramifications of a grade skip. We did grade skip dd#2 but she fit better with the group ahead of her so it worked socially as well as academically. Had it not worked socially, I wouldn't have allowed it. I'd rather have my child behind where they could be academically than ahead of where they should be socially. I don't see any real advantage to jumping ahead by itself. I do see an advantage in staying with peers they identify with.

[littlefamily]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

However, public schooling has the benefit of being a policed system. When education is left up to individual parents, results are bound to vary. I see no reason for homeschooling when you're talking about kids who will do well no matter where they are schooled. Only the potential to do harm.

I question public schools being a "policed system" and I know for a fact that results vary widely when education is left to the public schools. My older child who attended public school for the first time this year has numerous children in her 5th grade class that are clearly not performing at 5th grade levels for literacy and/or math. How is it that the public school is allowing these children to keep moving along in the system when a basic level of proficiency has not been achieved?

My youngest who attended public school for about 6 months before coming home again, had a teacher that was so uninspired, my child began to think of school as drudgery. When I spoke with the principal (and several other parents had similar concerns) his hands were tied. Unions, tenure etc.... Why would I leave her in a situation that teaches her that learning is a chore and not fun? Who is policing for poorly performing teachers?

As a homeschooling parent, I don't have to be an expert in all subjects to be competent teaching my child. My strong suit is math/science, but when my child wanted to take a literacy course, I spent the summer reading some great books about analyzing literature and researching to find a curriculum that we both could enjoy. It was immensely enjoyable for both of us.

In my opinion, what I can give my children at home that public schools generally can't is the motivation to be a self-directed learner and to understand that learning is a life-long journey that is fun. Public schools are too tied to schedules and testing to accomplish that. You can't take the time to explore a subject more in depth because you enjoy it in public school - you must move along to the next concept to meet district requirements and be prepared for testing.

BUT, I give great kudos to those devoted public school teachers that can accomplish making learning fun (and my oldest had a wonderful one this year) and still meet the requirements loaded upon them.

Also, just as a side note, the homeschool group we participate in is mostly former public school teachers. I find it fascinating to talk with them about their reasons for homeschooling. Most attribute it to public schools being too regimented. They want to have more freedom in choosing curriculum and are not pleased with the immense focus on teaching to the test.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by littlefamily

I question public schools being a "policed system" and I know for a fact that results vary widely when education is left to the public schools. My older child who attended public school for the first time this year has numerous children in her 5th grade class that are clearly not performing at 5th grade levels for literacy and/or math. How is it that the public school is allowing these children to keep moving along in the system when a basic level of proficiency has not been achieved?

My youngest who attended public school for about 6 months before coming home again, had a teacher that was so uninspired, my child began to think of school as drudgery. When I spoke with the principal (and several other parents had similar concerns) his hands were tied. Unions, tenure etc.... Why would I leave her in a situation that teaches her that learning is a chore and not fun? Who is policing for poorly performing teachers?

As a homeschooling parent, I don't have to be an expert in all subjects to be competent teaching my child. My strong suit is math/science, but when my child wanted to take a literacy course, I spent the summer reading some great books about analyzing literature and researching to find a curriculum that we both could enjoy. It was immensely enjoyable for both of us.

In my opinion, what I can give my children at home that public schools generally can't is the motivation to be a self-directed learner and to understand that learning is a life-long journey that is fun. Public schools are too tied to schedules and testing to accomplish that. You can't take the time to explore a subject more in depth because you enjoy it in public school - you must move along to the next concept to meet district requirements and be prepared for testing.

BUT, I give great kudos to those devoted public school teachers that can accomplish making learning fun (and my oldest had a wonderful one this year) and still meet the requirements loaded upon them.

Also, just as a side note, the homeschool group we participate in is mostly former public school teachers. I find it fascinating to talk with them about their reasons for homeschooling. Most attribute it to public schools being too regimented. They want to have more freedom in choosing curriculum and are not pleased with the immense focus on teaching to the test.

Parents are one form of policing the system. One thing parents can do is fill in the blanks if their child needs it. Who is there to fill in the blanks if mom homeschools? What if mom isn't even aware of the blanks? You can't teach what you don't know.

Just as a silly for instance, you'd be shocked at how many people think we have seasons because the earth's orbit is elliptical and it's summer when we're close and winter when we're far away when our orbit around the sun is nearly perfectly circular. Stupid stuff like this gets taught to kids in a system without checks and balances. (It is believed that this started because science texts often showed the solar system at an angle making the orbits look eliptical but it just won't die.)

I'm not pleased with the focus on the test either but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Havng been in industry for 20 years, I know that being able to function as part of a team is critical to success. I'd keep my kids in public school and supplement even if I thought the schools were horrible just to make sure my kids work well with others. If they're going to work by themselves, they'd better have an IQ of 180. I have worked with a few geniuses who got away with working by themselves but the rest of us were part of a team.

I actually was passed over for one job because I didn't have enough of a team background. They decided I wasn't in enough group activities in high school (this was for a job after I graduated from college). They wanted a team player. They saw me as too independent. I was the oldest girl of six kids and needed at home to help with my younger siblings so I didn't do a bunch of extracurricular activities. They considered that as teamwork training I was missing.

As to teaching to the test, is that really bad if the test really does test what a child should know at a certain point? Honestly, if we had well written tests, I wouldn't mind teaching to them. I don't mind teaching to standards. Most professionals work to a standard and there is some measurement of how well they do so. Ours is the test.

I'll beg to differ with you on teachers needing to be subject matter experts. Parents would be, rightfully, up in arms if I were not an expert in the subject I teach. Why we should accept less from homeschoolers is beyond me. One thing I do think should be required to home school is passing the state exams teachers take. While they do not guarantee that you are a good teacher, not passing is a sure indicator that you shouldn't be teaching. Your own knowledge is too low if you can't pass and you can't teach what you don't know.

[littlefamily]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Parents are one form of policing the system. One thing parents can do is fill in the blanks if their child needs it. Who is there to fill in the blanks if mom homeschools? What if mom isn't even aware of the blanks? You can't teach what you don't know.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. If you are saying a parent fills in the blanks lacking from a public school education, but as a homeschooling parent, I might not be aware of the blanks..... How is it that I am aware of the blanks by putting my child in public school? If I don't recognize the blanks, it does not matter if I homeschool or have my child in public school. Maybe I am missing your logic here....


Just as a silly for instance, you'd be shocked at how many people think we have seasons because the earth's orbit is elliptical and it's summer when we're close and winter when we're far away when our orbit around the sun is nearly perfectly circular. Stupid stuff like this gets taught to kids in a system without checks and balances. (It is believed that this started because science texts often showed the solar system at an angle making the orbits look eliptical but it just won't die.)

This actually makes me appreciate the ability to teach my children how to research and find valid sources. Unfortunately, text books are notorious for errors, but yet we teach children that teachers/text books contain facts. Again, as I have stated before, my goal is not to spout information to my children. My goal is to teach them the love of learning and have fun doing it.


I'm not pleased with the focus on the test either but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Havng been in industry for 20 years, I know that being able to function as part of a team is critical to success. I'd keep my kids in public school and supplement even if I thought the schools were horrible just to make sure my kids work well with others. If they're going to work by themselves, they'd better have an IQ of 180. I have worked with a few geniuses who got away with working by themselves but the rest of us were part of a team.

I actually was passed over for one job because I didn't have enough of a team background. They decided I wasn't in enough group activities in high school (this was for a job after I graduated from college). They wanted a team player. They saw me as too independent. I was the oldest girl of six kids and needed at home to help with my younger siblings so I didn't do a bunch of extracurricular activities. They considered that as teamwork training I was missing.

But wait - you went to public school. So if your argument is that without a group school setting children can not learn to be team players, how is it that you were not seen as having enough "team background"? If you are saying that the extracurricular activites make the difference, we participate in 5 to 6 extracurricular activities at least throughout the year. As a matter of fact, my child that started public school actually had to cut back on her activities because school takes more of her time. Those extracurricular activities are filled with public school children and I can tell you those public school kids are all over the place for being "team players".


As to teaching to the test, is that really bad if the test really does test what a child should know at a certain point? Honestly, if we had well written tests, I wouldn't mind teaching to them. I don't mind teaching to standards. Most professionals work to a standard and there is some measurement of how well they do so. Ours is the test.

I'll beg to differ with you on teachers needing to be subject matter experts. Parents would be, rightfully, up in arms if I were not an expert in the subject I teach. Why we should accept less from homeschoolers is beyond me. One thing I do think should be required to home school is passing the state exams teachers take. While they do not guarantee that you are a good teacher, not passing is a sure indicator that you shouldn't be teaching. Your own knowledge is too low if you can't pass and you can't teach what you don't know.

I can only speak for the teachers I have encountered and that would be mainly elementary at this point. I have met few elementary teachers that are subject matter experts in math, science, language arts, history and all the other subjects they teach. Math is the perfect example. Few teachers at that level are math "subject matter experts". Look at the statistics, our nation is falling further and further behind other industrialized countries.

I love math and find ways to share that enthusiasm with my children. When my child entered school she was placed in the advanced math group. Because of teaching to the test, the children had to complete two word problems along with an explanation using "math terms" for every test. The first word problem would be fairly average, the second would usually be challenging. Instead of helping the children think of it as a fun puzzle that needed solving, she would often just state that the problem was too difficult and not score the problem. Were they tough? Yes, but the message given, in my opinion was wrong - too tough so it won't count.

My child on the other hand would copy the problem so we could work on it at home. That to me was the best reward for homeschooling. My child wanted to figure out the answer because she was curious. Not for the test score, not because the teacher "made" her, but just because she was curious. That was my goal in homeschooling - not to fill my child's brain with facts, but to teach her to love learning.

Teach a man to fish.....

[Charles Wallace]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

You really need to consider the social ramifications of a grade skip. We did grade skip dd#2 but she fit better with the group ahead of her so it worked socially as well as academically. Had it not worked socially, I wouldn't have allowed it. I'd rather have my child behind where they could be academically than ahead of where they should be socially. I don't see any real advantage to jumping ahead by itself. I do see an advantage in staying with peers they identify with.

Ivory, I don't know if you've familiarized yourself with the findings in that report, but after analyzing multiple studies of acceleration, the overwhelming evidence is that acceleration is extremely beneficial for gifted kids both in the long and short runs, whether considered from a social or an academic point of view. For most kids, obviously, acceleration would be inappropriate, but for gifted kids, they often are (mentally) ahead of their age-peers. The ones they "identify with" aren't necessarily the ones who were born the same year, but who can think the way they do, who can appreciate what they appreciate. Again, most children's chronological ages and mental ages are relatively in sync, so their academic peers largely are their age-peers, but this is not true for many gifted children -- and the more gifted you are, the truer this statement happens to be.

Think of it from this angle. Let's say you had a normal child with an I.Q. of 100, the statistical average. Let's say you decided to put him with his age-peers who were forty I.Q. points below him. Though there might be friendly relations between him and his classmates, true, genuine "friendship" in the deeper sense of understanding and sharing each other's goals, dreams, interests, and worldview would overall tend to be lacking.

That's essentially the situation you find yourself in with a child of 140 in a regular class. Put him or her in a class with his/her mental agemates, and the fit still will not be perfect -- for the extremely and profoundly gifted student, there IS no perfect fit except possibly with other EG and PG kids -- but it's a meeting of the minds, not a meeting of the ages, and historically has tended to be far more successful, as the many studies of this phenomenon prove in contradiction to received wisdom and prevailing mythology.

Check out the report -- it's really an eye-opener. May I also suggest anything by Miraca Gross?

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Charles Wallace

Ivory, I don't know if you've familiarized yourself with the findings in that report, but after analyzing multiple studies of acceleration, the overwhelming evidence is that acceleration is extremely beneficial for gifted kids both in the long and short runs, whether considered from a social or an academic point of view. For most kids, obviously, acceleration would be inappropriate, but for gifted kids, they often are (mentally) ahead of their age-peers. The ones they "identify with" aren't necessarily the ones who were born the same year, but who can think the way they do, who can appreciate what they appreciate. Again, most children's chronological ages and mental ages are relatively in sync, so their academic peers largely are their age-peers, but this is not true for many gifted children -- and the more gifted you are, the truer this statement happens to be.

Think of it from this angle. Let's say you had a normal child with an I.Q. of 100, the statistical average. Let's say you decided to put him with his age-peers who were forty I.Q. points below him. Though there might be friendly relations between him and his classmates, true, genuine "friendship" in the deeper sense of understanding and sharing each other's goals, dreams, interests, and worldview would overall tend to be lacking.

That's essentially the situation you find yourself in with a child of 140 in a regular class. Put him or her in a class with his/her mental agemates, and the fit still will not be perfect -- for the extremely and profoundly gifted student, there IS no perfect fit except possibly with other EG and PG kids -- but it's a meeting of the minds, not a meeting of the ages, and historically has tended to be far more successful, as the many studies of this phenomenon prove in contradiction to received wisdom and prevailing mythology.

Check out the report -- it's really an eye-opener. May I also suggest anything by Miraca Gross?

And it often catches up to them later. My best friend from Jr. High through high school had an IQ 160+. She was grade skipped twice. It worked well until about our Jr. year in high school when she simply could not fit in. She ended up not graduating with the rest of us. She got a GED after we graduated and then went on to get a 2 year degree. She faltered so badly in high school she never recovered. Setting her up to graduate at 16 did her no favors at all. She couldn't handle the skips socially. She couldn't deal with not fitting in in high school. She would have been much better of if they'd never grade skipped her at all.

I worry about my dd but she has a late birthday so grade skipping her once only makes her one month younger than the youngest kids who started school the year before her. I will not consider a second skip. I don't care how far ahead she is. She'll stay with the peers she identifies with socially. We'll find a way to enrich her education to keep her challenged.

Fortunately, our local schools are large enough that I'm sure my dd will find peers who share her world view. She has them where she is because the charter specializes in kids at the extremes (G&T and special ed) and she's grouped with other gifted kids. While I'm a little concerned about her move back to the local schools (has to happen before high school because the emphasis of the charter shifts at 9th grade), I'm sure she's not the only child in the district who thinks like she does and I'm equally sure she'll find peers on her level. Especially, since the plan is for her to take classes one year up with a group of other kids in her grade doing the same thing.

[Charles Wallace]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

And it often catches up to them later. My best friend from Jr. High through high school had an IQ 160+. She was grade skipped twice. It worked well until about our Jr. year in high school when she simply could not fit in. She ended up not graduating with the rest of us. She got a GED after we graduated and then went on to get a 2 year degree. She faltered so badly in high school she never recovered. Setting her up to graduate at 16 did her no favors at all. She couldn't handle the skips socially. She couldn't deal with not fitting in in high school. She would have been much better of if they'd never grade skipped her at all.

Ivory, I really do earnestly wish you would read the research. We all have an anecdote to break out to prove just about everything. If you want to have the Skirmish of Anecdotal Evidence, here's mine "proving" why acceleration might very well have saved someone's career and changed the direction of his life: My good friend from junior high and high school was an unqualified genius, the kind who could do a Rubik's Cube in seconds with no solution, the kind who was in AP Physics, AP Calc, and so on and found them easy. He got As in everything and clearly -- but with good reason -- viewed himself as intellectually superior to everyone else around him. This was confirmed when he got a scholarship to Major Technical University Nameless Here...and flunked out his first year. The reason? He'd never learned to study. He'd never faced actual academic challenge. Everything had been easy for him until he got to "MTU." There, everyone else was also a valedictorian who'd gotten 5s on all his APs.

If he'd been grade-skipped, not only would he have learned academic challenge -- and the valuable experience of dealing with failure -- but would have learned some necessary and appropriate humility which would have helped him with others. He would've learned these things early, when they act to inoculate the psyche, not later, when they kill it.

But who cares?

Anecdotal evidence fails to prove any argument. It is automatically insufficient because the sample size is too small. One story about one person fails to provide conclusive evidence about what will happen in most cases with most people.

Instead, again, I honestly wish you would rely on the abundant evidence on this point instead of the limited data presented by one or two personal experiences. The data demonstrate that although acceleration (like everything else) is not always perfect for everyone, it is better for the vast majority of kids who need it -- both in the short and the long run, as I stated in an earlier post. I'm basing my conclusions on data, and I wish you'd either do the same or at the very least, look at the data others have cited. Would you mind doing that? Seriously? The Templeton research is truly worth investigating.
[quote]

[Ivorytickler]

[quote=Charles Wallace;9623989]Ivory, I really do earnestly wish you would read the research. We all have an anecdote to break out to prove just about everything. If you want to have the Skirmish of Anecdotal Evidence, here's mine "proving" why acceleration might very well have saved someone's career and changed the direction of his life: My good friend from junior high and high school was an unqualified genius, the kind who could do a Rubik's Cube in seconds with no solution, the kind who was in AP Physics, AP Calc, and so on and found them easy. He got As in everything and clearly -- but with good reason -- viewed himself as intellectually superior to everyone else around him. This was confirmed when he got a scholarship to Major Technical University Nameless Here...and flunked out his first year. The reason? He'd never learned to study. He'd never faced actual academic challenge. Everything had been easy for him until he got to "MTU." There, everyone else was also a valedictorian who'd gotten 5s on all his APs.

If he'd been grade-skipped, not only would he have learned academic challenge -- and the valuable experience of dealing with failure -- but would have learned some necessary and appropriate humility which would have helped him with others. He would've learned these things early, when they act to inoculate the psyche, not later, when they kill it.

But who cares?

Anecdotal evidence fails to prove any argument. It is automatically insufficient because the sample size is too small. One story about one person fails to provide conclusive evidence about what will happen in most cases with most people.

Instead, again, I honestly wish you would rely on the abundant evidence on this point instead of the limited data presented by one or two personal experiences. The data demonstrate that although acceleration (like everything else) is not always perfect for everyone, it is better for the vast majority of kids who need it -- both in the short and the long run, as I stated in an earlier post. I'm basing my conclusions on data, and I wish you'd either do the same or at the very least, look at the data others have cited. Would you mind doing that? Seriously? The Templeton research is truly worth investigating.

You have no way of knowing that social issues wouldn't have been the problem had he been grade skipped.

And I have read the research. In fact, I did a research paper in grad school on grade retention/skipping. The conclusion was that neither serves the student long term. They are short term solutions that lead to long term issues stemming from not fitting in socially and being labeled. The retained student is labeled as a failure. The skipped student has an expectation that can be crushing attached to them. (I think this is really what happened to my friend though she tells it as just not fitting in. I think the expectation to excell just became too much for her.) Don't underestimate the turmoil of the teen years. Fitting in is very important as is feeling you're normal.

I will not grade skip my dd again. I will not put her in position where she's more than a year older than her classmates. All that does is make her stick out like a sore thumb. While I do worry about her study habits, I had lousy study habits starting college too and survived. While I don't have my dd's IQ, I'm no slouch. I have an IQ of around 135 (sorry I forget the actual number as the test was taken when I was 9). I'll admit I learned study habits the hard way (long story but I had a teacher who thought I should have all the answers and no questions but I was the kid with all the questions and no answers and by the time she got done with me, I'd stopped asking and, basically, did nothing until I got to college) but I did fine in college. Necessity is the mother of invention.

My friend never did learn good study habits. She expected things to come easily to her and when they stopped coming easily, she pretty much quit. But this was a function of her IQ not her grade in school. She was grade skipped because things came easily. She came to expect they'd continue to come easily. When that stopped, she stopped. She had no social life to hold her to school so she quit. Had she felt she fit in, she might have tried harder. She couldn't fit in though being two years younger than the rest of us. The only reason she and I hung out is we were both misfits. I just didn't know it yet. I turned out to be a geek.

She moved out of state and started over somewhere where there were no expectations attached to her. She's happier for the move but she'll never use that IQ of 160. She'd rather fit in than use it. This is a knife that cuts both ways.

What the research I studied concluded was that keeping the child with their peers with intervention is what works. Tutor the child who is struggling. Enrich the education for the child who is ahead. We'll see how well this works when my dd is in high school. It's working fine in elementary school. Of course we kept her with her peers so that's a big plus. Hopefully, she'll turn out to be one of several students who are ahead when she moves to the local school. She'll need the support. Peer support is very important.