Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I heartily agree. My alma mater is around that percentage hispanic and your kids will not learn that they are not all the same if they are homeschooled.
The high school I attended was 99% white, so that pretty much blows your argument. I would add that children sometimes adopt intolerant attitudes from their school peers, regardless of the student body's diversity. Parents play a tremendous role in modeling respect for people of all shapes, sizes, and colors. Going to public school is no guarantee that your child will learn to value diversity.
The homeschool group we belong to has white, black, and hispanic children. We live in a town with a large Portuguese population, so the kids hear a lot of Portuguese spoken. We also hosted a German exchange student for a year two years ago, and will be hosting a French exchange student this summer. They speak easily with children of all ages as well as adults in many different situations. I fail to see how they'd be exposed to more diversity in school... there would be the same ratio of Portuguese speaking students, of course, but how is a school more diverse than the town its located in?
There are pros and cons to both, some kids would do much better with homeschooling, others would not. I have seen siblings differ greatly in both situations. I have also seen a variety of home schooled methods. We all know that there are teachers out there who give educators a bad name and vice versa- parents who claim to homeschool and don't.
We have all read and heard about bad educators, there isn't much press about bad homeschooling. I think teachers and social workers are the few who hear about bad homeschool situations. I am an educator (sped) and it isn't uncommon for previously homeschooled kids to enroll into public school. Often, mom is very concerned that her child won't get attention and he/she is way above grade level. However, more often than not, the child is average and sometimes low compared to peers. No, this isn't the case in every case, we don't get every child. But, I can tell you about the typical problems that we encounter with a new student who has been homeschooled.
1. Social issues (making friends, tattle tailing, can't solve problems with friends and always runs to an adult, prefers adult interaction)
2. Cooperative learning is difficult (wants to work alone)
3. TARDINESS! (I can't tell you how much of a problem this is! These families just can't get to school on time and if it is poor weather, we expect to see them around lunch time.)
4. Difficult time following schedules and the demands put forth with them (transitions)
When we do get a new student who has been homeschooled, these are pros:
1. Beautiful penmanship
2. Manners!!
3. Ethical
4. Not afraid to discuss God/religion- holds true to beliefs
5. Well groomed
6. Great parent volunteers
7. Typically "teacher's pet" type of individual (we have these whether homeschooled or not though)
8. Homework is NEVER an issue
Of course, I can give you exceptions to the rule for every case. The worst is when a parent says the child is being homeschooled and instead isn't doing anything. Social services intervenes and the child is brought to school.
When I recieved a brand new first grader about Xmas time, first experience in school- she was barely potty trained, speech was like a 2 yr old, couldn't get dressed by herself, had never used scissors, and had a huge sinus infection because she never blew her nose.
I could share several stories like this, but again, we could also share stories where teachers made very POOR choices.
Again, it depends on the child and parent. I think everyone can agree we have some excellent well trained teachers and we have some horrible ones. We also have some wonderful awesome parents and we also have some neglectful parents.
I wish the best to those who homeschool and I am sure they wish the best towards the schools. No one wants a child to fail or go through something traumatic.
I see. So... an above average kid with above average parents does well whether in school or not. I'll stick with "not" for my kids, because I feel that it's better in all aspects: physical, emotional, academic, spiritual, and social. Actually, for my family, I'm sure that it's better. Personally, I would not send my kids to school unless I had a very good reason to, or if I had no other alternative. I think my children learn too much from being homeschooled for me to stop.
ETA: I know some public schooled students who are weird and socially awkward. I know better than to blame it on their schooling method, though... kids come in all different personalities. I have one social butterfly child and one more reserved child. Why is it that public schooled children can be as shy/mellow/obnoxious/sociable/nice/rude/happy/angry as they want to, and it's only attributed to them being a kid, but if that exact same child is homeschooled, homeschooling is "blamed"? I was a shy little mouse all during my school years, and I went to public school! There were a lot of kids in the class who never asked questions and who had no friends. All of them public schooled.
Yes, kids are socially awkward in public schools too and, believe it or not, kids excell in public school. This student, however, dressed like his father and that really made him stand out. He had, obviously, not been around kids his age. That is a problem. Of course it's chicken or egg. Did they homeschool because he was anti social or did he become anti social because they homeschooled? We'll never know but if I had a child with this type of social issues, that would be reason to put him in public school. That might be part of the reason his parents did but they claim that he was now beyond them in material.
Problem is, you can't compare one child in both settings. All we can do is look at the data and demographics predicts home schooled children should be doing fantastic but all homeschoolers can claim is their kids do better than average. I can make the same claim if I take the top 90% of kids in public school. As a group, they do better than average. So doing better than average isn't much of a claim to fame.
Parents will do whatever they choose to do. In this country, you have that right. I would have to see some evidence that homeschooling is better before I'd consider it. As long as homeschooling is performing below what demographics alone would predict, it's suspect in my mind. Fortunately, we're talking about kids who do well no matter where they're planted here. I don't think they do as well as they do because they are homeschooled but rather they do as well as they do in spite of being home schooled. The same can be said about this same demographic in public schools. The system can't take credit for kids who would do well anyway.
What's funny is that we created public schools because many parents were not qualified to teach their own children. We've come full circle.
What's funny is that we created public schools because many parents were not qualified to teach their own children. We've come full circle.
Before we oversimplify things, here's a brief review of the history of public education...
The original form of "public schooling" arose in the colonies and were parochial in nature, a fairly simple undertaking in the absence of any religious diversity. But, as the decades wore on, continuing immigration led to conflicts over what constituted a proper education. After all, not everybody wanted to be a Puritan or Congregationalist. Eventually, Thomas Jefferson raised the concept of a government-controlled public education that would be free from religious influence and available to all people, regardless of their position in society; however, he resisted compulsory schooling.
Quote:
"Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? --to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? --public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely... It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father... What is proposed... is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer, and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:423
As the decades progressed and immigration exploded in the middle of the nineteenth century, the United States began to embrace the idea that a public education would unite its citizens and prevent crime and poverty. This time period coincides with the Second Industrial Revolution, which created a huge shift away from traditional rural apprenticeships and led to a rise in unemployment and crime in the urban centers where factories were now major employers.
I think the most important aspect of this history is the massive influx of immigrants from all over the world at the dawn of the 20th century. Public education was viewed as a solution to the deep divisions inherent in a society comprised of people from diverse cultures. Public education created a body of common knowledge & experience that minimized conflict and encouraged unity, while it prepared young people to move from agrarian occupations to urban factory work.
Last edited by formercalifornian; 06-30-2009 at 11:31 PM..
I think that in some cases homeschooling is the way to go. Overall, though, I don't like it. That's probably because I've met many homeschooling parents who have very strong opinions and actively bash the public schools yet have have no personal experience (other than their own, outdated experiences) with the very schools they criticize. I also dislike hearing about how kids going to a school will miss out on alternative learning experiences; homeschoolers believe that education doesn't exist strictly in a classroom, why can't some of them extend that same logic to suggest that kids who attend a school during the day will continue to learn and explore during the time they spend outside of the classroom? Finally, I used to live around a large group of people who homeschooled for religious reasons. While their parents may have had the right to do so, it made me uncomfortable that their children would grow up in a very sheltered environment surrounded only by those who shared those exact same opinions. (although yes, I know that there are many people who homeschool, and for many different reasons, so these are of course broad generalizations based on my experiences with the most vocal advocates)
I think homeschooling may work fine for elementary school, but I think it would be difficult to pull off well for the high school years. At that point students need access to teachers with high level subject-specific knowledge (and in the case of science, ideally access to labs, etc.). I suppose you can get around that by hiring tutors or getting together with other students for specific classes, but at that point it doesn't really seem to fall into the realm of true homeschooling either.
I know that there are many intelligent, devoted, skilled parents teaching their children, and that many homeschooled children turn out just fine on all counts. I think there are situations in which it is the best option. But I think there are also cases where a parent is simply not qualified (even if they have the best of intentions) to handle teaching their child. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but children deserve the chance to have a shot at a decent education. It's their futures that are at stake, after all.
Before we oversimplify things, here's a brief review of the history of public education...
The original form of "public schooling" arose in the colonies and were parochial in nature, a fairly simple undertaking in the absence of any religious diversity. But, as the decades wore on, continuing immigration led to conflicts over what constituted a proper education. After all, not everybody wanted to be a Puritan or Congregationalist. Eventually, Thomas Jefferson raised the concept of a government-controlled public education that would be free from religious influence and available to all people, regardless of their position in society; however, he resisted compulsory schooling.
As the decades progressed and immigration exploded in the middle of the nineteenth century, the United States began to embrace the idea that a public education would unite its citizens and prevent crime and poverty. This time period coincides with the Second Industrial Revolution, which created a huge shift away from traditional rural apprenticeships and led to a rise in unemployment and crime in the urban centers where factories were now major employers.
I think the most important aspect of this history is the massive influx of immigrants from all over the world at the dawn of the 20th century. Public education was viewed as a solution to the deep divisions inherent in a society comprised of people from diverse cultures. Public education created a body of common knowledge & experience that minimized conflict and encouraged unity, while it prepared young people to move from agrarian occupations to urban factory work.
Yes, but you're missing the big picture. If parents had been doing a good job educating their kids, we wouldn't have needed public education in the first place. We did because they weren't. We decided long ago to make education public because expecting parents to do the educating yielded very mixed results.
I think the reasons we started public education are still valid.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-01-2009 at 05:49 AM..
You know everyone is entitled to their opinions here folks. Public school people get offended when homeschooling parents say public school stinks, and homeschooling parents get offended when public school people say homeschooling stinks.
Unfortunately, what I have seen as an educator (take this knowing it is my experience) is that great homeschooling is an exception, not the rule. So if you are a parent homeschooling and your kid is excelling and has wonderful social skills give yourselves a pat on the back because you are as exceptional as your child.
Too often I have seen that the state does not enforce any type of regulation on homeschooling, and the kids eventually return to public school with a multitude of problems. The kids return to public school because thier parents can't handle the upper grade level material, and then it is the public schools problem. The kids that I have seen return to public school have been a mess socially, for lack of a better word.
As for tolerance, I am sorry but you do not learn that in a closed off homeschol group. The socil atmosphere at school is much more like the real world, and kids need to learn how to deal with children from every walk of life. We have already talked about the demographics that exist in a homeschool environment, and I am sorry that is not real world. If kids are never exposed to people from different walks of life, they may never learn how to interact with the real world. I think that they need to come in contact with students who are low SES or that have learning disabilities, they need to meet children from everywhere and I do not buy that atmosphere can be recreated in homeschool. From the comments that I have read from others, I worry that the only opinion of the world that they will have is their parents (good or bad).
Please do not bash people for having an opinion because this is a controversial topic. Hear what others are saying because like I said there are exceptions to everything. Much of what we form our opinion on is experience, and I wish that I had the experience to see successful homeschoolers, because I have not. Don't attack people based on what their experience has been, hear what they have to say to improve the situation so that it is better. There are two sides to every story, and as wonderful as it is to drink cocoa and lemonaide and learn.......that is not how the world works. Wish it was, but it is not. I wish my boss gaveme lemoniade and cocoa time, but he doesn't. Just read and process before your rake me over the coals.
Yes, but you're missing the big picture. If parents had been doing a good job educating their kids, we wouldn't have needed public education in the first place. We did because they weren't. We decided long ago to make education public because expecting parents to do the educating yielded very mixed results.
I think the reasons we started public education are still valid.
You think I'm failing to see the big picture, but I think you're failing to give the details their due consideration. Your own posts indicate that you believe home schooling is limited to upper-middle class, educated, two-parent households. This assertion may or not be supported by demographics, but for the sake of argument, let's consider it accurate as we take a closer look at the history of public schooling.
Public education was never intended to serve the interests of the wealthy. Instead, it was designed to serve the interests of the poor, who had absolutely no hope of receiving an education on their own, in a society that was under the stress of rapid change and that fully embraced meritocracy. The privileged were never expected to participate, with the notable exception of providing financial support. Industry barons, like John D. Rockefeller, willingly opened their wallets because public education guaranteed an on-going supply of job-ready workers with the resources to consume their employers' products; however, their children would continue under the watchful eyes of private tutors and schools.
If indeed home schooling families are the elite you make them out to be, they are merely following a long history of the affluent taking care of themselves. Furthermore, even today, the privileged who participate in public schools take full advantage of their affluence to buy a better education for their children with strategic home purchases. The system hasn't really changed at all.
@Dez: I don't understand your plea for participants in this conversation to resist bashing one another. I think this discussion has been very respectful thus far.
I would like to take an opportunity to address your point about public school representing real life. There are so many ways in which this is untrue, not least of which is that society does not naturally segregate into age-restricted groups for learning. I would argue that the most effective learning experiences happen when people of varying degrees of competence gather to increase their knowledge. Some schools address this by assigning older children to mentor younger children (e.g., 5th graders tutoring 2nd graders for an hour in reading), but it's extremely limited. Furthermore, most schools are not the diverse communities you make them out to be, which I briefly addressed above when I pointed out that affluent public school consumers tend to cluster in above average districts.
Last edited by formercalifornian; 07-01-2009 at 10:12 AM..
Reason: corrected reference to previous poster
You think I'm failing to see the big picture, but I think you're failing to give the details their due consideration. Your own posts indicate that you believe home schooling is limited to upper-middle class, educated, two-parent households. This assertion may or not be supported by demographics, but for the sake of argument, let's consider it accurate as we take a closer look at the history of public schooling.
Public education was never intended to serve the interests of the wealthy. Instead, it was designed to serve the interests of the poor, who had absolutely no hope of receiving an education on their own, in a society that was under the stress of rapid change and that fully embraced meritocracy. The privileged were never expected to participate, with the notable exception of providing financial support. Industry barons, like John D. Rockefeller, willingly opened their wallets because public education guaranteed an on-going supply of job-ready workers with the resources to consume their employers' products; however, their children would continue under the watchful eyes of private tutors and schools.
If indeed home schooling families are the elite you make them out to be, they are merely following a long history of the affluent taking care of themselves. Furthermore, even today, the privileged who participate in public schools take full advantage of their affluence to buy a better education for their children with strategic home purchases. The system hasn't really changed at all.
@Deb: I don't understand your plea for participants in this conversation to resist bashing one another. I think this discussion has been very respectful thus far.
I would like to take an opportunity to address your point about public school representing real life. There are so many ways in which this is untrue, not least of which is that society does not naturally segregate into age-restricted groups for learning. I would argue that the most effective learning experiences happen when people of varying degrees of competence gather to increase their knowledge. Some schools address this by assigning older children to mentor younger children (e.g., 5th graders tutoring 2nd graders for an hour in reading), but it's extremely limited. Furthermore, most schools are not the diverse communities you make them out to be, which I briefly addressed above when I pointed out that affluent public school consumers tend to cluster in above average districts.
I'm speaking of average demographics. It's kind of hard to homeschool your children if you're a single parent, who has to work for a living, or if you can't afford to have one parent stay at home to home school. I'm sure there are exceptions but, for the most part, homeschoolers are middle class, or better, two parent households. Right there you have two demographic traits that predict educational success.
It wasn't my argument that school mimics real life but I'll run with it. You're correct that society doesn't group by age. Society groups by ability. In children, ability is closely linked with age. Hence age groupings in schools and not all schools have rigid age groupings. My children attend a school in which every classroom is multi grade level from k-12. With the exception of the low K class. That one is by itself.
Even in a school that does have single grade classrooms, you can make arrangements to have your child move to another class for subjects they may be ahead or behind in. Though I don't recommend moving them to another classroom if they are behind because that has a stigma attached to it. Even in the multi grade classrooms my dd's were in (moving back to our local school system this year because of other advantages), the kids knew who was behind. Which is why the school had multiple groupings (There was a K-1 grouping and a 1-2 grouping so lower 1's could be grouped with the K's and be ahead while higher 1's were with the lower 2's so no one was really behind.) Within the classrooms, children were further grouped by ability. Very interesting teaching model here. I wish it could continue at the high school level but once you no longer have the same group of kids every day, it's too much to have a teacher group this way (35 kids is one thing, 200+ quite another).
In real life, you really group by educational attainment so schools are not far off by grouping by age. The only difficulty is for children who track markedly faster/slower than the norm. I have a dd going into the 7th grade who is testing at a 9th/10th grade level but it is unrealisitc to put her with 9th/10th graders. She's only 11. Socially, she has nothing in common with them. So, she's placed with the advanced 7th and 8th graders depending on the subject. You really can't let a child get too far ahead. There's no advantage for them and lots of disadvantages. The school plans to group her with the advanced kids in her grade for english, history, french and electives and with the advanced kids one grade up for math and science. If she chooses, she can finish her senior year at a local community college and get an associates degree 6 months after she graduates from high school. That's about as fast as we can realistically let her go without her suffereing socially. I'm more concerned with her being well rounded than her racing to the finish line.
The real advantage in public schools is exposure to people who come from all walks of life. My children's school has very poor families and very rich families. Different groups sponsor poor families (no one knows which families actually get sponsored. The kids just do their fund raisers, and things like shopping for christmas presents for the families and the school takes care of it annonomously.) These are great experiences for kids to have. I would not want to limit my children's peers to the same demographic we come from. There's too much my children learn from doing for others who have less than them and they learn from the ones who have more to be humble with what we have. I'm not sure what the really rich get out of this system but that's not my problem.
Schools are pretty diverse. Most cities have wealthy areas and poor areas. Sure there are some that are mostly poor or mostly rich but there's a lot in between too. What you don't see is middle class schools that are almost all middle class. It's in schools in middle class areas where you see a lot of diversity.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-01-2009 at 10:07 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.