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.
The point, which you missed, is I can prove otherwise.
Ivory, you cannot "prove" someone else's intent. In fact, in an internet forum, you cannot even prove your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I know traditional schoolers who participate in cival war reinactments too. Homeschoolers don't have the corner on the market here. Why do you keep bringing up things anyone can do regardless of how they school their children as if it's some proof that homeschooling is better or proves something? Our entire 11th grade class did a reinactment at Gettysburg last year. What you're posting about are things that are, routinely, done in public schools and by public school parents. We do science fairs, field days, bring in expert exhibits, field trips to exhibits and....gasp...take photos of them .
Yes, but we have roughly 35 extra hours a week (or more) in which to do them.
Last fall we spent a week touring the state capital (and the capitol), meeting our legislators, and in general having a grand old time learning about our government. Absolutely, public schoolers can do that-- but since we're in the Bay Area and our capital is five hours' drive, I kind of doubt Mrs. Smith's fourth grade class will give it a go. Parents can take their schoolkids-- on weekends and holidays, when the legislature is not in session. (Unless of course they want to pull Billy and Bobby out of class and watch Mrs. Smith throw a hissy fit because they'll miss more than the allowable number of days.)
We also had the opportunity to stop and check out some interesting places between here and there, which I can guarantee the field trip bus driver won't do if he values his job.
But okay, I'll stipulate purely for the sake of argument that homeschoolers don't do a lot of stuff public and private school kids can't do. The difference is, we do it more often, in more depth, when it's appropriate to the individual kids involved, and without spending the public's money to do so.
So there's proof on both sides of non traditional learning. And what do you think you prove with this?
I'm just me and I can name three families that travel the country doing civil war reenactments and they traditionally school. They just go during the summer, on weekends and breaks. The stuff you're laying claim to for homeschoolers is open to all who care to do them, no homeschooling required. I have plenty of pictures of us doing non traditional educational activities and I've never homeschooled. Some are of activities done during school and some with us as a family so you've proved nothing.
The truth is, the only things homeschoolers are exposed to are what their parents thought to expose them to. My kids have what their parents expose them to and what the school, their teachers and their peers expose them to (I didn't include homeschooling peers becuase their experiences are equally controlled and limited by parents).
Well, I'll concede that my kids have never been exposed to fights on the schoolyard and BJs on the bus. You've got me there. (Am I supposed to be sad about this?)
I think I missed some of the posts in question, and don't feel like going back through pages and pages to find them, but I think it's fair to say that both homeschoolers and public (or private) school kids both have plenty of opportunities to experience educational opportunities in non-formal settings. Much of that depends on the parent, of course, but learning doesn't automatically stop when a public school kid steps outside of the classroom doors. The schools themselves also try to expose their students to all sorts of things outside of the school building, which is especially important for those kids who otherwise would never visit a museum, see an opera, visit a state park, etc.
No, it doesn't necessarily. But for a good many kids, it does: after school rec programs, then home for dinner, homework, TV and bed. Weekends are playtime, maybe soccer or baseball, chores if the parents are really hardcore (though I find few are these days), and marathon video games.
I wonder when Golden will be hunting down those parents and forcing them to pull the plug in the name of fighting childhood obesity and short attention spans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist
The schools themselves also try to expose their students to all sorts of things outside of the school building, which is especially important for those kids who otherwise would never visit a museum, see an opera, visit a state park, etc.
Optimally.
In third grade my kids took one field trip-- to the public library, a block away. Since they went there weekly on their own time, it was hardly an enriching experience. My kids can chalk it up to a bad lot, and no big deal-- but among the 150 other third graders, there were many kids whose parenst dropped the ball-- and the public school, contrary to what's been offered here, most assuredly did not pick up the ball.
Which is not to say the schools are fully at fault. There's blame enough for all involved there. But what it does say is that the schools are not necessarily to be portrayed as Universal Rescue Rangers.
No, it doesn't necessarily. But for a good many kids, it does: after school rec programs, then home for dinner, homework, TV and bed. Weekends are playtime, maybe soccer or baseball, chores if the parents are really hardcore (though I find few are these days), and marathon video games.
I wonder when Golden will be hunting down those parents and forcing them to pull the plug in the name of fighting childhood obesity and short attention spans?
Optimally.
In third grade my kids took one field trip-- to the public library, a block away. Since they went there weekly on their own time, it was hardly an enriching experience. My kids can chalk it up to a bad lot, and no big deal-- but among the 150 other third graders, there were many kids whose parenst dropped the ball-- and the public school, contrary to what's been offered here, most assuredly did not pick up the ball.
Which is not to say the schools are fully at fault. There's blame enough for all involved there. But what it does say is that the schools are not necessarily to be portrayed as Universal Rescue Rangers.
You do realize the kids only spend about 25% of their waking hours in school, right? There is plenty of time for all kinds of activities with time left over even if you go to school.
Schools aren't meant to be "Universal Rescue Rangers". They serve one part of education. They enrich what parents do and operate as a safety net when parents don't do. Just because they're not everything in education doesn't mean it's smart to cut them out of eduction. If you watn more enrichment for your kids, then do it. 7 hours a day in school 175 days a year isn't going to stop you.
You do realize the kids only spend about 25% of their waking hours in school, right? There is plenty of time for all kinds of activities with time left over even if you go to school.
Such nonsense. My friend's child went to public school for 2008/2009. Between homework and exhaustion, she had NO time or energy for other activities and quit them all.
The truth is, the only things homeschoolers are exposed to are what their parents thought to expose them to. My kids have what their parents expose them to and what the school, their teachers and their peers expose them to (I didn't include homeschooling peers becuase their experiences are equally controlled and limited by parents). For all of us, choosing some activities rules out others so no child gets every experience. That's where interacting with peers on a dailiy basis really comes in handy. Kids talk about their different experiences, give each other ideas and most importantly, challgenge each others beliefs.
Uh, you do know that homeschooled children do NOT live in a bubble and they do many, many things with children who are not homeschooled right?
Sorry -- I'm just trying to pick up my jaw from the floor.
IT was correct in saying that parents do not own their children. Apart from the abominable practice of slavery, no one owns anyone.
However, society in this country operates according to the notion of the social contract. As with any valid contract under the law, the parties in that contract (in this case, the government and the people) mutually and freely agree to exchange things of value in a quid-pro-quo arrangement: the voters give the government a portion of the income they have earned; the government spends it in accordance with the will of the people. In addition, the government has certain rules, but only those rules that the people have chosen.
Bottom line, the people do not "owe" the government automatically any more than the government automatically "owes" the people anything. We operate, as I said, by mutual agreement -- and it is only under the terms of this mutual agreement, this social contract, that we choose to "owe" our taxes we have agreed to pay and observe those laws we have voted into being.
Homeschooling is legal in all fifty states; it is the law of the land. It is considered an inappropriate impingement of the government into the private lives of its citizens to mandate that parents cede their parental responsibilities to the state. Mandatory state rearing of children is one of the hallmark moves of fascistic states from Sparta to the Third Reich and for the same reasons that others are offering here: to protect the state, to make sure that children "grow up right," and so forth.
Thankfully, in this country, we value the freedom of individuality even at the risk that some children won't "grow up right," or will have ideas that do not accord with those of the majority. Our freedom is too precious to be traded wholesale.
Beautifully stated; however, it probably fell on deaf ears. I doubt either one of our highly-educated science teachers has ever read Rousseau, much less Locke, Paine, or Jefferson. And, that is a tragedy. If they had, we might be having a much more productive conversation.
In many areas where there are a number of home schooled children they have group activities planned during the day and scheduled socialization activities. Parents get to select who their students are exposed to and what social habits the other children have. Many home schooling parents are former teachers or are part of collective activities. Until a student reaches/exceeds their parents ability to teach they are usually in a very good situation. I find it ironic how teachers can complain on the one hand about how difficult teaching is today with class disruptions and the need to differentiate instruction for varying abilities and handicaps and then argue that children are better off in that classroom than being educated in a subdued home environment. Hmmm now which child has curriculum focused on their ability level the public school student in a large diverse class or the home taught one. hmmmm let me go back over some previous posts and threads and try to decide.
In third grade my kids took one field trip-- to the public library, a block away. Since they went there weekly on their own time, it was hardly an enriching experience. My kids can chalk it up to a bad lot, and no big deal-- but among the 150 other third graders, there were many kids whose parenst dropped the ball-- and the public school, contrary to what's been offered here, most assuredly did not pick up the ball.
What this does show is the wide range of public schools out there, and the unfortunate reality that not all public schools (or any school) provide students with equal opportunity. When I was growing up we went on field trips to many, many different types of places. In more recent years I know that my childhood district's funding has been cut (my mother worked for the district until recently) and it was harder and harder to find money to get buses for some destinations, but one of the benefits of city living is that in many cases individual classes can take public transportation or even walk. All of my public school experience (I have long worked in the museum field, and used to deal with schools and homeschoolers on a regular basis through that work) has been with urban school districts, and it's been my impression that the schools have gone out of their way to make sure that their students get the chance to be exposed to new things.
And not to get too off-topic, but since this is sort of related, does anyone know of any statistics about field trips and other "non-traditional" classroom activities (field trips are probably the easiest to measure) divided up by type of school district or location? I had always assumed that the suburban schools had the most field trips because they had less financial worries (and more parents could pay to cover the associated costs), with city schools struggling more with money and rural schools facing limited options or longer travel times. Is it possible that some suburban schools are offering fewer outside activities because they assume that the parent is going to be able and willing to pick up the slack and provide those opportunities outside of school hours? I'm sure that, like everything else, it varies widely, but would be curious to know what the data says.
I don't like suggestions that public school parents are any less likely to provide their kids with out-of-school learning opportunties, though. It depends on the individual family, of course, and possibly the school (excessive homework is not an issue in all schools) but in my circle of friends and through my involvement with the history field I see many, many non-homeschooling parents providing those same sorts of outside learning opportunities.
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.
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.
.
