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 know a few homeschool moms that take their children's eduction very seriously and a few who do not. Homeschooling can be so wonderful, for the families that make it a priority. It's just like the public school system, there are some wonderful, involved parents and a lot that aren't involved at all. I do think that homeschooled students should take a state standardized test to make sure they are meeting the grade level goals.
I have the greatest respect for parents that homeschool, I could not. But, I'm very fortunate that my daughter attends a great public school. She's very advanced for her age, so we do and have always done a great deal of supplemental education at home, science, math, reading, etc.
Every parent should have a choice as how to educate their children. But, we as a people (the state) have a duty to guarantee an eduaction to each child.
I don't claim that my kids are equal to schooled kids. I'm saying that it's not important that they are equal. My son is 7 and can tell you a lot about ancient Rome, a little about Ancient Egypt, tons about castles and Germany, can do addition and subtraction, and can read fairly well. His best friend, also 7, can not tell you a thing about castles and Germany, but knows everything he can understand about space. He's also an excellent reader. The homeschooled girl down the street is really into reading and horses, but not so much about ancient civilizations or space. The boy who goes to school who lives on the street behind us is great at math! What difference does it make, as long as they are all learning something? Whose standard is right? The boy behind us, automatically, because he goes to school, and some curriculum company decided that this year he should learn about mammals and Colonial America instead of volcanoes and castles?
To test a 7 year old on what he knows has nothing to do with what he will do when he grows up. Heck, to test a 12 year old on what he knows has nothing to do with his future success. If you asked everyone in this forum when reading became easy for them, you will get answers between the ages of 4 and 10, I'm guessing. And I'm also guessing that you would not be able to tell who was who if they didn't answer. I was a good reader before kindergarten. My brother, a very successful and intelligent electrical engineer, didn't even TALK before he was 3 1/2, and did not read until 2nd grade. He still managed to catch up before college age.
Yes, of course homeschooled kids should take the SATs if they want to go to college. When they are 14 or 15 years old, they will be more than bright enough to learn how to fill in bubbles. Testing them on reading comprehension at the age of 7 or plant life at the age of 10 is not going to prepare them for analogies and algebra.
Again, they're your kids and I think you should do what you feel is right. My comment on testing was solely a suggestion that you might want to use an evaluation on your child's prgoress. If you don't want to (as you've made clear) then it's your call.
Quote:
Most of the homeschooled teens I know (and I know quite a few) take classes at the local community colleges from the age of 15 or so on. I think it's safe to say that even if they didn't learn to read until they were 7 or 8 (which seems to be the norm in the circles I run in, especially among boys), they catch up by their teen years and are able to handle college classes. Others go on to start businesses without a college degree. I'll take that proof over standardized tests anyday.
And above average kids who are given lots of individual attention from caring parents will tend to do better in public schools, too.
Kids who struggle generally come from shall we say, less than ideal home environments.
Quote:
Besides that, here is what is possibly a rhetorical question: why does the public at large have such a concern for homeschoolers, when the public schooled children are being failed by the system in countless ways? We all know that when hs'd kids do take tests, they tend to come out on top... why is there not uproar over the fact that the public schooled kids can't keep up with homeschoolers?
For the exact reason I stated above. Most folks who are concerned about their kids understand what I pointed out. Those who don't care about their kids aren't going to make any fuss over anything concerning their education.
First, I don't need any test to tell me how much of what subject my sons know. Everyday I know exactly where they are in each subject because we talk all the time about everything. My mom did the same thing with me, even though I was in traditional schools, my mom always knew what i was learning, and how wellI was learning them. That has nothing to do with how we school, more about how we parent. I don't need a test, or a service to tell me how well my sons are doing, or what gaps need to be filled. I'm sure that every homeschool parent can say the exact same thing.
The reluctance to test or compare our children isn't because we don't want to confirm how they are doing educationally. We don't want them to feel that they are some how less (or more for that matter), than any other kid just because they don't fit the "norm". If we wanted our children to have that experience we could, there isn't a single state that doesn't offer standardized testing for homeschooled children. Some states do require homeschoolers to take those tests, and other states don't. We don't need to prove that our children are equal to traditionally schooled children, nor do we need to compare them. There are plenty of examples of how well most homeschoolers are doing to be able to say, "see, homeschoolers do just fine".
I'm not arguing that your kids should be forced to take standardized tests. I simply suggested it as a useful diagnostic. If you don't want that, it's your business. Do what you thinks serves them best.
Acutally testing can keep an accelerated learner from progressing, if that child has a fear or trouble with tests, then no matter how much they have learned or want to learn, the fear of a test can keep a child from thinking they are capable.
OK...
Quote:
As for gaps being caught, a homeschooler knows on a daily basis where the gaps are and generally why those gaps are occuring. Maybe the gaps are there because the child has no interest in learning a particluar subject. Maybe they have a hard time learning that concept. Maybe te concept hasn't been presented in just the right way for that child. Whatever the reason, a homeschooling parent knows about it long before any test can identify it, and we can diagnose the problem, and find the solution for it as well. That's one of the biggest reasons I homeschool, I know my children, and as they grow, their interests and learning styles change and grow. I"m there to see that, and can adapt any lesson as we go along. No need for a test to catch anything.
Good for you. And you're correct that one-on-one individualized instruction is probably the overall best method of imparting information. Which is why I have no problem with homeschooling. Public schools have become increasingly monolithic test factories concerned only with rapidly processing mass quantities of kids at the lowest price possible.
Quote:
Obviously I disagree here, and so do universities and colleges. If that was accurate, then any lawyer couldn't go on to be a teacher in any subject they wanted to at any college. Teaching a challenging subject does not require even a small grasp of a subject. It requires the ability to give the student the questions and help to guide them in finding the answers. That is what higher leaning, university learning, is all about. Knowing the questions and finding the answers.
Astounding!
Please tell me more about these universities where anyone with a law degree is allowed to teach any subject. I've never heard of such a thing. Is this happening in the United States?
Quote:
No, what he needs is a guide to the world, which is what my job description says.
As does every parent's throughout time.
Quote:
Youre right there are many many different learning styles, and very few of them fit into a traditional school. Traditonal schools have children sit down behind a chair, listening to a teacher, learning to memorize facts, do rote math problems, and learn best of all how to give lip service, or not to as the case may be.
Traditional schools do not adapt to each child indvidiually, they can't! They were never meant to either. Tradtional schools were set up to get the mass population to learn to respond to bells. A Bell to start woking, a bell to stop, a bell for lunch, a bell for break and a bell for going home. They were set up to make sure the masses could work in the growing industrial age, where poeple had to go to work with a bell, go to lunch with a bell, and go home to a bell. They weren't set up to teach children all that needed to learned, they were set up to teach children just enough for them to get a job at the local factory. I don't want that for my children. I want them to start their own companies, invent something amazing, write the next great novel or screenplay, or to be the parent who encourages their children to do these things. I want them to be whatever they want to be.
Like I stated above, public schools (at least here in Texas) have become increasingly unconcerned with education. Test scores are the only yardstick for academics. Of course, the HS football team and marching band are incredibly important. And anything concerning those activites will brush aside anything academic, without exception.
Quote:
And how many high school graduates feel any differently about their diploma?
HS grads comprise a wide spectrum, from those who took challenging classes from good teachers to those who wanted "easy A's" to those who barely made it through and didn't care.
I think you'd find a great variety of responses.
Quote:
No, that's the method that is used to teach quantum physics in colleges and universities. I'm just giving my kids a heads up. They won't have any trouble adjusting to college, because they'll have been learning the same way their entire lives. How many traditionally schooled high school graduates have horrible first years in college because they are having trouble adapting to the new way of learning? I think most kids would not only learn better, but would learn more if they were taught in the same manner as colleges.
That's another astounding statement!
Again, please fill me in about the university where the professor teaching quantum physics doesn't know much about the subject, so he just instructs the class to look it up on the internet or check out a book from the library.
I've never heard of such a thing!
And that certainly wasn't my experience with college physics. My professor had a PhD in physics and gave inspiring presentations that certainly sparked my interest in the subject. I think if I'd been stuck with a "professor" who's only response to any question was "go look it up", I'd quickly conclude that this clown didn't have anything to teach me.
Quote:
I think you don't understand what different learning styles are. There are those that learn better auditorily, kinestheticlly, & visually. This really has nothing to do with lirary books and the internet. I"m more of a kinesthetic learner. I learn by doing. I have to read the book myself, I have to write the problem down myself, and so on. An auditory learning style means that someone needs to hear it, be it someone else speaking aloud, having a conversation about it, or repeating something out-loud to themsevles. Visual learners need to see it. So, using the library and the iternet has nothing to do with how someone learns, but where you get the tools to learn. In a traditional school, do they not use textbooks and the internet to teach? How is that somehow different than my using books from the library and the internet to teach? They are the same tools, but used differently and according to my childs style of learning.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I certainly do understand quite a lot about different learning styles. I have a classroom filled daily with different types of learners.
How many different learning styles do you encounter in homeschooling your son?
Quote:
And, I do think traditional schools are obsolete, and we do need more libraries and more access to the internet available to everyone, not just those who can afford a computer.
Today's schools are certainly in need of a makeover. But to be brutally honest, I think that the vast majority of Americans are satisfied with our current C- system. Education has become a political football that gets plenty of lip service but little else.
I don't see why it matters how many learning styles someone home schooling encounters ! They are doing what is best for their child, essentially, because the state has "dropped the ball", where education is concerned. Today, it seems to be all about attendence anyway, so the district can get paid !
Also, how can one teacher provide good instruction to 30 different types of learning styles in one classroom ! It seems a bit impossible to me, so some students are probably being set up for failure because their learning needs are not being met.
But to be brutally honest, I think that the vast majority of Americans are satisfied with our current C- system.
I would give our current system a D or D-.
I don't think that the vast majority of Americans are satisfied with a low-performing system. I think that they really have no clue how bad their own schools are. Too many think that it's everyone else's schools that are under-performing. For example, this is evident in looking at the posts over the past year in the Chicago Suburbs forum. You would not believe how many suburban residents claim that they have 'excellent' schools or that their high school is 'one of the best in the state,' or even 'one of the best in the country,' when the reality is that their suburb's schools are average for the Chicago suburbs - which overall only adequately prepare 27% of suburban high school grads for first year college-level courses according to the benchmarks determined by ACT using information provided by colleges and universities.
Some of this massive denial is because of community pride, but a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that many school districts employ PR tactics espousing how wonderful the schools are to engender community support and to gain approval for ever more tax increase referendums.
So it's not that the public is satisfied, it's that in many cases they're being manipulated into believing that everything's wonderful in our public schools.
I don't think that the vast majority of Americans are satisfied with a low-performing system. I think that they really have no clue how bad their own schools are. Too many think that it's everyone else's schools that are under-performing. For example, this is evident in looking at the posts over the past year in the Chicago Suburbs forum. You would not believe how many suburban residents claim that they have 'excellent' schools or that their high school is 'one of the best in the state,' or even 'one of the best in the country,' when the reality is that their suburb's schools are average for the Chicago suburbs - which overall only adequately prepare 27% of suburban high school grads for first year college-level courses according to the benchmarks determined by ACT using information provided by colleges and universities.
Some of this massive denial is because of community pride, but a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that many school districts employ PR tactics espousing how wonderful the schools are to engender community support and to gain approval for ever more tax increase referendums.
So it's not that the public is satisfied, it's that in many cases they're being manipulated into believing that everything's wonderful in our public schools.
True, larger school districts address the public in PR-speak. And most of the public doesn't realize that these officials will lie to them while keeping a straight face. Isn't that how we ended up in Iraq?
Some of this massive denial is because of community pride, but a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that many school districts employ PR tactics espousing how wonderful the schools are to engender community support and to gain approval for ever more tax increase referendums.
So it's not that the public is satisfied, it's that in many cases they're being manipulated into believing that everything's wonderful in our public schools.
I also think that it's not necessarily clear to many people what their kids could be achieving. I think it's when you compare a given school system to another, somewhat comparable one in a different country. I realize that this is the anecdote of one person and can't stand for an entire country, of course, but one of my friends from southern India came over to the U.S. when she was in high school and was easily two or three years ahead in her studies, especially in science and math.
True, larger school districts address the public in PR-speak. And most of the public doesn't realize that these officials will lie to them while keeping a straight face. Isn't that how we ended up in Iraq?
This example, linked below, of a full-time PR professional is from a district in one Chicago suburb that only has about 6,000 students K-12. Other Chicago suburban districts have their own on staff PR professionals, as well. Notice how the PR professional states that, 'this district has such a great reputation...' when the fact is that this district's high school did not make the Illinois Top 50 Public High Schools list, and did not perform well enough to make the Newsweek or US News & World Reports Best High Schools lists.
http://www.elmhurst.k12.il.us/press_releases/PR-New%20Director%20of%20Communications.pdf (broken link)
Today's Chicago Trib lists the median home sales price in this suburb at $410,000. The annual property taxes are about 1.8% of fair market value, with about 3/4 of the taxes paid going to the public school district. This community's schools should be much better than they are, but the residents are easily puffed by community pride and swayed by professional PR tactics.
This example, linked below, of a full-time PR professional is from a district in one Chicago suburb that only has about 6,000 students K-12. Other Chicago suburban districts have their own on staff PR professionals, as well. Notice how the PR professional states that, 'this district has such a great reputation...' when the fact is that this district's high school did not make the Illinois Top 50 Public High Schools list, and did not perform well enough to make the Newsweek or US News & World Reports Best High Schools lists.
http://www.elmhurst.k12.il.us/press_releases/PR-New%20Director%20of%20Communications.pdf (broken link)
Today's Chicago Trib lists the median home sales price in this suburb at $410,000. The annual property taxes are about 1.8% of fair market value, with about 3/4 of the taxes paid going to the public school district. This community's schools should be much better than they are, but the residents are easily puffed by community pride and swayed by professional PR tactics.
It's my opinion that there's plenty of resources in America's education establishment to make it the envy of the world. The problem is that like any other bloated bureaucracy, it tends to self-perpetuate. As a result, most of the increase in school fundig over th past couple of decades has gone into two slots:
1) additional layers of mid-level administration that have no well defined responsibilities and contribute essentially nothing to anyone's education
and
2) an ever-increasing cottage industry withiin the schools, called special ed.
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.
