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.
Again, IIRC (and it's been a loooong time since my kids were in ele school), my kids were taught stuff like that, certainly at that level, not with BB guns, but with balls, etc. "Physics" as a subject is not usually broached until high school, but "general science" is taught beginning in 3rd grade.
Science is taught here even in kindergarten though at a low level. I taught hands on science to preschoolers when I was teaching 3 to 5 year olds in a private preschool setting.
However, I think that in many cases, schools are concentrating so hard on only what is tested that a lot of the science and social studies curriculum can get lost.
Another poster mentioned the MA school system and maybe that is why I have such a hard time wrapping my brain around this (though I do understand homeschooling) I am, as are my children, products of the MA education system. Maybe it is different in other parts of the country, I would have no clue, but in MA I can't help but think these poor kids would get chewed up and spit out to put it mildly.
Out of an estimated 56 million schoolage children, about 1.5 million are homeschooled. Of that number, at least 100,000 are believed to be "unschooled" -- the term coined to describe an unorthodox approach to homeschooling that does not focus on formal classes, set curriculums or tests.
This parenting style might raise some eyebrows, but in Massachusetts, it's perfectly legal. Unschooling parents in that state are required to report to local school authorities once a year. The Massachusetts Department of Education did not respond to calls and e-mails from ABC News seeking comment.
I don't like formal, unalterable "curriculums" or textbooks or tests, either, but the absence of those alone isn't enough to make it unschooling, is it? Or, if it does, then the parents featured are rather extreme examples.
I don't like formal, unalterable "curriculums" or textbooks or tests, either, but the absence of those alone isn't enough to make it unschooling, is it? Or, if it does, then the parents featured are rather extreme examples.
Unschooling comprises a spectrum - on one end are unschoolers that do use curriculum, but let their kids pick which one, on the other end are radical unschoolers - folks who extend the principles of unschooling into all aspects of life, giving kids say on how much screen time they have, what they eat, living without coercion or punishment. Sometimes that's called "whole life unschooling". The middle is a wide range!
That particular piece is highly biased and sensationalized; ABC aired a later interview with the Yablonski-Bieglers that was a *little* more balanced. Coming from traditional schooling and parenting, radical unschooling seems extreme, and in some ways, it is... but, if you get the chance to sit & talk with an unschooling family, for the most part, they are as normal as anyone else. (whatever that means!) Don't forget - TV wants you to watch, so they're going to make it seem WAY out there, and they're going to highlight and edit things to leave you with a particular slant. For instance, that title - no books? Their house is FILLED with books! No one is coerced to read them though.
Another poster mentioned the MA school system and maybe that is why I have such a hard time wrapping my brain around this (though I do understand homeschooling) I am, as are my children, products of the MA education system. Maybe it is different in other parts of the country, I would have no clue, but in MA I can't help but think these poor kids would get chewed up and spit out to put it mildly.
Education varies tremendously across the country, which is unfortunate. For that matter, it can vary tremendously at two schools in the same district. I'm not sure any educational system that would "chew up a kid and spit him out" is one I'd find compatible with my family, but I'm sure it works well for others.
signed,
aconite, who went to boarding school in Massachusetts and was told by the house directors that the townies were skeery and we should avoid them
Originally Posted by CharlotteGal
Can you point me to where someone said that?
<snip>
Again, another quote that says reading isn't essential to learning:
Quote:
However, as I pointed out before, learning needn't rely solely on writing and reading. If you look at a census from 1900, there are numerous adults who don't read or write-- yet they managed to learn to survive in their world, so they must have learned something-- cooking, cleaning, and coal mining, at the very minimum.
And I stand by what I said. Reading is not essential to learning. Learning can occur through a number of methods, and in a good system (school or otherwise), does. To say reading is essential to learning is to suggest people are simply incapable of being taught until they are old enough to read, and that's a silly point to take in light of the existence of non-literate societies and early childhood ed in literate ones.
If you want to argue that reading is a joy that enhances and illuminates an individual's life, that books are one of the finest of guilty pleasures, that they can be the most exquisite form of escape known to humankind, and that writers are the Gods' most perfect human invention-- I'm right there with you. (Well, excepting DH Lawrence, but I digress...) But that's not what was being discussed. What was under discussion was whether children can learn without being able to read, and clearly, they can. Not everything-- but no one's suggested keeping them illiterate for life. In fact, your cut and paste disingenuously left out the end of my paragraph, which was "(And before you go there, no, I am not suggesting this as a preferred way of life in the 21st century; simply to illustrate a point.)"
Again, IIRC (and it's been a loooong time since my kids were in ele school), my kids were taught stuff like that, certainly at that level, not with BB guns, but with balls, etc. "Physics" as a subject is not usually broached until high school, but "general science" is taught beginning in 3rd grade.
Why do we (for certain quantities of "we" which equal "those who write curricula for public schoolchildren") assume general science is something children are not ready for until third grade? Moreover, why do we classify the basic principles of physics, chemistry, or herpetology as "general science, fit for third graders" and not "basic principles of physics, chemistry, or herpetology"? Are we afraid eight year olds are too dim to understand that there are different kinds of science? They aren't, in my experience. Even the very youngest kids in our co-op understood that when Mr. Mike was teaching them "herpetology", he was bringing in his snakes, and not his fossils or his star maps, and the average nine year old can sling terms like species, family and taxonomy like nobody's business if they're interested enough-- whether or not they can read books about them (and often, a deeper interest is the trigger for gains in reading ability, no matter how old the child-- though I suspect you knew that).
Science is taught here even in kindergarten though at a low level. I taught hands on science to preschoolers when I was teaching 3 to 5 year olds in a private preschool setting.
However, I think that in many cases, schools are concentrating so hard on only what is tested that a lot of the science and social studies curriculum can get lost.
Our school system does not teach science until third grade, and then only one semester of the year (social studies gets the other semester). Though the kindergarten teachers are wont to do the "bean in wet cotton" thing every other year, alternating with "keep a mealworm in a box until it becomes a beetle, dies, or escapes".
However, I'm perfectly willing to accept that our school system is hardly the creme de la creme, and perhaps in other, more enlightened parts of the country, young Herschel and Lilliana are studying classical unified field theory long before they hit puberty. Maybe in Cambridge?
I didn't teach my boys to say please & thank you. I never withheld something, saying, "And what do you sayyyyy?", I just said please & thank you to them! And in social situations, I'd quietly remind them to thank our host, or whomever. When my oldest was quite young, he was reluctant to do that, he didn't want to speak out loud to them, so I would have my hand on his shoulder, and would say, "We really appreciate it!". I never made him say it - he grew into being able to speak up.
A bus driver here said my youngest is the only kid who says, "Thanks for the ride!" every time he rides. I've never prompted him to do that - but I thank the driver when we leave the bus.
It's not showing an interest in manners - it's about extending a kindness, and the desire to get along with other people.
This has been my experience. I stopped making my daughter say "please, thank you, excuse me" but we make sure to say it to her and other people. She learned to do it without any formal lessons but is still not very consistent. We also stopped making her say something to other people because she never would do it. Now we model what she should say, e.g. "May we play with your sand toys?"
In regards to reading late, I can't help but think of Waldorf type schooling.
Anyway, my husband grew up in Eastern Europe while still under Communist rule and did not learn to read until 7. That was in school. I remember when some relatives were teasing each other because one couple bragged (like 45 years ago) that his daughter (my husband's cousin) could read the news paper as early as 4. They said, there was no point in encouraging such early reading because the advanced child would be bored when she started school.
I know that this may come as a shock to some, but it is possible to supplement a traditional public school education. I know I am nowhere near qualified to teach core subjects, but I am more than capable of doing science experiments at home, going to the museum or planetarium, teaching a second language, doing sophisticated art projects, helping them grow a vegetable garden. Just because these things are not covered in public schools does not mean their education stops the minute they walk out the door. You know, like the best of both worlds?
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.
