How many homeschooling families are there on AFF?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I have no idea what this means - if they were lucky? Do you realize that every curriculum has a detailed teacher's guide?

We used a company, VideoText Interactive, for Algebra and Geometry. The course has actual teachers and visual illustration. The bonus is the toll-free telephone support. The child is able to actually talk to someone if they are having difficulty.

What does that do? It teaches them to be assertive and independent. A big preparation for college. My daughter only attended one quarter of public school during her 8th grade year to see if that is what she wanted to do. She said it was too noisy and you couldn't concentrate. So, actually, the maturity level of college students and the classroom setting is much like a homeschool setting. In my experience, it's great preparation.

I read a quote the other day, which I totally agree with. "Everyone needs to attend college in order to get a High School education." With our academic scores in this country, that statement could not be more true!

The discussion was about whether parents who had to outsource most of their children's education to other people would actually receive a major benefit from homeschooling. MissB talked about how much benefit homeschooling is even if there is one subject that may need outsourced. I agree that she has made a strong case for parents that can teach most of the subjects themselves. However, my question is about parents who can't teach MOST of the subjects themselves.

Now as far as what you have brought up. You brought up a video, and trying to teach children this way really nullifies alot of the better points MissB was making for homeschooling... Telling me that a parent who don't know the subjects can just use videos for all of them doesn't sound like a good argument in homeschoolings favor.

Now as far as homeschooling teaching kids to be assertive and independent. Maybe. Though I'm not soo sure homeschooling can do that any better than a highschool. Maybe MissB can offer some more insight here.

As far as saying high school is too noisy to concentrate, there are going to be distractions in every learning environment where alot of people are present. I think developing techniques to deal with those situations is more important than just trying to avoid them...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The discussion was about whether parents who had to outsource most of their children's education to other people would actually receive a major benefit from homeschooling. MissB talked about how much benefit homeschooling is even if there is one subject that may need outsourced. I agree that she has made a strong case for parents that can teach most of the subjects themselves. However, my question is about parents who can't teach MOST of the subjects themselves.

Now as far as what you have brought up. You brought up a video, and trying to teach children this way really nullifies alot of the better points MissB was making for homeschooling... Telling me that a parent who don't know the subjects can just use videos for all of them doesn't sound like a good argument in homeschoolings favor.

Outsourcing doesn't nullify a thing. It only shows that we strengthen our base and our course of action. Utilizing any and all resources is the most efficient and intelligent thing to do. It means that we can and will strengthen and shore up any weakness we may have. I don't find the public school industry doing that going by the comparative results. All we have found is that we are lacking compared to other countries. That should be a wake-up call.

Now as far as homeschooling teaching kids to be assertive and independent. Maybe. Though I'm not soo sure homeschooling can do that any better than a highschool. Maybe MissB can offer some more insight here.

When you say "maybe", it means that you haven't studied the subject thoroughly. So, I will encourage you as Miss B has done to do that very thing. You will be surprised at how the industry has grown since my mother was a pioneer, when it was against the law, in the '70s. You would be surprised at the resources available to us. Incidentally, my brother has his Masters in Mechanical Engineering.

When you study more thoroughly, you will find that the public school system, taking out all of the extra curricular activities, puts in about 4 hours on the core academic subjects.

We have more time to focus on these things and to develop the natural abilities and interests of our children.

One of my sisters, who is also a homeschooler, has a son (10 years of age) who, this season, tried out for a local orchestra, wherein, he plays the violin. That is a major accomplishment.

Look at Tim Tebow, who played for the Florida Gators. He was homeschooled. Fortunately, the school system allowed him to participate in their sports department. Many public schools are beginning to open up to that option as they are losing students because of their poor academic qualities.

As far as saying high school is too noisy to concentrate, there are going to be distractions in every learning environment where alot of people are present. I think developing techniques to deal with those situations is more important than just trying to avoid them...

I don't see the point in subjecting an honest student to some of the outrageous behaviour and ignorance going on in our public school system today. If our academic scores were top rank above other nations, I might be inclined to agree with you on all of your points. But since we haven't proved to be effective in what we are paying for, with our tax dollars, I am more inclined to allow a parent to decide the better educational environment for their child.

I've talked to many public school teachers who say, "It's not about teaching anymore, it's about covering your behind." That's pretty sad. That from a High School Science teacher. Very sad.

[Sinatra]

An excerpt about Willard Boyle, a scientist who was homeschooled.

In 2009, he won a NOBEL prize for Physics.


In the late 1920s, when Boyle was about three, his family moved from Nova Scotia to Quebec, where his dad was the resident doctor for a logging community called Chaudiere, about 350 kilometres north of Quebec City. Instead of a car, they got around by dog sled. Boyle received no formal education and was home-schooled by his mother until high school.


ETA.... to add link. http://www.science.ca/scientists/sci...le.php?pID=129

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I was home schooled my entire time in high school. It was called the un-school method. I didn't attend, I mean I went to the high school, but I just didn't attend the classes. I hung out with my friends. I did go to shop class, we worked on motorcycles. My school principle found out that I was not staying for my classes, and told my mother, who told my father. I explained to both of them that school was a waste of my precious time, and that I wanted to work on motorcycles, and build my business. They didn't agree, and I continued to cut classes. I became a menace to society, ran my motorcycle shop, and didn't graduate. I regret that, and my shoddy spelling and grammar, hangs around my neck like a scarlet letter. A mind is a terrible thing to have.

So now your working for an hourly wage. Went to high school. Didn't do great? Now you need to make more cash?

Time to call Edu-cation-Connection!

Wow, I didn't know all that. I'll have to find out about that. Come to think of it, there is a lot of strange stuff that goes on in Wisconsin. After all isn't that the place where Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein, and Daniel Christensen come from?

Yipes!!!!

Worse then those, it is also home to the University of Madison. The Part-Tee Capital!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm not implying that is wasn't the right decision for your family MissB, I think it very much was.

However, I wasn't talking about parents not being able to teach all but one subject, I was talking about parents who might if they were lucky be able to teach one subject.

1. There would be much less interaction with the parents and more with the outsourcing so guiding them may prove to be just as difficult in this situation.
2. Flexibility would be limited due to having to schedule around when other people could help the child.
3. Personal attention would still be there to a much greater degree. Which is a very good learning environment, however NONE of our colleges are set up to give students that degree of personal attention. Will a child who is used to that attention and then all of a sudden cut off from it in college still be just as successful?

College is a completely different atmosphere from high school, so a high school setting doesn't do much to prep for that. However, I think you're assuming that by "one-on-one" attention I'm sitting and coaching my kids through every answer! LOL!! Hardly. Most of their material they easily master--the rest, I address like any other teacher should (although many don't)--I work on the problem areas until they're understood, and then we move on. Here's how it works: I teach; they work; if they have a problem, I re-teach until they get it. I don't allow passing grades of C or lower--because that means they didn't get 30% or more of the material. Any test that has a C or lower--we redo it until they get it. What kid has that advantage in public school? A test should be an evaluation tool--it tells the teacher where the weak areas are so they can be addressed. In public school, a test is just a test and whatever is made above an F sticks. That's a ridiculous approach. And the weak areas just continue to build up, culminating in broad failure in high school, and ultimately college. It's my job to make sure my children master the material they are covering. SO--regarding outsourcing--even if someone else is teaching a subject, I still have direct oversight to their mastery of the subject; I can make sure that they stick with it until they are getting good grades on tests, which means: They got it.

Also, in addition to personally supervising their success, I am available to arrange whatever is needed to enhance their learning process--trips to museums, to interactive exhibits, to hear a professional give a lecture, to science labs, etc. I'm not generically treating a group a students to the same learning experience--I am tailor-making a curriculum with enhancements for EACH student, according to their learning style and particular needs. NO public school does that, not consistently, and not effectively.

4. If you are having to outsource because you can't teach the material then supervision in academic areas becomes only slightly better than what a high school could do. It is still better though.

jfrog, you're making blanket statements that I don't think you've really thought through. The source of the curriculum/teaching is only one piece of a very large puzzle. Education isn't just about having someone who is *qualified* talk to your student about the subject, and then leaving it to them to master it. That is public education in a nutshell. Yes, there are some GREAT teachers in the public school system, but they are unfortunately constrained by stupid regulations, limited curriculum choices, and their creativity and interest often goes to waste.

5. High School's aren't positive and healthy atmospheres?

Absolutely not.

[tbpew]

As a home educator for over 20 years, I would be at the front of the line for acknowledging that each person's life track will need to consider when and where specialty mentoring is appropriate and effective.

Foundations are general and applications are specific, but both the foundation and application require an accuity to process content.

There is a season for everything...but lets not rob the vulnerable members of families to send them to the tudors and governors. The school of Tyranneous (sp?) was a place where men gathered to study and consider.

Lets take an example from Churchanity:
If the preacha interprets the text (source), chews and digests it, then, using the action of reverse Parostosis (aka puking), delivers it to the students....what is the students interpersonal involvement with the source?

Virtually nothing!

The delivery system has introduced another transfer point that seperates the beneficiary from the benefactor. Any chance for a love of the source by the recipient is lost due to a corruption pertaining to the delivery system.

The recepient may develop a love, or a codependancy, with the delivery system, but the content has a greatly diminished value in the experience of the recipient.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by tbpew

As a home educator for over 20 years, I would be at the front of the line for acknowledging that each person's life track will need to consider when and where specialty mentoring is appropriate and effective.

Foundations are general and applications are specific, but both the foundation and application require an accuity to process content.

There is a season for everything...but lets not rob the vulnerable members of families to send them to the tudors and governors. The school of Tyranneous (sp?) was a place where men gathered to study and consider.

Lets take an example from Churchanity:
If the preacha interprets the text (source), chews and digests it, then, using the action of reverse Parostosis (aka puking), delivers it to the students....what is the students interpersonal involvement with the source?

Virtually nothing!

The delivery system has introduced another transfer point that seperates the beneficiary from the benefactor. Any chance for a love of the source by the recipient is lost due to a corruption pertaining to the delivery system.

The recipient may develop a love, or a codependency, with the delivery system, but the content has a greatly diminished value in the experience of the recipient.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by tbpew

As a home educator for over 20 years, I would be at the front of the line for acknowledging that each person's life track will need to consider when and where specialty mentoring is appropriate and effective.

Foundations are general and applications are specific, but both the foundation and application require an accuity to process content.

There is a season for everything...but lets not rob the vulnerable members of families to send them to the tudors and governors. The school of Tyranneous (sp?) was a place where men gathered to study and consider.

Lets take an example from Churchanity:
If the preacha interprets the text (source), chews and digests it, then, using the action of reverse Parostosis (aka puking), delivers it to the students....what is the students interpersonal involvement with the source?

Virtually nothing!

The delivery system has introduced another transfer point that separates the beneficiary from the benefactor. Any chance for a love of the source by the recipient is lost due to a corruption pertaining to the delivery system.

The recipient may develop a love, or a codependency, with the delivery system, but the content has a greatly diminished value in the experience of the recipient.

Always good stuff, tbpew!

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by tbpew

The delivery system has introduced another transfer point that seperates the beneficiary from the benefactor. Any chance for a love of the source by the recipient is lost due to a corruption pertaining to the delivery system.

The recepient may develop a love, or a codependancy, with the delivery system, but the content has a greatly diminished value in the experience of the recipient.

I'm not sure I can agree with this conclusion entirely. However, I do agree with your thoughts on the "corruption," or institutionalization of something, whether that be schools, churches, etc. I firmly believe that all students are people, and people are genuinely different, possessing diverse talents and abilities. Our modern day educational system fails in this regard, because it is slow, and perhaps incapable of effectively tailoring the experience to the individual. Emphasis is given to certain fields such as science and math, while students who excel in the arts or whathaveyou are left feeling inadequate and inferior. In fact, as was in my case, many are forced through a curriculum laden with science because that is what the job market values most these days.

With that said, I was never homeschooled, but went the traditional route. My wife takes piano lessons from a South African family, and they do homeschooling for their children. I am quite impressed with their experience. Apparently, they are able to socialize with others, play sports, music, clubs, and a host of other amenities I wasn't aware of intially. I actually like the fact that they seem to be more about competency than competition. Of course, competition is a reality that never really goes away, not after college, or even after the first job. My concerns as a parent would be, does this environment prepare them for that? Will their worldview be limited to my own? Will colleges view them as serious candidates if they decide to apply? Possibly a good solution may be a mix: some public, some private, etc. My bottom line? Whatever approach works best for the individual, whatever method best addresses the personal need, aptitude, and talents of the person, that is the one that should be pursued.

Good thread MissB.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

College is a completely different atmosphere from high school, so a high school setting doesn't do much to prep for that. However, I think you're assuming that by "one-on-one" attention I'm sitting and coaching my kids through every answer! LOL!! Hardly. Most of their material they easily master--the rest, I address like any other teacher should (although many don't)--I work on the problem areas until they're understood, and then we move on. Here's how it works: I teach; they work; if they have a problem, I re-teach until they get it. I don't allow passing grades of C or lower--because that means they didn't get 30% or more of the material. Any test that has a C or lower--we redo it until they get it. What kid has that advantage in public school? A test should be an evaluation tool--it tells the teacher where the weak areas are so they can be addressed. In public school, a test is just a test and whatever is made above an F sticks. That's a ridiculous approach. And the weak areas just continue to build up, culminating in broad failure in high school, and ultimately college. It's my job to make sure my children master the material they are covering. SO--regarding outsourcing--even if someone else is teaching a subject, I still have direct oversight to their mastery of the subject; I can make sure that they stick with it until they are getting good grades on tests, which means: They got it.

Also, in addition to personally supervising their success, I am available to arrange whatever is needed to enhance their learning process--trips to museums, to interactive exhibits, to hear a professional give a lecture, to science labs, etc. I'm not generically treating a group a students to the same learning experience--I am tailor-making a curriculum with enhancements for EACH student, according to their learning style and particular needs. NO public school does that, not consistently, and not effectively.



jfrog, you're making blanket statements that I don't think you've really thought through. The source of the curriculum/teaching is only one piece of a very large puzzle. Education isn't just about having someone who is *qualified* talk to your student about the subject, and then leaving it to them to master it. That is public education in a nutshell. Yes, there are some GREAT teachers in the public school system, but they are unfortunately constrained by stupid regulations, limited curriculum choices, and their creativity and interest often goes to waste.




Absolutely not.

MissB, with a parent like you I think a child would have a great amount of success in any environment whether home school, or public high school or private high school. The reason is you really really care about your children's success.

Now, what I have been trying to get at and discuss, which everyone seems to be avoiding is when would it be better for a parent to send their kids to high school than to home school? Then answer I seem to keep getting is that home school is always much much better... which is a little biased maybe?

Most of the reasons I listed that you were responding to in this post were about the kind of parents that would barely know any high school level material enough to teach it. For those type of parents I offered valid reasons why the benefits of homeschooling that you listed would be very minimal.

1. These parents would have much less interaction because their child would always be with tutors and others that knew the material. (little more time to interact with your children than at public school, they are always with tutors instead of you)

2. Flexibility would be greatly reduced because of having to fit your time into the tutors schedules. (little better flexibility than public school)

3. I'll leave 3 off, it wasn't a good reason for what I'm talking about but it is something to think about. While you can say high school classes aren't the same as college classes either, they are a lot closer to what a college class is like than the 1 on 1, master stuff at your own pace environment of home school.

4. As far as being able to supervise your child's success better in home school than public school, I don't buy it unless you know the material yourself and it is you that are teaching them. You can always look at their test and hw grades from their high school papers. I'm also sure most teachers would be happy to show you their grades if asked.

5. I loved my time in high school... (So it can't be all that horrible of a place)

What I am trying to say is that you gave me all these great reasons that homeschooling was better. I tried to be unbiased and look at how homeschooling would work in the case of parents who don't know any of the material well enough to teach it. In this case I can't really find anything far superior to a traditional high school. Now in the case of someone like you MissB, homeschooling does sound far superior.

So my question for you is, what kind of parents would be better off sending their kids to high school?