Education reform?

[hadassahchana[$]]

One of the tangents that the plagiarism thread tried to wander off on was interesting, in my opinion. Many people expressed concern with the quality of education in our public schools.

Now, I homeschool my boys for the English (secular) half of their day, and they attend a Jewish dayschool for the religious part. My husband and I chose to take them out because of the low quality of secular education they were receiving. Someone else mentioned homeschooling as being a better option than public education - why is that? What are the public schools doing right? Wrong? Overall, are our children being given an adequate education?


Cindy

[juliette]

Overall, are our children being given an adequate education?

In the U.S. at least, it depends on where they live. The reason I live the the same dull as dirt, whitebread burg where I grew up is that the public schools here have a reputation for being extraordinarly good. I wasn't always sure that they were all that good for my one special-needs kid, but since she is well into a successful second semester at college (something that several evaluators told us would never happen) I think maybe my decision to live here has paid off.

On the other hand, several of my relatives and friends live in small, rural towns, and their children have had less success in college. Two kids that I know, both honor students, and one the valedictorian of his class, in these small-town public high schools were unable to make it through even one semester of college.

I'm not sure why. Poor teaching? I always thought bright kids would learn no matter what. Poor equipment? It is true that these rural schools have little or, in one case NO, computer equipment. Low standards? I honestly don't know -- and this is why I didn't homeschool

I won't even go into what might be wrong with inner city public schools. My point is: I am starting to believe that whether or not your child gets an adequate education has a lot more to do with where you live (and what your resources allow as far as private schooling goes) than I originally thought.

[quasar]

Well, I will be the first person to point out a lot of shortcomings in the public school systems, but I'm not a big believer in home schooling.

My main problem is it tends to only expose kids to one viewpoint or way of thinking. In public schools throughout their years a student might have 30 different teachers with different styles, outlooks on life, etc. Kids get exposed to them all, learn there's more than one way to do things, learn that sometimes they have to listen to and try to learn from people they may disagree with or not like. It's pretty good preparation for the real world in that respect.

It also gives kids a somewhat more realistic view of themselves in relation to others. Perhaps this has improved because homeschooling of people my age wasn't that common, but pretty much everyone I know of my generation who was homeschooled had a very inflated view of themselves and their own importance.

One of my best friends is a year older than I am and was homeschooled until college. I met him his freshman year (I was a junior - I skipped two grades, he took an extra year before applying to college). He didn't apply anywhere but University of Chicago because he couldn't conceive of not getting in. He had a very hard time adjusting to the real world where some people were smarter than he was and not everyone had spent their days reading exactly what he had, learning exactly what he had, listening to the type of music he had, and where he didn't constantly hear how wonderful he was. People who didn't have his exact background were very foreign to him and he really didn't know how to deal. I freely admit that he had a better education than I did in terms of what we respectively studied in our formal studies. But I was much better prepared for college than he was.

Some of the social problems can be overcome via things like girl scouts, boy scouts, camp, etc. and a split schedule like yours Cindy probably will help alleviate some of these issues.

Now that homeschooling is more common these issues may be discussed more widely and be less important because they're understood better, I don't know. I do know that every single person I know of my age had real problems adjusting to college and adult life after homeschooling.

Janice who will tell everyone all about some of the problems she has with public education in another post.

[poseidon]

Home schooling is a great idea. I'm a huge supporter of it. Sure, no system is perfect, but it gives you a chance to raise your children in the fashion that you see fit.

Sure, you bring up a great point over exposing your kids to different viewpoints. But sometimes those viewpoints are contrary to what values parents are trying to instill in their children. You might not have problems, for instance, with your kids having free and open access to condoms in school. Other parents might not like that. You might not have problems, for instance, with teachers teaching that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Other parents may not like that. You might not have problems, for instance, with your teachers saying that evolution is fact. Other parents may not like that.

Public schools typically have problems of having too many students per teacher. Even private schools sometimes run into that problem. Homeschoolers don't run into that problem, they can get individualized attention if they need it.

There are a couple of hurdles I see that the homeschooler must overcome:

1. There needs to be at least one parent who is intelligent enough to understand the student's course material and be able to teach it in an effective manner.

2. The child needs to be exposed to other children regularly so he/she understands he/she is a child and not a small adult. However, this can be accomplished in so many different ways that it shouldn't be a big issue.

[phoenixx]

I began life in private school, moved to public school, spent time in reform school, and then went to college and graduate school.

I have formed a couple of opinions based on this experience. First, my time spent at public and private schools did not contribute in any way to my walking the wayward path for part of my life. The fear of parents that public school will be a bad influence on your child is a myth, you run into just as many "bad eggs" in private schools as in public.

Second, all teachers in the elementary and secondary school systems, both public and private, are underpaid. I don't care what town you are in, I guarantee that the herculean teaching task we ask of our teachers is in no way compensated by their current rate of pay.

An example of what teachers in this area have to deal with follows. In our area, the public elementary school teachers have a shorter day in which to accomplish their teaching goals than schools did when I was young. When I attended elementary school we went from 7:30 until 3:30 every day. Now the schedule is 8:40 until 3:00 four days a week, and 8:40 until 1:30 one day a week.

Within this shortened time frame a teacher is expected to teach her children the appropriate subjects for their age, while making them ready for the new statewide MCAS testing that each student must pass to move along in grades, and eventually must pass to graduate high school.

Add to the mix of required aptitude levels the fact that each grade must take two 20 minute recesses each day, a significant increase in the single 25 minute recess we had as children, and a 20 minute lunch, seperate from these recesses, and you have subtracted a large chunk of time from the teaching day.

In addition to this, once a student hits grade 3 here, they are required to take an hour a day of "everyday math" for the rest of their time in elementary school, and another hour of teaching time is gone. There is no required time for teaching reading or science or any other subject, only math, so the other subjects suffer.

Now that you have subtracted from an already short teaching schedule for daily recesses (2), lunch and math, you must subtract two instrument lessons each week for each child, at varying times. This means each child is pulled from a subject in the middle of the subject, twice a week, without regard to how well they are doing in class.

In addition to instrument, lunch, two recesses, everyday math, and a shorter teaching day, you also have gym class/PE twice a week, art class once a week, language (spanish or french) twice a week and chorus or drama twice a week. None of these classes are allowed to keep your children after school, and none of them are allowed to begin before 8:40.

In addition to all of these, some children require a specialist (for a learning disability, difficulty in a class, tutoring, mental health, etc) and time with the specialist also comes out of their school day in the middle of classes. There is also a requirement in this district that all fourth and fifth graders pass a 12 hour typing course, which also cuts into the teaching schedule.

So I say when faced with monumental teaching hurdles such as these, a teacher should be paid much more than they are. They are now working with these hurdles because our society has become so convinced that children can not pay attention longer than five minutes (TV style attention span, sesame street syndrome, whatever you choose to call it) that we no longer require them to pay attention and focus on one task longer than five mintues. This, above all else, is the biggest sin of education today. A child not required to focus complete attention to each task until it is completed will be unable to function in college, the workforce, or adult life (but that is a seperate thread all its own probably).

And as I write this I say, if any of you are teachers, I raise my glass to you for doing an incredible job against all odds.

Leslie

[quasar]

Okay, problems with public schools. Oh boy, where to start:

1) there is an attitude that nothing can be remembered for mre than three years. My school was particularly bad about this but what what I've seen it's not uncommon. We'd get the same science in 4th grade, 7th grde, and 10th grade. Large chunks would be repeats, although some new material would be introduced each time. Math is even worse, as 1st grade math was identical to 7th grade math and everything in between. How many times are people supposed to look at this stuff without turning their brains off?

2) Many districts impose rigid age or grade based rules. My district said that you were not allowed to be more than one grade ahead in reading and you could not go past 6th grade math until you left sixth grade. Consequently I had no math at all for the better part of two years. One of the schools my dad taught in restricted math similarly. Another had other similar rules regulating these things.

3) People are not sorted by ability and then the teachers teach to the lowest common denominator. First, not sorting by ability means that the teacher has to pick a group of students to teach to - either the good students, the average, or the below average. In my experience and in talking to many others, the choice is almost universally to teach to the lowest common denominator - the slower kids. It means that everyone else gets really bored and shuts off.

4) There's no regulation on what to teach, in most cases. This doesn't apply to NY or to one other state that also has state-wide standards. In general, school districts are free to chose whatever curriculum they see fit and to select whatever graduation requirement they desire. A friend of mine from Michigan was the valedictorian of her class. She thought Rome was a country when she got to college, and couldn't string together a gramatically correct sentence to save her life. She didn't have any geography or non-American history classes in school. She did have English classes, but the teachers didn't speak properly either. Which leads me to my next complaint:

5) Some teachers have no business teaching. They aren't well-educated, they don't know how to string three coherent words together, and they don't know their subject matter. I've had a few of these myself. My Geometry teacher could not speak, and she was a native English speaker. She just had no language skills at all. She also didn't really know math that well - she could regurgitate information in the text book, but forget about asking questions. I had others as well, but she was the worst.

6) Social issues of the area bleed into the schools. If an area is highly anti-semetic or anti-hispanic or whatever, it isn;t left outside the school doors. You may be thinking that the school can't control students to that extent, which may be true, but the teachers, administators, and other staff aren't immune. Generally, especially in more rural areas, a large percentage of teachers come from the area and grew up with the social mores of that place. I'll again use an example. I went to school in a very anti-semetic town. Being Jewish I wasn't terribly thrilled by this, but what really bothered me was that the teachers and administrators were part of the problem. I had teachers who "lost" my work, I was kicked off of academic teams because they did better without me (although I had never not been there and in fact they did worse without me after I was kicked off), I had teachers tell students to use the swastika as the symbol of Germany when we had to make coat of arms in class. 1100 out of 1400 students signed a petition that "I bothered them" and should be removed and it was taken seriously by the principal and the school board. The school board changed the rules so they wouldn't have to have a Jew and a Catholic speak at graduation. None of these things are condusive to a good learning environment, particularly when they come from the people who are supposed to be setting an example for the students.

So yes, the school systems here are flawed. But they do, to some extent, mirror the real world in their flaws - people who let their prejudices get in their way, having to deal with people who are different from you, having to deal with people in positions of authority who don't belong there, having to deal with a wide variance of knowledge and ability levels. So in that sense, it's a useful experience. I do wish they'd work on a few of the problems that are fixable though.

Janice

[thinkerlady[$]]

I am a strong advocate of educating the child. In order to do this the parent must find the right environment, be it public, private, or home-school. A child can't learn in an environment that is not conducive to education, and every child is different. I once heard that the school must fit like an old shoe, or it won't work. I agree completely.

There are pros and cons to each issue. My children have attended a religious parochial school, and are now in the same setting in high school. Why? First of all, our locl public district is too too big. The high school has over 4000 kids in it--grades 10-12. The priorities of the school board bother me too. My children could not survive in an environment that large, and I would be a witch because of the district priorities. Secondly, my husband and I decided that we wanted them in a religious environment.

I don't necessarily agree with home schooling, but I do acknowledge that for some it is right. I believe strongly that finding the right environment for the child to learn must prevail. If that is at home, then that is it!!!

[frazzledspice]

I know lots of homeschooling parents, although I have never homeschooled any of my three children. For the most part, these parents are bright and caring, and feel that they are doing the best thing for their kids. I have also had some homeschooled piano students, and most were excellent musicians, primarily because they had the time to practice that kids who spend 7 hours a day in public school don't.

My first creative writing course for the homeschool coop starts tomorrow. (Which is why I've GOT to get my paper to press today...all I have to do now is get things on the layout board and get it to the printer.)

It's all boys--ages 13 through 16. I didn't plan on having all boys....they seem like good kids, and at least two tower over me.

Having sent kids to school in four states, I can attest that schools are different everywhere. Our school district in Missouri (Rockwood--West St. Louis County) was so good that I couldn't imagine why any parents would choose to homeschool there.

My sons went to public school (in NY and St. Louis) through 12th grade. I was very pleased. My daughter went to Catholic schools in South Dakota and Arkansas, and public school in Missouri.

Supposedly OUR Arkansas schools are among the best in the state (which doesn't say much.....) They had open classrooms in elementary school (85 kids in one big room with three teachers.) My daughter has ADD, and I didn't want that. The principal (a former SHERIFF, yuck!) said that they didn't have Music, Art, or PE teachers until a few years ago, because, gosh darn it, that dumb old legislature mandated prep periods for classroom teachers, and they had to do SOMETHING with those kids....Previously, classroom teachers taught Art, PE, and Music. "Oh, but I like ____ School," a co-worker of my husband's told me. "The principal was a sheriff, so I know my kids will be safe from violence." Duh...the man was a cretin, too.

Her Catholic JHS is excellent. I accompany their choir, and when they institute an "activity period" I may teach this same creative writing course there.

I don't know what I'll do when she goes into tenth grade. That's when I have to decide whether to send her to her area High School (the one with the Confederate soldier as its mascot....recently a Dad told me they asked him to make a graduation video and wanted it set to rap music, going "Southside, Southside Ni*#er" over and over again...He refused. A friend of my daughter's in ninth grade said she saw white students spitting on black students in the cafeteria....Is this the 21st century or what???) I will probably send her to the other high school, where some of her friends will go. This is more ethnically diverse, and she, hopefully, won't be too exposed to racists and bigots as she would be in Southside.

[jgibson2[$]]

I have more to say on the subjects of homeschooling and public schools than I have time to say right now. Too many babies, too few nurses, so I'm off to the hospital this evening.

HOWEVER, my 18 year old who has dyslexia and who, as he says, is a 4th grade dropout is a B student at the local community college and makes friends wherever he goes. His only complaint? He says he finds it very hard to be rude to people like his public-schooled friends. He doesn't need to be rude. He can cut you off at the knees without raising his voice or being crude. Comes from reading the great writers of modern English and American literature.

My 20 year old, who has ADHD, was putatively a B student in the local public high school just failed 3 of his 4 courses at the same community college. He was permitted to slide through 4 years of high school while receiving Bs. It's really hard to bear down on a kid who could do better when his teachers give him that kind of grades. He's also the one who finds it difficult to make friends, although he has no problem keeping them once he finds them.

I let them choose their high school experience, but I sometimes wish I'd made the older one stay home for high school. Things might not have worked out as well for him as for his brother, but he was much more cheerful before and after his high school years than during.

[magenta321]

Oi.

Ok... I took a little offence to Bridget's statements about teaching to the lowest common denominator. That is not what any teacher attempts to do. However, in a classroom without leveling, and without aides, it can happen. I know teachers struggle very hard to provide appropriate materials for each child.

The other side of the coin is leveling or tracking students in ability-leveled groups. I was in one such group in first grade -- the dumb group. I placed into the above average but not exceptional group by the time I was in third grade. I took college prep and honors courses in highschool. I still saw myself as the dumb kid I was forced to feel like in first grade. I never grew out of that. I was SHOCKED when I applied to colleges and was offered merit-based scholarships to NYU and Syracuse, and was awarded a full scholarship to the state school I chose to go to. I still thought I was dumb.

And in college I was in the Honors program, where basically we were enrolled in crash-courses in everything well-rounded for our core classes (for example, our Science Class -- Science and Technology was everything we would have learned in entry level college physics, astronomy, oceanography, and meteorology classes, all mushed into one semester). I couldn't believe who my peers were. That label I received in first grade was still with me. It kept telling me I didn't belong there. It kept telling me I was a failure. It told me I was a phoney. Had I never been placed in a group, I could have had a lack-luster start to my education, but slid into the different niches that I was really designed to be in all throughout my educational career, instead of being stuck on the tracks I was placed on.

I wonder if I always believed I was average, or even if I believed I could be bright if I would have applied myself at least a little bit in school. I honestly never did until college. And even then, I only applied myself in my honors classes and my English classes. Those were the only ones that mattered, or where the work was challenging enough for me to want to apply myself.

Ok, so the point of this andecdote is something that can also be proven with data hard data as well: leveling hurts a lot of children and limits their reaching their potential.

So the choice for school systems is how best to keep the average students, the below average students, and the exceptional students engaged in learning together. It is difficult, but it can be done. Good teachers excel at this.

This is not directed to anyone in particular, but yes, there are problems with the public school system. And some schools are better than others.

Personally, I would never consider homeschooling my children. I don't think that one person teaching my children (probably myself) would be good for them. I want them to experience a variety of viewpoints, and to be exposed to things beyond what the curriculumn or myself deems important. For example, I hate baseball. However, in a public school, my son/daughter may be exposed to understanding math problems through baseball, and it might be something that opens their eyes to math. I couldn't give them that. I would already be with them at home illuminating their schoolwork with my unique take on things. I think public schools increase their exposure to different ways of looking at the same thing, which I feel increases understanding.

Now, it can be argued that homeschooling isn't like that any more. Many people are choosing to pool their resources, and the adults come together to teach subjects that they have a good deal of knowledge on. I like that approach better, but to me personally, its still not the way I'd go. You still have a limited amount of viewpoints and ideas from the adults. It's better, but still not ideal in my mind. Plus, I don't believe most of these people have training on how to educate. The natural-born educators will excel despite this, but most people will not (in my estimation). I mean, if teachers who have received endless training on how to educate can fail, just think of how bad the average Joe or Jane Schmoe will do without all that schooling.

The biggest thing I notice in homeschooled children is incredibly strong will, and a belief that the way think is the way everyone thinks. That's a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. I'll stop there, since I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and because no matter what I say, I will hear that I am overgeneralizing. I am sure I am overgeneralizing on the homeschooling issue, as much as people who say public schooled children are rude or dumbed down are.

The bottom line for me, however, is that all three models of education public/private, homeschooling alone, and homeschooling circles are seriously flawed. I don't condemn anyone for their decision amongst these three options. Everyone will choose what is right for themselves and their families. I guess its really a choice between the lesser of three evils. To me, the lesser of the three evils is public or private school, but I've always lived in an area with a good school system (with the exception of the middle school here). If I moved to an area where education was not as high quality, I'd choose private school. But, this is all based on the options that my family had with me, and with the options that will likely be available to myself when I have children.

And that's my two and a half cents.

[jgibson2[$]]

As I promised yesterday, I have a LOT to say on the subject of education. My credentials for the statements which follow:

1. I attended private elementary school, public high school, 2 of the top 20 universities in the country (I hold BS degrees from both)

2. I taught myself to read at age 5 and the vast majority of my learning is from independent reading.

3. My mom is a retired public school teacher

4. My kids have gone to private and public schools and been homeschooled.

5. I've taught in homeschool co-ops and in tutoring school programs.

In short, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. One in each color.

HOMESCHOOL

My take: Those of you who've opined on the subject of homeschooling only know a few people who've experienced one or two types of homeschooling. There are as many ways to homeschool as there are children learning in that forum. You think you know about homeschooling? That's about like saying you know about all the different public and private school systems -- or teaching styles therein.

Some of you worry about kids having only a limited number of teachers. That CAN happen when kids are homeschooled. It need not. If it does, it need not be a disadvantage. It essentially happens to public or private schooled kids in small schools -- particularly those in small towns.

My kids have learned to find teachers wherever we go. Example: How much do YOU know about solar eclipses? Do you have a clue what an annular eclipse is? Do you know why it is so much more dangerous than a total eclipse? Do you know how to view it safely? Did you know that there are multiple ways to do that? My kids learned all that -- and have retained all of it.

An annular eclipse is one in which the moon is too far from the earth to totally block out the sun. The result is a ring of bright sunlight around the black circle of the moon. This type of eclipse is far more likely to cause retinal damage, because you are able to look at it without eye protection for long enough to literally burn a hole in your retina. You can safely view it through a special type of glass, most commonly used by welders; by making a pinhole camera; or by using a telescope with a special filter. There may be other ways, but those are the 3 we employed in viewing the annular eclipse which was visible over the northeast US in 1994.

We drove about 3.5 hours north into the area of totality so they could have the full eclipse experience. We ended up at a rest area in northern PA with quite a few others who'd arrived for the same reason and a few who'd stumbled into an impromptu classroom. All the kids in the group took turns reminding one man NOT to look at the sun. My kids shared their pinhole viewer and welder's glass viewer with the child of a couple who'd brought along a very nice telescope (with filter). They, in turn, shared their equipment with the whole group. We all set our gear aside in awed wonder when the eclipse reached totality. Birds stopped singing, insects even became quiet, but most amazing was the tiny rings of fire which appeared on the ground under a nearby tree as the eclipse reached totality.

Too bad every day can't be like that, but the kids learned to share their knowledge and to find teachers and mentors from whom to learn. Scoutmasters, music teachers, soccer coaches, karate instructors, neighbors, and friends all became their teachers. Yes, all this is available to kids who attend school, too, but 6+ hours of their day (plus homework) is already spoken for.

Private school

Quality varies enormously. It simply is NOT true that private schools are, by virtue of being private, better than public schools. Some are much better for some students. Some are better for all the students they deign to accept. Some are simply crap. Example of a crappy school -- one locally whose principal was recently arrested for child abuse. There have been arrests in the local public schools, too, but those were for sexual abuse, not beatings.

There are some truly excellent private schools in the area. I can't afford any of them. I'm not entirely certain they'd have accepted my older 2 anyway, because they tend not to be set up to deal with learning disabilities. There are a few local schools which deal specifically with learning disabilities, but I can't afford them either.

The private school I attended was grade levels ahead of the local public schools -- despite classes of 40-50 kids in the first 3 grades. The private school my kids attended was better than the public schools which surrounded it, but we should have moved or I should have taken them out of school earlier. The teachers there didn't have a clue how to handle dyslexia or ADHD.

The school I'd send my kids to, if I could afford it, and if the commute wasn't such a killer, doesn't even try to teach reading until about third grade. I'm not comfortable with doing that at home, but it makes me feel better about my littlest guy's slow but steady progress toward reading.


Public Schools

Those, of course, differ greatly in quality as well. I happen not to buy into the theory that LOCATION is the end-all of public school quality, though. I happen to believe that a few top-notch teachers, supported by a principal who gives a damn, can change the world. I believe that, because my mother spent her entire teaching career in neighborhoods most people flee. Her schools were uniformly excellent. The quality of instruction in her classroom was high, but she will tell you that she could never have accomplished what she did without the support of her principal. Why did she always have that support? Because she taught math and science. As a result, she was able to pick which school she'd work in. She had the freedom to choose a school where her teaching ability, backed by the school administration, could make a difference. We need more administrators who know how to enable teachers.

I had great teachers in public school too. I had a band director who demanded -- and got -- excellence from his students. He took kids who might otherwise have been on the street and put them together with debutantes and the sons of prominant physicians and politicians to form a music ensemble better than most community orchestras. I had an art teacher who was a commercial artist by profession. He CHOSE to spend ONE hour each day teaching in my public high school. This, thank God, was before there were so many stupid rules about having zillions of hours of education courses before being permitted to teach something you know and love. I had a French teacher whose teaching credential was from the Pasteur Institute -- in microbiology. I learned nearly as much microbiology in his class as I did French -- and that's a high compliment, as it was all "dit en francais". BTW, I went to see Brotherhood of the Wolf today, and Mr. Louis would be proud to know that I understood virtually all of it without reading the subtitles.

I think we need to get rid of some of the stupid education courses and find out who knows how to teach -- and let them do it! There are plenty of people teaching ADULTS who have NEVER taken ONE education course. I don't think education courses are all useless, but I've had teachers tell me that a great many are.

[jenninca]

Education is a partnership between three parties: the school/teacher, the student, and the parent. If any of the parties are negligent in their duties, then it is very difficult for a student to be properly educated.

If a teacher is not doing his/her duty, then a child cannot learn as much as would otherwise be possible.

If a parent is not doing his/her duty, then a child cannot learn as much as would otherwise be possible.

If a student is not doing his/her duty, then a child cannot learn as much as would otherwise be possible.

Good education can sometimes take place when one party is being negligent. A motivated student can overcome a lack of parental support with a good teacher. A motivated parent with a motivated student can fill in some gaps caused by a negligent teacher. A good parent and teacher can work together to try to motivate an unmotivated student.

If two parties are being negligent, good education will almost never take place. A motivated parent would have a hard time getting a successful student with a negligent teacher and unmotivated kid. A motivated student would have to work really hard to overcome an uncaring teacher and parent. And a good teacher has a very difficult time getting successful students when both the student and the parent will not support education. Public or private school, this is the case.

I've heard countless stories of parents here who weren't satisfied with the education their child was receiving and worked to bring their child's education to the level they felt was good. Motivated parent + motivated child = success.

Four years ago, I had a student who wouldn't do homework on a regular basis. Her other teacher and I met with her dad countless times. The dad promised he would try all of the things we suggested, but never followed through. Unmotivated kid + unmotivated parent = child failed the grade.

This year, I have countless students in the same situation or worse. I have kids whose parents will be taken to court if they have another unexcused absence. I have kids who haven't done a single homework assignment unless you count the ones I made them stay after school to do. I have kids whose parents helped them fake their science fair project. I have parents who I've called, written notes to, e-mailed, snail mailed, etc., and I still can't get them to talk to me. Pair these parents with a kid who's never been told that school is important, and it's no surprise that their children are pretty much all failing.

A child needs to be told that education is important by both the teacher and the parent. If they're only hearing it from one end, you get classes of kids like those that fill our fifth grade. They are rude, they are lazy, and it takes me ten minutes to get them all to read a book that they choose! For heaven's sake, that was what I used to wish I could do all day, and they won't even do that without being threatened with punishment. (And trust me, I've tried everything the books say about getting kids to love reading, and I've tried rewarding the kids who are reading, and I make part of their reading grade whether they actually READ during silent reading. None of it has helped.)

I realize this all sounds off-topic in a thread about educational reform. But the point I'm trying to make is that doesn't matter what kind of school your child goes to. A successful student needs a good teacher, a supportive parent, and an internal motivation. That's true in public school and it's true in private school.

Cindy

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by jgibson2


HOMESCHOOL [...]

We drove about 3.5 hours north into the area of totality so they could have the full eclipse experience.

I'm not clear on what this has to do with homeschooling. Why is this something that a child in a public school can't learn or do?

I have nothing against other people homeschooling, but I don't see how this pertains, since it isn't a homeschooling exclusive activity. Certainly I can (and have) used my own equipment to show my kids sunspots by projection. They have looked at sunspots through school equipment with Sun filters. The 4 and 6 year old know enough not to look directly at the Sun under *any* circumstances.

They are charting changes in the appearance of Saturn over time, a project which is going to take them years to complete. Saturn's rings are going to be at their widest visible in 2003, so we will be watching them change in their 15 year cycle. A project like that transcends a school year and breaks out of the field-trip mode that science often gets reduced to. Science (and life) is often about patience and observation over long periods of time, something on which the school year places artificial limits.

My opinion about homeschooling is that it is not the best option for my children. With my kids in public school it frees me to draw on the resources of the school where it is doing a good job. I can concentrate on the areas where I think it is not doing a good job and fill in those gaps in the learning experience. Every walk in a nature sanctuary, visit to the beach, hour at the observatory, museum or whatever is a learning experience. My daughter is exposed to a number of different teachers and teaching styles. She can tell *me* what works best for her. My own experience in public school was that there were not bad experiences, just experiences.

For extraordinary opportunities that only come along once in a while, I am not above pulling them out of school for a day.

For the thoughtful and dedicated parent, it doesn't matter whether you pull your child out of school. It's what you do when you have the opportunity to be with your child. And, in my opinion, restricting my child to just home school or just public school is depriving her of experiences.

-JP

[jgibson2[$]]

drmomentum said:

I'm not clear on what this has to do with homeschooling. Why is this something that a child in a public school can't learn or do?

I realize that I wrote a rather long piece, but I did say this. The only advantage homeschooled kids have is flexibility and time. One of the other kids we met that day had been taken out of school for the day to make that trip -- with her teacher's blessing and an assignment to write a report on it. She was able to provide a benefit for her entire class.

And, in my opinion, restricting my child to just home school or just public school is depriving her of experiences.

You deprive your child of experiences whenever you make an educational choice. Sometimes that's a good thing. I realize that my kids aren't having the same experience as their public and private schooled friends. Their friends aren't having the same experiences we're having. The kids manage to get along anyway.


Jenninca said:

And a good teacher has a very difficult time getting successful students when both the student and the parent will not support education.

Finding the motivation is the key. When most of your class is motivated to learn, you can work on the few who aren't. My mom was able to turn around some kids whose parents didn't give a hoot that they literally couldn't do first grade math in 9th grade. One in particular had learned to cheat so well that her first challenge was making that impossible for him. Time consuming? You bet! Unfortunately, if he's still alive, he's using his math in the North Carolina penitentiary. Life term for murder. Other stories were much more encouraging. She had kids who were really struggling and about to give up who went to college. She very seldom had completely unmotivated kids - more often unmotivated, or even abusive parents. The administration conspired to keep low grades from parents known to be abusive. It was 30 years ago -- getting kids out of the home for the occasional brutal beating just didn't happen very often.

When you have a high percentage of unmotivated students with unmotivated parents, it must be heartbreaking.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by jgibson2

I realize that I wrote a rather long piece, but I did say this. The only advantage homeschooled kids have is flexibility and time.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with homeschooling yet your entire section under the heading of "homeschooling" is this story. I don't get why you left it in there once you realized it was not an example that had anything to do with homeschooling.

I would be more interested to read about an experience that distinguishes homeschooling from the other two types of school you mention.

-JP

[jgibson2[$]]

JP,
My point isn't that you cannot do things like that if you don't homeschool -- my point is that it's just easier. I am in no way suggesting that everyone SHOULD homeschool. In fact, unlike some homeschoolers I know, I think many people shouldn't -- even some who are already doing it. Jenninca's point about education needing a motivated teacher and a motivated pupil is certainly true of homeschooling. Finding breathing room can be a challenge too.

You have more freedom to individualize an educational program when you homeschool. That can make it possible to motivate an otherwise unmotivated child. For some kids that can literally be a lifesaving difference. For others, removing them from school can be a mistake. You need to have some kind of plan beyond buying books and tossing them at the kid. That only works if it's the kid's idea.

There are very few things that you can do at home that you cannot also do if your child is in school. You just don't have time to do them all. It's about choices. I chose to homeschool my older 2 kids because the schools were failing them. I spent 15+ hours each week helping with homework and educating teachers about the realities of ADHD. On top of that, I volunteered about 12 hours each week at school and spent another 10 hours driving the kids back and forth to school. When my husband asked how I would find time to homeschool the kids, I just laughed at him.

Homeschooling works for my family. That doesn't mean other people are required to try it -- or that I think badly of anyone who doesn't. You make the choice you think is right for your kid. That's the way it should be.

I tried it both ways, and school didn't work for my older 2. We did let the oldest go back to school for high school. In retrospect, I think he'd have done better if he'd chosen a different path -- but we chose to let him have some input into the decision. Hindsight being what it it, I wish we'd pushed harder for him to "drop out" and go to the community college. He fits in better there. They demand more of him -- and generally get it.

My youngest will eventually go to school -- although he may follow the path of my middle son and not opt into a classroom until he's 16 and the local community college will take him. I started homeschooling him because he wasn't ready for kindergarten - and I didn't want to waste a whole year when I figured he'd eventually catch up. He is catching up. Partly that's a result of neurological development (eye hand coordination, for example) and partly it's a factor of one-on-one instruction which is geared to his interests and abilities. Could we put him in school and do the same thing at home? Maybe, but at the risk of having him share Magenta's experience of feeling "dumb" in school. School isn't currently the best choice for him. Next year, when his best friend starts all-day first grade is going to be a tough one. I'm not sure what we'll do then. School isn't currently in the plans, though.