Homeschooling our children

[cerebus]

Do you not know what life is like for children in school who just don't fit in for whatever reason? Be they underdeveloped, overly academic, unsocial, overweight, not rich enough, whatever the case - they spend their entire school years totally miserable until they get out. Is that the 'germs' you want to expose them to? I'll take my chances on the outside thanks. A lot of the most successful workers here were obviously nerds in school - now you know what, they earn fantastically well and nobody cares how they look.

The other side is that rather than learning to cope in that environment, they actually become a part of it. The drugs, the promiscuity, the bullying - it's a peer-led arena and sometimse the only way to survive it is to conform to it.

As for being in a bubble - we ARE going to do everything we can to expose them to as many social opportunities as possible. That's a horrendous generalisation, speaking of generalisations.

 

[Lupus]

Do you not know what life is like for children in school who just don't fit in for whatever reason? Be they underdeveloped, overly academic, unsocial, overweight, not rich enough, whatever the case - they spend their entire school years totally miserable until they get out. Is that the 'germs' you want to expose them to? I'll take my chances on the outside thanks. A lot of the most successful workers here were obviously nerds in school - now you know what, they earn fantastically well and nobody cares how they look.

The other side is that rather than learning to cope in that environment, they actually become a part of it. The drugs, the promiscuity, the bullying - it's a peer-led arena and sometimse the only way to survive it is to conform to it.

As for being in a bubble - we ARE going to do everything we can to expose them to as many social opportunities as possible. That's a horrendous generalisation, speaking of generalisations.

A lot of the arguments you seem to make revolve around your own school career, I'm sorry you were the nerd, picked on etc, guess what a lot of us were, kids are nasty and that is how it is, the thing is though a lot of people develop the ability to shrug it off or learn from it and go on with their lives, using the thing about the kids who were bullied 90% of the time and then go on killing sprees is a bit of a strawman argument, as guess what they were probably disturbed in other ways too and it's a small percentage in comparison.

 

[cerebus]

A lot of the arguments you seem to make revolve around your own school career, I'm sorry you were the nerd, picked on etc, guess what a lot of us were, kids are nasty and that is how it is, the thing is though a lot of people develop the ability to shrug it off or learn from it and go on with their lives, using the thing about the kids who were bullied 90% of the time and then go on killing sprees is a bit of a strawman argument, as guess what they were probably disturbed in other ways too and it's a small percentage in comparison.

I wasn't a nerd and I wasn't picked on. Or at least.. i was picked on but only for a short time. I keep saying I don't care that much about the bullying issue. It's a small thing. It's only because others are insisting that it can actually be a positive thing that I'm taking umbrage.

What we do care about though is the fact that in homeschooling we can be selective about the kinds of children they mingle with. Their manners, the environmental influences and so forth are largely peer-led. Or iow if they start mingling with stoned dropouts, what are the chances that they'll become stoned dropouts themselves?

 

[noxibox]

Kids need to be naughty

They will be no matter where they get schooled.

People are so focussed on false/negative perceptions that the positives gets no attention. Kids want to interact with other kids all the time, not per a schedule "to keep the kids socially okay". Kids need to interact with all kinds of kids all the time, incl. the bullies, the nerds, the jocks, the pagans, the whatever. They need to live life with all these variables.

The kids need to do crazy things together. The need the sport and culture activity vibes a school offers. The need teachers that are specialists in their respective fields. The need to a lot of different teachers to get al lot of different inputs. They need input from all kinds of teachers.

Kids may well want to interact with other kids all the time, but they'll have to do it per a schedule whether they're learning at home or school. And in school where there are enough of any particular group I'd say it's easier for a child to stick to their known group with the same attitudes.

As a child you don't get any real opportunity to do crazy things at school. That's what you do after school and over the weekends.

The specialist teacher aspect only becomes relevant at high school level. Even then considering usually several teachers are barely competent they can more of a hindrance than a help.

The sport and culture vibe comes from wherever you take part. The best stuff I was involved in as a child was outside the school.

So true, I hated sports at school, while I still do watch a bit of Rugby and Cricket nowadays.
After school I started doing Martial arts, my parents never allowed me to do this, I had to take up a sport at the school offered.

My parents allowed me to do outside sport, and I luckily found a sympathetic teacher who signed me up for their sport and then marked me as present every week even though I was almost never there. My child can play what the school offers if that's what they want, but I'm happy to tell the school to stick their sport offerings otherwise.

 

[HavocXphere]

That's why you sign them up for extra curricular activities.

Everyone can sign up for extra-curricular activities. So if you've got a public school kid doing school + extra curr while your kid only does extra curr your still "behind" in a certain sense because it only gets one dose of social. Probably still fine, but not ideal.

And when it comes to the class room setting, all the kids get involved.

I don't quite follow. How does home schooling have a class room? Or is this some kind of hybrid approach?

I'm not sure about those things, I think we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. The statistics on homeschooling are very strong though.

Its not the measurable things I'm worried about.

I can see though how in an SA context it can make sense *despite* the kid taking a minor hit on the social skills side.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

I wasn't a nerd and I wasn't picked on. Or at least.. i was picked on but only for a short time. I keep saying I don't care that much about the bullying issue. It's a small thing. It's only because others are insisting that it can actually be a positive thing that I'm taking umbrage.

What we do care about though is the fact that in homeschooling we can be selective about the kinds of children they mingle with. Their manners, the environmental influences and so forth are largely peer-led. Or iow if they start mingling with stoned dropouts, what are the chances that they'll become stoned dropouts themselves?

For my ex-wife this was the reason why she home-schooled our daughter last year, then two weeks ago the bomb dropped when my daughter no-longer wanted to only have pre-approved friends. Even the intentions where good, in the end my daughter only had one friend.

She is now back in public school (a new school) and is very very happy.

Its very difficult to say beforehand if what you intend to achieve will work or not, the same as saying if your child will be bullied or not in public school. Then again, school is not the only place kids get bullied, I've seen that happen to both my kids at Spur play area and at my home.

I will also ad that my cousins where home schooled and in their case it worked. They are three girls living in a rural Eastern Cape town where certain fears are realities. All 3 are sociable, healthy, educated girls.

 

[noxibox]

Academically I'm pretty sure I could do a better job than most schools. Its the social aspect that bugs me....I'm not convinced that can be emulated well enough.

I'm not sure why you'd want to emulate it. School is an incredibly artificial environment. It has more in common with prison than real life in the outside world. There are schools that don't follow what could be called the traditional model, but they're usually private and thus expensive.

For example, how do you do academic work where teamwork is required? You can't take the place of the teammate because you're not on equal footing.

That was nearly non-existent in the days when I went to school, so I'd class it as irrelevant. Children learn to work together, negotiate and compromise any time they are involved with others.

Participating in TEAM sport and activities is important Cerebus. Not just at church ... but everyday. In sport, when the team is under pressure and must work together to solve the situation the kids learn a heck of a lot to take with them in life and work.

And they learn that regardless. Better if they play with a wide age group range. But there is negotiation and learning to work together in everything children do with others. So I'll class team sport as overrated.

Everyone can sign up for extra-curricular activities. So if you've got a public school kid doing school + extra curr while your kid only does extra curr your still "behind" in a certain sense because it only gets one dose of social. Probably still fine, but not ideal.

That makes no sense. There are five afternoons a week. If my child spends three of those on things offered by the school and two outside, then they're no different to one that does five outside school.

Any time a child is interacting with other people they're developing socially.

I can see though how in an SA context it can make sense *despite* the kid taking a minor hit on the social skills side.

This whole social skills concern should be tossed on the same heap as you only use 10% of your brain. The supposed benefits of school are being wildly exaggerated.

 

[cerebus]

cbrunsdonza, it really depends from child to child. Thus be connected to your child either way, to be sure that it works for them as well. And if not change the scene. It really depends on the child. Hehe, I was in public school and had only one friend(until I moved schools and provinces and it all changed.) THE WIFE

 

[HavocXphere]

I'm not sure why you'd want to emulate it. School is an incredibly artificial environment. It has more in common with prison than real life in the outside world.

Of course its an artificial environment. If "real life in the outside world" would provide a suitable education then we wouldn't bother with schools. It doesn't though, so we build schools to provide an artificial environment that is conducive to learning. Hell, home schooling is also an artificial environment...the question is, is it a *better* artificial environment for learning.

There are schools that don't follow what could be called the traditional model, but they're usually private and thus expensive.

Kinda tricky for me to argue with that because I'm not familiar with the public school system. With the exception of Waldorf based school & similar I think most of the private schools do exactly the same thing as public schools though...they just do it way better.

That makes no sense. There are five afternoons a week. If my child spends three of those on things offered by the school and two outside, then they're no different to one that does five outside school.

You misunderstood me rather thoroughly.

Public_Kid spends 6 hours in school and 3 on extra curr.
Home_Kid spends 6 hours at home and 3 on extra curr.

Somewhere in those 6 hours in school there will some social interaction, which the Home_Kid simply doesn't get. That shortfall you can't fix with extra curr because they are *both* doing extra curr anyway. That is why I'm saying that I don't think extra curr can in itself be sufficient to put the kid on a level playing field socially.

Regardless of how prison-like a school is, there will be friendships, some social interaction and perhaps some drama about who dates who.

Any time a child is interacting with other people they're developing socially.

Not if the interaction is with a parent. Its like the difference of talking to your boss vs talking to your co-worker. The balance is different & the expected behavior is different. Consequently you can't use the one to learn how to behave in the other.

And they learn that regardless.

Its not a question of whether they will learn these things, but rather of whether they will learn them as fast or faster than their peers. The aim of the game is to provide your kid with a competitive advantage, no? Well just like in an arms race, its only an advantage when you get their first. Eventually the kid will have to compete against peers...at school, at uni or at the workplace.

/gonna get massive flak for the last paragraph...

 

[cerebus]

Its not a question of whether they will learn these things, but rather of whether they will learn them as fast or faster than their peers. The aim of the game is to provide your kid with a competitive advantage, no? Well just like in an arms race, its only an advantage when you get their first. Eventually the kid will have to compete against peers...at school, at uni or at the workplace.

Kids at school don't really compete with each other, at least not academically. They get graded against an average but it's not competitively. The same grading system would apply in homeschooling. Academically homeschooling is strongly advantaged against normal schooling; at least the average scores would indicate so.

 

[BeVonk!]

Its not a question of whether they will learn these things, but rather of whether they will learn them as fast or faster than their peers. The aim of the game is to provide your kid with a competitive advantage, no? Well just like in an arms race, its only an advantage when you get their first. Eventually the kid will have to compete against peers...at school, at uni or at the workplace.

/gonna get massive flak for the last paragraph...

Agree.

It is getting tougher and tougher to compete in a flat world. Home schoolers will say they are giving their kids optimum academic education and they will therefore be able to compete better. I say a kid needs the tough realities in public schools to learn how to cope and that the parents can fill the education gaps at home.

About after-school activities ... when I was in school I participated in school sport AND I did chess and Karate in the evenings. Many public school kids do this. Not too difficult.

 

[BeVonk!]

Kids at school don't really compete with each other, at least not academically.

Wrong. They do. In every school that my kids attended there was strong competition for top positions on the academic log. Schools award academic honours/prizes. For the academically inclined kid this is as important as the sport trophies.

 

[cerebus]

Be that as it may, the statistics show a very strong academic advantage to homeschooling, and it is one that actually increases the longer they are homeschooled. So if there is competition, homeschooling is a clear leader. I said on the front page that the top four matriculants last year were homeschooled. So why is this even an issue?

 

[Nicodeamus]

Be that as it may, the statistics show a very strong academic advantage to homeschooling, and it is one that actually increases the longer they are homeschooled. So if there is competition, homeschooling is a clear leader. I said on the front page that the top four matriculants last year were homeschooled. So why is this even an issue?

In terms of the curriculum, I don't really see that a home schooled child has an advantage over one that went to a public school.

 

[wrathex]

This is not a cut and dry issue.

Homeschooling is a tough choice made by parents who feel it is the best solution for their children, and I applaud parents who take the education of their children so seriousely.

Thank goodness we have choices at all when it comes to educating our children.

Children and their parents don't all have the same needs or the same attitude to education as everyone else, some children do well in public schools and others sink like stones under peer pressure to drink, party and use drugs, generally speaking homeschooled children do quite well.

My children (now adults), have been homeschooled (Breinlyn), been in religious private schools (even though they are atheist), and in public schools.

None of the above schooling systems stand out as better than the rest, from my experience, each choice has benefits and drawbacks depending on the individuality/personality of the child.

I have found however that those parents who consider homeschooling, are parents who are absolutely dedicated to giving their child the best that they can - I can't fault that at all. It is very hard work and not at all an easy choice, and this choice is mostly made by parents of whom one is a breadwinner and they other a fulltime parent.

The most vital part of a childs education starts at home with the parents. It is at home that the rock foundation for learning is laid down.

Parents who don't read and sing to their infants and who don't teach them the names of objects in their environment, and who rely solely on schools/teachers to do it, are the parents who have children most likely to be under achievers.

No matter what you choose for your family, thank you, thank you, thank you for taking your childs education so seriousely !

 

[cerebus]

In terms of the curriculum, I don't really see that a home schooled child has an advantage over one that went to a public school.

From a curriculum standpoint, I suppose with homeschooling you can choose from a huge array of curricula or even make your own which seems like a terrible idea to me but it's possible. Each one offers certain benefits. But it's not the curriculum side that is advantaged particularly, so much as the actual results of the schooling - the test results and grade averages of the students - that favours homeschooling, and heavily so.

No matter what you choose for your family, thank you, thank you, thank you for taking your childs education so seriousely !

Thanks wrathex

 

[BobsLawnService]

I'm completely against homeschooling for a few reasons :

1. Lack of competition. It is a competetive world and let's face it, as much as we'd like them to be outr kids aren't special. Rather expose them to a bit of competition to prepare them for later on in life.
2. Unless your wife is a qualified teacher and has tertiary maths, science, english and any other subjects you want your kid to learn then she is going to be woefully inadequate to teach high school subjects. You may think teachers are rubbish but it is actually quite a specialized skill.
3. The lack of team sports is a big negative. While you may not want your kid to be a dumb jock, taking part in sports and especially team sports is very important to ensure that your kid grows up balanced.
4. The social factor can't be under-estimated. A playgroup twice a week is nothing at all like being surrounded by your peers.

I also disagree completely with the idea that you just drop your kids off at school and expect them to get a blackbox education. As parents we need to take an interest in, and work with our kids after school.

 

[noxibox]

In terms of the curriculum, I don't really see that a home schooled child has an advantage over one that went to a public school.

It has more to do with not wasting as much time. Our children waste a lot of time in the classroom. Also because instruction does not have to take into account the other thirty or forty students it is easy to cover additional topics and explore things in more depth. As a parent with a child in school you have to do this too, but it takes up time after school.

I have found however that those parents who consider homeschooling, are parents who are absolutely dedicated to giving their child the best that they can - I can't fault that at all. It is very hard work and not at all an easy choice, and this choice is mostly made by parents of whom one is a breadwinner and they other a fulltime parent.

The most vital part of a childs education starts at home with the parents. It is at home that the rock foundation for learning is laid down.

Parents who don't read and sing to their infants and who don't teach them the names of objects in their environment, and who rely solely on schools/teachers to do it, are the parents who have children most likely to be under achievers.

That's the thing. Any parent that is engaged with their child and their learning is going to be challenging their child. Plus the child will have their friends of various ages. The notion that an individual needs to be in a school to learn to compete is plain silly. As though a child learning at home lives in a vacuum.

3. The lack of team sports is a big negative. While you may not want your kid to be a dumb jock, taking part in sports and especially team sports is very important to ensure that your kid grows up balanced.

Honestly why do people keep bringing this up? There are sports available outside school. In fact we should remove sports from schools completely and allow freedom to choose your sport instead of letting schools impose particular sports. It's annoying as a parent that I have to waste my time fighting with my child's school over the ridiculous insistence that my child take part in their mediocre sports offerings.

4. The social factor can't be under-estimated. A playgroup twice a week is nothing at all like being surrounded by your peers.

The social value of school is certainly being overestimated. A playgroup twice a week might well exceed the amount of social time in a typical school week. Maybe school has changed a lot since I went, but in the old days the time at school was mostly spent in the classroom where socialising was generally frowned upon. I'd also suggest people actually do some reading on why children should be socialising much more widely than the very narrow opportunity offered by school. Even if your child goes to school you're going to have to do exactly the same as someone homeschooling to give them access to a better socialisation range. Plus there are the learning benefits of being around children of various ages and adults.

 

[noxibox]

Of course its an artificial environment. If "real life in the outside world" would provide a suitable education then we wouldn't bother with schools.

It does if we're talking about developing social skills.

Public_Kid spends 6 hours in school and 3 on extra curr.
Home_Kid spends 6 hours at home and 3 on extra curr.

Home schooling parents generally say they need much less time, so they get the option of covering more or having more time for other activities. Since the socialising time at school is maybe an hour, and it's typically restricted to a small group of other children of the same age, I think home schooling parents have an easier time exposing their children to social stimulus.

Being restricted to or mostly socialising with other children their own age is not a positive aspect of standard schools. It's one of the major drawbacks. And then there's the insane continued existence of single sex schools.

Its not a question of whether they will learn these things, but rather of whether they will learn them as fast or faster than their peers. The aim of the game is to provide your kid with a competitive advantage, no? Well just like in an arms race, its only an advantage when you get their first. Eventually the kid will have to compete against peers...at school, at uni or at the workplace.

There's zero reason to believe that parents who choose to home school are crippling their children in any way. It's simply prejudice. Based on the fact that some who choose to home school are isolationist.

One might say someone choosing to home school is gambling, but so in fact is the parent who chooses a standard school because it's plainly obvious that school fails many children.

Kids at school don't really compete with each other, at least not academically. They get graded against an average but it's not competitively. The same grading system would apply in homeschooling. Academically homeschooling is strongly advantaged against normal schooling; at least the average scores would indicate so.

Based on what I've observed I expect the majority of children don't compete, academically or in sports. There may be prizes and trophies, but there's only a small group trying to get them. Everyone else simply doesn't care.

 

[FrankCastle]

Home schooled geniuses:

Arran Fernandez
Karl Witte
Ruth Lawrence