|
On January 09 2014 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:
I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically. Well said. I was also thinking "child abuse" would be an appropriate term to refer to parents who willfully prevent their children from getting an education, although I didn't want to use that term when talking with Blue because I wasn't sure if that would cut our conversation short.
This is a strawman, because we aren't comparing school to no education. No one's saying kids should be toiling in fields or watching TV all day.
We're looking at if school is an efficient use of time and resources when compared to alternative forms of education. Right now I'd say it really isn't: the amount of amazing online educational material is staggering. There's so much scope for a better model of teaching.
The ideal would probably be a hybrid: children studying at home using online materials, having time to develop hobbies and talents, and then going into school for a couple of days a week to show what they've done and have professionals go over it with them. No lecturing to 30 kids when they can watch a video of that lecture. No tasks for the sake of giving people something to do. No issues of classroom management. No problems with different learning speeds or approaches.
|
On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.* Education is failing to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok not to send kids to school. Everything is imperfect, and the existence of theoretical models which might be superior (although probably too expensive) is largely irrelevant because if you compare it to the lack of education
Not going to school does not mean not getting an education. If you can get an education outside of school it's often the better choice.
|
On January 09 2014 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:
I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically. Well said. I was also thinking "child abuse" would be an appropriate term to refer to parents who willfully prevent their children from getting an education, although I didn't want to use that term when talking with Blue because I wasn't sure if that would cut our conversation short.
What you should have been doing is trying to figure out if they were getting an education or not. That's what I meant when I said you weren't fully engaging with your conversation partner.
|
On January 09 2014 13:44 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.* Education is failing to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok not to send kids to school. Everything is imperfect, and the existence of theoretical models which might be superior (although probably too expensive) is largely irrelevant because if you compare it to the lack of education Not going to school does not mean not getting an education. If you can get an education outside of school it's often the better choice.
Well OP specifically said that the kid was essentially not getting homeschooled or anything.
As for the idea that getting an education outside of school is often better, I don't doubt it. That said, school is a relatively cost efficient way of giving general knowledge to kids. I would argue that school in general increases the odds over most other methods (that aren't outrageously expensive).
I think that the biggest mistake that people make is that in many cases they look at education as a purely practical way to achieve longer term goals, as if school was just a way to acquire skills to have a trade. From that perspective, you could easily argue that school is useless and the farmer's kid might as well not learn to read if he doesn't like it, and just learn to be a farmer. It's efficient and whatnot. That's shallow.
Anywho, yes there are people who have managed to be successful despite not having gone through the regular school system. Homeschool from certain parents who are good at those kinds of things can be effective, although I've heard stories of it being detrimental to the kid's social life. If it can be demonstrated that a kid can have access to some form of education which has good results, then sure I could stand behind that. But unfortunately, from my perspective, people who don't want to send their kids to school before having even tried it out are wackos, the same kind of people who don't get their kids vaccinated.
|
On January 09 2014 13:44 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.* Education is failing to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok not to send kids to school. Everything is imperfect, and the existence of theoretical models which might be superior (although probably too expensive) is largely irrelevant because if you compare it to the lack of education Not going to school does not mean not getting an education. If you can get an education outside of school it's often the better choice.
And there are millions of kids whose parents wouldn't go to the trouble of getting them to school if it wasn't compulsory. Why should these kids be punished for their parents bad decisions? I want to note, I'm not trying to demonize these people. Simply getting kids to school is difficult, and becoming fully invested in their education is a full time job. I imagine plenty of people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds might simply find it too much of a hassle. You're right that those with the means to do so can probably find a better way to educate themselves than the public school system, and for those people there are private schools.
|
On January 09 2014 13:59 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:44 hypercube wrote:On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.* Education is failing to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok not to send kids to school. Everything is imperfect, and the existence of theoretical models which might be superior (although probably too expensive) is largely irrelevant because if you compare it to the lack of education Not going to school does not mean not getting an education. If you can get an education outside of school it's often the better choice. Well OP specifically said that the kid was essentially not getting homeschooled or anything.
No, he said he didn't like the term. He gave some examples of what their kids were learning and doing, which seemed to be more than the average middle school kid would. So yes, they were getting an education (if you believe what he was saying).
|
On January 09 2014 14:19 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:44 hypercube wrote:On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.* Education is failing to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok not to send kids to school. Everything is imperfect, and the existence of theoretical models which might be superior (although probably too expensive) is largely irrelevant because if you compare it to the lack of education Not going to school does not mean not getting an education. If you can get an education outside of school it's often the better choice. And there are millions of kids whose parents wouldn't go to the trouble of getting them to school if it wasn't compulsory. Why should these kids be punished for their parents bad decisions? I want to note, I'm not trying to demonize these people. Simply getting kids to school is difficult, and becoming fully invested in their education is a full time job. I imagine plenty of people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds might simply find it too much of a hassle. You're right that those with the means to do so can probably find a better way to educate themselves than the public school system, and for those people there are private schools.
There are two related but different questions:
1. Is skipping school better than going to school for some kids?
2. Should parents be allowed to not send their kids to school?
The answer to 1 is clearly yes, and for quite a lot of kids.
The answer to 2 isn't obvious at all.
|
I'm surprised many people think blue's ideas were pretty flawed. I'd say it's definitely not the norm but definitely not flawed.
Personally I was homeschooled from age 6-16 and had a really positive experience growing up. (similar to Birdie I suppose) one thing that was massively beneficial to me by dodging the normal public school path was it freed up time to get out and do many other things, and get more real world experience starting at a younger age. Throughout most of my middle school and high school years my parents had me volunteering once or twice a week at a Red Cross office, the local library and a national park, all of which got me out almost in the working world at a relatively young age interacting with people of all ages, doing work across a wide range of trades, all of which is what prepares you more for the real world than sitting in a classroom all day every day.
Thanks to my volunteering at Red Cross I also got free classes there as well and was CPR and first aid certified at age 13 lol...at age 16 I enlisted as a dual enrollment student at the local community college and started taking a bunch of classes there including all the more difficult high school subjects that parents or other parents of the local homeschool support group couldn't teach like chemistry/calculus. This turned out to be awesome preparation for college because I got used to doing college level work at a pretty early age. By the time I transferred to university at age 20 (after finishing an associates degree at community college) actual college was a breeze, I went to a college that did not really challenge me much academically, but I chose the easy route and went to the school close to home. I was working throughout this entire time as well(and literally saved ALL of my money) so I pretty much paid my entire college education as I went, I had 0 student loans upon graduation with next to no financial help from my parents. I know of almost no one who can say that.
I'm also literally the only person I know who dodged the SAT. Few people that know me even know that about me probably because it's so crazy. I took the PSAT at age 15(scored in the top 10% in English/comprehension, bottom 10% in Math) but after I was nearly full time at the community college at 16 (I had to take a placement test to get into community college which I did fine on) my parents didn't even have me take the SAT, we realized as long as I kept my GPA up decently high (over a 3.5 or something) I would have guaranteed entry as a transfer student to almost any public university in my state (Virginia). SAT suddenly become very irrelevant and seemingly a waste of time. Math was a struggle before age 16, but I pretty much chewed through almost every math class at the community college over a 2 year period and did fine throughout.
I graduated univ at 22 and started working full time in IT as a system admin/consultant a few months later and do fine for myself now 3 years later.
You need a parent who is really willing to be able to do things right though if you're going to be homeschooled. One parent needs to basically make it their full time job which my Mom did. Very small amount of the general population has the ability to do it, we also lived in a good area where there were tons of other homeschoolers and there was a huge support group where 15-20 of us would go to a parents house three times a week for various classes/subjects, taught usually by other Moms who were really well educated in various subjects. Kids are held more accountable when taught this way as well, there's no skipping homework and checking out like I see so easily done in public school. Most of the other homeschool people were very wealthy too, or did it for religious reasons, most kids were very high achievers and always doing work which was well ahead of our actual grades had we been in public school.
|
On January 09 2014 13:42 Tal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:
I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically. Well said. I was also thinking "child abuse" would be an appropriate term to refer to parents who willfully prevent their children from getting an education, although I didn't want to use that term when talking with Blue because I wasn't sure if that would cut our conversation short. This is a strawman, because we aren't comparing school to no education. No one's saying kids should be toiling in fields or watching TV all day.
Sorry, I forgot the word "formal". Formal education.
On January 09 2014 13:29 hypercube wrote:
You should compare schools to the alternative, in this case the parent acting as sort of a mentor.
I did, in the Facebook conversation >.> And Blue told me that he doesn't formally educate his child, his kid reads and sews and stuff, and that the kid is really smart because he's good at math (by some arbitrary metric).
You can't compare a known experience (going to school) to one you don't understand very well.
Seriously? I'm talking about little kids here who may not have a motivated and affluent parent. Go ahead and ask a six year old what he'd like to do on his day off, or you could just watch him watch television and play on his ipod all day. Either way, it's going to be far from the educational experiences he gets at school, and he can go relax at home after he's been at school all day.
I think you are overestimating the amount of learning that takes place [in school].
I think you are underestimating just how much a parent can teach without a support system or any expertise.
And these kids skipped school because of fear.
And you're accusing the school to be the problem here, rather than the environment and town that the school happens to be a part of, which is a red herring. When kids are afraid to leave the house because of gang violence, school is the least of their worries, regardless of how well they could be educated. This doesn't mean that parents are automatically better at instilling academic knowledge.
On January 09 2014 13:44 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.* Education is failing to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok not to send kids to school. Everything is imperfect, and the existence of theoretical models which might be superior (although probably too expensive) is largely irrelevant because if you compare it to the lack of education Not going to school does not mean not getting an education. If you can get an education outside of school it's often the better choice.
Citation needed.
On January 09 2014 13:46 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:
I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically. Well said. I was also thinking "child abuse" would be an appropriate term to refer to parents who willfully prevent their children from getting an education, although I didn't want to use that term when talking with Blue because I wasn't sure if that would cut our conversation short. What you should have been doing is trying to figure out if they were getting an education or not. That's what I meant when I said you weren't fully engaging with your conversation partner.
I asked him what his kid does every day, how he experiences things, and what expertise the dad has. I think that's akin to figuring out if the kid is actually getting an education.
On January 09 2014 14:29 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 14:19 packrat386 wrote:On January 09 2014 13:44 hypercube wrote:On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2014 12:15 hypercube wrote:
I mean, you are a teacher. You could probably list plenty of ways how schools are failing students or at least not enabling them to make the most of their potential. Just think of how you would tutor someone one on one in a subject they had a natural interest in. Then think how you would teach the same thing in a high-school setting to a class of 20. Think about the difference in learning outcomes. That difference is how much the school system is failing the students.* Education is failing to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok not to send kids to school. Everything is imperfect, and the existence of theoretical models which might be superior (although probably too expensive) is largely irrelevant because if you compare it to the lack of education Not going to school does not mean not getting an education. If you can get an education outside of school it's often the better choice. And there are millions of kids whose parents wouldn't go to the trouble of getting them to school if it wasn't compulsory. Why should these kids be punished for their parents bad decisions? I want to note, I'm not trying to demonize these people. Simply getting kids to school is difficult, and becoming fully invested in their education is a full time job. I imagine plenty of people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds might simply find it too much of a hassle. You're right that those with the means to do so can probably find a better way to educate themselves than the public school system, and for those people there are private schools. There are two related but different questions: 1. Is skipping school better than going to school for some kids? 2. Should parents be allowed to not send their kids to school? The answer to 1 is clearly yes, and for quite a lot of kids. The answer to 2 isn't obvious at all.
I think the Yes to Question 1 is conditioned on what the alternative is and what the situation is. If school or school activities are keeping the kid out of trouble or a lifetime of doing nothing but watching television because of deadbeat parents, then it may not be appropriate for him to skip. If the kid's school is shitty and he's some mature self-motivated prodigy who studies and educates himself by some intrinsic passion for a topic, then I'm totally on board with him skipping.
|
On January 09 2014 14:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 13:42 Tal wrote:On January 09 2014 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:
I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically. Well said. I was also thinking "child abuse" would be an appropriate term to refer to parents who willfully prevent their children from getting an education, although I didn't want to use that term when talking with Blue because I wasn't sure if that would cut our conversation short. This is a strawman, because we aren't comparing school to no education. No one's saying kids should be toiling in fields or watching TV all day. Sorry, I forgot the word "formal". Formal education.
Lack of education is child abuse. Lack of formal education isn't. Do you agree?
I think the Yes to Question 1 is conditioned on what the alternative is and what the situation is. If school or school activities are keeping the kid out of trouble or a lifetime of doing nothing but watching television because of deadbeat parents, then it may not be appropriate for him to skip. If the kid's school is shitty and he's some mature self-motivated prodigy who studies and educates himself by some intrinsic passion for a topic, then I'm totally on board with him skipping.
You teach math, don't you? How is the truth of the statement:
There exists x such that P(x) is true
dependent on the value of x? That doesn't even make sense, x is not determined.
Specifically, yes, homeschooling or other alternative forms are terrible for some kids, excellent for others and doesn't make much difference for the rest. Without knowing the person very well you can't know which one it is. From the conversation the parent seemed to have thought it through well enough, so I think it's most likely his kids will benefit from it. I could be wrong of course.
|
On January 09 2014 14:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think the Yes to Question 1 is conditioned on what the alternative is and what the situation is. If school or school activities are keeping the kid out of trouble or a lifetime of doing nothing but watching television because of deadbeat parents, then it may not be appropriate for him to skip. If the kid's school is shitty and he's some mature self-motivated prodigy who studies and educates himself by some intrinsic passion for a topic, then I'm totally on board with him skipping.
Why are you looking at the absolute extremes? Of course if someone's parents are utterly useless he would benefit more from school, and if he's a gifted self-motivated prodigy he would benefit from not going. But no one would dispute that.
It's the middle ground that it's worth talking about. I'm contending that the majority of children would do better under home education. Most parents are going to put time into helping their kids, find people who can help them teach, and get hold of all the best resources. Most people want their kids to get educated, and would be able to do just as good a job as a school up until the kid hits 16 and you start needing more specialised knowledge.
|
On January 09 2014 15:17 Tal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 14:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think the Yes to Question 1 is conditioned on what the alternative is and what the situation is. If school or school activities are keeping the kid out of trouble or a lifetime of doing nothing but watching television because of deadbeat parents, then it may not be appropriate for him to skip. If the kid's school is shitty and he's some mature self-motivated prodigy who studies and educates himself by some intrinsic passion for a topic, then I'm totally on board with him skipping. Why are you looking at the absolute extremes? Of course if someone's parents are utterly useless he would benefit more from school, and if he's a gifted self-motivated prodigy he would benefit from not going. But no one would dispute that. It's the middle ground that it's worth talking about. I'm contending that the majority of children would do better under home education. Most parents are going to put time into helping their kids, find people who can help them teach, and get hold of all the best resources. Most people want their kids to get educated, and would be able to do just as good a job as a school up until the kid hits 16 and you start needing more specialised knowledge.
...That's exactly the reason why I used the extremes, as they're very clear examples of situations where students would be best off in either scenario. I thought it was important to demonstrate that it's still conditional. But sure, the middle ground is where it can get hazy, especially if you're setting up the scenario that you are, where an affluent family has countless connections and resources and basically has homeschooled kids learning from private teachers at home. (Of course, this is a rarity.)
|
On January 09 2014 14:59 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 14:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 13:42 Tal wrote:On January 09 2014 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:
I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically. Well said. I was also thinking "child abuse" would be an appropriate term to refer to parents who willfully prevent their children from getting an education, although I didn't want to use that term when talking with Blue because I wasn't sure if that would cut our conversation short. This is a strawman, because we aren't comparing school to no education. No one's saying kids should be toiling in fields or watching TV all day. Sorry, I forgot the word "formal". Formal education. Lack of education is child abuse. Lack of formal education isn't. Do you agree?
Lack of education is definitely child abuse, but I want to clarify on what I'm considering formal education, to avoid confusion. I consider formal education to not only be children attending stereotypical educational institutions (e.g., schools), but also any homeschooled students who have paid professional teachers and tutors (who do this as a career) educate them and test them at home (this is what many affluent homeschooled families choose). What I don't consider formal education is a child who stays at home with essentially just a parent who thinks he can teach the student "enough stuff" (without having the resources of experts). That's pretty much where I draw the line, although you may just refer to that line as education vs. not actual education (feel free to clarify). But I think any parent who doesn't offer a formal education atmosphere for their children is doing them wrong.
|
On January 09 2014 15:17 Tal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 14:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think the Yes to Question 1 is conditioned on what the alternative is and what the situation is. If school or school activities are keeping the kid out of trouble or a lifetime of doing nothing but watching television because of deadbeat parents, then it may not be appropriate for him to skip. If the kid's school is shitty and he's some mature self-motivated prodigy who studies and educates himself by some intrinsic passion for a topic, then I'm totally on board with him skipping. It's the middle ground that it's worth talking about. I'm contending that the majority of children would do better under home education. Most parents are going to put time into helping their kids, find people who can help them teach, and get hold of all the best resources. Most people want their kids to get educated, and would be able to do just as good a job as a school up until the kid hits 16 and you start needing more specialised knowledge.
This is ludicrous. A massive number of kids are children of single mothers and fathers, or both of their parents work meaning that they are going to be essentially on their own for most of the day. I'm sure most parents care about their children, but a lot of them simply wouldn't have the time to homeschool their kids as its a MASSIVE TIME COMMITMENT. And if they can't afford to send their kids to some form of private tutor or something of the sort then their children are going to receive essentially no education.
Also, we tend to believe that there is an inherent value to having some form of education. Sure a farmer doesn't really need to know how to read, but a lot of the principles of formal education are a critical component of the "good life".
Lastly, you seem to assume that kids are going to know what career they want to go into before kindergarten and that their parents are going to respect that decision. If a kid decides to forgo formal education and then realizes at 14 or 15 that they would like to pursue a career that requires an advanced degree, they are far too far behind at that point to do so. The current system of public education keeps kids options open until they are able to make competent decisions for themselves. This system also doesn't place them at the whim of their parents ("no school for you billy, you're going to be a garbage man").
I'm sure there are a small number of kids for whom public education was a waste of time, however they are an incredibly small minority and nothing is preventing them from attending a private institution that better suits their needs or being homeschooled as long as they have the means to do so.
|
On January 09 2014 15:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 14:59 hypercube wrote:On January 09 2014 14:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 13:42 Tal wrote:On January 09 2014 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 09 2014 13:00 Djzapz wrote:
I'd consider that depriving a kid from a basic education is child abuse and I'd arguing that it's an affront to the child's liberty and their odds of succeeding in life. Even if the education system is indeed imperfect and faulty, it's very much better than nothing, statistically. Well said. I was also thinking "child abuse" would be an appropriate term to refer to parents who willfully prevent their children from getting an education, although I didn't want to use that term when talking with Blue because I wasn't sure if that would cut our conversation short. This is a strawman, because we aren't comparing school to no education. No one's saying kids should be toiling in fields or watching TV all day. Sorry, I forgot the word "formal". Formal education. Lack of education is child abuse. Lack of formal education isn't. Do you agree? Lack of education is definitely child abuse, but I want to clarify on what I'm considering formal education, to avoid confusion. I consider formal education to not only be children attending stereotypical educational institutions (e.g., schools), but also any homeschooled students who have paid professional teachers and tutors (who do this as a career) educate them and test them at home (this is what many affluent homeschooled families choose). What I don't consider formal education is a child who stays at home with essentially just a parent who thinks he can teach the student "enough stuff" (without having the resources of experts). That's pretty much where I draw the line, although you may just refer to that line as education vs. not actual education (feel free to clarify). But I think any parent who doesn't offer a formal education atmosphere for their children is doing them wrong.
I think it depends on the kid. I think there are many middle school kids who could learn perfectly well from online resources or print, although they'd still need access to a mentor to chose some of these resources and help them if they get stuck. They might need a mentor (or even outside resources) for some of the projects they would come up with. Depending on their background the parent could certainly be that mentor.
It's probably only a minority, but I don't think it would be a tiny one. It might not even depend on innate ability. Maybe kids learn to rely on structured curriculum as a crutch in primary school and they could just as well learn to be self-directed learners. This is just wild speculation of course.
In the end what matters is outcomes. If learning isn't happening without the formal structure and constant supervision of professionals then there is problem. If it's happening than great, and no one should try to get in the way.
|
I feel like we're at cross purposes because people are imagining home education to be like school at home. It's not.
To keep pace with/outstrip school kids, you are going to need about 2-3 hours of one to one attention a day, perhaps less now there are better and better online programmes. Now if parents are doing 9-5 jobs and are trapped in a position with no flexibility, then that's going to make things difficult: you obviously don't want to leave kids home alone (home education or not). But if you have any flexibility, it's doable. If there's another way you can make a living it might be better for your kids education, though perhaps not for your career.
None of this requires affluence: most people could do it if they wanted to, just by explaining simple things and helping children follow a course or book. Primary and early secondary school is extremely basic. When I talk about finding people who can help you teach I don't mean employing a tutor.
For example, my parents wanted me to do a history exam. I'd already read a huge amount in the relevant periods, and liked the subject but didn't know how to go about writing an answer to an exam paper. They found a friend of a friend who was a history teacher. I saw him once, we chatted about the exam paper, he told me what they were looking for. I did 3-4 papers in the next couple of weeks, went back to him, he helped and corrected me, and then I took the exam. This was free (though I think they got him a bottle of something as a thank you). Even if they'd paid him for those two hours it wouldn't be some unsustainable cost.
@packrat386. The children don't need to decide anything at a young age: they will by and large study the same subjects as any kid, with the chance to pursue some stuff in greater depth. They still take exams, they are still ticking the boxes needed for going into academia later.
Most home educators completely agree with you that education is integral for the good life. That's why they take their kids out of school... 
|
that parents or other parents of the local home-school support group couldn't teach like chemistry/calculus.
Hmm, did you not learn from books? I learned calculus and chemistry and physics from books, my mum didn't teach me much about it (because she wasn't particularly strong at that level of mathematics).
I was working throughout this entire time as well(and literally saved ALL of my money) so I pretty much paid my entire college education as I went, I had 0 student loans upon graduation with next to no financial help from my parents. I know of almost no one who can say that.
Well you just met another one!
Pretty much, at least. I stopped school at 17, worked for 2 years saving my money, and am now paying my way through university, with a pretty achievable goal of finishing with 0 debt to anyone and not having my parents pay for me at all.
With regards to the original post and un-schooling: I highly suspect that un-schooling tends to not be child-led, but more parent-led. For all that they say the child chooses what they want to learn, I cannot see how children decide to do anything but watch TV and play games all day, unless the parent "nudges" them in the right direction. It may be less disciplined that normal homeschooling, but I doubt it's an "anarchist" method of education in most situations.
Having said that, I don't know for sure, and it'll be different for every family.
This is ludicrous. A massive number of kids are children of single mothers and fathers, or both of their parents work meaning that they are going to be essentially on their own for most of the day. I'm sure most parents care about their children, but a lot of them simply wouldn't have the time to home-school their kids as its a MASSIVE TIME COMMITMENT. And if they can't afford to send their kids to some form of private tutor or something of the sort then their children are going to receive essentially no education.
My parents sacrificed a much more comfortable lifestyle (which they would have had if we had gone to public school and my mum had worked, 2 incomes > 1) to make sure we were home-schooled. I'm not saying that everyone is capable of surviving off a single income, but I think a lot of parents could, particularly in the Western world. You have to make sacrifices to home-school, but for my parents, they were willing to do that for their kids. Children should basically be one of the most important things in a parent's life, and education is one of the most important things in a child's life.
Incidentally, I have none of the formal New Zealand educational qualifications from secondary school (NCEA, Cambridge, and so on). My university doesn't require them, and most universities in New Zealand will either just let home schooled kids in, or have a foundation course (waste of time IMO) before letting you in.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51435 Posts
So he really thinks that the best way for a child to "learn" is to be isolated with their parents and be way more attached to them, then let them go outside the house on their own to school to socially interact with peers there own age and learn on their own? Vs a parent who might not even be the best educated in said field to teach them skills that are not useful? Ala dancing he mentions. He also only mentions two useful skills his children has learnt and that is cooking and sewing. Both of which are going to be pretty small use for a child.
The biggest thing any child (imo of course) needs to learn is the ability to socialize with peers and learn by HIMSELF with just a helping hand from a teacher. By doing this and going to school your given lots of useful information from different fields of education. From history teacher to music teacher, from sports to arts, you get everything. Then from a young age the child might pick something straight away he wants to be, whether it be the next Obama or the next Michael Jordan, everyone starts their dreams as children through school (well i did).
I know of people who live near me who have been home schooled and to say they are completely different to anyone else is a very very very very easy thing to see. They have no social side to them as they are stuck confined to their own home and they have limited education to get into a college for further education or a job that is very hard to get in this current economy to strive towards. I hardly see them now and it always questions you to think what exactly goes on inside their own home.
The only thing i think that is necessary is higher education for people. There are lots of opportunities for people to get jobs and start from the bottom the old fashioned way without having to pay lots of $$ to go to college to then come out of college with just a piece of paper saying you can do X job but have no experience in even working a 9-5 lol.
But that is another debate. For me everything child between 6 and 16 as described in the comments should be made to go to school. If they fail to go social services should be made to question said parents and it go from there. Yes everyone has a right to their own views, but if you ask a child what he wants at 6 he has no idea, ask a teenage what he wants and you will get a response, ask him at 20 what he would of wanted to do he would give you an answer, but then of course it is to late. For me i was always the one of "fuck me school is shit i want a job" soon as you leave school and get a job you realize 1, how easy school was 2, how much fun socially it was and 3, how much opportunities you actually missed out on and had the chance to do.
Just my 2 cents 
Oh and great discussion subject DPB, especially from a teacher this must of been a hard one to bite your tongue in your replies
|
I know of people who live near me who have been home schooled and to say they are completely different to anyone else is a very very very very easy thing to see. They have no social side to them as they are stuck confined to their own home and they have limited education to get into a college for further education or a job that is very hard to get in this current economy to strive towards. I hardly see them now and it always questions you to think what exactly goes on inside their own home.
None of the homeschoolers I know of are like that. Most of them are very social. The only thing about home schoolers that is not "ideal" per se is that their fashion sense almost always SUCKS but not all of them, and plenty of public schoolers have bad fashion sense too.
And fashion is pretty irrelevant in the general scheme of things anyway haha.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51435 Posts
LOL
i can agree with that, they are pretty much "gypsy" style clothed in very BRIGHT yet old fashioned stylings. Wool jumpers are pretty much always seen xD
Which again like you said is nothing wrong its just another thing that makes them stand out to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
