Any Unschoolers here who ditched that method?

[Lisa loves Pooh]

oh...do you think that's what it takes to be 'involved'? Silly me I guess that makes me uninvolved.

I have 4 kids...in three different schools. They are out the door at three different times. Return home at four different times (one's a 1/2 day kindergartener). These kids have a total of 15 extra curricular activities between them. I stay at home but, believe me, I don't eat bon bons. My schedule, just trying to keep everything running smoothly, is bonkers. I've stopped beating myself up about not volunteering.....I know my limits. My true responsibility, first and foremost, is to my own kids, not everybody else's.

I'm a SAHM as well and you would not see me accusing anyone of eating bon bons.

Everyone has their reasons for not being at the accepted level of involvement of some room mother. My point was that it wasn't their business.

I'm sorry you took it the wrong way. I had a longer post but snipped it because I was tired and it was sounding incoherent. Clearly that did not work out well.

 

[knitster]

I don't think 'they don't do as much work' is a big selling point. I've heard the whole 'we get everything done in 2 hours a day!' thing and the justification that because it's one-on-one somehow it's the same amount of work as in an 8-hour school day but... well, I just don't buy that kids are getting the same amount of work or experience with a topic or etc., personally.

I think you're possibly right when it comes to a high school level course load - I can't speak to that as my oldest is only 10. But at the grade school level, it really doesn't take long at all to cover a full days worth of work, unless they're struggling with a topic.

If you think about all the time 'wasted' with a full class room of kids, it makes sense. There's attendance taking, recess, potty breaks, lunch, lining up for this that and the other, moving 20+ kids from one activity to the next, and so forth. At home, we not only don't have to deal with the logistics of 20+ kids, but we also multi task - like watching a math lesson on DVD while we eat lunch or what have you.

 

[pacrosby]

I'm a SAHM as well and you would not see me accusing anyone of eating bon bons.

Everyone has their reasons for not being at the accepted level of involvement of some room mother. My point was that it wasn't their business.

I'm sorry you took it the wrong way. I had a longer post but snipped it because I was tired and it was sounding incoherent. Clearly that did not work out well.

oh no no no no no LOL I knew where you were coming from; that you were clarifying someone else's definition of 'involvment'. I guess I should have worded it differently.

It's getting late. We're all getting alittle punchy

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't think 'they don't do as much work' is a big selling point. I've heard the whole 'we get everything done in 2 hours a day!' thing and the justification that because it's one-on-one somehow it's the same amount of work as in an 8-hour school day but... well, I just don't buy that kids are getting the same amount of work or experience with a topic or etc., personally.

However, the pre-pro company school I looked at, all levels (I think except for one day for the oldest level) end by 7:30 at the latest, so they're over by dinner and there's plenty of time for homework and etc. It's no different than going to music lessons or fencing or whatever other class after school and out with friends for an hour or what have you. Then you go home, have dinner, do homework, go to bed.

I don't quite get the collegiate analogy either - in college, yes you can plan to stack your classes but you still have plenty of homework, papers, etc., that stretch over days.

We used to get our work done in 2 hours...a few years back. It now takes us more time on average.

As far as your companies in your area--you have to remember that every area and dance school/gym is different.

Music lessons are 30-60 minutes (depending on area and skill level...maybe even longer!)...While this is not my kids--the kids on team at the gym are there for 3 to 4 hours 3-5 days per week. Then there is proximity--do you live 5 minutes from wherever you are going or do you live an hour away?

As for college--depends on the student, the classes, and the major. Again--you cannot generalize across the board based on your own paradigm. I don't know why you keep doing that.

We are not trying to convince you that homeschooling would be better for YOUR kids. Only why some people would choose it as an option for THEIR kids. It is a choice after all and no one is forcing you to buy into it and begin that journey.

 

[badblackpug]

I'm confused, because it seems that we're making the same point. I referenced in my thread that there is bias against home-schoolers from many people, but also pointed out that many home-schoolers exhibit similar biases and self-aggrandizing tendencies against those who do not home-school, but don't seem to recognize those biases in their own behaviors. Nowhere did I say that my way is better; in fact, I indicated that I believe that I would NOT be a good teacher of my children and therefore traditional schooling is a better fit for my children. They inherited my DNA and my wife's DNA, and that will provide the professionals plenty of material with which to work as they go through school. I don't think teaching them at home would be healthy for them, or for me.

As to why I don't detail my daughter's accomplishments in this thread or others, it's because she's not a pawn for me to use in proving that my choice is better to a bunch of strangers on the Internet. Nothing personal, but her successes are really none of your business. I've slipped on a few threads, because I'm proud like you are, but I really don't want her story "out there". My point in making that statement is that a ten year old understanding the double helix model of DNA seems to be nothing out of the ordinary, based on my knowledge of the science curriculum in our local schools, and that ten year old sharing their knowledge with their five year old sibling isn't, either. It's kind of like bragging that you're normal; it just strikes me as unnecessary.

I think that's enough for now. I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings.

Very well put.

I wasn't bragging about my 10 year old understanding DNA, nor was I bragging about him explaining it to his 5 year old sister. Actually, I wasn't bragging period - I was stating that watching my kids work together - and with others via web cam - served as a pleasant reminder of why I do what I do - because I enjoy being present for those moments with my kids everyday.

P.S. My 10 year old *doesn't* understand DNA. The lesson he was taught yesterday was his first introduction to the concept, so he most certainly does not understand it. So let the record show that I am not bragging about my children's academic prowess or lack thereof because, according to you, he's behind the average 10 year old who does, apparently, understand DNA.

Yes, you were. Your original post, which wasn't even germane to the subject being discussed, not so subtly was trying to make the point that your kids had some advanced knowledge and opportunity that children who attend traditional school do not.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

oh no no no no no LOL I knew where you were coming from; that you were clarifying someone else's definition of 'involvment'. I guess I should have worded it differently.

It's getting late. We're all getting alittle punchy

Time for bon bons.

 

[hambirg]

Well, he got into college and graduated. He is successful, end of story.

This is what I was responding to. And my my answer was. . .so did Dexter Manley.

I don't know what Tebow's academics are, just pointing out your logic is flawed.

A talented football player going to a big football college and graduating is not proof of their high academic ability. Nor, does it disprove it. So basically it's just useless information to the argument.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is what I was responding to. And my my answer was. . .so did Dexter Manley.

I don't know what Tebow's academics are, just pointing out your logic is flawed.

A talented football player going to a big football college and graduating is not proof of their high academic ability. Nor, does it disprove it. So basically it's just useless information to the argument.

Well, I am not really sure what to say then.

It seems that if the child doesn't end up with a perfect SAT and a full ride to Harvard, they may be deemed an unsuccessful homeschooler.

How what happened to Dexter Manley happened, I have no idea. But we will just have to agree to disagree on the other points. Evidently our definitions of "successful" just aren't the same.

 

[Buckalew11]

About the hours...

In TN, state law says 4 hours of homeschool a day. So you can split that up in anyway you'd like.

However, in HS, DD would start at 7:30, eat lunch with about a 45-60 min. break and then do more school until somewhere between 2 and 3. Usually 3.

 

[knitster]

Yes, you were. Your original post, which wasn't even germane to the subject being discussed, not so subtly was trying to make the point that your kids had some advanced knowledge and opportunity that children who attend traditional school do not.

...no, I wasn't. I mean, you can take it however you want to and I can't stop you from doing so, but that doesn't change the intent of my post.

I've said this before, but it clearly bears repeating - I don't think my kid's are more advanced than their public schooled peers. My kids are delightfully average. They're not soaring beyond their grade level in any of their subjects, they're not building rockets and dissecting frogs in their spare time and I don't have any reason to believe that they would be on any sort of honors track if they were in public school. They're just normal. My son loves math, and hates writing, and his handwriting and spelling are embarrassingly atrocious - even though he can pass his spelling tests with ease, he can't seem to put those words into practice. My daughter excels at phonics and still needs help to count past 30 because she just can't keep those darn numbers straight. They'd both rather play on their computers than read a book any day, though unlike an unschooled child, they don't get that choice.

Average. That's it. Just average kids. Likely not any more or less intelligent than the other 10 and 5 year olds belonging to the various parents in this thread.

 

[princessmom29]

Well, I am not really sure what to say then.

It seems that if the child doesn't end up with a perfect SAT and a full ride to Harvard, they may be deemed an unsuccessful homeschooler.

How what happened to Dexter Manley happened, I have no idea. But we will just have to agree to disagree on the other points. Evidently our definitions of "successful" just aren't the same.

You KEEP saying this, but I don't see where anyone has said or implied that it takes perfect SAT's to be sucessful??? Can you show me what you keep referring to??? All I have seen said is that an athlete getting into and getting a drgree from a school where athletics are a priority is simply NOT idicative of how well they were schooled before college. How does that in any way equate to expecting perfect SATs???

 

[hambirg]

Well, I am not really sure what to say then.

It seems that if the child doesn't end up with a perfect SAT and a full ride to Harvard, they may be deemed an unsuccessful homeschooler.

How what happened to Dexter Manley happened, I have no idea. But we will just have to agree to disagree on the other points. Evidently our definitions of "successful" just aren't the same.

That's not what I'm saying. But as others have pointed out, it just wasn't a good example. A good example would have been somebody that is successful because of their high academic achievement. . .a published professor, some NASA scientist. . .that's all.

I could say public school is wonderful because it produced somebody famous and successful like Charlie Sheen. Yes he's famous and rich, but not because he is somehow academically superior. If I was making an argument for the advantages of a public education, I wouldn't use him as an example.

 

[momx2]

Unfortunately it's not the norm here. I help in the kids classes weekly and go on field trips and such, and most of the parents are very un-involved. Most of the involved ones are only involved to the extent that they check the folders and make sure the kids do their homework. It's bizarre and sad.

What's so bizarre and sad about parent checking the folder and making sure their kids do homework? I work as does my DH, we can not be room parents or go on field trips. My children are in advance classes and make As and Bs and are happy, thriving children. What's so bizarre about that??? Judge much???

 

[mjantz]

We used to get our work done in 2 hours...a few years back. It now takes us more time on average.

As far as your companies in your area--you have to remember that every area and dance school/gym is different.

Music lessons are 30-60 minutes (depending on area and skill level...maybe even longer!)...While this is not my kids--the kids on team at the gym are there for 3 to 4 hours 3-5 days per week. Then there is proximity--do you live 5 minutes from wherever you are going or do you live an hour away?
.

This is us. We're currently at 3 days/week & 2-3 hours in every class. At the top level it's 6 days/week with the same amount of hours or slightly more per day. We're also 30 minutes away & class starts at 4:30 some days. The public school she might funnel into doesn't get out until 4. I might be able to get her a PE waiver for that last hour of the day but what if I can't?

As I said before, this is not a decision I would be making lightly. I need to see where DDs training goes over the next few years & see if she changes her mind about a career. If she decides to try & pursue a career or wants to go for a ballet scholarship we will probably seriously consider homeschooling. If she decides to keep it as a recreational activity we will probably stick with public.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You KEEP saying this, but I don't see where anyone has said or implied that it takes perfect SAT's to be sucessful??? Can you show me what you keep referring to??? All I have seen said is that an athlete getting into and getting a drgree from a school where athletics are a priority is simply NOT idicative of how well they were schooled before college. How does that in any way equate to expecting perfect SATs???

I don't really know. But it is the vibe I am getting. I know MANY homeschoolers that have gone off to college. I also know some who chose not to do so.

But they aren't names anyone here would know and the whole point of why we were discussing Tim Tebow is because I mentioned him as he was my favorite because he was on a list that someone posted that folks said (paraphrasing) was not representative of success because it was full of old dead people and folks they consider weird.

So essentially--I was discussing that list...it just went on a tangent about one person whom folks don't like and don't consider him to be anything impressive as he was an athlete.

The list was regarding successful famous people who homeschooled and made no implications that they were braniacs across the board and the subsequent excuses as to why that list was silly and without merit.

That is all--nothing more.

The list includes several presidents, authors, musicians, and more.

It spans hundreds of years and includes people from the 19th century to present who would have had access to "modern" education. (Modern meaning access to public schooling if they chose to take advantage of it or had the legal obligation to attend.)

But the list was invalid and the discussion ensued.

At this point--I have not heard one cogent explanation as to why the list was invalid. Just some various opinions on how it doesn't count because school wasn't invented yet. Nevermind that many on the list ended up going to university.

The list is simply a source of inspiration to homeschoolers who get repeated messages from the public how it isn't a valid method to educate. The list shows that it was valid to those who received home education. And the people on that list are successful regardless of what their success might be. I disagree with any and all who would suggest otherwise.

Sorry for the jumbled organization and/or defensive nature of this post--I'm tired...and now time to go to bed. Night all!

 

[cornflake]

There's a huge difference between a perfect SAT and an 890. That is a sad score.

If you think about all the time 'wasted' with a full class room of kids, it makes sense. There's attendance taking, recess, potty breaks, lunch, lining up for this that and the other, moving 20+ kids from one activity to the next, and so forth. At home, we not only don't have to deal with the logistics of 20+ kids, but we also multi task - like watching a math lesson on DVD while we eat lunch or what have you.

I've never seen a school in which taking attendance, recess and lunch take up six hours of the day. They take up like an hour combined and kids eat lunch at home too.

As for moving from one activity, most elementary schools I know of don't move the kids much.

I am NOT generalizing. I have not, in any post, said 'everyone does X.' I have repeately made clear that I'm talking about what I know - which is no different in scope, I'd guess, to what anyone else knows. We all know other people, have family in other towns, etc.

As you yourself said, I said companies in my area. I originally asked because I happen to know some serious ballet people and have never heard of anyone dropping out to homeschool because of ballet. I went and looked at the company school in order to see if I was mistaken. I was not. Coconut said their area was the same. There is more than one company here, I'm not talking about Miss Julie's Little Dance Academy or whatever.

Yes, music lessons are an hour. Fencing or whatever is like an hour, or spend an hour hanging out with friends, and that's nearly the same time as the company school on schooldays, it's 2-2.5 hours a day.

I don't know people involved in gymnastics past the like, 6-year-old level, so I have no idea how it works here or elsewhere. I do know people involved in ballet, and have most of my life, and here, it's not like it is wherever that poster lives. That doesn't mean I think everyplace is like here. As you referred to me saying in my area, I thought that was clear.

 

[pacrosby]

That's not what I'm saying. But as others have pointed out, it just wasn't a good example. A good example would have been somebody that is successful because of their high academic achievement. . .a published professor, some NASA scientist. . .that's all.

I could say public school is wonderful because it produced somebody famous and successful like Charlie Sheen. Yes he's famous and rich, but not because he is somehow academically superior. If I was making an argument for the advantages of a public education, I wouldn't use him as an example.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this tangent of the discussion but just in case I'm not....here's a lengthy list of 'famous' people who've been homeschooled...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100303213715AA0fI2G

this is an interesting list too...

http://www.freewebs.com/unitstudyhelps/

 

[princessmom29]

I think you're possibly right when it comes to a high school level course load - I can't speak to that as my oldest is only 10. But at the grade school level, it really doesn't take long at all to cover a full days worth of work, unless they're struggling with a topic.

If you think about all the time 'wasted' with a full class room of kids, it makes sense. There's attendance taking, recess, potty breaks, lunch, lining up for this that and the other, moving 20+ kids from one activity to the next, and so forth. At home, we not only don't have to deal with the logistics of 20+ kids, but we also multi task - like watching a math lesson on DVD while we eat lunch or what have you.

You have hit the nail on the head as to the difference between elemetary and high school. All of that wasted time doesn't happen in my Chemistry and physics classroom. I have 85 min blocks and 75-80 min of that time is spent actively working on the material in one form or another. I takes at least 2-3 hours a week for the vast majority of students to work enough practice problems to achieve a working knowledge of the material. It is one of those things where there is really no subistute for actually doing the work. There is occasionally a really bright student that can grasp the material without that level of practice, but they are rare. Once you add in the hour or 2 a week of lab time required to be proficient there and the time needed to actually teach the lesson you are looking at a good chunk of time, and that is just for one subject. High school SHOULD take more time.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's not what I'm saying. But as others have pointed out, it just wasn't a good example. A good example would have been somebody that is successful because of their high academic achievement. . .a published professor, some NASA scientist. . .that's all.

I could say public school is wonderful because it produced somebody famous and successful like Charlie Sheen. Yes he's famous and rich, but not because he is somehow academically superior. If I was making an argument for the advantages of a public education, I wouldn't use him as an example.

I will say this on last time before I go to bed...

I said he was my favorite on the list. I was prior to that--discussing the aforementioned list. "You" guys (general) got all bent out of shape over him and decided to go to town and sack the quarterback and his credentials.

I never claimed him to be the bee's knees of homeschooling.

What I like most about him is that his success (the sports kind that happened as a homeschooler that led to his football career)--is sparking changes in legislation in various states to allow other homeschool students the same benefits he was provided as a homeschool student in the state of Florida.

But he was nothing more than a side conversation that really had nothing to do with my overall discussion point: the list is an inspiration to homeschoolers because it shows that our very normal kids can achieve great things even if they are homeschooled...and in some cases, maybe even because of being homeschooled.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

There's a huge difference between a perfect SAT and an 890. That is a sad score.

.

Why yes--yes it is.