Any Unschoolers here who ditched that method?

[cornflake]

Just google and you shall find.
And if you are willing, you can actually read about the individuals themselves to learn more.

But you have missed the point completely. These famous people are mentioned to show that home educating is doable. People--without citation and contrary to statistics--like to say that homeschooling doesn't work or that it only works for a small portion of the population. It is an erroneous statement made and accepted often--without citation, by those who question the merit of homeschooling.

Yet you wish others to produce a bibliography?

Did they not mention how Abe Lincoln was educated to you in school?

Just for fun: General Patton: http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4pattong.htm

Another list:http://www.successful-homeschooling.com/famous-homeschoolers.html

My favorite is Tim Tebow.

I wish others to cite things they're cutting and pasting from sources other than themselves. Plagiarism is bad, mmmkay?

I also wish others to use even the most basic level of discernment in using or believing sources.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln was mostly self-taught - because he didn't have the opportunity to attend formal schooling. Touting people who lived 300 years ago as examples of how homeschooling can work is as ridiculous as touting someone who rode in cars in 1895 as an example of how seatbelts are unnecessary. It was an entirely different circumstance, and even if it weren't, the existance of one famous triumph doesn't suggest further triumphs. Just because someone's grandma smoked a pack a day and lived to 95 doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for human beings. Just because someone who spent $200/wk on lottery tickets hit the jackpot doesn't mean you will if you do the same.

 

[Buckalew11]

Agreed.. and LOVE the picture in your sig, Brenda!! Beautiful!!

Jumping back in to agree with this! You look totally different than what I imagined. I thought you were an older lady!


Anyway, I didn't want to further comment since I've sent her this link.

And please, I didn't mean this to be a bash on homeschooling in general. I have a great respect for homeschoolers. All the national spelling bee and geography bee winners seem to be homeschooled.

It's the UNschooling views I'd like my friend to read.

And to K, I sent this to P, too. Love you both. (TTYtomorrow.)

Thanks, y'all. And Aisling, I'm closing in on 50, that's almost as old as my mom!



I know very little about unschooling so I feel unable to comment about it. I used to fell very negative about homeschooling. And then I started doing it.

It has been an amazing experience and I'm glad we did it. We're in our last year of it and DD is doing dual enrollment at a private liberal arts college that she's been accepted to next Fall.

I worried about whether we'd get everything she'd need to go to college. Homeschooling has been an wonderful, yet exhausting, experience. The colleges we have spoken with have been very welcoming of homeschool students. The whole experience has been a very positive one. Done right *for your student*, it can make a huge difference for your student.

 

[IndianSummer]

Yes, I do measure grammatical aptitude as a way of a parent's ability to educate their child. But then again, I am a child of a teacher .

Someone without a high school diploma or GED has no business homeschooling or unschooling their children. We can agree to disagree.

I am also fully aware of the abilities of the teachers at our school. Guess what? It is a Blue Ribbon School (core knowledge curriculum) and we are very happy with our CHOICE! We are lucky to live in a state with an excellent education system.

I'm really not trying to pick on you, just having a fun discussion. I noticed a few people share your sentiments about who should and shouldn't hs their kids based on parental level of education and aptitude, but again, I have to disagree. There is a fascinating study done by the Fraser institute that found that kids home schooled by parents without a high school diploma or GED equivalent performed something like 55 percentile points higher on standardized tests than kids with the same parental background in the ps system. Same sort of results for those from a low income.

If anyone is interested, here is the link, just click on homeschooling 2007. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=13089

As far as grammar, a few good resource books on the topic are all that's needed to make up for mom or dads lack of ability.

 

[Colleen27]

I think every state should have some form of accountability for homeschoolers because when you don't you get whack job losers like those radical unschoolers who won't even teach the kids how to read. They should go to jail for that. If they had been being overseen by the school board maybe somebody would have caught this grave injustice to these kids by now.

I think the only ppl who fear regulation are the ppl who are doing something wrong or doing nothing at all and don't want to be caught.

I sure don't want the state telling me what kind of curriculum I have to use or how many hours a day I have to homeschool my kids but slight regulation is needed to keep ppl from doing what OP's friend is doing to her kids. Or not doing should I say.

It is a fine line to walk, though, because once they start in with accountability you often end up tied to using a similar curriculum to the public schools in order to master the right material at the right ages for those "accountability" tests. I have a good friend who homeschools in PA and that's an ongoing frustration for her - the need to break from her chosen curriculum to make sure they're getting certain lessons in the "right" years for testing purposes, because if the state has deemed that PA history be taught in 4th grade then clearly homeschoolers using a chronological history curriculum are failing their kids most grievously.

The way I see it, every educational method is going to have a certain failure rate. It is a shame but that's just reality. I fail to see the logic in singling out homeschoolers for scrutiny when there are still functionally illiterate kids graduating from public schools and large numbers dropping out without graduating at all. The OP's friend isn't reflective of any schooling method or philosophy- she's reflective of what happens when a parent has no expectations or rules/boundaries for her children.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Wow, you are defensive. Again, I'm going by personal experience with a family member who does not have a high school diploma or a GED but has chosen to unschool.

As far as CHOICE goes, my point was our children go to PS, but use a different curriculum. It is a choice curriculum that is different from what is taught in the PS curriculum. It was bolded for that reason. I have said it multiple times on this thread that I'm not attacking homeschoolers or your reasons for homeschooling. If I didn't have a good PS in my area, I would probably be doing the same thing.

You aimed your grammar criticism at the posters here and only later brought up your relative as proof that only people who don't know how to properly use those words would make such mistakes. I am not certainwhy you would be surprised.

While in less than ideal circumstances that were beyond traumatizing, Jaycee Dugard homeshooled via unschooling (aka no curriculum) her two daughters while never having the opportunity to ever attend high school.
http://www.successful-homeschooling.com/famous-homeschoolers.html

Now clearly--NOT the type of circumstances appropriate at all...but for every anectdote of someone failing their child, more can be found where the child is thriving academically.

What I always find interesting is that a good public school teacher continues to research and update their curriculum to teach their students.

Homeshoolers do not live in a vacuum. We too can research and teach our children and where we are weak, we seek the proper resources for guidelines. For example, my daughter is learning Latin. I haven't a clue about Latin. So we are using a vetted curriculum that does not require any prior knowledge. At first I tried without the videos. Then I decided very quickly to invest the money in the videos so that my daughter would know the correct pronunciations.

We use Math U See because even though I am great at math and test well, I don't necessarily explain it well. This series teaches math the way I understand it and is on video. My kids don't ways use manipulatives, but what is great is that MUS begins very early on with algebraic concepts. It is important to me that my children fully understand the WHY of math and just not rote memorization with little meaning.

 

[knitster]

I wish others to cite things they're cutting and pasting from sources other than themselves. Plagiarism is bad, mmmkay?

I also wish others to use even the most basic level of discernment in using or believing sources.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln was mostly self-taught - because he didn't have the opportunity to attend formal schooling. Touting people who lived 300 years ago as an example of how homeschooling can work is as ridiculous as touting someone who rode in cars in 1895 as an example of how seatbelts are unnecessary. It was an entirely different circumstance, and even if it weren't, the existance of one famous triumph doesn't suggest further triumphs. Just because someone's grandma smoked a pack a day and lived to 95 doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for human beings. Just because someone who spent $200/wk on lottery tickets hit the jackpot doesn't mean you will if you do the same.

So clearly you're going to ignore the fact that I've already stated that the list was posted in a tongue and cheek manner. You just can't let it go - of all the things that have been said in this thread, you're just going to hang onto that list like a dog with a bone. Have at it! I have nothing further to say on the matter since you cannot accept the post for what it was meant to be and insist on trying to make it an academic statement worthy of citation.

Also, I never tried to pass that list off as my own. I assumed that it would be clear to any literate adult that I copied and pasted it. Let the record show that I did not, nor do I claim to have, come up with that list.

I do, however, enjoy the fact that you're glossing over the contemporary, successful, sane homeschool graduates that grace that list.

 

[knitster]

The way I see it, every educational method is going to have a certain failure rate. It is a shame but that's just reality. I fail to see the logic in singling out homeschoolers for scrutiny when there are still functionally illiterate kids graduating from public schools and large numbers dropping out without graduating at all. The OP's friend isn't reflective of any schooling method or philosophy- she's reflective of what happens when a parent has no expectations or rules/boundaries for her children.

EXACTLY! No school - be it public, private, or home is going to be perfect. They will all produce many success and failures.

It is frustrating beyond belief, as a homeschooler, to have to move heaven and earth to prove that you can educate your own children while public schools can do whatever they darn well please without much question at all.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I had seen he list before so knew it wasn't plagiarized. But I do agree That citations are good form.

As for the rest, your logic is flawed. You have now equated homeschooling with being too difficult (compared to travel in a covered wagon) and hazardous (compared to smoking a pack a day).

There are more modern Homeschoolers out there.

And it is MUCH EASIER to homeschool today than I was 300 years ago due to the abundant availability of resources and support.

Just because the car was invented didn't mean we had to stop running or walking. They just made better shoes for the folks who thought it might be rewarding to go 13.1 or 26.2 miles on foot.

Same for homeshool! Those who want to use the school system can and those who don't want to shouldn't have to do so.

The invention of modern schooling did not mean homeschooling had to end. It just provided the means to those incapable of doing it on their own free access to an education that would have been off limits to them otherwise.

It isn't even analogous to he harmful effects of smoking on the body and college acceptance rates show that.

I wish others to cite things they're cutting and pasting from sources other than themselves. Plagiarism is bad, mmmkay?

I also wish others to use even the most basic level of discernment in using or believing sources.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln was mostly self-taught - because he didn't have the opportunity to attend formal schooling. Touting people who lived 300 years ago as examples of how homeschooling can work is as ridiculous as touting someone who rode in cars in 1895 as an example of how seatbelts are unnecessary. It was an entirely different circumstance, and even if it weren't, the existance of one famous triumph doesn't suggest further triumphs. Just because someone's grandma smoked a pack a day and lived to 95 doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for human beings. Just because someone who spent $200/wk on lottery tickets hit the jackpot doesn't mean you will if you do the same.

 

[cornflake]

So clearly you're going to ignore the fact that I've already stated that the list was posted in a tongue and cheek manner. You just can't let it go - of all the things that have been said in this thread, you're just going to hang onto that list like a dog with a bone. Have at it! I have nothing further to say on the matter since you cannot accept the post for what it was meant to be and insist on trying to make it an academic statement worthy of citation.

Also, I never tried to pass that list off as my own. I assumed that it would be clear to any literate adult that I copied and pasted it. Let the record show that I did not, nor do I claim to have, come up with that list.

I do, however, enjoy the fact that you're glossing over the contemporary, successful, sane homeschool graduates that grace that list.

I didn't see you post a response previous to this, this thread is speeding right along.

In my world, though I admit I am formally educated so perhaps my view is coloured by all that scary governmental regulation, if it's not your own, you cite it.

I just went back and perused more closely. There's close to no one contemporary on the list. I did just notice that Horace Mann (who lived like 200 years ago) and Gloria Steinem are on it, which I find even more amusing.

Mann was maybe the biggest proponent of formal, public education, complete with mandatory standards, testing (the horror!), etc., ever, hence there are schools named after him across the country. Using him as an example of homeschooling success is akin to using Ghandi as an example of the positives that come out of colonialism.

Steinem, iirc, didn't go to school regularly because she was forced to care for some ill parent or relative. As soon as she could get back into school, she did and went to h.s. I think, before Smith.

As for this being what I commented on - I commented in the beginning on the friend of the OP needing to be reported and then came home tonight to pages of bickering over homeschooling, which I didn't care to engage in. The list amused me, I posted.

 

[Colleen27]

Exactly!!!! When do your kids learn how the real world is?

Standardized tests aren't perfect, but how can we monitor what your children are learning?

They learn how the real world is every day. Just because there are no bells or extrinsic timetables in their education doesn't mean they never have anything going on that has to be done at a certain time - sports, enrichment classes, music lessons, etc. - and they get more exposure than kids who are away from home all day do to adult responsibilities and household routines.

I personally don't think that kids need to be "groomed" for the daily grind. Either they will pursue educational paths that lead them to accept that as part of their chosen profession or they'll make their own path because they've grown attached to certain flexibilities. There is no value in being taught from a young age to show up when someone else tells you to show up, do what you're told, and look forward to the times when you don't have to do those things. In fact, I think our society could use a lot less of that and a lot more value placed on innovation and entrepreneurship.

 

[knitster]

In my world, though I admit I am formally educated so perhaps my view is coloured by all that scary governmental regulation, if it's not your own, you cite it.

Apparently you've also missed my posts stating that I am also a public school graduate and attended a private university and my husband holds a masters degree in education and, prior to his current job, was a university professor? I am not anti public school and I am not anti formal education and I am certainly not a proponent of unschooling. To assume that I find governmental regulation to be scary would be an erroneous assumption on your part. I invite the government to put all the regulations it desires on the schools that it owns - I just prefer that government kindly step away from those school which it does not own, as it has no business being there. My children, contrary to popular belief here in America, belong to me, not the government.

I don't appreciate the dig, but in light of my biting response to you, I won't say that it's unwarranted.

I apologize, again, for becoming more defensive as this thread continues on.

 

[cornflake]

I had seen he list before so knew it wasn't plagiarized. But I do agree That citations are good form.

As for the rest, your logic is flawed. You have now equated homeschooling with being too difficult (compared to travel in a covered wagon) and hazardous (compared to smoking a pack a day).

There are more modern Homeschoolers out there.

And it is MUCH EASIER to homeschool today than I was 300 years ago due to the abundant availability of resources and support.

Just because the car was invented didn't mean we had to stop running or walking. They just made better shoes for the folks who thought it might be rewarding to go 13.1 or 26.2 miles on foot.

Same for homeshool! Those who want to use the school system can and those who don't want to shouldn't have to do so.

The invention of modern schooling did not mean homeschooling had to end. It just provided the means to those incapable of doing it on their own free access to an education that would have been off limits to them otherwise.

It isn't even analogous to he harmful effects of smoking on the body and college acceptance rates show that.

We disagree. I think there are rare situations in which this can work. Otherwise, frankly, yes I think it's generally ... let's go with 'not beneficial' for people who are often less-than-well-educated themselves to attempt to educate their children in every discipline. Often they do this without having studied child development, any pedagogy, etc., and they often end up relying on DVDs and random programs to 'teach' their kids. I'm speaking about homeschooling in general, not particular posters on the Dis - for all some posters here may say they themselves are educated and etc., in homeschooling in general, this is very often not the case. I've been on other forums with many members very involved in and supportive of homeschooling and their grammar alone would make most people slap regulations on homeschooling in their states.

Past the inadequacy of the teachers, I think the lack of other students is a huge issue. I'm a fan of the socratic method. I don't believe you can learn as much from reading books about a subject as you can from attending a class centered around the subject, involving the books, that incorporates other people as well as instructors to challenge, expand and enrich your interpretations and understanding of the material.

You want to believe it's just as good to have someone who doesn't even hold a college diploma and does not understand algebra his or herself overseeing the math education of their child based on a book or DVD set, that's fine. You want to feel it's just as good to learn American history based on that same type of system, as opposed to a comprehensive course taught by a teacher degreed in the field and educated in pedagogy who designs and tailors lesson plans to the students, who can have classroom discussions and debates about the material? Do whatever you want.

I don't, as bolded above, believe you should be able to, but you can. I think if someone wants to homeschool there should be rigorous oversight and testing to be sure the student is receiving and absorbing what they should.

It is not that my logic is flawed, it's that you don't agree with me. Again,

 

[knitster]

We disagree. I think there are rare situations in which this can work. Otherwise, frankly, yes I think it's generally ... let's go with 'not beneficial' for people who are often less-than-well-educated themselves to attempt to educate their children in every discipline. Often they do this without having studied child development, any pedagogy, etc., and they often end up relying on DVDs and random programs to 'teach' their kids. I'm speaking about homeschooling in general, not particular posters on the Dis.

Past the inadequacy of the teachers, I think the lack of other students is a huge issue. I'm a fan of the socratic method. I don't believe you can learn as much from reading books about a subject as you can from attending a class centered around the subject, involving the books, that incorporates other people as well as instructors to challenge, expand and enrich your interpretations and understanding of the material.

You want to believe it's just as good to have someone who doesn't even hold a college diploma and does not understand algebra his or herself overseeing the math education of their child based on a book or DVD set, that's fine. You want to feel it's just as good to learn American history based on that same type of system, as opposed to a comprehensive course taught by a teacher degreed in the field and educated in pedagogy who designs and tailors lesson plans to the students, who can have classroom discussions and debates about the material? Do whatever you want.

I don't, as bolded above, believe you should be able to, but you can. I think if someone wants to homeschool there should be rigorous oversight and testing to be sure the student is receiving and absorbing what they should.

It is not that my logic is flawed, it's that you don't agree with me. Again,

I, having majored in elementary education in college, would have to disagree with you. Are there excellent teachers out there who are passionate about what they do and truly teach their students to the best of their ability? Definitely. I was privileged to take classes from some of those teachers during my schooling years. But are there also just as many (if not more) teachers who just do enough to get by and sail students on to the next grade? Absolutely, I had plenty of those teachers as well.

Homeschooled students have plenty of opportunities to learn with other students. My kids are involved in co-ops, entomology classes taught by experts in the field, sports teams, etc etc. Their learning experiences are much more diverse than what would be found in a public school setting. Is that true for all homeschoolers? No, but it's true for the vast majority of homeschoolers that I know.

I don't, as bolded above

Lastly, if we're going to nit pick at homeschooling moms for homonym typos, I have to pick on my personal forum pet peeve. Bolded is not a word. Boldface is the correct verb used in the printing vernacular, and embolden would be the actual verb form of the word bold, though it actually means to become brave so doesn't quite make sense when talking about typing.

Carry on.

 

[Buckalew11]

We disagree. I think there are rare situations in which this can work. Otherwise, frankly, yes I think it's generally ... let's go with 'not beneficial' for people who are often less-than-well-educated themselves to attempt to educate their children in every discipline. Often they do this without having studied child development, any pedagogy, etc., and they often end up relying on DVDs and random programs to 'teach' their kids. I'm speaking about homeschooling in general, not particular posters on the Dis - for all some posters here may say they themselves are educated and etc., in homeschooling in general, this is very often not the case. I've been on other forums with many members very involved in and supportive of homeschooling and their grammar alone would make most people slap regulations on homeschooling in their states.

Past the inadequacy of the teachers, I think the lack of other students is a huge issue. I'm a fan of the socratic method. I don't believe you can learn as much from reading books about a subject as you can from attending a class centered around the subject, involving the books, that incorporates other people as well as instructors to challenge, expand and enrich your interpretations and understanding of the material.

You want to believe it's just as good to have someone who doesn't even hold a college diploma and does not understand algebra his or herself overseeing the math education of their child based on a book or DVD set, that's fine. You want to feel it's just as good to learn American history based on that same type of system, as opposed to a comprehensive course taught by a teacher degreed in the field and educated in pedagogy who designs and tailors lesson plans to the students, who can have classroom discussions and debates about the material? Do whatever you want.

I don't, as bolded above, believe you should be able to, but you can. I think if someone wants to homeschool there should be rigorous oversight and testing to be sure the student is receiving and absorbing what they should.

It is not that my logic is flawed, it's that you don't agree with me. Again,

In a perfect school, with a perfect teacher, with perfect students, I'd agree with you. But really, when teachers and students tell me about their school day, it isn't quite so perfect. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with our systems here but, still, TN was ahead of NJ when I moved here.

 

[cornflake]

I, having majored in elementary education in college, would have to disagree with you. Are there excellent teachers out there who are passionate about what they do and truly teach their students to the best of their ability? Definitely. I was privileged to take classes from some of those teachers during my schooling years. But are there also just as many (if not more) teachers who just do enough to get by and sail students on to the next grade? Absolutely, I had plenty of those teachers as well.

Homeschooled students have plenty of opportunities to learn with other students. My kids are involved in co-ops, entomology classes taught by experts in the field, sports teams, etc etc. Their learning experiences are much more diverse than what would be found in a public school setting. Is that true for all homeschoolers? No, but it's true for the vast majority of homeschoolers that I know.



Lastly, if we're going to nit pick at homeschooling moms for homonym typos, I have to pick on my personal forum pet peeve. Bolded is not a word. Boldface is the correct verb used in the printing vernacular, and embolden would be the actual verb form of the word bold, though it actually means to become brave so doesn't quite make sense when talking about typing.

Carry on.

I absolutely agree there are working schoolteachers with abysmal skills. In some other thread I mentioned an elementary teacher in my area who sent a student home with a note which was so lacking in coherence, correct grammar, spelling, etc., it made the front page of the local newspapers. There's no excuse for that; teachers with poor skills should be sacked.

However, there are means to find and dismiss them. There are means to remove children from their classrooms if it becomes hard to get them dismissed. That there are places with no real oversight whatsoever not only of the people doing the teaching but of students' level of comprehension or achievement, makes that more an issue, imo.

I did not say anything about your homonym error. I would argue that 'bolded' is in common use; I admit I get annoyed every time I hear 'irregardless,' about which the same argument could be made though so... yet again,

I don't get as irritated as when I hear or see the '10 items or less' usage though. That one really bugs me and I just heard it in a dang radio ad - something about 50 times or less... sigh.

 

[knitster]

I absolutely agree there are working schoolteachers with abysmal skills. In some other thread I mentioned an elementary teacher in my area who sent a student home with a note which was so lacking in coherence, correct grammar, spelling, etc., it made the front page of the local newspapers. There's no excuse for that; teachers with poor skills should be sacked.

However, there are means to find and dismiss them. There are means to remove children from their classrooms if it becomes hard to get them dismissed. That there are places with no real oversight whatsoever not only of the people doing the teaching but of students' level of comprehension or achievement, makes that more an issue, imo.

I did not say anything about your homonym error. I would argue that 'bolded' is in common use; I admit I get annoyed every time I hear 'irregardless,' about which the same argument could be made though so... yet again,

I don't get as irritated as when I hear or see the '10 items or less' usage though. That one really bugs me and I just heard it in a dang radio ad - something about 50 times or less... sigh.

I think we've found some common ground to agree on, here. I do think that the situation described in the OP is reprehensible and should not be happening in this day and age. Every child deserves a quality education. We just disagree on how situations like this should be prevented. I think locking down homeschoolers with more laws and restrictions will only serve to hinder the good, law abiding homeschoolers and drive the bad homeschoolers further into hiding, thus further isolating their children.

I knew you weren't the person who nit picked about the homonyms, I was just using you as an example. I, too, hate the use of 'irregardless' and '10 items or less'. Like fingernails on a chalkboard. And don't even get me started on 'cuz' and 'ain't' - both heard daily here in the south.

 

[hambirg]

The difference is that her kids have the opportunity to learn and I strongly suspect they will want to as they mature, probably very soon. It's not whether they will learn to read it's a question of when. Especially in today's society with so much done on computers and texting etc. The motivation will come and no one has been breathing down their necks pressuring them on the issue, so they won't be turned off to reading like a lot of frustrated kids get.

See, I'm not willing to bet my children's futures on "strongly suspect." What if it doesn't happen? What if there's a problem? Now the benefit of early intervention has passed. There is an opportunity cost here. I'm just not willing to make that gamble.

 

[IndianSummer]

We disagree. I think there are rare situations in which this can work. Otherwise, frankly, yes I think it's generally ... let's go with 'not beneficial' for people who are often less-than-well-educated themselves to attempt to educate their children in every discipline. Often they do this without having studied child development, any pedagogy, etc., and they often end up relying on DVDs and random programs to 'teach' their kids. I'm speaking about homeschooling in general, not particular posters on the Dis - for all some posters here may say they themselves are educated and etc., in homeschooling in general, this is very often not the case. I've been on other forums with many members very involved in and supportive of homeschooling and their grammar alone would make most people slap regulations on homeschooling in their states.

Did you see the Fraser Institute study that I posted? It seems that study demonstrates that it's beneficial for kids with less than well educated parents to homeschool, to the tune of 55 percentile points on standardized tests compared to their publicaly schooled counterparts.

Past the inadequacy of the teachers, I think the lack of other students is a huge issue. I'm a fan of the socratic method. I don't believe you can learn as much from reading books about a subject as you can from attending a class centered around the subject, involving the books, that incorporates other people as well as instructors to challenge, expand and enrich your interpretations and understanding of the material.

The Socratic method can be mimicked in homeschool settings with families, co-ops and other classes.

You want to believe it's just as good to have someone who doesn't even hold a college diploma and does not understand algebra his or herself overseeing the math education of their child based on a book or DVD set, that's fine. You want to feel it's just as good to learn American history based on that same type of system, as opposed to a comprehensive course taught by a teacher degreed in the field and educated in pedagogy who designs and tailors lesson plans to the students, who can have classroom discussions and debates about the material? Do whatever you want.

Unfortunately, there usually isn't time for discussions and debates in the ps classroom. And homeschooling parents often times brush up on the subject they're teaching the same way a school teacher would if they were to change grades.

I don't, as bolded above, believe you should be able to, but you can. I think if someone wants to homeschool there should be rigorous oversight and testing to be sure the student is receiving and absorbing what they should.

Many schooled kids aren't absorbing what they should, so why should we hold parents to a higher standard first? Studies show homeschooling parents are not doing a worse job than most public schools.

It is not that my logic is flawed, it's that you don't agree with me. Again,

Maybe, but your logic just may be flawed too.

 

[IndianSummer]

See, I'm not willing to bet my children's futures on "strongly suspect." What if it doesn't happen? What if there's a problem. Now the benefit of early intervention has passed. There is an opportunity cost here. I'm just not willing to make that gamble.

There is not a window of time, whereby if a person has not learned to read, they no longer can. It doesn't work that way. We're often times lead to believe that about many things, but it isn't always true.

 

[hambirg]

There is not a window of time, whereby if a person has not learned to read, they no longer can. It doesn't work that way. We're often times lead to believe that about many things, but it always true.

I know you believe this, but there is much research that doesn't support what you're saying and a majority of neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists would disagree.

And just for examples sake. . .sometimes it does work that way. There is something known as a period of susceptibility of deprivation. There was a well know study in the 1960's where they had sewn shut one eye of kittens during a critical time in their development. What they learned is that the kittens even after the sutures were removed, were then blind in that eye. . .even though there was nothing really "wrong" with the eye. There is a huge body of research that proves that there are critical windows of development. You have to remember that children's brains are developing and there is brain plasticity. These things we know. I am much more comfortable relying on the hard science than on some unproven theory based on anecdotal stories.