Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum
Mike Dobony
Mike D.
M a r k T
> What do you think of it?
From http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p45.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Robinson Home School Curriculum Version 2.2 includes:
> Books:
Assumes literacy of the student which may not be the case.
> Encyclopedia: The complete 30,000 page 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
Excellent for high school and above but not for youngerr readers. Try World
Book or Encarta for those under 12 yrs old.
> Dictionary: The complete 400,000 word 1913 Webster's Dictionary
Absolutely dreadful!!!!! A good dictionary is updated every year (or at
least every few years). get something modern and suited to the age group.
Aussies should be using the Macquarie Dictionary with an edution suitable
for the age group.
> Science Texts: All of the required science books and answer keys.
Dreadful!!!! Think HANDS ON not work from a text book ( unless absolutely
necessary)
> Special: A large number of woodcut illustrations with special emphasis on
> early American history and geography. >Especially noteworthy are over
> 1,000 detailed woodcuts of civil war events that were produced before 1890
> from >sketches by individuals, including many famous figures, who actually
> participated in the war. Study of this collection >of illustrations and
> the accompanying narrative gives the student a very clear understanding
> and visualization of the >events.
Yuck! Visit the places rather than read from a textbook. if not able to
visit view a documentary.
>Also included is the original King James Version of the Bible
Dreadful except as a literary form. The language is out dated and the text
therefore does not make sense to modern ears. Try a contemporary
translation or a paraphrase like The Message.
> Language Skills:
Yuck! Cannot effectively be taught from a book! Practise verbally.
> Phonics
Ignorant! One also needs a mix of the whole language approach. Phonis is
NOT the cure all for everything.
> Course of Study: A 100 page discourse by Dr. Art Robinson discussing all
> the aspects of a self-teaching >homeschool which also incorporates the
> experiences of the many families who have found this to be most effective
> >in their own homes.
Pupils require interaction with at least one other person - a teacher. This
"box:" is the lazy person's way of homeschooling and not worth the money you
will outlay for it.
> It takes a concentrated effort to get on a different track for our
> children and deprogram ourselves from an institutional >model of dependent
> learning.
This is TOTALLY dependent upon good literacy skills to begin with. It is
lock-step without any deviation from the program.
I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.
--
misc.education.home-school.misc is a forum for the discussion of any
and all aspects of home-schooling: from completely unschooled and
child-directed to rigidly curriculum-based and parent-led; from tips
and experiences to meta-discussions of the nature of ideas and the
structure of society.
you should plan to use a threaded newsreader and/or kill
files before complaining about what someone else finds home-school related.
- Jon Shemitz (Founder of misc.education.home-school.misc}
Snapper
> you should plan to use a threaded newsreader and/or kill
> files before complaining about what someone else finds home-school
> related.
> - Jon Shemitz (Founder of misc.education.home-school.misc}
So what does Jon Shemitz suggest when "some" changes their email address
every hour to avoid kill files?
leuw...@lycos.com
M a r k T wrote:
> "Mike Dobony" wrote:
>
>
I am completely new to this, had never heard of these home schools
until two or three days ago.
Does it mean that parents all alone teach their children?
Would they teach their children all the way up to the university?
Is there any supervision?
M a r k T
> I am completely new to this, had never heard of these home schools
> until two or three days ago.
>
> Does it mean that parents all alone teach their children?
Some could, some others may hire tutors to help (very expensive).
> Would they teach their children all the way up to the university?
Some do. It is mostly used in the K - 6 grouping (5yrs to 12yrs old)
> Is there any supervision?
In some places, yes (Mandatory supervision by the Board of Studies in New
South Wales, Australia where I come from). Half the states in the USA have
NO supervision whatsoever. You just register your name.
Google for my thread .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"THE FUNDAMENTALS OF EXTREMISM"
The Christian Right in America
Edited by Kimberly Blaker
New Boston Books, Inc.
Michigan 2003
LITTLE ONES TO HIM BELONG
by Bobbie Kirkhart p. 48 ff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is an excerpt from the book which poses some of the problems associated
with homeschool.
For further information pro homeschooling the following sites are useful:
http://www.home-school.com/
http://www.homeschoolzone.com/
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/aun/homeschool/
For a more scholarly approach .....
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=homeschool&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
Welcome to misc.education.home-school.christian!
M a r k T
>> you should plan to use a threaded newsreader and/or kill
>> files before complaining about what someone else finds home-school
>> related.
>> - Jon Shemitz (Founder of misc.education.home-school.misc}
>
> So what does Jon Shemitz suggest
1. Don't complain about what someone else finds home-school related.
2. misc.education.home-school.christian is a PUBLIC newsgroup which is
"UNMODERATED and basically open to ANY and ALL HOMESCHOOLING DISCUSSIONS,
with the understanding that readers will [NOT] use ... flame throwers."
3. Get a life! Don't worry about it. Ignore it.
4. Discuss Christian homeschooling rather than other people.
PS. Cert II WTA are allowed to use the word "fail" despite your failure to
understand adult education and training. Context! Always context!!! The
use is linked to the important difference between assessment and evaluation
... part of what I studied for in my Masters in Adult Education ... which
was on top of my other degrees, diplomas, TAFE certificates etc ... and
certificates in Christian Schooling (though these numerous Christian
Schooling certificates are virtually worthless in reality)
--
misc.education.home-school.misc is a forum for the discussion of any
and all aspects of home-schooling: from completely unschooled and
child-directed to rigidly curriculum-based and parent-led; from tips
and experiences to meta-discussions of the nature of ideas and the
structure of society.
you should plan to use a threaded newsreader and/or kill
Mike Dobony
"M a r k T" <wh@the000000000000000000010> wrote in message
news:43ae6ffa$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Snapper" wrote:
>
> >> you should plan to use a threaded newsreader and/or kill
> >> files before complaining about what someone else finds home-school
> >> related.
> >> - Jon Shemitz (Founder of misc.education.home-school.misc}
> >
> > So what does Jon Shemitz suggest
>
>
> 1. Don't complain about what someone else finds home-school related.
>
Why don't you follow your own advice!
> 2. misc.education.home-school.christian is a PUBLIC newsgroup which is
> "UNMODERATED and basically open to ANY and ALL HOMESCHOOLING DISCUSSIONS,
> with the understanding that readers will [NOT] use ... flame throwers."
>
But NO group is open to trolls with flame throwers. We are to DISCUSS, not
CONDEMN. Why don't you READ what you write and FOLLOW it?
Matt 7:1-6
7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure
ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine
eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and
rend you.
KJV
> 3. Get a life! Don't worry about it. Ignore it.
>
> 4. Discuss Christian homeschooling rather than other people.
>
Again, follow your OWN advice!
> PS. Cert II WTA are allowed to use the word "fail" despite your failure to
> understand adult education and training. Context! Always context!!! The
> use is linked to the important difference between assessment and
evaluation
> ... part of what I studied for in my Masters in Adult Education ... which
> was on top of my other degrees, diplomas, TAFE certificates etc ... and
> certificates in Christian Schooling (though these numerous Christian
> Schooling certificates are virtually worthless in reality)
>
YOU are a very good example of why many choose homeschooling over public
schools. Many parents done' want wacko's of several assorted flavors
(teaching fantasy as science, shoving homosexualality donwn our children's
throats, sexual abuse in the name of education, etc.) to teach/destroy
their children.
With all your claimed education you are quite ignorant and have extremely
poor comprehension skills. Again, quite a strong reason for choosing
homeschooling over public schools.
>
> --
> misc.education.home-school.misc is a forum for the discussion of any
> and all aspects of home-schooling: from completely unschooled and
> child-directed to rigidly curriculum-based and parent-led; from tips
> and experiences to meta-discussions of the nature of ideas and the
> structure of society.
>
> you should plan to use a threaded newsreader and/or kill
> files before complaining about what someone else finds home-school
related.
> - Jon Shemitz (Founder of misc.education.home-school.misc}
One must also leave themselves open to being kill filed by NOT changing
their address every 2 hours. GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
M a r k T
> But NO group is open to trolls with flame throwers. We are to DISCUSS,
> not
> CONDEMN. Why don't you READ what you write and FOLLOW it?
Why don't you read the first month of postings at
misc.education.home-school.christian which discussed the pros abnd CONS of
chritianschooling?
<snippeth bible verse vomit ... Bible justification Genesis 1:1 - Revelation
22:21>
>> 4. Discuss Christian homeschooling rather than other people.
>
> Again, follow your OWN advice!
&
> YOU
"You" is people - not homeschooling.
<snippeth ad hominem>
You seem more interested in talking about ME than Christian homeschooling.
Why is that?
Why don't you start following the charter of
misc.education.home-school.christian?
Have you got something to discuss about Christian homeschooling or are you
just a troll that spews forth ad hominems about me?
Kanga Mom
Mike Dobony wrote:
> Anybody use this? What do you think of it?
>
> Mike D.
I have not used it, but I've known other homeschoolers who liked it,
and their children seemed to be doing well.
Reading this thread it looks to me like I see a ringing endorsement for
at least giving it a look.:-)
Kanga
King George John
"M a r k T" <wh@the000000000000000000009> wrote in message
news:43ae...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> <leuw...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> I am completely new to this, had never heard of these home schools
>> until two or three days ago.
>>
>> Does it mean that parents all alone teach their children?
>
> Some could, some others may hire tutors to help (very expensive).
OR they just might join an informal home education co-op where home
schooling parent "teach" small classes (almost always less than 10) in areas
where they have particualr expertise.
I use such a co-op for Spanish instruction. The teacher was born in Spain
and the quality of her instruction is more important than the fact the
"class" only meets once a week. If they need it, I would be quite
confortable teaching math, physics, and "general science." Since we live
in a "high tech" area, such skills are commonplace hereabout. The co-op
has no shortage of ready, willing, and able instructors who work for no fee.
THE problem with home education is "certification."
IMO such things as a "home school transcript" are silly. The only
certification that will turn heads will be AP test, ACT, and SAT results.
In some geographical areas, continuing permission to home educate will
require some form of objective third party evaluation.
>
>
>> Would they teach their children all the way up to the university?
>
> Some do. It is mostly used in the K - 6 grouping (5yrs to 12yrs old)
Yep! That's where home educators separate the "men" from the "boys."
Most parents COULD (IMO) teach to grade 12 using third party materials and
working hard to stay ahead of the student. The third party packages are
expensive and since, obviously, only one parent works the cost can be a
burden.
>
>> Is there any supervision?
>
> In some places, yes (Mandatory supervision by the Board of Studies in New
> South Wales, Australia where I come from). Half the states in the USA
> have NO supervision whatsoever. You just register your name.
That's debatable.
Frankly, I would like to see the public systems be required to offer the
same testing services given to "public" students to the home and privately
educated. Privately arranged testing services can be expensive.
I don't think the home educators have much to fear from such testing: most
of the home educated will test above most of the public educated. Those
who don't will be recognized as a potential problem and the public system
is unlikely to go out of its way to take on more problem students. They
will likely recognize that home education is the BEST way to teach the
disabled. But if the public system insists, they are obligated to provide
a good education.
Kanga Mom
King George John wrote:
>[ ]> IMO such things as a "home school transcript" are silly. The only
> certification that will turn heads will be AP test, ACT, and SAT results.
> In some geographical areas, continuing permission to home educate will
> require some form of objective third party evaluation.
Our daughter applied to three colleges (and was accepted at each one,
but could only afford the local community college even with her
scholarships). Her SAT scores were quite good (the verbal side was
near perfect). They each still wanted to see a homeschool transcript.
The community college sent it back for correction because we forgot to
include the date she graduated. I suspect they just needed to check
the proper boxes or something.
Kanga
Snapper
Cert IV WTA are not aloud to use the words "fail" or "failure" when
assessing - how long ago did you do your training?
> ... part of what I studied for in my Masters in Adult Education ... which
> was on top of my other degrees, diplomas, TAFE certificates etc ... and
> certificates in Christian Schooling (though these numerous certificates
> are virtually worthless in reality)
Well said.
Opps ..... did I cut out a word or two and change the meaning of what you
were saying?
Um ah ..... naughty naughty!
leuw...@lycos.com
King George John wrote:
> "M a r k T" <wh@the000000000000000000009> wrote in message
> news:43ae...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> and the quality of her instruction is more important than the fact the
> "class" only meets once a week. If they need it, I would be quite
> confortable teaching math, physics, and "general science." Since we live
> in a "high tech" area, such skills are commonplace hereabout.
So yours is not a typical case.
Undereducated people do not often realize how much there is that they
do not know. They would be awful educaters.
And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
> The co-op
> has no shortage of ready, willing, and able instructors who work for no fee.
>
> THE problem with home education is "certification."
>
> IMO such things as a "home school transcript" are silly. The only
> certification that will turn heads will be AP test, ACT, and SAT results.
> In some geographical areas, continuing permission to home educate will
> require some form of objective third party evaluation.
So the State will get the last word anyway.
M a r k T
>> Anybody use this? What do you think of it?
>
> I've known other homeschoolers who liked it, and their children seemed to
> be doing well.
SEEMED?????
How did the homeschooler KNOW the children were doing well????????
NO IDEA!!!!!!!
The ol' problem of homeschoolers not knowing the difference between
assessment and evaluation - a vital copmponent to qualkty education!!!!!!
The homeschooler DIDN'T KNOW!!!!!!
> Reading this thread it looks to me like I see a ringing endorsement for
> at least giving it a look.
You MUST be joking!
I spoke about this curriculum today with an Aussie Catholic educator. She
was stunned that such a dreadful product was for sale! Was it written by a
team of demented monkeys at typewriters????
As a professional educator with 30 years experience (including tiome as a
School principoal and a curriculum designer) and with several degrees, it is
my professional opinion that the Robinson Self-Teaching Home School
Curriculum should NEVER be used for anything other than an example of what
not to do. (But what would I know about education compared to an amateur
homeschooler?!)
Use the Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum box to put your
garbage in!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum
- TOTALLY dependent upon good literacy skills to begin with.
- Lock-step without any deviation from the program.
- 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica used - outdated and too complicated for
younger readers
- 1913 Webster's Dictionary used - outdated and too complicated for younger
readers
- Science texts instead of hands on experimentation and disvcovery learning.
- Original King James Version of the Bible - outdated and language too
complicated for any child of any age
-Phonics only without the addition of whole language approach, etc.
- Claims to be "self-teaching" but pupils require interaction with at least
one other person - a teacher.
This "box:" is the lazy person's way of homeschooling and not worth the
money you
will outlay for it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the utter shite at
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p45.htm
M a r k T
> Undereducated people do not often realize how much there is that they
> do not know. They would be awful educaters.
Yep! This is why homeschooling works best with highly educated parents and
WORST with undereducated people. (If you mention undereducated
homeschoolers you are supposed to be a "troll" according to some of the
thugs on misc.education.home-school.christian who do not want to face
reality.) One also needs a healthy bank balance which excludes many poorer
families.
In other words:
Homeschooling works BEST if you are very educated and weathy.
Homeschooling works LEAST if you are undereducated and poor.
> And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
> envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
... where they socialise with other kids and form friendships and
experiences from which homeschool children are excluded.
I still have friends that I made in Kindergarten.
Do homeschooled children get to see their friends every day from Monday to
Friday?
M a r k T
> Cert IV WTA are not aloud (sic) to use the words "fail" or "failure"
Absolute crap!
Aussie Cert IV WTA are allowed to use the word "fail" despite your failure
to
understand adult education and training. Context! Always context!!! The
use is linked to the important difference between assessment and evaluation
... part of what I studied for in my Masters in Adult Education ... which
was on top of my other degrees, diplomas, TAFE certificates etc ... and
certificates in Christian Schooling (though these numerous Christian
Schooling certificates are virtually worthless in reality)
>when assessing
Exactly!!!! What have I stated above????
Learn English conmprehension!
"Context! Always context!!! The use is linked to the important difference
between assessment and evaluation"
--
M a r k T
> Our daughter applied to three colleges ... They each still wanted to see a
> homeschool
> transcript. The community college sent it back for correction because we
> forgot to
> include the date she graduated.
Good grief!
One wonders how well the homeschool assessment and evaluation of the child
can be when one can't fill in a form properly!
Oh ... I forgot ... Kanga Mom doesn't know the difference between assessment
and evaluation!
DOH!
M a r k T
> I use such a co-op for Spanish instruction.
I have used parents to help teach foreign languages in my classrooms. A
person who has the particular language as their first language is a great
asset to any classroom.
Oh ... I forgot ... I'm supposed to be troll and to not like parental
involvement in schools.
Dalene Barnes
<leuw...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Undereducated people do not often realize how much there is that they
> do not know. They would be awful educaters.
Not necessarily (but possible - of course. OTOH, I've had HIGHLY
"educated" professors who could not pass a coherant thought onto the class!)
Most people - even those you're putting in the "undereducated" class (BTW -
where is that? High school drop out? No college? some college? Only a
Bachelors...?) know how to find a library, and can log onto the internet. A
common misconception is that learning can only take place if someone else
who already knows everything is there to make you learn it. That is simply
false. Many times, especially as our kids get older, we are the
facilitators, not the teachers. I don't have to have read Moby Dick for my
daughter to read it and learn from it. I don't have to have already read
and completed an economics text book for my child to work through it and
learn from it. There often may come a point when further explanation is
needed; but more often, the books make it very easy for both child and
parent to glean the knowledge necessary for both the class and life.
> And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
> envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
No. At least none of mine did. They were in a private school, and we
pulled them out to home school. After about the first month, they were sold
on home schooling, and now feel sympathy for their public schooled friends.
Imagine! Having to leave the house the same time as Dad every morning!
Imagine, NOT being able to do your math outside! Imagine, no Shakespeare
slumber parties on a "school night!" Imagine - no literature in your
jammies on your bed! Imagine - having to STOP in the middle of an awesome
project going perfectly just because a bell rang! shudddddder......how do
they ever survive??? And my girls report that more and more of their
friends who are sent off to school say they wish their parents would home
school them!
Dalene
King George John
>
> Yep! This is why homeschooling works best with highly educated parents
> and WORST with undereducated people.
Well, if the goal of the education is to prepare each student for that
portion of the "real world" he is likely to face when he is on his own, it's
not difficult to make the arguement that an "undereducated" parent can
better prepare his kid for the real world than your typical "professional
educator."
The reality is that the "success stories" of public education are the sons
and daughters of parents who are better educated and smarter that the vast
majority of the "professional educators."
With the except of parents who locked the kids in the basement or attic
there just aren't home educators who do as poorly as the "bottom 1/3rd" of
the public schools.
>
. (If you mention
King George John
<leuw...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1135584950.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> King George John wrote:
>> "M a r k T" <wh@the000000000000000000009> wrote in message
>> news:43ae...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> I use such a co-op for Spanish instruction. The teacher was born in
>> Spain
>> and the quality of her instruction is more important than the fact the
>> "class" only meets once a week. If they need it, I would be quite
>> confortable teaching math, physics, and "general science." Since we
>> live
>> in a "high tech" area, such skills are commonplace hereabout.
>
> So yours is not a typical case.
>
> Undereducated people do not often realize how much there is that they
> do not know. They would be awful educaters.
By most RATIONAL standards, most "professional educators" are
"undereducated." They may have a degree in ("elementary education") or
"math instruction" but by the standards of the real world, they don't know
their assess from a bunch of holes in the ground. Most of their
"expertise" is intrepreting the jargon that others in their "profession"
generate to escape accountability.
>
> And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
> envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
"Envy" is a two way street.
It just isn't hard for a home student to make a "public" student envious.
>
>> The co-op
>> has no shortage of ready, willing, and able instructors who work for no
>> fee.
>>
>> THE problem with home education is "certification."
>>
>> IMO such things as a "home school transcript" are silly. The only
>> certification that will turn heads will be AP test, ACT, and SAT results.
>> In some geographical areas, continuing permission to home educate will
>> require some form of objective third party evaluation.
>
> So the State will get the last word anyway.
Maybe.
No one here would deny Caesar's due. If the state wants to mandate certain
tests and the government provides for public access to the preparation
materials (think "driver's education") then few home educators would object.
But if the state plays games and changes the names every few years and only
passes down the word to "professional" educators tha't just not fair.
It seems that every half generator the "professionals" change the way math
is taught and the geographical divisions of the state and the selection of
which "native American" tribes are important. A "test" for such knowledge
is calculated to favor the students in the public system. (OTOH: the
public systems often have trouble negotiating the twists and turns of PC
jargon.)
King George John
> I have used parents to help teach foreign languages in my classrooms. A
> person who has the particular language as their first language is a great
> asset to any classroom.
IOW: you are supposed to be teaching a foreign language and you can't speak
the language well.
Aren't you special!
So much for "professional educators."
>
King George John
"M a r k T" <thecatsatonthem@09883669237506306716554975> wrote in message
news:43afbd37$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Kanga Mom" <kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Our daughter applied to three colleges ... They each still wanted to see
>> a homeschool
>> transcript. The community college sent it back for correction because we
>> forgot to
>> include the date she graduated.
>
> Good grief!
>
> One wonders how well the homeschool assessment and evaluation of the child
> can be when one can't fill in a form properly!
Get serious.
A "graduation date" for something is unstructured as home education is just
plain silly. That was my point: the home school transcript is silly.
Perhaps it might be useful to see how schools "filtered" their students back
(way back) in the "bad old days" before education became so standarized.
How did Harvard or Yale determine or William & Mary determine who could get
in back in the 19th century?
>
> Oh ... I forgot ... Kanga Mom doesn't know the difference between
> assessment and evaluation!
Hey, sport.
Just from the words, I don't see any real difference.
You sound like a "professional educator" who likes to take perfectly normal
concepts like "bottom 25%" and dress them up with stuff like "composite
score in or above the fourth stanine on a battery of achievement tests which
have been approved by the Board of education." (The quoted material came
from the desk of the person in this county who accepts the home school
applications.)
>
> DOH!
My, my. Aren't we nasty!
Info Junkie
<thecatsatonthem@4905798505034653875484> wrote:
"snip"
>In other words:
>
>Homeschooling works BEST if you are very educated and weathy.
>
>Homeschooling works LEAST if you are undereducated and poor.
Your own posted URL disputes your claim:
http://www.cobranchi.com/archives/JCA.pdf
11. About half of home educators have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher.
However, significant numbers have only a high school education. (about 1/2 have
H..S. education or less)
12. The total annual household income is under $25,000 for about 18 percent of
the families; $25,000 - $49,000 for about 44 percent; $50,000 - $74,000 for
about 25 percent, and $75,000 or more for about 13 percent.
(apporx. 62% make less than $50,000)
Homeschool Students’ Academic Performance
In study after study, the homeschooled scored, on average, at the 65th
to 80th percentile on standardized academic achievement tests
in the United States and Canada, compared to the public
school average of the 50th percentile.
Researchers, wondering if only certain families - in which
the parents have a high educational attainment or family
income - are able to homeschool such that their children score
high on achievement tests, show that children in homeschool
families with low income and in which the parents have little
education are scoring, on average, above state-school averages
(Ray, 2000, 2004b, ch. 4). In addition, research shows that the
parents’ teacher-certification has little to no relationship with
their children’s academic achievement, and that the degree
of state control of homeschooling (i.e., regulations) has no
relationship with academic achievement (Ray, 2004b).
>> And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
>> envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
>
>... where they socialise with other kids and form friendships and
>experiences from which homeschool children are excluded.
>
>I still have friends that I made in Kindergarten.
>
>Do homeschooled children get to see their friends every day from Monday to
>Friday?
Ah, the ole' "socialization" issue. From your own
URL,http://www.cobranchi.com/archives/JCA.pdf
"The empirical evidence is clear and decisive: private
schoolers and home schoolers are considerably more civically
involved in the public square than are public schoolers, even
when the effects of differences in education, income, and other
related factors are removed from the equation. Indeed, we
have reason to believe that the organizations and practices
involved in private and home schooling, in themselves, tend
to foster public participation in civic affairs...the challenges,
responsibilities, and practices that private schooling and home
education normally entail for their participants may actually
help reinvigorate America’s civic culture and the participation
of her citizens in the public square."
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
Dalene Barnes
">>Do homeschooled children get to see their friends every day from Monday
to
>>Friday?
Is this now the only time parameters in which friendship can occur?
I have very close friends whom I see only once or twice a week, sometimes we
go for weeks at a time without actually seeing each other; this doesn't stop
us from being friends.
My kids see their friends several times a week on a regular basis - however,
putting 8-5 M-F time constraints on friendship building and existence is
shallow, indeed.
I would guess that the real friendship building that occurs for public
schooled kids occurs outside the classroom constraints - after school,
weekends, etc., when they are not under formal instruction. Oh, that would
be sort of like our home schooled kids - except that we have so much more
time for the kids to become friends, as they are not under formal
instruction for nearly as long each day!
We have the freedom to allow our kids to get together to paint their rooms
at noon on Thursday. Or to go shopping at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday. Or to take
a meal to a sick friend at 4 p.m. on Monday. Or to take the 2 hour road
trip to watch the home schooled football team play on an early Friday
afternoon.
IOW - great, strong, lasting friendship can be built no matter how you are
educated.
Dalene
Bob LeChevalier
>> One wonders how well the homeschool assessment and evaluation of the child
>> can be when one can't fill in a form properly!
>
>Get serious.
>
>A "graduation date" for something is unstructured as home education is just
>plain silly. That was my point: the home school transcript is silly.
How do you determine that the child has "finished" home schooling and
is ready for college? The child is applying to enter a college, and
the college wants to know how you are determining that the child has
completed a secondary education and is ready.
If you had no standard, or if the standard was age, then that is data
as well.
A "transcript" serves the purpose of being an official record of
*whatever* relevant educational data exists.
http://www.contechsolutions.net/products/eths_pc/transcript.htm
is a product that produces such a transcript, entirely configurable to
suit the sort of homeschooling that the child experienced.
>Perhaps it might be useful to see how schools "filtered" their students back
>(way back) in the "bad old days" before education became so standarized.
>How did Harvard or Yale determine or William & Mary determine who could get
>in back in the 19th century?
The old boy network was key.
In the 19th century there secondary schools were uncommon, so they
colleges could not rely on any sort of standardized preparation for
college. They tended to rely instead on the recommendations of alumni
and other recognized scholars, to administer their own testing, to use
personal interviews by faculty members (who might informally test
their kids in Greek or Latin), and of course to rely on the fact that
pretty much anyone who wanted to attend and who could and would afford
to spend tuition was probably qualified to some degree - and if not
they would wash out quite quickly. The college curriculum was fixed
rather than elective, and knowing that you would be expected to be
able to read Greek and Latin, only a fool would waste tuition money if
they weren't reasonable able in the subjects.
I've read a few 19th century biographies, and it seems that almost
every kid that went to college did so after receiving specified
tutelage from a scholar of reputation - and the coursework was often
quite difficult by modern standards. The student had to be perceived
as a scholar and a gentleman.
lojbab
Kanga Mom
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "King George John" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
> >> One wonders how well the homeschool assessment and evaluation of the child
> >> can be when one can't fill in a form properly!
> >
> >Get serious.
> >
> >A "graduation date" for something is unstructured as home education is just
> >plain silly. That was my point: the home school transcript is silly.
>
> How do you determine that the child has "finished" home schooling and
> is ready for college? The child is applying to enter a college, and
> the college wants to know how you are determining that the child has
> completed a secondary education and is ready.
>
The college wants to know if you've at least pretended to study certain
required topics- a foreign language, biology, math, English, etc. I
don't think a transcript is silly.
The military also, at least when we were still an active duty military
family, required a transcript from homeschooling families.
Many GED students tried to enlist under the tier reserved for hsing
grads. Requiring a transcript usually revealed the phonies, as they
didn't know how to put one together and they didn't know what to
include on it if they tried.
We've heard from other graduating homeschoolers that some colleges like
to see a list of the books the homeschooled student read in high
school. That also tells you something about the student.
Kanga
Jon Houts
> <leuw...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
> > envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
They might also envy the neighborhood kids who get to eat candy all the
time. Should that affect how much candy I let my kids eat?
> ... where they socialise with other kids and form friendships and
> experiences from which homeschool children are excluded.
>
> I still have friends that I made in Kindergarten.
I live just 2 miles from the house in which I lived through all my
schol years, and I don't still have any friends I made in public
school. I have one friend who goes back to 4th grade,but he was from
Sunday School.
but...
Jon
Jon Houts
Jon Houts
> By most RATIONAL standards, most "professional educators" are
> "undereducated." They may have a degree in ("elementary education") or
> "math instruction" but by the standards of the real world, they don't know
> their assess from a bunch of holes in the ground.
but,but... would they know their evaluate from a hole in the ground?
Jon
M a r k T
>>Do homeschooled children get to see their friends every day from Monday to
>>Friday?
>
> Ah, the ole' "socialization" issue.
... which you haven't answered.
M a r k T
>>>Do homeschooled children get to see their friends every day from Monday
>>>toFriday?
>
> Is this now the only time parameters in which friendship can occur?
No ... but those children not homeschooled get to do this ...plus anything a
homeschooled child can do.
> I would guess that the real friendship building that occurs for public
> schooled kids occurs outside the classroom constraints - after school,
> weekends, etc., when they are not under formal instruction.
You guess wrong. Kids have a lot of interaction (and socialisation) within
the classroom.
M a r k T
>> ... where they socialise with other kids and form friendships and
>> experiences from which homeschool children are excluded.
>>
>> I still have friends that I made in Kindergarten.
>
> I live just 2 miles from the house in which I lived through all my
> schol years, and I don't still have any friends I made in public
> school. I have one friend who goes back to 4th grade,but he was from
> Sunday School.
Some of us make friends for life.
... or you can be shallow, like my sister, and insist that your old friends
are thrown away after two years.
Nancy Manos
>> <leuw...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> > And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
>> > envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
but,but Jon replied ...
> They might also envy the neighborhood kids who get to eat candy all the
> time. Should that affect how much candy I let my kids eat?
Excellent point Jon!
The public schooled kids we know tend to envy our home schooled children.
Seatwork can be completed in a shorter amount of time for home schoolers.
This leaves more time to pursue areas of interest (for example studying
music, dance, or fine arts; research projects; volunteering; sewing,
needlework, quilting, scrapbooking and handicrafts; reading; writing short
stories, poems or letters; spending time with friends and relatives;
horseback riding, etc.).
The life of a home schooling family is often so rich, full, and rewarding
that there isn't room for envy towards anyone else.
>> ... where they socialise with other kids and form friendships and
>> experiences from which homeschool children are excluded.
Homeschooled children have a lot of opportunities for socialization and
friendships that their public or private schooled peers in age-segregated
classes do not have.
I heard a sad report recently from friends who volunteer in their children's
public school classrooms. Kids in many schools in our area are not allowed
to talk at all during lunch and they are being segregated by grade level at
recess.
Nancy
tj
news:XD_rf.6001$mK.5227@dukeread03...
> I heard a sad report recently from friends who volunteer in their
> children's public school classrooms. Kids in many schools in our area are
> not allowed to talk at all during lunch and they are being segregated by
> grade level at recess.
Why are they not allowed to talk at lunch?
--
Saludos y chaufas,
tj
profe's Web pages: http://webtj.net
Nancy Manos
"tj" <t...@tj.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:IZ6dnU4FgOz...@comcast.com...
> "Nancy Manos" <na...@nonet.net> wrote in message
> news:XD_rf.6001$mK.5227@dukeread03...
>> I heard a sad report recently from friends who volunteer in their
>> children's public school classrooms. Kids in many schools in our area
>> are not allowed to talk at all during lunch and they are being segregated
>> by grade level at recess.
>
> Why are they not allowed to talk at lunch?
Good question! I wish I had thought to ask more about this policy.
Nancy
Wayne
wrote:
You should never talk with your mouth full of food.
I thought everyone knew that!
Wayne
Jani
> The public schooled kids we know tend to envy our home schooled children.
> Seatwork can be completed in a shorter amount of time for home schoolers.
> This leaves more time to pursue areas of interest (for example studying
> music, dance, or fine arts; research projects; volunteering; sewing,
> needlework, quilting, scrapbooking and handicrafts; reading; writing short
> stories, poems or letters; spending time with friends and relatives;
> horseback riding, etc.).
My kids do all those anyway. Well, let's see, perhaps not all:
Music, dance and fine arts - part of the curriculum, plus other activities
such as choir, orchestra, drama groups, etc.
Research projects - used in most, if not all, subject areas.
Sewing, needlework, handicrafts - also part of the curriculum. Not
scrapbooking, though, and I haven't seen quilting appear as yet.
Reading, all types of writing - integral parts of the English curriculum,
and probably in the foreign language curriculums as well.
Volunteering - is that charity work? Various types, depending on the school.
All have fundraising appeals, both for local charities and
national/international ones; quite a few have direct connections with local
old people's homes, hospices, etc.
Time with friends - well, they do that anyway, since many of their friends
are at the same school, and they see relatives in the evenings, and on
weekends and holidays.
Horseriding, no, I'll grant you that isn't offered by most state schools.
> The life of a home schooling family is often so rich, full, and rewarding
> that there isn't room for envy towards anyone else.
The same can be said for children who go to state schools, though :) I've
never seen any envy, in either direction, between my children and their
homeschooled friends: they do mostly the same things, but in a slightly
different environment, that's all. I don't think it's ever occurred to any
of them to be envious of the others.
Jani
M a r k T
>> I heard a sad report recently from friends who volunteer in their
>> children's public school classrooms. Kids in many schools in our area
>> are not allowed to talk at all during lunch and they are being segregated
>> by grade level at recess.
>
> Why are they not allowed to talk at lunch?
I've never seen that happen in any public school, I have taught at (K 1-12)
over the past 30 years!
Maybe it's a USA /'Canadian thing ........ or another homeschool myth.
M a r k T
> Homeschooled children have a lot of opportunities for socialization and
> friendships that their public or private schooled peers in age-segregated
> classes do not have.
Name one. There are none!!!! Everything a homeschool child has available a
public educated child also has avalable.
Oh .. I forget .. some of the thugs on misc.education.home-school.christian
don't want to talk to professional educators like myself.
--
####################################################
3 Golden Rules for misc.education.home-school.christian
1. Don't complain about what someone else finds home-school related.
2. misc.education.home-school.christian is a PUBLIC newsgroup which is
"UNMODERATED and basically open to ANY and ALL HOMESCHOOLING DISCUSSIONS,
with the understanding that readers will [NOT] use ... flame throwers."
3. Discuss Christian homeschooling rather than other people.
#########################################################
M a r k T
>> This leaves more time to pursue areas of interest (for example studying
>> music, dance, or fine arts; research projects; volunteering; sewing,
>> needlework, quilting, scrapbooking and handicrafts; reading; writing
>> short stories, poems or letters; spending time with friends and
>> relatives; horseback riding, etc.).
>
> My kids do all those anyway.
ANY child can do any of those ... NOT just homeschooled kids.
Another silly argument and homeschool myth.
>> The life of a home schooling family is often so rich, full, and rewarding
>> that there isn't room for envy towards anyone else.
>
> The same can be said for children who go to state schools, though :)
OF COURSE. Do you think any of these people recognise that yet????
DOH!
tj
>
> Good question! I wish I had thought to ask more about this policy.
>
Next time you see your friends, I'd appreciate it if you would ask. I could
see it happening (maybe) for a limited time in a single school, in relation
to some massive misbehavior, but in several schools, as part of
school/district (?) policy? I would love to hear the reasoning behind that.
The recess thing has some obvious possibilities, but the lunchroom thing has
me stumped. What district is this?
leuw...@lycos.com
King George John wrote:
> <leuw...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:1135584950.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> "undereducated."
not compared to the average voter.
> They may have a degree in ("elementary education") or
> "math instruction" but by the standards of the real world, they don't know
> their assess from a bunch of holes in the ground.
??? your vocabulary? is it what you teach your kids?
> Most of their
> "expertise" is intrepreting the jargon that others in their "profession"
> generate to escape accountability.
> >
> > And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
> > envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
>
> "Envy" is a two way street.
It is not a street. It is part of the need to belong. Why do the
fashions change every year? Why are the fashions in the US more
powerful than elsewhere?
Anyway, I am simply sorry, sorry, sorry for all those kidss that won't
be able to escape home dear home. There are lots of kids in that
situation.
>
> > So the State will get the last word anyway.
>
> Maybe.
>
> No one here would deny Caesar's due. If the state wants to mandate certain
> tests and the government provides for public access to the preparation
> materials (think "driver's education") then few home educators would object.
>
> But if the state plays games and changes the names every few years and only
> passes down the word to "professional" educators tha't just not fair.
>
> It seems that every half generator the "professionals" change the way math
> is taught and the geographical divisions of the state and the selection of
> which "native American" tribes are important. A "test" for such knowledge
> is calculated to favor the students in the public system. (OTOH: the
> public systems often have trouble negotiating the twists and turns of PC
> jargon.)
You'd be the preacher type of parent and the kid would be your
audience, the *captive* audience.
leuw...@lycos.com
Jon Houts wrote:
> M a r k T wrote:
>
> > <leuw...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
> > > envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
>
> They might also envy the neighborhood kids who get to eat candy all the
> time. Should that affect how much candy I let my kids eat?
>
> > ... where they socialise with other kids and form friendships and
> > experiences from which homeschool children are excluded.
this was somebody else's line.
Info Junkie
<thecatsatonthem@908789579865568755653> wrote:
>"Info Junkie" wrote:
>
>
>>>Do homeschooled children get to see their friends every day from Monday to
>>>Friday?
>>
>> Ah, the ole' "socialization" issue.
>
>... which you haven't answered.
An "answer" was provided...that you didn't like it is obvious from your
"snippage"..
To humor you further wrt your question; I would venture that yes, "homeschooled
children get to see their friends every day from Monday to Friday".
Dalene Barnes
", "M a r k T" wrote:
>>>>Do homeschooled children get to see their friends every day from Monday
>>>>to
>>>>Friday?
>>>
>>> Ah, the ole' "socialization" issue.
>>
>>... which you haven't answered.
>
>>"Info Junkie" wrote:
>
> An "answer" was provided...that you didn't like it is obvious from your
> "snippage"..
>
> To humor you further wrt your question; I would venture that yes,
> "homeschooled
> children get to see their friends every day from Monday to Friday".
Another sort of answer, in the form of a question, which we all know will be
ignored and not considered relevant by the asker of the original question:
Do *you* get to see your friends every day from Monday to Friday? Do you
envy those who go off to work at 7 a.m. at the fire station? Or those who
work 11-11 at the hospital? Or those who work 9-5 at the library? You
can't possibly be socialized if you don't spend M-F with those people. And
I guess Sat and Sun still don't count.
Or wait - MAYBE it's possible that both grown ups and home schooled children
have friends, are socialized, get out of the house every day of the week,
but simply move in a different social/academic/work world than lots and lots
of other people!
And I don't know about you - but a day when I can STAY HOME and do nothing
is a blessed and rare day indeed!
Dalene
Wooly Baa Lamb
> ", "M a r k T" wrote:
Dalene, please tell me you didn't really answer one of his posts....
;-)
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
You always have freedom of choice, but you never have freedom of
consequence.
Jon Houts
> Jon Houts wrote:
> > M a r k T wrote:
> >
> > > <leuw...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
> > > > envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
> >
> > They might also envy the neighborhood kids who get to eat candy all the
> > time. Should that affect how much candy I let my kids eat?
> >
> > > ... where they socialise with other kids and form friendships and
> > > experiences from which homeschool children are excluded.
>
> this was somebody else's line.
The attributions are all right there. That was Mark's line. I was
responding to thing each of you had said.
but,but...
Jon
M a r k T
> Dalene, please tell me you didn't really answer one of his posts....
Woolly headed one, please dont tell me you are still illiterate.
Are you using the rubbishy Robinson Self-Teaching Home School
Curriculum??????
As a professional educator with 30 years experience (including time as a
School Principal and a curriculum designer) and with several degrees, it is
my professional opinion that the Robinson Self-Teaching Home School
Curriculum should NEVER be used for anything other than an example of what
not to do. (But what would I know about education compared to an amateur
Regular Trew Homeskoola?!)
Use the Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum box to put your
garbage in!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum
- TOTALLY dependent upon good literacy skills to begin with.
- Lock-step without any deviation from the program.
- 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica used - outdated and too complicated for
younger readers
- 1913 Webster's Dictionary used - outdated and too complicated for younger
readers
- Science texts instead of hands on experimentation and disvcovery learning.
- Original King James Version of the Bible - outdated and language too
complicated for any child of any age
-Phonics only without the addition of whole language approach, etc.
- Claims to be "self-teaching" but pupils require interaction with at least
one other person - a teacher.
This "box:" is the lazy person's way of homeschooling and not worth the
money you will outlay for it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the utter shite at
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p45.htm
--
misc.education.home-school.christian FAQ
1. misc.education.home-school.misc is NOT a forum for the discussion of ANY
aspects of home-schooling ... it's there to abuse newbies, state education
and professional teachers
2. One should ALWAYS complain about what someone else finds home-school
related.
3. misc.education.home-school.christian is a PUBLIC newsgroup which is
"UNMODERATED ......... BUT basically NOT open to ANY HOMESCHOOLING
DISCUSSIONS, with the understanding that readers will DEFINITELY use flame
throwers."
4. One should discuss PEOPLE rather than Christian homeschooling
Just like the regular Trew Homeskoola Thugs are now doing on
misc.education.home-school.christian
M a r k T
> yes, "homeschooled children get to see their friends every day from
> Monday to Friday".
The Regular Trew Homeskooled's Only Friends - his / her Mom & Dad
--
misc.education.home-school.christian FAQ
1. misc.education.home-school.misc is NOT a forum for the discussion of ANY
aspects of home-schooling ... it's there to abuse newbies, state education
and professional teachers
2. One should ALWAYS complain about what someone else finds home-school
related.
3. misc.education.home-school.christian is a PUBLIC newsgroup which is
M a r k T
> Do *you* get to see your friends every day from Monday to Friday?
As a professional educator with 30 years experience andf several degrees -
YES!!!! ;-)
Oh ... I forgot ... That's not the answer that Regular Trew Homeskoolas want
to hear ... therefore I must be a troll.
> Or wait - MAYBE it's possible that both grown ups and home schooled
> children have friends, are socialized, get out of the house every day of
> the week, but simply move in a different social/academic/work world than
> lots and lots of other people!
The same is true for ALL children ... except the ones locked in inside by
their isolationist parents .... homeskoolun around the kitchen table with
their only friends - Mom and Dad.
--
misc.education.home-school.christian FAQ
1. misc.education.home-school.misc is NOT a forum for the discussion of ANY
aspects of home-schooling ... it's there to abuse newbies, state education
and professional teachers
2. One should ALWAYS complain about what someone else finds home-school
related.
3. misc.education.home-school.christian is a PUBLIC newsgroup which is
Jani
"Dalene Barnes" <dal...@txbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:doopnj$akb$1...@news.tamu.edu...
>
> <leuw...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> Undereducated people do not often realize how much there is that they
>> do not know. They would be awful educaters.
>
> "educated" professors who could not pass a coherant thought onto the
> class!)
Yup, this is the difference between just knowing your subject, and knowing
your subject *and* knowing how to teach. By the time you get to a
professorship, teaching skills are probably not a priority.
> Most people - even those you're putting in the "undereducated" class
> (BTW - where is that? High school drop out? No college? some college?
> Only a Bachelors...?) know how to find a library, and can log onto the
> internet.
True, but the Net and the Web are not structured sources of information;
there is no guarantee - unless you know what you're looking for, and how to
verify it - that the information you're accessing is accurate or sound.
A
> common misconception is that learning can only take place if someone else
> who already knows everything is there to make you learn it. That is
> simply false. Many times, especially as our kids get older, we are the
> facilitators, not the teachers. I don't have to have read Moby Dick for
> my daughter to read it and learn from it.
Most reasonably literate children can read classic literature and gain
*something* from it, without any help. If you want them to understand the
deeper nuances of the text, though, they're not going to manage it by some
sort of osmosis. If there's no-one who can explain irony, or extended
metaphor, or allegory, etc, or knows the historical and cultural context of
the text and can "place" it for them, then they miss a lot.
I don't have to have already read
> and completed an economics text book for my child to work through it and
> learn from it. There often may come a point when further explanation is
> needed; but more often, the books make it very easy for both child and
> parent to glean the knowledge necessary for both the class and life.
We've spent a long time, in the UK ed system, getting *away* from the idea
that you can just "work through a textbook" :( Textbooks are very much only
*one* resource, out of many, in any workscheme.
>> And I also thought whether a kid about ten years old would not feel
>> envy seeing the other kids all go to school.
>
> No. At least none of mine did. They were in a private school, and we
> pulled them out to home school. After about the first month, they were
> sold on home schooling, and now feel sympathy for their public schooled
> friends. Imagine! Having to leave the house the same time as Dad every
> morning!
Going to be something of a shock when they get jobs that require working to
someone else's schedule, then ;) I've never quite understood that - are
homeschooled children always allowed to lie-in until lunchtime, or are they
expected to be capable of rational thought before 9 a.m., like everyone else
in the family?
> Imagine, NOT being able to do your math outside!
Primary school maths is often done outside. Primary schools have a *lot* of
outside activities, in fact. Secondary, not so much, although it depends on
the subject; you can't do much in any of the environmental sciences without
going outside and getting your hands dirty. Or local history. And art
classes tend to be all over the place; when I taught in a school that was
next door to the local cemetery, we had to check with the vicar before
sending the sketching groups out, since funeral parties didn't appreciate
having an audience.
Imagine, no Shakespeare
> slumber parties on a "school night!" Imagine - no literature in your
> jammies on your bed!
Why wouldn't they be doing that *anyway*? My junior muppet hasn't stopped
discussing Narnia at bedtime just because she's doing it at school.
Imagine - having to STOP in the middle of an awesome
> project going perfectly just because a bell rang!
Well, that's like the getting-up-in-the-morning thing - there will be points
both at school and at home where you *have* to stop, because it's time to
eat, or sleep, or do chores, or whatever. The only people I know who *don't*
stop in the middle of a project are consultant geeks; everyone else has to
have some sort of routine, if they want to survive in the outside world. And
not everyone can grow up to be a consultant geek; most of us have to bite
the bullet and work to a timetable.
shudddddder......how do
> they ever survive??? And my girls report that more and more of their
> friends who are sent off to school say they wish their parents would home
> school them!
Perhaps that's the key - "sent off" to school. If school is a normal part of
life, and there isn't some artificial divide between home, school and
community, then kids wouldn't feel they were being shunted out the door just
to get rid of them.
Jani
M a r k T
>> I've had HIGHLY "educated" professors who could not pass a coherant
>> thought onto >>the class!)
>
> Yup, this is the difference between just knowing your subject, and
> knowing your subject *and* knowing how to teach. By the time you get to a
> professorship, teaching skills are probably not a priority.
As I have repeatedly stated the younger the pupil the more difficult it is
to teach well (and I've taught from Kindergarten to adults).
> the Net and the Web are not structured sources of information; there is no
> guarantee - unless you know what you're looking for, and how to verify
> it - that the information you're accessing is accurate or sound.
Exactly! This is why any old article on homeschooling is not to be trusted.
Source, qualification and peer review are all importnat. If there were no
quality control in this area then every piece of information would be
suspect.
>>I don't have to have read Moby Dick for my daughter to read it and learn
>>from it.
>
> Most reasonably literate children can read classic literature and gain
> *something* from it, without any help. If you want them to understand the
> deeper nuances of the text, though, they're not going to manage it by some
> sort of osmosis. If there's no-one who can explain irony, or extended
> metaphor, or allegory, etc, or knows the historical and cultural context
> of the text and can "place" it for them, then they miss a lot.
This is why homeschooling works best for educated parents. The uneducated
parents may not have ever learnt anything that they are homeschooling their
kids in!
How can a parent "teach" physics if they have never studied physics?????
>> I don't have to have already read and completed an economics text book
>> for my child to work through it and learn from it.
...
> We've spent a long time, in the UK ed system, getting *away* from the idea
> that you can just "work through a textbook" :( Textbooks are very much
> only *one* resource, out of many, in any workscheme.
Yep! But this is what a lot of homeschoolers think "teaching" is!!!
Aaaaarrrggghhh!!!!!!
Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this thread!!!!
1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary ....................
not!
The Trew Homeskoola Kanga APPROVES of this garbage and she will be a
Moderator!!!!
God help you all!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum
- TOTALLY dependent upon good literacy skills to begin with.
- Lock-step without any deviation from the program.
- 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica used - outdated and too complicated for
younger readers
- 1913 Webster's Dictionary used - outdated and too complicated for younger
readers
- Science texts instead of hands on experimentation and disvcovery learning.
- Original King James Version of the Bible - outdated and language too
complicated for any child of any age
-Phonics only without the addition of whole language approach, etc.
- Claims to be "self-teaching" but pupils require interaction with at least
one other person - a teacher.
This "box:" is the lazy person's way of homeschooling and not worth the
money you will outlay for it.
Visit the utter shite at
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p45.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Going to be something of a shock when they get jobs that require working
> to someone else's schedule, then ;) I've never quite understood that - are
> homeschooled children always allowed to lie-in until lunchtime, or are
> they expected to be capable of rational thought before 9 a.m., like
> everyone else in the family?
The following is an unproven assumption ..........
"capable of rational thought before 9 a.m., like everyone else in the
family?"
Trew Homeskoolas may NOT be capable of rational thought EVER ... there is NO
QUALITY CONTROL on who is allowed to homeschool!
>> Imagine, NOT being able to do your math outside!
>
> Primary school maths is often done outside.
Yep! One of my maths classes designed, costed, raised money for, got
multiple quotes for goods, ordered material, and built a paved area outside
the school hall. Each paver had one of their names engraved on it. This is
an example of how maths is integrated with many other areas (including
safety when handling tools). Also an excellent way to teach area.
Oh ... I'm sorry ... I thought we professional teachers were supposed to be
forcing kids to sit at desks all the time. ;-)
Jani
"M a r k T" <thecatspatonthem@01> wrote in message
news:43b1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Jani" wrote:
>
>>> I've had HIGHLY "educated" professors who could not pass a coherant
>>> thought onto >>the class!)
>>
>> Yup, this is the difference between just knowing your subject, and
>> knowing your subject *and* knowing how to teach. By the time you get to a
>> professorship, teaching skills are probably not a priority.
>
> As I have repeatedly stated the younger the pupil the more difficult it is
> to teach well (and I've taught from Kindergarten to adults).
I would hate to teach littl'uns. That really *is* hard work, because it's
the foundation for everything else. I have great admiration for primary
teachers (and, of course, they always admired my ability to teach kids
several feet taller than I was :)
>> the Net and the Web are not structured sources of information; there is
>> no guarantee - unless you know what you're looking for, and how to verify
>> it - that the information you're accessing is accurate or sound.
>
> Exactly! This is why any old article on homeschooling is not to be
> trusted. Source, qualification and peer review are all importnat. If
> there were no quality control in this area then every piece of information
> would be suspect.
I wasn't thinking of articles on education so much as Web information for
research projects.
>
>
>>>I don't have to have read Moby Dick for my daughter to read it and learn
>>>from it.
>>
>> Most reasonably literate children can read classic literature and gain
>> *something* from it, without any help. If you want them to understand the
>> deeper nuances of the text, though, they're not going to manage it by
>> some sort of osmosis. If there's no-one who can explain irony, or
>> extended metaphor, or allegory, etc, or knows the historical and cultural
>> context of the text and can "place" it for them, then they miss a lot.
>
> This is why homeschooling works best for educated parents. The uneducated
> parents may not have ever learnt anything that they are homeschooling
> their kids in!
>
> How can a parent "teach" physics if they have never studied physics?????
Heh. My son's physics teacher, in sixth form, gave them a series of lectures
on how materials are supposed to behave and then an experiment in which the
materials *didn't* behave in that way. It was an illustration of scientific
method (namely, that when something doesn't fit the theory, you have to
develop a new theory). Son came home quite shocked at the world turned
upside down; I, being familiar with scientific method thanks to a background
in history, made him a coffee and said something like "there are more things
in heaven and earth, Horatio, so live with it". Son is now a "proper"
scientist, rather than a reader of textbooks :) Mind you, we've spoiled it
for the siblings, who are now well braced for the shock-horror violation of
natural laws :)
>
>
>>> I don't have to have already read and completed an economics text book
>>> for my child to work through it and learn from it.
> ...
>> We've spent a long time, in the UK ed system, getting *away* from the
>> idea that you can just "work through a textbook" :( Textbooks are very
>> much only *one* resource, out of many, in any workscheme.
>
> Yep! But this is what a lot of homeschoolers think "teaching" is!!!
> Aaaaarrrggghhh!!!!!!
>
> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this thread!!!!
> 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary ....................
> not!
Nothing wrong with old stuff, as long as it's in context.
Jani
M a r k T
>> As I have repeatedly stated the younger the pupil the more difficult it
>> is to teach well (and I've taught from Kindergarten to adults).
>
> I would hate to teach littl'uns. That really *is* hard work, because it's
> the foundation for everything else. I have great admiration for primary
> teachers (and, of course, they always admired my ability to teach kids
> several feet taller than I was :)
Much worse than Kindergarten Cop portrays it! ;-)
The Kindergarten kids would hang onto my legs out in the playground and
you'd almost knock half a dozen down with every step you took. ... and
they'd say things like "I can see up your nose!" which would crack me up
into a laughing fit.
>> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this thread!!!!
>> 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary ....................
>> not!
>
> Nothing wrong with old stuff, as long as it's in context.
If, in 2005, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica was the ONLY encyclopedia one
ever used and the 1913 Webster's Dictionary was the ONLY dictionary one ever
used it, is safe to assume that they would not be the most effective
teaching resources for information about contemporary issues from an
encylopedia and or word meanings in a dictionary!!!
IMAGINE ..................
Kid: "Homeskoola Mom, who won the Vietnam war this century?"
Homeskoola Mom: "Dunno. Look it up in ya 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica."
Kid: "Not mentioned in there, Homeskoola Mom."
Homeskoola Mom: "Then it doesn't exist ... unless it's in ya bible."
Kid: "Mom, how you you spell intttttternetttttt?"
Homeskoola Mom: "Dunno. Look it up in ya 1913 Webster's Dictionary."
Kid: "Not mentioned in there, Homeskoola Mom."
Homeskoola Mom: "Then it doesn't exist ... unless it's in ya bible."
Dalene Barnes
"Jani"
>
> Going to be something of a shock when they get jobs that require working
> to someone else's schedule, then ;) I've never quite understood that - are
> homeschooled children always allowed to lie-in until lunchtime, or are
> they expected to be capable of rational thought before 9 a.m., like
> everyone else in the family?
>
They already have jobs and are required to work on someone else's schedule.
"Lie in until lunchtime..." Interesting that you extrapolated that from my
statements.
Each home school family works out a schedule that works well for them. Two
of my daughters have basketball practice three days a week - their schedule
those days is different from non-basketball days. On mornings after the
nights we've stayed up late working on something, or just enjoying family
time, I let them sleep late - they are, after all, teenagers, and require a
lot of sleep to stay healthy. I'm thankful they can get this. I'm thankful
they have the time and op
Another distinct advantage of home schooling is that you can take advantage
of "night owl" and "morning person" personalities. My eldest simply does
not do well early in the day. She functions much better after noon. I, on
the other hand, am usually done with rational thought by 7 p.m. However, on
days she *has* to conform, she does, and she does so well. She's just
happier and does *better* if she can stay up late and then sleep late. My
youngest, however, likes to have all her math done before Daddy leaves for
work. She's *my* baby! lol Some employers recognize these distinctions,
and offer swing shifts, flex hours, etc.
As far as the "project" thing - yes, sometimes there are times you have to
stop. But I have seen in my husband's job that once he gets "on a roll," it
is best for the entire department for him to keep working until the solution
is found. Artificially timed stopping points are my objection, and those
seem to be *less* in a home school environment than a public/private school,
but, as you said, sometimes in real life you do have to stop. They need to
have the *freedom* to determine which is best when.
Really, freedom is what it boils down to - when you entrust your children to
someone else for 8 hours a day, you are then playing by their rules, their
time tables, their expectations. Home schooling gives you the freedom to
make rules and time tables and expectations that are *custom made* for your
family, your time, your children, their talents, their likes and dislikes,
their personalities, their learning styles. There is plenty of time to be
grown up and have to conform to the system of the world; why make them do so
now? Small steps into the grown up world of 8-5 are plenty for kids.
Besides, I really dislike the "they'll have to do it someday, why not make
them do it now" theory. By that theory, why not teach 2nd graders Algebra
II? They'll have to take it someday, why not now? Oh, because they need to
work their way up to it, have skills and knowledge to build on.....I view
life that way. Let them learn the skills and knowledge necessary to be an
independent adult gradually - no need to force them into 8-5 schedules now.
But, as I said before - it's the freedom - I'm thankful I have it, and can
in turn offer to my children. It is, quite simply, the *best* choice for
our family, academically, socially, spiritually, financially, and in every
other way.
Dalene
King George John
> The college wants to know if you've at least pretended to study certain
> required topics- a foreign language, biology, math, English, etc.
Frankly, a college that is more interested whether a prospective student has
"pretended to study" something than whether the student has actually
mastered (to some level) the subject is just not worth attending except as a
means of getting credentials for a better job or for admission to a
professional school.
To that point I would agree that it may be worth the time and trouble to
"throw together" a home school transcript. But think of it as equivalent
to the "diploma" issued to the Scarecrow in by The Wizzard.
> I
> don't think a transcript is silly.
> The military also, at least when we were still an active duty military
> family, required a transcript from homeschooling families.
That's nice.
I suppose that's how the military played CYA.
The military would have beter served the minor dependants by just setting
down some OBJECTIVE requirements that dependent students would be expect to
meet as certain ages.
You know, stuff like: the names of the states and capitals. The names of
the important georgraphic features on the US. Going on to international
names, places.
The requirements would be in the form of lists of the currently accepted
answers.
If the military thinks writing is important, it could publish a style manual
for kids and test on the mastery of it.
Frankly, a home school "transcript" has about as much value as an "inner
city" high school transcript.
> Many GED students tried to enlist under the tier reserved for hsing
> grads. Requiring a transcript usually revealed the phonies, as they
> didn't know how to put one together and they didn't know what to
> include on it if they tried.
That's good. If the GED test insn't "gud enuf" for Uncle Sam, why not just
subject the potential recruits for additional testing.
I was a platoon leader (US Army Engineers) for a short time back when there
was a draft. The platoon comprised specialists who had to attend a special
school beyond AIT. Among the 10 or so non-NCO members of the platoon,
several only had GEDs and one had a college degree.
The only problem with GED guys was that the reason they didn't finish school
"on time" usually had to do with not being willing to submit to the
discipline of school. This might make them poor candidates for the
military. It also might make them poor candidates for most colleges.
>
> We've heard from other graduating homeschoolers that some colleges like
> to see a list of the books the homeschooled student read in high
> school. That also tells you something about the student.
Oh!
That's not what you said before.
Keeping track of books read (with a little bit of a student composed
"review") would be an excellent idea. In fact, that's what I have been
hounding my kids to do. (I wish I had done that myself but you can't
teach an old dog new tricks.)
But that's not a "transcript."
The transcript is just something to impress the silly and is a substitute
for objective evaluations and interviews.
The list of "books read and understood," a set of test scores, and a listing
of other activities and achievements (band, sports, volunteer stuff, summer
jobs), and a brief summary of what the students actually KNOWS and can DO
would be good package to furnish to a college worth entering.
If a college demanded a "home school transcript" in addition to the above, I
would keep looking.
It seems that the folks at the HSLDA seem to like the transcripts. That's
not a good sign. I will check to see whether their college (Patrick Henry)
lets the "transcripts" substitute for objective evaluations.
King George John
>
> To humor you further wrt your question; I would venture that yes,
> "homeschooled
> children get to see their friends every day from Monday to Friday".
Unless you include parents and siblings in the category of "friends" then
many/most homeschooled kids DON'T get to see them.
Homeschool kids are as likely to see their friends during the school years
as "regular" kids are likely to see their friends during the summer. In
many places kids have to get rides from their parents to see other kids.
>
King George John
> As a professional educator with 30 years experience (including time as a
> School Principal and a curriculum designer) and with several degrees, it
> is
> my professional opinion that the Robinson Self-Teaching Home School
> Curriculum should NEVER be used for anything other than an example of what
> not to do. (But what would I know about education compared to an amateur
> Regular Trew Homeskoola?!)
My, my.
Well, as a "professional educator" I'm sure you have some SPECIFIC
objection.
What is ONE thing the "Robinson method" does wrong? I looked at
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/ and at first glance it looks good to me.
So: what's wrong with it?
EMWTK
King George John
>
> As I have repeatedly stated the younger the pupil the more difficult it is
> to teach well (and I've taught from Kindergarten to adults).
What?
Just what is it you were trying to "teach" the kids in Kindergarten that
they would not have picked up on their own (with a little help from PBS)
just by being around a "normal" family?
King George John
> This is why homeschooling works best for educated parents. The uneducated
> parents may not have ever learnt anything that they are homeschooling
> their kids in!
>
> How can a parent "teach" physics if they have never studied physics?????
Maybe by "learning physics" a few months ahead of the child?
Happens all the time.
In college, it's not at all unusual for the "teacher" to only by a few years
older than the "student."
>
>
>>> I don't have to have already read and completed an economics text book
>>> for my child to work through it and learn from it.
> ...
>> We've spent a long time, in the UK ed system, getting *away* from the
>> idea that you can just "work through a textbook" :( Textbooks are very
>> much only *one* resource, out of many, in any workscheme.
>
> Yep! But this is what a lot of homeschoolers think "teaching" is!!!
> Aaaaarrrggghhh!!!!!!
"Working through" a good textbook is "gud enuf" for most purposes in most
subjects. Perhaps the problem is that the textbooks are faulty.
>
> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this thread!!!!
> 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary ....................
> not!
>
Trouble is with the "ultra modern and contemporary" is that in ten years
time is will be just another passing fad.
Info Junkie
wrote:
>> To humor you further wrt your question; I would venture that yes,
>> "homeschooled
>> children get to see their friends every day from Monday to Friday".
>
>Unless you include parents and siblings in the category of "friends" then
>many/most homeschooled kids DON'T get to see them.
You basing your assumption on...?
>Homeschool kids are as likely to see their friends during the school years
>as "regular" kids are likely to see their friends during the summer.
Most "friends" live nearby, and after the public school lets out, they're free
to get together. This is true even between kids that attend different public or
private schools.
>In many places kids have to get rides from their parents to see other kids.
If this were true, then it would be just as true for "friends" that attended
different public or private schools.
Dalene Barnes
"King George John" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:43b28982$0$29...@dingus.crosslink.net...
>
>
> Unless you include parents and siblings in the category of "friends" then
> many/most homeschooled kids DON'T get to see them.
>
> Homeschool kids are as likely to see their friends during the school years
> as "regular" kids are likely to see their friends during the summer. In
> many places kids have to get rides from their parents to see other kids.
>
This is such an un-true statement in our lives. My kids - from the
beginning of home schooling until now - saw friends at least 5 days of the
week (normal week!) Between our co-op, church on Wed & Sun, Spanish class,
ice skating, basketball practices, library time, etc., etc., a day fully at
home was RARE. Yes, rides from parents are part of it - we've put nearly
100 miles on a car in one day getting kids to where they needed to be, and
that's in a smaller-type city! Now that two of my three drive themselves, a
day where they don't go somewhere is even rarer - and 90% of it includes
friends. As with most home schooled things, the burden is on the parent to
provide what's best for their children. We've opted to allow gasoline to
see that our kids have time with friends.
Dalene
Kanga Mom
King George John wrote:
> > The college wants to know if you've at least pretended to study certain
> > required topics- a foreign language, biology, math, English, etc.
>
> Frankly, a college that is more interested whether a prospective student has
> "pretended to study" something than whether the student has actually
> mastered (to some level) the subject is just not worth attending except as a
> means of getting credentials for a better job or for admission to a
> professional school.
Some of us don't have the luxury of being as choosy as you.
>
> To that point I would agree that it may be worth the time and trouble to
> "throw together" a home school transcript. But think of it as equivalent
> to the "diploma" issued to the Scarecrow in by The Wizzard.
>
Thank-you for your invaluable advice and experience (just how old are
your kids, anyway?)
> > I
> > don't think a transcript is silly.
> > The military also, at least when we were still an active duty military
> > family, required a transcript from homeschooling families.
>
> That's nice.
>
> I suppose that's how the military played CYA.
>
> The military would have beter served the minor dependants by just setting
> down some OBJECTIVE requirements that dependent students would be expect to
> meet as certain ages.
You know, it really doesn't matter what either of us think about the
requirements. If a homeschooling parent were to take your advice on
transcripts, they would be ill served and ill prepared in many cases.
The fact is that there will be situations in the lives of some families
where, instead of dismissing the idea of a transcript as a silly waste
of time, they are going to want one that reflects some time and
thought.
>
> You know, stuff like: the names of the states and capitals. The names of
> the important georgraphic features on the US. Going on to international
> names, places.
>
> The requirements would be in the form of lists of the currently accepted
> answers.
>
> If the military thinks writing is important, it could publish a style manual
> for kids and test on the mastery of it.
The transcript requirement is in addition to the same test everybody
has to take, and as a recruiter and a recruiter trainer my husband
witnessed first hand the value of a transcript in weeding out the
genuine homeschoolers from the slackers and drop-outs. The military
is tracking (or was then) homeschoolers to see how they do in basic
training and what the retention rates are. It's not good for
homeschoolers to have the dropouts enlisting as homeschoolers.
>
> Frankly, a home school "transcript" has about as much value as an "inner
> city" high school transcript.
>
In your opinion. In the opinion of others with more experience than
you, it has more.
> > Many GED students tried to enlist under the tier reserved for hsing
> > grads. Requiring a transcript usually revealed the phonies, as they
> > didn't know how to put one together and they didn't know what to
> > include on it if they tried.
>
> That's good. If the GED test insn't "gud enuf" for Uncle Sam, why not just
> subject the potential recruits for additional testing.
The military had at the time two tiers. The Air Force would take so
many GEDs and so many homeschoolers. The homeschool slot was larger.
When you have the GED kids and the dropouts calling themselves
homeschoolers, they would fill the spaces intended for homeschoolers.
A transcript helped weed out the drop outs and GED students, because
most of them had never thought about how to put one together and didn't
know what to put on it.
>
> I was a platoon leader (US Army Engineers) for a short time back when there
> was a draft. The platoon comprised specialists who had to attend a special
> school beyond AIT. Among the 10 or so non-NCO members of the platoon,
> several only had GEDs and one had a college degree.
>
> The only problem with GED guys was that the reason they didn't finish school
> "on time" usually had to do with not being willing to submit to the
> discipline of school. This might make them poor candidates for the
> military. It also might make them poor candidates for most colleges.
>
> >
> > We've heard from other graduating homeschoolers that some colleges like
> > to see a list of the books the homeschooled student read in high
> > school. That also tells you something about the student.
>
> Oh!
>
> That's not what you said before.
LOL- so what? That's not in support of what I said before, that was an
additional point that parents of homeschoolers might want to know. I
said some colleges- none of the schools where our daughter applied
asked for it.
As much as you would like to make this about which of us is more
'right' about what a transcript means, it really has nothing to do with
that. It is about what homeschoolers might want to be prepared for
when their kids graduate. Your advice and opinions about a homeschool
transcript do not reflect reality would ill serve any homeschoolers
making plans for the future.
>
> Keeping track of books read (with a little bit of a student composed
> "review") would be an excellent idea. In fact, that's what I have been
> hounding my kids to do. (I wish I had done that myself but you can't
> teach an old dog new tricks.)
>
> But that's not a "transcript."
Gee, no kidding. Show me where I said it was.
>
> The transcript is just something to impress the silly and is a substitute
> for objective evaluations and interviews.
>
Sometimes- but that doesn't mean a homeschooler won't find that having
one is a good idea. Other times a transcript is one of many tools
useful for weeding out the unserious, pigheaded, and shortsighted folks
from the ones who plan a few steps ahead.
> The list of "books read and understood," a set of test scores, and a listing
> of other activities and achievements (band, sports, volunteer stuff, summer
> jobs), and a brief summary of what the students actually KNOWS and can DO
> would be good package to furnish to a college worth entering.
>
A brief summary of what the students know and can do wouldn't be
anymore objective than the transcript. In our case when we wrote down
that we put down world history on the transcript, we meant that our
student actually knew something about it. I understand that some
people can fake it, but public school transcripts don't reflect what a
student actually knows and does, either, in every case. Transcripts
are a tool, that's all.
> If a college demanded a "home school transcript" in addition to the above, I
> would keep looking.
Again, other people haven't the luxury of being that choosy, and
really, that's a little shortsighted. So the admissions office might
be a little rigid or uncreative in some areas- that doesn't necessarily
mean the department that interests my student won't have what she needs
.
>
> It seems that the folks at the HSLDA seem to like the transcripts. That's
> not a good sign. I will check to see whether their college (Patrick Henry)
> lets the "transcripts" substitute for objective evaluations.
REquiring a transcript can be, but isn't necessarily letting it
substitute for an objective evaluation.
Kanga
Kanga Mom
Info Junkie wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:34:04 -0500, "King George John" <gil...@crosslink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> To humor you further wrt your question; I would venture that yes,
> >> "homeschooled
> >> children get to see their friends every day from Monday to Friday".
> >
> >Unless you include parents and siblings in the category of "friends" then
> >many/most homeschooled kids DON'T get to see them.
>
> You basing your assumption on...?
>
> >Homeschool kids are as likely to see their friends during the school years
> >as "regular" kids are likely to see their friends during the summer.
>
> Most "friends" live nearby, and after the public school lets out, they're free
> to get together. This is true even between kids that attend different public or
> private schools.
I think this largely depends on where you live and what your children
like to do. When we lived on base, the kids saw friends every day.
When we lived in the last two states, they saw their friends nearly
every day. Here, not so much because we live kind of far from the kids
they've clicked with in the homeschool group. They do talk to their
friends in other states every day, either online or via the cell phone.
Kanga
King George John
>
> This is such an un-true statement in our lives. My kids - from the
> beginning of home schooling until now - saw friends at least 5 days of the
> week (normal week!) Between our co-op, church on Wed & Sun, Spanish
> class, ice skating, basketball practices, library time, etc., etc., a day
> fully at home was RARE.
Like it or not, much/most of your kids' education isn't provided at home.
There is nothing wrong with what you are doing.
BUT: the co-op often ends up as a de-facto private school. Much of the
other stuff is typical "soccer mom" stuff. Frankly, I would home that a
home educator would not feel the need to be a "soccer mom."
>Yes, rides from parents are part of it - we've put nearly 100 miles on a
>car in one day getting kids to where they needed to be, and that's in a
>smaller-type city! Now that two of my three drive themselves, a day where
>they don't go somewhere is even rarer - and 90% of it includes friends. As
>with most home schooled things, the burden is on the parent to provide
>what's best for their children. We've opted to allow gasoline to see that
>our kids have time with friends.
Good for you!
Clearly you believe that frequent contact is VERY important to the point
where you take time out of home instruction to truck your kids about to
various "play dates" and special classes.
My only question is: Why do you bother? Why not just send your little
darlings to public school and be done with it? How do you think public
schools would harm your little darling?
King George John
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote in message
news:43b2953d...@news.ifx.net...
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:34:04 -0500, "King George John"
> <gil...@crosslink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> To humor you further wrt your question; I would venture that yes,
>>> "homeschooled
>>> children get to see their friends every day from Monday to Friday".
>>
>>Unless you include parents and siblings in the category of "friends" then
>>many/most homeschooled kids DON'T get to see them.
>
> You basing your assumption on...?
Reality!
And common sense.
Perhaps you are confusing "home education" with some of the various schemes
whereby so-called "home educators" band together to in effect operate a
private school.
>
>>Homeschool kids are as likely to see their friends during the school years
>>as "regular" kids are likely to see their friends during the summer.
>
> Most "friends" live nearby, and after the public school lets out, they're
> free
> to get together. This is true even between kids that attend different
> public or
> private schools.
Good for you (and your kids). Even when our kids all went to the public
schools, NONE of their friends lived within safe walking distance. That's
the "reality" for many families.
The odds are that if the public schools kids have to ride a bus to school
then the parents will have to drive kids for "play dates."
>
>>In many places kids have to get rides from their parents to see other
>>kids.
>
> If this were true, then it would be just as true for "friends" that
> attended
> different public or private schools.
That's true. BUT, you see, kids can and do establish and maintain
friendships solely by contact in school activities (with a little help from
Ma Bell.)
>
Jani
> <gil...@crosslink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> To humor you further wrt your question; I would venture that yes,
>>> "homeschooled
>>> children get to see their friends every day from Monday to Friday".
>>
>>Unless you include parents and siblings in the category of "friends" then
>>many/most homeschooled kids DON'T get to see them.
>
> You basing your assumption on...?
>
>>Homeschool kids are as likely to see their friends during the school years
>>as "regular" kids are likely to see their friends during the summer.
>
> Most "friends" live nearby, and after the public school lets out, they're
> free
> to get together. This is true even between kids that attend different
> public or
> private schools.
Good point. My kids and their friends attend about six different schools,
between them, and they all meet up afterwards. The only problem I can see
with that, as regards homeschooled kids, is that they're not necessarily on
the same schedule as the state schooled ones, who all start their
"playing-out time" somewhere between 3.30 and 4.00.
>
>>In many places kids have to get rides from their parents to see other
>>kids.
>
> If this were true, then it would be just as true for "friends" that
> attended
> different public or private schools.
Yes, but they would have friends *at* the school; they wouldn't be relying
solely on people they saw *after* school.
Jani
Jani
"King George John" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:43b29551$0$29...@dingus.crosslink.net...
>
>
>> This is why homeschooling works best for educated parents. The
>> uneducated parents may not have ever learnt anything that they are
>> homeschooling their kids in!
>>
>> How can a parent "teach" physics if they have never studied physics?????
>
> Maybe by "learning physics" a few months ahead of the child?
>
> Happens all the time.
The trouble with that is that the teacher is not a specialist in the subject
area, and has only limited knowledge of it. Keeping "one step ahead" of the
kids is not so bad in school (I did it a lot on supply, when I wasn't
teaching my own subjects) because you have plenty of resources and other
members of the department to go to for help. I certainly wouldn't like to
tackle, say, GCSE level physics, chemistry, maths and biology on my own,
even if I was only teaching a couple of children as opposed to a classfull.
>
> In college, it's not at all unusual for the "teacher" to only by a few
> years older than the "student."
True, but in that few years they've got a degree in the subject plus a
teaching qualification, and don't have to try and "learn physics" in a few
weeks.
>>
>>
>>>> I don't have to have already read and completed an economics text book
>>>> for my child to work through it and learn from it.
>> ...
>>> We've spent a long time, in the UK ed system, getting *away* from the
>>> idea that you can just "work through a textbook" :( Textbooks are very
>>> much only *one* resource, out of many, in any workscheme.
>>
>> Yep! But this is what a lot of homeschoolers think "teaching" is!!!
>> Aaaaarrrggghhh!!!!!!
>
> "Working through" a good textbook is "gud enuf" for most purposes in most
> subjects. Perhaps the problem is that the textbooks are faulty.
No textbook is perfect, which is why they're only part of the resource base.
If textbooks were sufficient on their own, you could indeed leave the class
to plod through them, and never do any actual teaching.
>
>>
>> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this thread!!!!
>> 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary ....................
>> not!
>>
> Trouble is with the "ultra modern and contemporary" is that in ten years
> time is will be just another passing fad.
So those texts would have already been a "passing fad" almost a century ago
:)
Jani
Bob LeChevalier
>> The college wants to know if you've at least pretended to study certain
>> required topics- a foreign language, biology, math, English, etc.
>
>Frankly, a college that is more interested whether a prospective student has
>"pretended to study" something than whether the student has actually
>mastered (to some level) the subject is just not worth attending except as a
>means of getting credentials for a better job or for admission to a
>professional school.
Then probably no college is worth attending "except ...", since I
suspect that all colleges do that to some extent.
>To that point I would agree that it may be worth the time and trouble to
>"throw together" a home school transcript. But think of it as equivalent
>to the "diploma" issued to the Scarecrow in by The Wizzard.
The "diploma" in the story was for the purpose of making the recipient
feel good about himself, which is the primary reason for any diploma,
since seldom does anyone but the recipient ever look at the things. A
transcript on the other hand reports what someone actually did.
>> I
>> don't think a transcript is silly.
>> The military also, at least when we were still an active duty military
>> family, required a transcript from homeschooling families.
>
>That's nice.
>
>I suppose that's how the military played CYA.
The colleges have to play CYA too. They have to at least pretend like
they have some objective basis for admitting your kid, in case they
get sued. EVERY organization with any sense keeps records in case
they get sued.
>The military would have beter served the minor dependants by just setting
>down some OBJECTIVE requirements that dependent students would be expect to
>meet as certain ages.
They would then need pieces of paper to show that the dependent
students met those objective requirements.
Colleges cannot do so, because if they did so, they would have trouble
making exceptions, as they frequently do so, for alumni, major donors,
or kids who score badly on SATs but demonstrate unusual traits, or to
achieve diversity in their student population.
>You know, stuff like: the names of the states and capitals. The names of
>the important georgraphic features on the US. Going on to international
>names, places.
Why would any of that be especially useful to someone attending
college, especially if they aren't majoring in geography.
>If the military thinks writing is important, it could publish a style manual
>for kids and test on the mastery of it.
The military doesn't necessarily think any particular knowledge is
important, and has no interest in undertaking the expense of testing
for it.
>Frankly, a home school "transcript" has about as much value as an "inner
>city" high school transcript.
And an inner city high school transcript has considerable value. It
reports what classes the kid took, what his attendance was, and of
course documents what school he attended.
>> Many GED students tried to enlist under the tier reserved for hsing
>> grads. Requiring a transcript usually revealed the phonies, as they
>> didn't know how to put one together and they didn't know what to
>> include on it if they tried.
>
>That's good. If the GED test insn't "gud enuf" for Uncle Sam, why not just
>subject the potential recruits for additional testing.
It costs money.
>I was a platoon leader (US Army Engineers) for a short time back when there
>was a draft. The platoon comprised specialists who had to attend a special
>school beyond AIT. Among the 10 or so non-NCO members of the platoon,
>several only had GEDs and one had a college degree.
>
>The only problem with GED guys was that the reason they didn't finish school
>"on time" usually had to do with not being willing to submit to the
>discipline of school. This might make them poor candidates for the
>military. It also might make them poor candidates for most colleges.
And a homeschooler who cannot produce a transcript similarly may be so
anti-authoritarian as to be a poor candidate for either the military
or a college (not that I think a college is actually thinking that
way).
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:34:04 -0500, "King George John" <gil...@crosslink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> To humor you further wrt your question; I would venture that yes,
>>> "homeschooled
>>> children get to see their friends every day from Monday to Friday".
>>
>>Unless you include parents and siblings in the category of "friends" then
>>many/most homeschooled kids DON'T get to see them.
>
>You basing your assumption on...?
>
>>Homeschool kids are as likely to see their friends during the school years
>>as "regular" kids are likely to see their friends during the summer.
>
>Most "friends" live nearby, and after the public school lets out, they're free
>to get together. This is true even between kids that attend different public or
>private schools.
When my kids started school, they attended a school 3 miles from my
house for a special program. There were no kids near their age in my
immediate neighborhood.
My kids made friends in their new school, but given the geography,
only a couple of those kids were nearer than 2-3 miles away. As such,
my kids could not see the other kids outside of school EXCEPT by
special parental arrangement and transportation. Since I never saw
these parents (my kids took a bus), getting together with them to plan
supervised play arrangements was difficult, and the vicissitudes of
modern life frequently made it impossible.
I can see similar problems affecting homeschoolers.
lojbab
Dalene Barnes
>
> Like it or not, much/most of your kids' education isn't provided at home.
Admittedly, *some* is not provided at home. They learn Spanish from
a tutor; their science class was a co-op class, with much reading and prep
done at home, then a group class on Fridays. Nope, I don't teach them
basketball, either. However, where they learn, from whom they learn, and
what they learn is OUR choice - not someone else's. There is the key. But
except for those two subjects last year, and only Spanish this year, it's
all at home.
> There is nothing wrong with what you are doing.
Oh, thank you so very much. I feel better now.
> BUT: the co-op often ends up as a de-facto private school. Much of the
> other stuff is typical "soccer mom" stuff. Frankly, I would home that a
> home educator would not feel the need to be a "soccer mom."
Our co-op was no where near a de-facto private school. And your
conclusion about the soccer mom stuff is also incorrect, based, most likely,
on your area and experiences, not mine. Our co-op was 9 families, with kids
ranging from baby to high school. Only Moms directed the classes, and we
rotated who led what; there were no drop offs; we didn't charge money for
anything but basic supplies, and we shared those tremendously. And we
changed things up on a yearly basis, depending on what worked, what didn't,
who could still be involved, etc.
> Clearly you believe that frequent contact is VERY important to the point
> where you take time out of home instruction to truck your kids about to
> various "play dates" and special classes.
Once again, an incorrect conclusion. You are assuming that we take time
out of home instruction to do other things....why is that?
> My only question is: Why do you bother? Why not just send your little
> darlings to public school and be done with it? How do you think public
> schools would harm your little darling?
Again, why do you assume that is my reason for home schooling? And why
is hiring a tutor for one subject and co-oping for one more against your
paradigm of home schooling? Is it that I don't restrict my kids to a desk
in my house from 8-3 to learn that has you so riled? Are you just having a
difficult time imagining that home schooling can be done in a non-classroom
like setting, cause that's definitely the impression I'm getting. Does it
bother you that my kids do math in their jammies on the couch? (I know that
bothers Jani - she thinks they "lie in until noon" because of that....!)
Does it bother you that we do SOME schooling in the morning, and take a 4
hour break for basketball, volunteer work, then finish home schooling at
3:30 p.m.? Is that just too much for you?
It seems very much like you are "patronizing" (then quickly moving to
criticizing!) me and our style of home schooling because it doesn't fit your
paradigm. Home schooling is very individualized, very freedom-oriented.
There are very few families who do it all the same way, but there should be
no patronizing or criticizing of those who opt for different methods than
you!
Dalene
Jani
Does it
> bother you that my kids do math in their jammies on the couch? (I know
> that bothers Jani - she thinks they "lie in until noon" because of
> that....!)
LOL! No, it doesn't, but thank you for reminding me that I haven't replied
to that post yet ;)
Jani
Jani
>
> "Jani"
>>
>> Going to be something of a shock when they get jobs that require working
>> to someone else's schedule, then ;) I've never quite understood that -
>> are homeschooled children always allowed to lie-in until lunchtime, or
>> are they expected to be capable of rational thought before 9 a.m., like
>> everyone else in the family?
>>
>
> They already have jobs and are required to work on someone else's
> schedule. "Lie in until lunchtime..." Interesting that you extrapolated
> that from my statements.
If going to work at the same time as Dad is considered a bad thing for some
reason, that implies that one isn't starting work until considerably later.
That, to me, did indeed indicate a lie-in :)
>
> Each home school family works out a schedule that works well for them.
> Two of my daughters have basketball practice three days a week - their
> schedule those days is different from non-basketball days. On mornings
> after the nights we've stayed up late working on something, or just
> enjoying family time, I let them sleep late - they are, after all,
> teenagers, and require a lot of sleep to stay healthy. I'm thankful they
> can get this. I'm thankful they have the time and op
Then you arrange the late sleeping to coincide with staying up the night
before, which is the same as I do; the only difference is that late nights
are usually Friday and Saturday here during term-time. I doubt that my kids
miss out on the actual number of late nights, it's just that they're within
a more regular framework.
>
> Another distinct advantage of home schooling is that you can take
> advantage of "night owl" and "morning person" personalities. My eldest
> simply does not do well early in the day. She functions much better after
> noon. I, on the other hand, am usually done with rational thought by 7
> p.m. However, on days she *has* to conform, she does, and she does so
> well. She's just happier and does *better* if she can stay up late and
> then sleep late. My youngest, however, likes to have all her math done
> before Daddy leaves for work. She's *my* baby! lol Some employers
> recognize these distinctions, and offer swing shifts, flex hours, etc.
Yes, indeed, and that is such an improvement on the old "nine to five
everywhere". But not *all* employers offer flexi, by any means, and I
suspect that anyone who's got to the age of 18 or so without ever having to
work more formal hours, on a regular basis, is going to find it very
difficult to adapt if that's all that's available. OTOH, someone who is used
to nine to five, even if it's not their preferred option, can cope with
either formal or flexi.
>
> As far as the "project" thing - yes, sometimes there are times you have to
> stop. But I have seen in my husband's job that once he gets "on a roll,"
> it is best for the entire department for him to keep working until the
> solution is found. Artificially timed stopping points are my objection,
> and those seem to be *less* in a home school environment than a
> public/private school, but, as you said, sometimes in real life you do
> have to stop. They need to have the *freedom* to determine which is best
> when.
I agree there's some degree of artificiality because of timetabling
constraints, but on the other hand, schools work in time-blocks which take
into account things like attention span, the need to change topics or type
of activity so you don't get "stale", and so on. There would be no point
timetabling art or games as single periods - 35 minutes just isn't long
enough. Similarly, a whole afternoon of an intensive, academic subject would
be too much; the kids would be glazing over long before the end.
> Really, freedom is what it boils down to - when you entrust your children
> to someone else for 8 hours a day, you are then playing by their rules,
> their time tables, their expectations. Home schooling gives you the
> freedom to make rules and time tables and expectations that are *custom
> made* for your family, your time, your children, their talents, their
> likes and dislikes, their personalities, their learning styles.
Which is fine in a home where the parents are also delivering a standard of
education equal to, or better than, that which could be obtained in school
(and I know some parents do exactly that). Where it falls down, IME, is when
the "customising" is seen as more important than the quality of education.
There is plenty of time to be
> grown up and have to conform to the system of the world; why make them do
> so now? Small steps into the grown up world of 8-5 are plenty for kids.
>
> Besides, I really dislike the "they'll have to do it someday, why not make
> them do it now" theory. By that theory, why not teach 2nd graders Algebra
> II? They'll have to take it someday, why not now? Oh, because they need
> to work their way up to it, have skills and knowledge to build on.....I
> view life that way. Let them learn the skills and knowledge necessary to
> be an independent adult gradually - no need to force them into 8-5
> schedules now.
But there's always some "forcing" going on, as regards routines, cycles of
activity, etc. I don't believe any child is born with the innate ability to
pick up their clothes, take dishes into the kitchen, feed the cats twice a
day, and so on :) And if they're allowed to do those things on an
as-and-when basis, depending on their personalities, you end up with a messy
house, starving cats, and kids who are going to grow up with the same
behavioural patterns in *their* homes.
Jani
Michael S. Morris
Wednesday, the 28th of December, 2005
Jani:
The only problem I can see
with that, as regards homeschooled kids, is that they're not
necessarily on
the same schedule as the state schooled ones, who all start their
"playing-out time" somewhere between 3.30 and 4.00.
My children are normally done with "seatwork" by noon,
having started somewheres around 8 in the morning.
And that means no homework, since it's all homework. So,
when their state-schooled friends come home by 4:00, my children
are free to play out. Except of course for the intervention
of "non-seatwork" things like fencing practice, swimming,
piano and guitar lessons, Spanish conversational tutoring,
and riding lessons. Anyway, that stuff seems to me to be
similar whether one is homeschooling or public-schooling.
My point is just that my children's "seatwork" amounts to
a fraction (less than half counting bus rides and homework)
of the time spent withs school by their public-schooled
counterparts. (Oh, yeah, they are much more advanced in
mathematics, science, history, literature, languages,
music, and art than their public-schooled counterparts.)
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
M a r k T
> What is ONE thing the "Robinson method" does wrong? I looked at
> http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/ and at first glance it looks good to
> me.
- TOTALLY dependent upon good literacy skills to begin with.
- Lock-step without any deviation from the program.
- 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica used - outdated and too complicated for
younger readers
- 1913 Webster's Dictionary used - outdated and too complicated for younger
readers
- Science texts instead of hands on experimentation and discovery learning.
- Original King James Version of the Bible - outdated and language too
complicated for any child of any age
-Phonics only without the addition of whole language approach, etc.
- Claims to be "self-teaching" but pupils require interaction with at least
one other person - a teacher.
--
##########################################################
TREW HOMESKOOLA SOVEREIGNTY COMMISSION
Adapted from Mississippi.
An afffiliation of the KKK
Sieg heil!
TREW HOMESKOOLA SOVEREIGNTY COMMISSION LAW
M a r k T
>>How do you think public schools would harm your little darling?
>
> Again, why do you assume that is my reason for home schooling?
Your FEAR AND HATRED.
> there should be no patronizing or criticizing of those who opt for
> different methods than you!
But there IS for anyone who disagrees with the Trew Homeskoolas here. ;-)
M a r k T
>> How can a parent "teach" physics if they have never studied physics?????
>
> Maybe by "learning physics" a few months ahead of the child?
&
>>> We've spent a long time, in the UK ed system, getting *away* from the
>>> idea that you can just "work through a textbook" :( Textbooks are very
>>> much only *one* resource, out of many, in any workscheme.
>>
>> Yep! But this is what a lot of homeschoolers think "teaching" is!!!
>> Aaaaarrrggghhh!!!!!!
>
> "Working through" a good textbook is "gud enuf" for most purposes in most
> subjects.
Good grief! Trew Homeskoola Kwality Ejakashun!!!!!!!!!!
Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this thread!!!!
1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary ....................
not!
--
##########################################################
TREW HOMESKOOLA SOVEREIGNTY COMMISSION
Adapted from Mississippi.
An afffiliation of the KKK
Sieg heil!
TREW HOMESKOOLA SOVEREIGNTY COMMISSION LAW
1. misc.education.home-school.misc is NOT a forum for the discussion of ANY
M a r k T
>> As I have repeatedly stated the younger the pupil the more difficult it
>> is to teach well (and I've taught from Kindergarten to adults).
>
> What?
Read it slowly if you don't understand.
> Just what is it you were trying to "teach" the kids in Kindergarten
http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/
This NSW Board of Studies site provides syllabus and support material for
parents of children in kindergarten through to year 6. For parents keen to
learn more about what their kids are up to in their primary education years,
there's a range of resources to download such as syllabus information
(available for all subjects) and advice documents on how to support your
child's learning
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
High school material available at http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/
Much better than the crappy Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum
Of course, reminders of good resources like this will be gone once I am
censored by the ignorant Trew Homeskoolas.
M a r k T
>> "Working through" a good textbook is "gud enuf" for most purposes in most
>> subjects. Perhaps the problem is that the textbooks are faulty.
>
> No textbook is perfect, which is why they're only part of the resource
> base. If textbooks were sufficient on their own, you could indeed leave
> the class to plod through them, and never do any actual teaching.
This is why homeschoolers who only use the text books or kits aren't really
teaching at all.
Probably why many homeschoolers are AFRAID to discuss what they do in their
homeschool ... especuially if their happens to be a professional educator
around.
One always hears from the rich homeschoolers who get their kids tutored
(expensive) and whose kids are perfick ..... but not so much from the poorer
homeschoolers. Why might that be?
In the USA one usuall hears from WHITE homeschoolers but not so much BLACK
homeschoolers. Why might that be?
>>> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this
>>> thread!!!! 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary
>>> .................... not!
>>>
>> Trouble is with the "ultra modern and contemporary" is that in ten years
>> time is will be just another passing fad.
>
> So those texts would have already been a "passing fad" almost a century
> ago
Yep! .... but still contemporary to Trew Homeskoolas!
M a r k T
> A brief summary of what the students know and can do wouldn't be
> anymore objective than the transcript.
How would you know? You don't know the difference between evaluation and
assessment!!!!
>an objective evaluation.
Evaluations AREN'T objective. They are subjective.
Assessments (against given criteria) are objectove.
Silly little person!
M a r k T
> And a homeschooler who cannot produce a transcript similarly may be so
> anti-authoritarian as to be a poor candidate for .... the military
You can always use them as cannon fodder.
M a r k T
>>Home schooling gives you the freedom to make rules and time tables and
>>expectations that are *custom made* for your family, your time, your
>>children, their talents, their likes and dislikes, their personalities,
>>their learning styles.
>
> Which is fine in a home where the parents are also delivering a standard
> of education equal to, or better than, that which could be obtained in
> school (and I know some parents do exactly that). Where it falls down,
> IME, is when the "customising" is seen as more important than the quality
> of education.
This is where the Trew Homeskoolas want me banned and censored ... for
daring to bring up the issue of the QUALITY of homeschooling that is
happening UNIVERSALLY.
Why are they SO AFRAID of talking about this area?????
Might the substandard Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum be a
clue????????????
Theo Bekkers
> "Dalene Barnes" wrote
>> Let them learn the
>> skills and knowledge necessary to be an independent adult gradually
>> - no need to force them into 8-5 schedules now.
> But there's always some "forcing" going on, as regards routines,
> cycles of activity, etc. I don't believe any child is born with the
> innate ability to pick up their clothes, take dishes into the
> kitchen, feed the cats twice a day, and so on :) And if they're
> allowed to do those things on an as-and-when basis, depending on
> their personalities, you end up with a messy house, starving cats,
> and kids who are going to grow up with the same behavioural patterns
> in *their* homes.
Agreed. If you don't learn routines early, you will have difficulty coping
within society later, or even keeping a clean house. If you think your kids
dislike routine, try feeding them two hours later than you normally would.
You could try " I think I'll catch the 8 o'clock bus at 9 this morning". :-)
Theo
Kanga Mom
Jani wrote:
[ ]
>
> If going to work at the same time as Dad is considered a bad thing for some
> reason, that implies that one isn't starting work until considerably later.
> That, to me, did indeed indicate a lie-in :)
>
The first 14 of my husband's twenty years in the Air Force (and thus,
the first fourteen years of our oldest child's life) were spent as a
lie-in, then, because he didn't go to work until two in the afternnoon,
and he came home at midnight, stayed up to visit with me until one or
two a.m. and then we slept in, all of us.
His co-workers on that shift didn't ever see their kids except on
weekends. He saw his ever day of the week. Sometimes we did some
homeschooling together, and other times we put off school until after
Dad left for work.
[ ]> Yes, indeed, and that is such an improvement on the old "nine
to five
> everywhere". But not *all* employers offer flexi, by any means, and I
> suspect that anyone who's got to the age of 18 or so without ever having to
> work more formal hours, on a regular basis, is going to find it very
> difficult to adapt if that's all that's available. OTOH, someone who is used
> to nine to five, even if it's not their preferred option, can cope with
> either formal or flexi.
I think people are infinitely more adaptable than you realize.
Our homeschooling years are extremely flexible as we shifted our
schedule to mesh with Dad's when the kids were younger, and we never,
ever started school by 8:00. Oddly enough, when our daughter started
college her first class was at 8:00 in the morning, and it's a 45
minute drive. Yet she made it to class on time every single school day
and, unlike her classmates (all of whom came from teh public school
system), she never was late and never missed class.
Our second daughter isn't interested in college. The first year after
she graduated our homeschool she worked as an apprentice at a horse
ranch, also about 45minutes away, and she had to be there at 7:30 or
so. She was the first homeschooled student the horse ranch had dealt
with (they take several apprentices every year), and they were
favorably impressed by her dependability. Other apprentices lived on
the premises, and in her performance reviews the owners told her she
was the most dependable, reliable worker they'd had- that if she said
she'd be there, she was there, if she said she'd do something, she'd do
it, and they couldn't even rely on their live in helpers to actually
show up on time.
She's been working for a year now for the county doing another animal
related job, and she has to be at work at 8:00. She is never late.
I can't speak for other homeschoolers, but my lot have had no problem
coping with formal hours on a regular basis even though that's not at
all what we did in their homeschooling.
[ ]> I agree there's some degree of artificiality because of
timetabling
> constraints, but on the other hand, schools work in time-blocks which take
> into account things like attention span, the need to change topics or type
> of activity so you don't get "stale", and so on.
Some homeschools do it that way, too, but since it's one on one instead
of one on twenty, the homeschooling parent can pretty much tell just by
looking when the attention span is going.
There would be no point
> timetabling art or games as single periods - 35 minutes just isn't long
> enough. Similarly, a whole afternoon of an intensive, academic subject would
> be too much; the kids would be glazing over long before the end.
When it's your own child you notice when they're glazing over and can
switch subjects without waiting for the bell.
Kanga
King George John
> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this thread!!!!
> 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary ....................
> not!
You keep talking like there is something wrong with a pre WWI Encyclopedia
or Dictionary.
There isn't. It is what it is: a "snapshot" during an era when graduating
from high school was a major accomplishment and educational standards were
MUCH higher.
Obviously the kids already have access to "modern" books. But that
teaching method gives than access to the world as understood by educated
people just before that start of WWI.
I have a 25 year old "Compact" version of the Oxford English Dictionary.
It has about 20 times the information content as your typical "college"
dictionary. My "hard copy" home encyclopedia is about 40 years old.
When I use these older sources I am well aware that the "new" stuff is
missing. But I am also aware that the "new" versions just don't have as
much information or historical detail.
And, of course, most of what is taught in high school (including science,
chemistry, biology - with the DNA exception, physics, history, and
literature) was known in 1911. A comparison with 21st century thinking
with early 20th century thinking is useful for students above the age of 10
or so.
Theo Bekkers
>> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this
>> thread!!!! 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary
>> .................... not!
> You keep talking like there is something wrong with a pre WWI
> Encyclopedia or Dictionary.
>
> There isn't. It is what it is: a "snapshot" during an era when
> graduating from high school was a major accomplishment and
> educational standards were MUCH higher.
Hehe. I have three copies of Britannica. A 1976 print, a 2006 (yeah, I know,
getting to be like car model years) DVD, and a 1771 replica print. Not sure
that the info in that is all that useful. Is California still considered to
be an island on the West Coast? :-)
I think an account of WWI written in 1919 is much more likely to be useful
than one written by someone born 40 years after the event.
Theo
*Mark T*
>> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this thread!!!!
>> 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary ....................
>> not!
>
> You keep talking like there is something wrong with a pre WWI Encyclopedia
> or Dictionary.
For a start they won't contain anything that came along after 1911 and 1913
... a slight problem if you want to study anything contemporary.
A Pre WWI Encyclopedia and Dictionary.is an utterly ridiculuous resource to
us in "teaching" kids if that is the ONLY Encycplodedia or dictionary
available. The idea is not worthy to piss on!
No wonder you don't want quality control in to schools if you use that
shite!!!!
King George John
"*Mark T*" <thinkaboutwh@youaredoing12423589912358798767> wrote in message
news:43b4ee95$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "King George John" wrote:
>
>>> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this
>>> thread!!!!
>>> 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary
>>> .................... not!
>>
>> You keep talking like there is something wrong with a pre WWI
>> Encyclopedia or Dictionary.
>
> For a start they won't contain anything that came along after 1911 and
> 1913 ... a slight problem if you want to study anything contemporary.
Duh! (You figured that out all by yourself?)
>
> A Pre WWI Encyclopedia and Dictionary.is an utterly ridiculuous resource
> to us in "teaching" kids if that is the ONLY Encycplodedia or dictionary
> available. The idea is not worthy to piss on!
Obviously. You have created a strawman.
>
> No wonder you don't want quality control in to schools if you use that
> shite!!!!
>
With the internet kids have routine and easy access to "modern" sources of
information. All but the youngest students would understand the difference
between the "modern" stuff and the pre-WWI material.
The pre-war material is a first approximation to primary source material for
the early 20th and late 19th. The material was written during a time that
there were still many veterans of the Civil War alive and things like the
Spanish War and the Boer War were fresh memories.
It's a very efficient way for the kids to access this material.
But you knew that, didn't you.
>
Wayne
<gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>>
>> For a start they won't contain anything that came along after 1911 and
>> 1913 ... a slight problem if you want to study anything contemporary.
>
>Duh! (You figured that out all by yourself?)
>
>>
>> A Pre WWI Encyclopedia and Dictionary.is an utterly ridiculuous resource
>> to us in "teaching" kids if that is the ONLY Encycplodedia or dictionary
>> available. The idea is not worthy to piss on!
>
>Obviously. You have created a strawman.
That's what he does.
An old encyclopedia is a great resource for any child. And yes the
internet is there for modern "stuff". But a child of any age can pull
a volume out and just spend hours learning on their own. I also think
the older encyclopedias are better written (maybe because they are not
so PC) and will keep a child's interest. I always had access to a 1948
Funk & Wagnalls as a child.
My only concern with the "Robinson Curriculum" encyclopedia is what
they may be charging for it. Libraries are always throwing out old
sets and yard sales sell them cheap. We have picked up (and given
away) quite a few over the years.
Wayne
.......................................................................
Our present culture may be largely shaped by this strange idea of
isolating children's thought from adult thought. Perhaps the way our
culture educates its children better explains why most of us come out
as dumb as they do, than it explains how some of us come out as smart
as they do. --- Marvin Minsky
Mike Stone
"Wayne" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:hg1br1h1sedomlm4u...@4ax.com...
>
> An old encyclopedia is a great resource for any child.
Mattruffack, this 57-year-old "child" (58 next month) has a 1929 Britannica
and finds it very useful. Contains a lot of material the more recent
editions don't have.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
"To be good is noble.
To teach others to be good is yet nobler - and far less trouble."
Mark Twain
insky
*Mark T*
>>>> Look at the crappy kits they order ......... the title of this
>>>> thread!!!!
>>>> 1911 & 1913 TEXTS!!! Ultra modern and contemoporary
>>>> .................... not!
>>>
>>> You keep talking like there is something wrong with a pre WWI
>>> Encyclopedia or Dictionary.
>>
>> For a start they won't contain anything that came along after 1911 and
>> 1913 ... a slight problem if you want to study anything contemporary.
>
> Duh!
...
>> A Pre WWI Encyclopedia and Dictionary.is an utterly ridiculuous resource
>> to us in "teaching" kids if that is the ONLY Encycplodedia or dictionary
>> available. The idea is not worthy to piss on!
>
> Obviously.
... and your ignorant poiint is??????
These items appear to be the CENTRAL & ONLY encyclopedia and dictionary in
the kit!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our times, various ideologically dedicated groups increasingly use
censorship, coercion, or propaganda to limit access to ideas, literature,
and the arts that they consider threatening. p.74
Censorship, the twin brother of propaganda, is the tool of despots, of
idealogues, of ayatollahs, of fantics. p.96
Franky Schaeffer "Sham Pearls For Real Swine" ( Wolgemuth & Hyatt;
Brentwood:1990) [Francis Schaeffer's son & Susan Schaeffer Macaulay's
brother]
*Mark T*
>>> For a start they won't contain anything that came along after 1911 and
>>> 1913 ... a slight problem if you want to study anything contemporary.
....
>>> A Pre WWI Encyclopedia and Dictionary.is an utterly ridiculuous resource
>>> to us in "teaching" kids if that is the ONLY Encycplodedia or dictionary
>>> available. The idea is not worthy to piss on!
>>
>>Obviously.
...
> An old encyclopedia is a great resource for any child. And yes the
> internet is there for modern "stuff".
The Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum doesn't say that. You are
wrongly assuming based on your prejudice!
*Mark T*
>> An old encyclopedia is a great resource for any child.
>
> Mattruffack, this 57-year-old "child" (58 next month) has a 1929
> Britannica
> and finds it very useful. Contains a lot of material the more recent
> editions don't have.
... but has NOTHING of anything past 1929 .... strange about that. Nor does
it have any of the CORRECTIONS made on its contents as a result of research
in the years after 1929 ... even stranger. I wonder why?
Would it be a good source for looking up modern inventions?
King George John
>
> My only concern with the "Robinson Curriculum" encyclopedia is what
> they may be charging for it. Libraries are always throwing out old
> sets and yard sales sell them cheap. We have picked up (and given
> away) quite a few over the years.
Oh yeah!
A few years ago our local (small town type) library was having a book sale.
During the last 20 minutes of the sale, the price was $.50 a bag for books
and $3 per encyclopedia set.
Oh, and the $3 sets were ALL more recent than the one we have at home.
>
Wooly Baa Lamb
> Going to be something of a shock when they get jobs that require
> working to someone else's schedule, then ;) I've never quite
> understood that - are homeschooled children always allowed to lie-in
> until lunchtime, or are they expected to be capable of rational
> thought before 9 a.m., like everyone else in the family?
(post is done with a VBG, but is truthful)
What makes you think *I'm* "capable of rational thought" before 9am?
2am - yeah, no problem.
I guess the world is very much bigoted against night owls.
*sigh*
(and yes, I married one of those dreaded "morning people". ARRRGGG.)
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
You always have freedom of choice, but you never have freedom of
consequence.
Wooly Baa Lamb
> Which is fine in a home where the parents are also delivering a
> standard of education equal to, or better than, that which could be
> obtained in school (and I know some parents do exactly that). Where
> it falls down, IME, is when the "customising" is seen as more
> important than the quality of education.
The problem with this argument is that it is making the false assumption
that "quality of education" is an objective phrase. It isn't. It is
very much SUBJECTIVE.
What I consider "quality" is not necessarily "quality" to you (or Kanga,
or Marty, or ...). For example, I consider spending any time at all on
"art eduction" to be an almost complete waste of time (to pick a topic I
know will get lots of disagreement from folks in this group - including
my wife). Otoh, I consider knowing what kinds of grasses, trees, birds,
insects, etc are on our own property and how they interact with each
other to be of critical importance.
The point is, having different options on what is "quality" is fine.
The problem comes in when one of us attempts to force-feed our
definition of "quality" upon the other. In back-country venacular -
"them's fighin' words".
And, imNSho, it's something worth fighting for. Mentally; positionally,
and - if need be - physically.
Wooly Baa Lamb
> The trouble with that is that the teacher is not a specialist in the
> subject area, and has only limited knowledge of it. Keeping "one step
> ahead" of the kids is not so bad in school (I did it a lot on supply,
> when I wasn't teaching my own subjects) because you have plenty of
> resources and other members of the department to go to for help. I
> certainly wouldn't like to tackle, say, GCSE level physics,
> chemistry, maths and biology on my own, even if I was only teaching a
> couple of children as opposed to a classfull.
You've got a bad view of what teaching is - at its very core.
It is NOT to "impart my knowlege to someone else".
It IS to "guide them to learning on their own".
This can be further demonstrated when you look at ....
>> In college, it's not at all unusual for the "teacher" to only by a
>> few years older than the "student."
>
> True, but in that few years they've got a degree in the subject plus a
> teaching qualification, and don't have to try and "learn physics" in
> a few weeks.
... college. The objective in college (especially in the graduate
programs) is for the student to outpace and go further than his teachers
(whether they are full professors or just graduate students). If
"teaching" were "imparting knowlege", the ability to out-learn your
teacher would be impossible.
To bring it to homeschooling - in some topics, my children have already
passed me. That doesn't mean I am not still directing their study in
that topic.
> No textbook is perfect, which is why they're only part of the
> resource base. If textbooks were sufficient on their own, you could
> indeed leave the class to plod through them, and never do any actual
> teaching.
Funny you mention that. About 30% of my *college* classes fit the mold
of "I just read the book and didn't bother to attend the class".
Joe C
>> No textbook is perfect, which is why they're only part of the
>> resource base. If textbooks were sufficient on their own, you could
>> indeed leave the class to plod through them, and never do any actual
>> teaching.
>
> Funny you mention that. About 30% of my *college* classes fit the mold of
> "I just read the book and didn't bother to attend the class".
>
> --
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
It's funny you mention that, Chris! I graduated college with a 3.9 and
either cut or slept through the majority of my classes; the exceptions being
statistics and Social Work Research....both of which I worked my bum off for
the B and the A I got respectively!!
I found early on that my professors based their lectures and tests on the
information in the assigned readings. If I did the assigned readings, the
class time was redundant, and quite frankly, a waste. The exceptions to
this were the classes where the readings were then put to practical
use...such as practicing interviewing techniques, counseling techniques,
etc. The best part of college, in my estimation, was the field placement.
The ability to have hands on, interactive, "on the job training" was far
more valuable to me than the classroom time.
Blessings,
Tammy
*Mark T*
> I consider spending any time at all on "art eduction" to be an almost
> complete waste of >time
Obviously a Philistine!
>worth fighting for ....- physically.
Obviously a thug!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our times, various ideologically dedicated groups increasingly use
censorship, coercion, or propaganda to limit access to ideas, literature,
and the arts that they consider threatening. p.74
Censorship, the twin brother of propaganda, is the tool of despots, of
ideologues, of ayatollahs, of fanatics. p.96