Homeschooling / Unschooling

[Guest nikkidel]

Can I ask a straight question (honestly no agenda)

 

What is it in conventional education that people are trying to avoid in choosing homeschooling? Just asking, there must be something you don't like/want, that means you want to take this route. Hence my earlier comment about pressure - I sort of figure there must be something you really don't like in the way schools work that means you want to do this, ergo you care (obviously) about education, ergo there must be a real concern/desire to make sure when you do homeschool that you get it right, no?

 

1. I want my kids to be able to take an interest in the things they excel at (as well as learning all the subjects), and for them to be able to concentrate a bit more on those things if they choose to.

 

2. My son is one of those children who would not thrive in a class of 30 children but is much better in a one on one situation, or in a small group.

 

3. Tall poppy syndrome. When I was at school I dumbed myself down purely because my life was made miserable by my peers when I wanted to do well. My husband came from a different culture and didn't experience the same thing, but it's alive and well here, so I don't want my kids afraid of wanting to do well.

 

4. They can achieve more in a few hours at home than they'd achieve in a day at school, and the rest of the day is free to do other lovely things.

 

5. We are happy to take the responsibility for our childrens' learning and not just palm it off on someone else, and enjoy their company so don't feel the need to get rid of them every day just to get them out from under our feet.

 

6. My hubby works from home and he's keen to teach the kids a bit about business from a younger age so that they have that as part of their knowledge too...they couldn't do that if they were at school.

 

7. We enjoy the freedom homeschooling gives. If we want to travel, school can come with us. If we want to have a holiday mid-term we can. If we need to visit the UK in an emergency, for example, we can just pack up and go for an indefinite amount of time with no worries about them missing school or having to put them in another school temporarily.

 

8. One family we have contact with is just off on a 250 day, 4 continent, 33 country overseas trip as a family. School will go with them and it will only add to their learning experience. They have been saving for years to do it and now they're off. What a fantastic experience for them all, which couldn't be done if the kids were in school. I'd love to do that, or maybe spend a year sailing around various places. Homeschooling gives us the freedom to do this.

 

9. I believe school is very good at teaching children to think in certain ways. I want my kids to be free thinkers, not afraid to question everything. I want their natural curiosity encouraged and not extinguished.

 

10. I want their only limits to be the ones they naturally reach, rather than the ones imposed on them by being in a class situation and having to work at the pace of the 30 others in the class, or the pace the national curriculum sets for them.

 

11. We can go off at a tangent and spend a few days (or longer) on something that we find really interests us.

 

That's just from my point of view; I'm sure my hubby could add more.

Edited March 27, 2012 by nikkidel

[Guest]

Re #8

 

Hubby spent 6 months as a child travelling Europe with his mother and brother. This was from Aus, there was no problem doing it (at least then). It was educational and fun for them both as kids. We plan to do something similar with our son when he is a bit older.

[pintpot]

OK, thanks

 

I don't personally agree that school is as rigidly conformist or focused on exams and grades as many believe, as it wasn't my experience as a child nor now as a parent, but I can see where you're coming from

 

I think I would be worried about being an amateur and doing an amateur job at it if I chose that route; but I'm happy to do other things as an amateur (fix vehicles, DIY including plumbing and wiring) that lots of people wouldn't dream of leaving to anyone but a professional

[Petals]

A previous neighbour did home schooling for her children and I always felt that they were missing so much. They were outgoing, but they were restricted to mix with children their mum and dad thought were ok. I personally think that this is not good for children, they have to become street wise if you like and learn to select their own friends. I am not a fan of any sort of arranged play etc. Even though my children were brought up closely with friends children now they are grown they have their own friends. They still know my friends children but they mix with others and so do my friends children.

 

School has never been easy it reflects where we live and who we live with. If we do not have the opportunity as children it leaves us frightened and vulnerable in later life. Only my opinion.

[Guest Guest16631]

..........many years ago when I was a child livving in Borneo my mother home schooled us for a while....................it was a positive experience I remember the big box arriving with the lessons ....( no Internet)..................we did our lessons ear.y in the morning and spent a lot of the rest of the day exploring................many fond memories ,..............the reason was because the local school we had attended had many of the lessons in mandarin and we were falling behind..................but mum found the reonsibility and workload too much so we went away to school...............had no problem with the academic side of things but the rigid routine was a challenge for a while....................in many ways I wish I had home schooled mine when they were juniors as the freedom it gives as a family is a wonderful opportunity to share life's experiences with your child before responsibilities and conformity to the wider world become a part of their lives...............good luck to you .........tink x

[Guest nikkidel]

School has never been easy it reflects where we live and who we live with. If we do not have the opportunity as children it leaves us frightened and vulnerable in later life. Only my opinion.

 

Can you explain this a bit more? I'm unsure how not going to school leaves a child frightened and vulnerable later...

 

As far as I've seen, homeschooled kids are often high achievers who are not afraid to be different and think outside the box, and therefore they excel at whatever they choose to do later in life.

 

Do you mean that they won't know how to deal with the rougher, tougher elements of society? I think they'll learn that through their life experiences anyway. I'd rather my kids spent their learning hours actually learning rather than figuring out how to become streetwise - they'll learn that anyway as a consequence of living...and in my opinion sending them to school so they can become streetwise is not a reason I'd be sending my kids to school. We do what gives us the most freedom and flexibility, and we're also free to pick the best resources we can find so that our kids can excel, and not just stick with the government mandated curriculum.

[Petals]

Can you explain this a bit more? I'm unsure how not going to school leaves a child frightened and vulnerable later...

 

As far as I've seen, homeschooled kids are often high achievers who are not afraid to be different and think outside the box, and therefore they excel at whatever they choose to do later in life.

 

Ok, so how many home schooled children do you actually know and what were and are their achievements. I personally believe that children need to mix with other children, not with Mum and Dad 24/7.

 

As for gifted children home schooling has nothing to do with it, if a child is gifted a child wants to learn and going to school does not hold them back. My friend's son was three years ahead at school, and his age did not matter with the peers who were older. Such gifted children are able to learn themselves because they are often more intelligent and gifted than their parents and they have a thirst for knowledge.

 

I do no care whether people home school or not, my opinions are my own and I just do not agree with it. School broadens a child's horizons.

[Guest nikkidel]

Ok, so how many home schooled children do you actually know and what were and are their achievements. I personally believe that children need to mix with other children, not with Mum and Dad 24/7.

 

As for gifted children home schooling has nothing to do with it, if a child is gifted a child wants to learn and going to school does not hold them back. My friend's son was three years ahead at school, and his age did not matter with the peers who were older. Such gifted children are able to learn themselves because they are often more intelligent and gifted than their parents and they have a thirst for knowledge.

 

I do no care whether people home school or not, my opinions are my own and I just do not agree with it. School broadens a child's horizons.

 

Thanks for the reply.

[Guest littlesarah]

I would be concerned about trying to teach a child subjects outside my area of expertise once a child got to national exams level. I'd be fine with biology or music, and I could make a reasonable stab at English Langauage, but if I had a kid who showed an aptitude for physics or maths or chemistry, or a language I'm not so good at, we'd be in trouble! Also, out of interest, do homeschool families conduct 'traditional' lab-based science experiments (i.e. with bunsen burner and test tube, and maybe with a pipette and conical flask)?

 

Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the aptitude of parents who home school, or the environment in which the process happens, I'm genuinely interested in how people approach educating their older children.

[Guest littlesarah]

Out of interest, does anyone know whether there has been any research into outcomes of homeschooling, or Steiner or Montessori teaching? I've had a quick search, but not much really came to light (in terms of peer-reviewed data), and the 'quick search' I did was really very quick! If anyone has any references, I'd be interested to have a read.

[whoiam]

We all want the best for our kids--taking into consideration our personal aspirations as well.

Honestly in an ideal world I would home-educate(long term) as my kids always beg to stay at home and love it when I teach them stuff or do stuff together. Unfortunately I am not such a self sacrificing piece of work and if we were to home-educate the onus would fall on me as OH has to 'win the bread'! I bet I would be good at it, but I really don't want to be tethered to the kids all the time.

But on the other hand I do want my kids to enjoy learning. Just pulling them out of school in which they are nicely settled, and wrenching them from their friends is quite traumatising. So my solution is give them a kind of extended holiday where I kind of homeschool them through life experiences and other extracurricular activities for a few months. Then find an educational environment which they will enjoy--one which will challenge, engage and stimulate them. I think I like the sound of montessori schools, so will let the kids decide if they like it or not. If they do then thats great!

[TheGrahams]

whoiam, we are going to the sunshine coast.

 

And to whoever asked do you know anyone that has been homeschooled, I know a family who homeschooled all three of their children, the eldest is quite shy, but that is just her character, I believe she would have been shy had she gone to school. She has however, been to college, and uni and is now a very succesful chiropractor. Her siblings are very outgoing, lively characters, who have both been to college and the youngest is a county rugby player. They have no regrets about having never been to school, they know how to deal with people they don't like, they are 'streetwise', confident and happy, and most of all they truly know who they are.

[whoiam]

Just saw this Pinterest Board and was pleasantly surprised. I particularly liked the Lego chemistry work.

Just have a look--might inspire some : http://pinterest.com/hmariey/unschooling-is-awesome/

[Maruska]

I would be concerned about trying to teach a child subjects outside my area of expertise once a child got to national exams level. I'd be fine with biology or music, and I could make a reasonable stab at English Langauage, but if I had a kid who showed an aptitude for physics or maths or chemistry, or a language I'm not so good at, we'd be in trouble! Also, out of interest, do homeschool families conduct 'traditional' lab-based science experiments (i.e. with bunsen burner and test tube, and maybe with a pipette and conical flask)?

 

Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the aptitude of parents who home school, or the environment in which the process happens, I'm genuinely interested in how people approach educating their older children.

 

I wonder about that too. When does homeschooling usually stop? At the end of elementary school? At what age? Teachers are qualified in 1 or 2 subjects in which they SHOULD have an in-depth knowledge and do not teach other subjects. As for the "labs" I think you can do a lot of experiments at home too. Still remember how we dissected the earthworms in secondary school:biggrin:. That for example I could imagine doing with my child. I am sticking with Montessori for now:wink:

[Maruska]

Just saw this Pinterest Board and was pleasantly surprised. I particularly liked the Lego chemistry work.

Just have a look--might inspire some : http://pinterest.com/hmariey/unschooling-is-awesome/

 

Thank you, that`s great, will try some experiments with my kids:biggrin:

[NowPerth]

Favourite and easy experiment. Teach about thixotropic substances, non-newtonian behaviour. Mix 300g cornflour with 250ml water ( you can use custard powder instead), or proportional amounts. You don't need to be a scientist to do it.

[TheGrahams]

Just been sent this link, had to post it!

[whoiam]

Just been sent this link, had to post it!

 

 

That was hilarious--"But How do you socialize your children?????"

[Guest nikkidel]

Petals asked who I knew that was homeschooled and what were their achievements.

 

Here is a list of well known people who were homeschooled, just for interests' sake, and it's by no means exhaustive - I just picked a few from the list.

 

Artists:

Claude Monet

Leonardo da Vinci

 

Inventors:

Alexander Graham Bell

Thomas Edison

 

Scientists:

Blaise Pascal

Pierre Curie

Albert Einstein

 

Statesmen:

Winston Churchill

Benjamin Franklin

 

Composers/Musicians

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Felix Mendelssohn

 

Writers:

C.S Lewis

Agatha Christie

D.H Lawrence

Charles Dickins

Mark Twain

 

Misc:

Florence Nightingale - Nurse

Andrew Carnegie - Industrialist

Tamara McKinney - World Cup Skier

Ansel Adams - Photographer

Clara Barton - Started the Red Cross

 

U.S Presidents:

Abraham Lincoln

George Washington

Theodore Roosevelt

 

 

There are also well known people like Bill Gates who apparently homeschool their own kids too.

 

As for people I personally know, most are still doing schoolwork, but I know people who were homeschooled who are now in the army, and one who is a professional ballet dancer. Most others are now uni age and younger, but doing well.

[Guest littlesarah]

So, other than anecdotal evidence, have any studies been carried out to evaluate/compare homeschooling to institutional education? From the replies I've had, I'm guessing not (or maybe I overestimated the interest of the general populace in evidence-based decision making).

 

Also, do we need to consider the social and cultural framework behind the examples given of people who were 'homeschooled'? At one time, the only people who received an education were those from families who were rich enough to afford a governess or tutor, while the rest of the population either didn't attend school or were only able to go for a short period of time; and who were taught basic skills in large classes. In which case, the people homeschooled were ever likely to achieve, because their parents were able to buy individual attention for their kids, and because they would have been educated over a longer period of time, and in a greater range of subjects.

 

I have concerns about the focus of governments on assessing children at all stages of their schooling, because I think it detracts from the teaching of a broad range of subjects and skills. I am quite horrified that my sister has to pay for her daughter (who is 6) to attend after-school science club, where they carry out experiments that we did as part of our primary education (albeit at a slightly older age).

 

And it seems that no one can answer my question as to what happens when children get to the age where they need to start thinking about university entrance - do people homeschool at that age, or do their kids then enter the 'regular' school world, and if so, is it a difficult transition?

 

I realise I may be making this rather academic, but I'm genuinely interested in how (if at all) outcomes differ according to the way in which a child is educated.

 

I also believe that examining children too frequently is counter-productive; indeed in Universities we're encouraged to assess only as much as we need to (with the joint aims of providing undergrads with feedback and ensuring they meet the requirements of the course). So why are school children assessed and labelled according to fairly narrow criteria, at the expense of being given a broad education? Why aren't teachers allowed to teach children in a fun and stimulating way? Their performance could be assessed by peer review or similar, and the children could be assessed in a number of ways that don't pit one school against another. It just doesn't make sense to me, and I can see why some parents don't want to put their child into that system.

[pintpot]

I realise I may be making this rather academic, but I'm genuinely interested in how (if at all) outcomes differ according to the way in which a child is educated.

So am I interested

 

I also believe that examining children too frequently is counter-productive; indeed in Universities we're encouraged to assess only as much as we need to (with the joint aims of providing undergrads with feedback and ensuring they meet the requirements of the course).

I'm inclined to agree, however:

 

So why are school children assessed and labelled according to fairly narrow criteria, at the expense of being given a broad education?

Are they? This isn't my experience

 

Why aren't teachers allowed to teach children in a fun and stimulating way?

Aren't they? I think they are allowed (indeed, encouraged) to do exactly that

 

Their performance could be assessed by peer review or similar, and the children could be assessed in a number of ways that don't pit one school against another. It just doesn't make sense to me, and I can see why some parents don't want to put their child into that system.

One of my concerns on this issue is that a lot of the criticism of conventional schooling appears to be on a belief that it (conventional schooling) is all about teaching by rote, forcing kids into boxes, constant exam pressure and stress and a grey drudgery of straitjacketed education that doesn't allow kids, parents or teachers to explore different avenues and gain a broad education. And I just don't think that's the case

[Guest littlesarah]

With hindsight, I don't think I expressed myself very well there (I really should concentrate on doing one thing at a time!).

 

I wasn't trying to imply that teachers don't teach in a stimulating way, I have a number of friends who teach, and who do some really interesting things with their classes (and spend a lot of time and effort figuring out how to engage all pupils). I also appreciate that teachers design and implement activities that are designed to develop many attributes (not just the academic). I think teaching requires a lot of skill and enthusiasm if it is to be done well; and I do not underestimate the influence good teachers can have on a child into adulthood.

 

My views come entirely from the perspective of 'interested bystander', and tertiary educator (though I am totally aware of the fact that the skills required to teach children are different from those needed at uni level) but I question sometimes how valuable SATS or NAPLAN is to teachers (which is what I was referring to, rather than to the national level exams children sit, or individual assessments carried out within a school). If a teacher or school isn't performing as well as they could, they surely need to be identified via a process that is about improving education, and that takes into account the issues facing each individual school. It seems that governments get fixated on 'benchmarking' and 'measurable targets', but I think that in education there are a number of measures that could be used - some kids are highly academic, some kids are less so, but have other aptitudes. My concern is that national testing could be a distraction from the business of teaching children, and something that takes up time that teachers could be using to focus on the needs of the children in their class. I may be wrong in that, and it may well be that teachers welcome national testing (whether in its current form or in some other way), in which case I apologise for commenting on things I don't know much about.

 

For me, if I ever get round to having a family, I would want my children to attend school. Partly because I loved school, and wouldn't want to deprive my offspring of the chances my schooling gave me, partly because I'd lack the confidence to educate my own offspring, and partly because I'd need and want to work (I know my views might change if I had kids, but I can't see me ever not being interested in my job).

 

I'm still interested to know whether any research has been done into some of the less 'conventional' approaches to teaching, but I suspect by the time I have sufficient time to look at that I'll be about 65! Maybe I'll ask one of my colleagues from Education next time I see them...

[pintpot]

My views come entirely from the perspective of 'interested bystander', and tertiary educator (though I am totally aware of the fact that the skills required to teach children are different from those needed at uni level) but I question sometimes how valuable SATS or NAPLAN is to teachers (which is what I was referring to, rather than to the national level exams children sit, or individual assessments carried out within a school). If a teacher or school isn't performing as well as they could, they surely need to be identified via a process that is about improving education, and that takes into account the issues facing each individual school. It seems that governments get fixated on 'benchmarking' and 'measurable targets', but I think that in education there are a number of measures that could be used - some kids are highly academic, some kids are less so, but have other aptitudes. My concern is that national testing could be a distraction from the business of teaching children, and something that takes up time that teachers could be using to focus on the needs of the children in their class. I may be wrong in that, and it may well be that teachers welcome national testing (whether in its current form or in some other way), in which case I apologise for commenting on things I don't know much about.

 

 

I don't think many teachers like the testing either.....but they're not really who the testing systems are supposed to serve. I think they are supposed to serve government to some extent (to allocate resources or to address failures) and parents (to enable them to have some choice or to apply pressure to schools)

 

I don't think they're very effective, but you have to have some system of measurement and I think it's in the nature of education that you'll always get shedloads of argument/debate about how that system might best be set up. The elephant in the room in terms of what people often think of as a "good school" is that there is tons of class prejudice - I recall a school near us at home that had resources pumped into it by the LEA, they appointed an inspiring head, poor teachers were fired or redeployed elsewhere, the head picked a new and high quality team, discipline was enforced, etc etc etc.....it worked in terms of outcome by whichever way you wanted to measure it - "outstanding" Ofsted reports, increased exam and SATS results, higher "value added" scores. Loads of people still avoided sending their kids there, because it was in the middle of a council estate. Regardless of how good an education it provided, people from middle class villages didn't want their kids mixing with the council estate kids. It's pretty hard to break that down

 

I'm not a teacher fwiw, my recent exposure to the school system is from having a child of school age and being involved in setting up PPP companies as part of the "Building Schools for the Future" programme in the UK. That got cut by the new government of course, because it was seen as wasteful, and it did involve a lot of cost, but there was a lot of collateral damage involved in cutting it. Lots of people saw it as an expensive vehicle to deliver a new school building, but it wasn't really about that; to win the competition to provide educational buildings and services, you had to make a holistic pitch centred around an educational philosophy, and then show how the buildings and facilities were designed around that philosophy. The pace of progress in both educationalism and building design created by the competitive process was quite astounding - A bid that would have won a scheme in 2006 wouldn't even have been in the running by 2009

[whoiam]

'I'm still interested to know whether any research has been done into some of the less 'conventional' approaches to teaching, but I suspect by the time I have sufficient time to look at that I'll be about 65! Maybe I'll ask one of my colleagues from Education next time I see them...'

 

I honestly haven't looked at data. If you do come across some studies do share it over here. For me the whole thing about toying with the idea of home-schooling and other educational streams like Montessori was to make things more fun and kind of less structured. Peer reviewed studies don't entirely fall into that bracket but peer opinion/conversation does:biggrin:!

 

 

On a different note I don't really have anything much against mainstream schools -- Actually some of the stuff done by the teachers in my kids school in the Uk is similar to what some homeschoolers do. For example if they are doing 'putting on a play'--they go to the local theatre, see a play, go back stage, speak to the staff, explore job roles at the theatre, write about it, make their own play, create a small stage, make posters, tickets etc and put on their play. SO through the whole process they try and cover different aspects of the curriculum through the activity at hand. Teachers do a fabulous job.

 

On the other hand Home-schooling offers much more for the family unit--more sense on belonging and closeness within the family, one can shield the kids from what the parents deem unacceptable to a certain extent, less peer pressure to 'do things' , and most importantly they learn to be responsible people as they share in the home chores and in dealing with the real life situations of running a household and life in general. The last point to me is the most important one.