Fiery's heart soars into the air, the phoenix bursting through the clouds racing the wind across the horizon.
WAAAAHOOO!!!!! I have had the most splendiferous evening!!!!!!
The seeds for this evening were planted several months ago when I started a yahoo group for secular homeschoolers in my area. For the longest time there was no activity at all; then just recently, I got several hits on my site. We even set up a tentative play date at a park for Monday that I am looking forward to. I think she said they just moved here from the South. We are waiting to see if anyone else shows up. I hope they do, but if not, meh, it will be great anyway.
So after a late lunch my son and I head into town for his karate class. On Monday, class size swelled from the normal 2 kids to 11 kids and 3 adult participants, a huge jump in class size. Tonight was a bit different yet again in that not all of the 9 new students showed up and there was only 1 extra adult.
I was surprised to see yet another new face come in the door and tell the instructor she was a homeschooling Mom and her son was interested in participating in a class tonight. Now of course my ears perked up immediately and I was immensely curious about her and her son. Then I heard her say that she just moved hear from the South. My jaw fell open in complete shock.
What are the odds that a homeschooling mom, just up from the south, would pick my son's dojo for her son? Surely it wasn't the same person from my yahoo group. No way. There's no way that it could be the same person.
She ended up sitting far away from me, and being a complete wuss about meeting people I didn't say anything to her during class. I spent almost the entire class period watching her son and how hard he worked at understanding and following directions and trying to convince myself not to get my hopes up that she was who I thought she might be. I was really impressed with her son. He reminds me of my son about 15 months ago, just getting started, but taking it very seriously and loving the whole process.
When class was over I wrenched my shy butt out of my chair and sat down next to her and said, "Did I hear you say that you are a homeschooling mom?" She said yes. So I mentioned that I homeschooled my kids too. After a bit of chit chat I said, "Did you also say you just moved here from the South?" She confirmed this again and I said, "Is your name yyyyy" and she looked a little surprised and said yes. I said, "I'm Fiery from the secular yahoo group, we've got a play date scheduled for Monday at 2ish don't we?"
Ohhhhhhh and it was all taters and gravy after that. We left our two boys sitting on the couch watching the adult karate class that had just started and we went out to the hallway and visited.
It was sooooo much fun. First thing we confirmed was that we were both atheists. *happy dance* I have never ever ever ever talked to another atheist homeschooling mother in person before ever. They actually exist. There really are other mommy's out there who are atheists and homeschooling. *more dancing*
We must have stood out in the hallway for half an hour before our sons came out. Ahhhhh they were two peas in a pod, her son wanted to show my son how to stand on his head, and then my son showed him an alternative method.
It was hard to break away, but we will see them again on Monday. My son talked the whole 30 minute drive home. I laughed when I found out that one of the first subjects they broached was the god issue, both confirming that neither believed in ANY god. lol
I can't begin to describe how much fun they had together.
MY SON HAS A FRIEND!!!!!!
*HEART SOARING THROUGH THE CLOUDS*
*FIERY DOES ANOTHER HAPPY DANCE!!!!!*
Showing posts with label homeschooling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homeschooling. Show all posts
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
reality v. make-believe
Parents face a choice. Do they teach their children that there really is a Santa Claus or an Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or even such other creatures as elves, mermaids, fairies, gnomes, etc...? Or do they teach their children that such creatures are make-believe: fantasies and pleasant stories that bring joy, amusement, and delight.
Some do. Some don't.
I wonder if you can guess which category I fall into?
:-)
My children have created a game of make-believe: a world they have created entirely on their own and popluated with all kinds of fantastical creatures and special abilities. They play it regularly and often for several hours at a time.
One of my daughter's classes this year is an Introduction to Metaphysics (nature of the universe as a whole) and Epistemology (nature and the means of human knowledge). During her second class she asked if learning philosophy would ruin their pretend game.
One atheist mother who does teach that fantasy characters are real said this of her decision, "I love leading my kids on and promoting their belief in them all. I actively encourage it. I pacify that hypocritical pang because I figure in the long run, its part of the whole childhood thing of working out reality vs. make-believe for themselves.
I am having trouble reconciling this view with the notion held by many atheists that children should not be exposed to religion before they are old enough to decide for themselves the difference between real and make-believe, between faith and reason, between belief and scientific knowledge. Shouldn't our job as parents be to make it as obvious as possible the difference between real and pretend?
Being a parent is hard. The older they get, the harder it is, because the consequences are so much more long-lasting. If you screw up when the child is one year old, there is a minimal chance they will remember it. If you screw up when the child is older, not only will they remember it and ask questions about it, but there is the potential for them being scarred for life by it. All this stress over the long term consequences of possible minor mishaps.
How about something as important to a child as Santa Claus?
Santa does not exist. That's right Virginia; he's a story, a fantasy. That does not mean kids who don't believe in Santa can't enjoy Christmas.
My mate and I never lied to our children about fantasy creatures- any of them. We told them fantasy characters like Santa are a delightful pretend; a story that is told in December; a fantasy game, if you will, that people play because it makes the time special, mysterious, and exciting.
Do we pretend that Santa comes on Christmas Eve night and leaves presents? Yes
Have my children enjoyed the holiday any less knowing that Mom and Dad are really Santa Claus? No. I don't think so.
Will my children ever have to find out the hard way that ["Pssst....Do you believe in Santa Claus? You do? Ha ha!!!! You're such a baby! Everyone knows Santa is just your parents!"] their parents' have been lying to them? No
Always I've tried to be honest with my two. Honest about having a bad day or when I need time to myself. Honest about their own emotional experiences, the physical changes their bodies go through, sex, even the meaning behind sly adult innuendo that they overhear.
As an atheist parent, this pretending about Santa et al. causes a special dilemma for me. By encouraging them to PRETEND to believe in Santa Claus and participating in that game of pretend myself....have I still done them a disservice?
I went through years of my life pretending to be a christian. Forbidding myself to look hard at the bible and ask the difficult questions. Shutting off my mind and trying to only feel with my heart. I never got to the born-again stage of christianity. But I certainly beliebed that I was a christian. Up until I was 13 the only place I'd come in contact with the idea of being born-again was in religious fiction like the books of Janette Oke. Many of her characters experience "born-again" moments so I had an idea of what emotions were involved in the experience, expectations of what could and should happen. The thoughts that the characters had as they accepted jesus as their savior.
I think that is why, when I tried twice to be born-again myself that I waited passively for those feelings to come to me. For the emotions that I thought would announce my....rebirth. When they didn't happen, I felt morally obligated to pretend that they had so as not to embarrass or disappoint the person I was with.
Have I left my own children vulnerable to pretending to believe? For faking a belief in something to please people around me? Have I left them vulnerable to pretending to believe in god?
The answer her teacher gave about whether philosophy would ruin their pretend game was "No, for the most part it will not. You already have a firm grasp on the difference between real and make-believe, so nothing will change."
Some do. Some don't.
I wonder if you can guess which category I fall into?
:-)
My children have created a game of make-believe: a world they have created entirely on their own and popluated with all kinds of fantastical creatures and special abilities. They play it regularly and often for several hours at a time.
One of my daughter's classes this year is an Introduction to Metaphysics (nature of the universe as a whole) and Epistemology (nature and the means of human knowledge). During her second class she asked if learning philosophy would ruin their pretend game.
One atheist mother who does teach that fantasy characters are real said this of her decision, "I love leading my kids on and promoting their belief in them all. I actively encourage it. I pacify that hypocritical pang because I figure in the long run, its part of the whole childhood thing of working out reality vs. make-believe for themselves.
I am having trouble reconciling this view with the notion held by many atheists that children should not be exposed to religion before they are old enough to decide for themselves the difference between real and make-believe, between faith and reason, between belief and scientific knowledge. Shouldn't our job as parents be to make it as obvious as possible the difference between real and pretend?
Being a parent is hard. The older they get, the harder it is, because the consequences are so much more long-lasting. If you screw up when the child is one year old, there is a minimal chance they will remember it. If you screw up when the child is older, not only will they remember it and ask questions about it, but there is the potential for them being scarred for life by it. All this stress over the long term consequences of possible minor mishaps.
How about something as important to a child as Santa Claus?
Santa does not exist. That's right Virginia; he's a story, a fantasy. That does not mean kids who don't believe in Santa can't enjoy Christmas.
My mate and I never lied to our children about fantasy creatures- any of them. We told them fantasy characters like Santa are a delightful pretend; a story that is told in December; a fantasy game, if you will, that people play because it makes the time special, mysterious, and exciting.
Do we pretend that Santa comes on Christmas Eve night and leaves presents? Yes
Have my children enjoyed the holiday any less knowing that Mom and Dad are really Santa Claus? No. I don't think so.
Will my children ever have to find out the hard way that ["Pssst....Do you believe in Santa Claus? You do? Ha ha!!!! You're such a baby! Everyone knows Santa is just your parents!"] their parents' have been lying to them? No
Always I've tried to be honest with my two. Honest about having a bad day or when I need time to myself. Honest about their own emotional experiences, the physical changes their bodies go through, sex, even the meaning behind sly adult innuendo that they overhear.
As an atheist parent, this pretending about Santa et al. causes a special dilemma for me. By encouraging them to PRETEND to believe in Santa Claus and participating in that game of pretend myself....have I still done them a disservice?
I went through years of my life pretending to be a christian. Forbidding myself to look hard at the bible and ask the difficult questions. Shutting off my mind and trying to only feel with my heart. I never got to the born-again stage of christianity. But I certainly beliebed that I was a christian. Up until I was 13 the only place I'd come in contact with the idea of being born-again was in religious fiction like the books of Janette Oke. Many of her characters experience "born-again" moments so I had an idea of what emotions were involved in the experience, expectations of what could and should happen. The thoughts that the characters had as they accepted jesus as their savior.
I think that is why, when I tried twice to be born-again myself that I waited passively for those feelings to come to me. For the emotions that I thought would announce my....rebirth. When they didn't happen, I felt morally obligated to pretend that they had so as not to embarrass or disappoint the person I was with.
Have I left my own children vulnerable to pretending to believe? For faking a belief in something to please people around me? Have I left them vulnerable to pretending to believe in god?
The answer her teacher gave about whether philosophy would ruin their pretend game was "No, for the most part it will not. You already have a firm grasp on the difference between real and make-believe, so nothing will change."
Friday, July 27, 2007
controlling the weather
While teachers can have a lifelong effect on the way students think, psychologist Haim Ginott has focused on a more immediate aspect of impact: the creation of a positive or negative physical and emotional environment that can determine the quality of a child's life.
"I've come to a frightening conclusion," he said. "I am the decisive element in the classroom. My personal approach creates the climate. My daily mood makes the weather. As a teacher, I possess a tremendous power to make a child's life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. It is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated, and a child humanized or dehumanized."
Yet as profound as this observation is for professional educators, it's even more so for parents. A parent's power to create the daily climate and lasting environment in which a child grows is so awesome it must be used consciously and responsibly.
Since our daily moods make the weather, we should try to shield our children from the thunder and lightning of our frustrations and anger. Instead of the dark clouds of cynicism, fear and depression, we should discipline our own emotions and give them the light and warmth of love, hope and good cheer. Conscious efforts to be positive, enthusiastic, and supportive can have a huge impact not only on the emotional well-being of our children, but on their ability to experience the joys and pains of childhood in healthy and constructive ways.
- Michael Josephson
Ahhhh, wasn't that nice of a self-help guru to tell us "Don't worry, be happy". Where have I heard that before? Ummmm. Bobby McFerrin? Don't think about the whistle, don't think about the whistle. And if you have no idea what this last bit is about, count yourself lucky. As for those that do, I probably owe you an apology for getting that song stuck in your head. I think it rode around in mine for about 5 years after that song came out.
So- be a ray of sunshine for your children. Keep the "thunder and lightning" caged up and tucked away back in those secret vaults that you only visit once per year to remind yourself what the contents are and that they are still there.
Great idea. You'll know if I'm able to fully embrace this thought when I return to being look_an_atheist or maybe I could be Sunbeam of Happiness instead of Fiery. Then I can have "You are my sunshine" stuck in my head.
Ohmmmmmmmm
Ohmmmmmmmm
put on a happy face
Ohmmmmmmmm
Ohmmmmmmmm
"I've come to a frightening conclusion," he said. "I am the decisive element in the classroom. My personal approach creates the climate. My daily mood makes the weather. As a teacher, I possess a tremendous power to make a child's life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. It is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated, and a child humanized or dehumanized."
Yet as profound as this observation is for professional educators, it's even more so for parents. A parent's power to create the daily climate and lasting environment in which a child grows is so awesome it must be used consciously and responsibly.
Since our daily moods make the weather, we should try to shield our children from the thunder and lightning of our frustrations and anger. Instead of the dark clouds of cynicism, fear and depression, we should discipline our own emotions and give them the light and warmth of love, hope and good cheer. Conscious efforts to be positive, enthusiastic, and supportive can have a huge impact not only on the emotional well-being of our children, but on their ability to experience the joys and pains of childhood in healthy and constructive ways.
- Michael Josephson
Ahhhh, wasn't that nice of a self-help guru to tell us "Don't worry, be happy". Where have I heard that before? Ummmm. Bobby McFerrin? Don't think about the whistle, don't think about the whistle. And if you have no idea what this last bit is about, count yourself lucky. As for those that do, I probably owe you an apology for getting that song stuck in your head. I think it rode around in mine for about 5 years after that song came out.
So- be a ray of sunshine for your children. Keep the "thunder and lightning" caged up and tucked away back in those secret vaults that you only visit once per year to remind yourself what the contents are and that they are still there.
Great idea. You'll know if I'm able to fully embrace this thought when I return to being look_an_atheist or maybe I could be Sunbeam of Happiness instead of Fiery. Then I can have "You are my sunshine" stuck in my head.
Ohmmmmmmmm
Ohmmmmmmmm
put on a happy face
Ohmmmmmmmm
Ohmmmmmmmm
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
government school scabs
Have you been over at Sean the Blogonaut's blog? No? Well, you're missing out on a good discussion. Since you haven't been there, I'm bringing some of it over here. Ginny and I have been having a very congenial discussion about the benefits of government schools toughening one up socially. I am including here relevant highlights from the comment section on Sean's Blog.
Fiery Ewok: One of the benefits of homeschooling, no brats around to squash my son from exploring new ideas and ways of talking and behaving.
Ginny: Yep, definitely a plus, but the drawback can be that kids in public school as cruel as they can be, might be useful in the sense that the PS experience toughens one up a bit.
If you can learn to deal with the kids in school, you can pretty much learn to deal with anything life throws at you...yes public school kids are that horrible. I'm sure many of us have stories to tell...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on homeschooling, but I can see how even homeschooling has its pitfalls.
Fiery Ewok: I don't know about the toughening up aspect. Sometimes it just leaves scars that never heal and bruises that are always tender. The damage to your self-esteem can be debilitating and a lifelong struggle to reverse.
Inner toughness comes with self-confidence and the knowledge that you, as a person, are capable, intelligent, worthwhile human being no matter what others think of you. Especially the others who are in no position to know who you really are.
I'm not convinced government schools allowance of bullying, cliques, and peer pressure generate anything but scars in a person.
Ginny: Fiery said I don't know about the toughening up aspect. Sometimes it just leaves scars that never heal and bruises that are always tender. Perhaps you are right. I was picked on un-mercifully in middle school. It took a long time to get over some of the stuff I was put through. But all in all, I'd have to say it made me stronger.
I know that the opposite happens to some people. I'm sure there are plenty of horror stories of teens committing suicide and such because they were bullied constantly and saw no end in sight. Too often bullies go unchecked...
Fiery Ewok: That's just it Ginny. Who is to say what type of person we both would be without the scar tissue left behind by government schools?
If scar tissue is so wonderful, why don't we undergo routine disfigurement to get tougher skin.
Because people are beautiful the way they are and scars are ugly, painful reminders of a dreadful hurt.
Strength comes from the inside, not from abuse on the outside.
omg I'm turning into a Starbucks cup.
Fiery Ewok: One of the benefits of homeschooling, no brats around to squash my son from exploring new ideas and ways of talking and behaving.
Ginny: Yep, definitely a plus, but the drawback can be that kids in public school as cruel as they can be, might be useful in the sense that the PS experience toughens one up a bit.
If you can learn to deal with the kids in school, you can pretty much learn to deal with anything life throws at you...yes public school kids are that horrible. I'm sure many of us have stories to tell...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on homeschooling, but I can see how even homeschooling has its pitfalls.
Fiery Ewok: I don't know about the toughening up aspect. Sometimes it just leaves scars that never heal and bruises that are always tender. The damage to your self-esteem can be debilitating and a lifelong struggle to reverse.
Inner toughness comes with self-confidence and the knowledge that you, as a person, are capable, intelligent, worthwhile human being no matter what others think of you. Especially the others who are in no position to know who you really are.
I'm not convinced government schools allowance of bullying, cliques, and peer pressure generate anything but scars in a person.
Ginny: Fiery said I don't know about the toughening up aspect. Sometimes it just leaves scars that never heal and bruises that are always tender. Perhaps you are right. I was picked on un-mercifully in middle school. It took a long time to get over some of the stuff I was put through. But all in all, I'd have to say it made me stronger.
I know that the opposite happens to some people. I'm sure there are plenty of horror stories of teens committing suicide and such because they were bullied constantly and saw no end in sight. Too often bullies go unchecked...
Fiery Ewok: That's just it Ginny. Who is to say what type of person we both would be without the scar tissue left behind by government schools?
If scar tissue is so wonderful, why don't we undergo routine disfigurement to get tougher skin.
Because people are beautiful the way they are and scars are ugly, painful reminders of a dreadful hurt.
Strength comes from the inside, not from abuse on the outside.
omg I'm turning into a Starbucks cup.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
value in education
More from John Holt in How Children Fail
It is not subject matter that makes some learning more valuable than others, but the spirit in which the work is done.
If a child is doing the kind of learning that most children do in school, when they learn at all--swallowing words, to spit back at the teacher on demand--he is wasting his time, or rather, we are wasting it for him. This learning will not be permanent, or relevant, or useful.
But a child who is learning naturally, following his curiosity where it leads him, adding to his mental model of reality whatever he needs and can find a place for and rejecting without fear or guilt what he does not need, is growing--in knowledge, in the love of learning, and in the ability to learn.
He is on his way to becoming the kind of person we need in our society, and that our 'best' schools and colleges are not turning out, the kind of person who, in Whitney Griswold's words, seeks and finds meaning, truth, and enjoyment in everything he does. All his life he will go on learning. Every experience will make his mental model of reality more complete and more true to life, and thus make him more able to deal realistically, imaginatively, and constructively with whatever new experience life throws his way.
To love learning. To be able to approach and explore unknown information knowing that you are capable of learning it. To have the skills to acquire new knowledge. Do students leave school with these skills?
It is not subject matter that makes some learning more valuable than others, but the spirit in which the work is done.
If a child is doing the kind of learning that most children do in school, when they learn at all--swallowing words, to spit back at the teacher on demand--he is wasting his time, or rather, we are wasting it for him. This learning will not be permanent, or relevant, or useful.
But a child who is learning naturally, following his curiosity where it leads him, adding to his mental model of reality whatever he needs and can find a place for and rejecting without fear or guilt what he does not need, is growing--in knowledge, in the love of learning, and in the ability to learn.
He is on his way to becoming the kind of person we need in our society, and that our 'best' schools and colleges are not turning out, the kind of person who, in Whitney Griswold's words, seeks and finds meaning, truth, and enjoyment in everything he does. All his life he will go on learning. Every experience will make his mental model of reality more complete and more true to life, and thus make him more able to deal realistically, imaginatively, and constructively with whatever new experience life throws his way.
To love learning. To be able to approach and explore unknown information knowing that you are capable of learning it. To have the skills to acquire new knowledge. Do students leave school with these skills?
Friday, June 22, 2007
how children view school
I'm reading a book by John Holt called How Children Fail when I came across this passage about how children, in general, approach school.
For children, the central business of school is not learning, whatever this vague word means; it is getting these daily tasks done, or at least out of the way, with a minimum of effort and unpleasantness. Each task is an end in itself. The children don't care how they dispose of it. If they can get it out of the way by doing it, they will do it; if experience has taught them that this does not work very well, they will turn to other means, illegitimate means, that wholly defeat whatever purpose the task giver may have had in mind.
Most of my classes I just "got through". I was one of the nerds, blowing the curve, getting good grades, answering the teachers questions, but rarely did I enjoy a class. School was what I did, something to do. I even got good at it. To the point that after high school, I couldn't imagine not being in school, so I went to college. I didn't have a purpose in mind, no goal to obtain, just knew that I was good at school and that's what good students did after highschool- they went to college.
What bothers me, is that I see my own children approaching school this way. As something to get through. Something that stands in their way of doing the things they love to do. An obstacle preventing them from living life to the fullest.
For children, the central business of school is not learning, whatever this vague word means; it is getting these daily tasks done, or at least out of the way, with a minimum of effort and unpleasantness. Each task is an end in itself. The children don't care how they dispose of it. If they can get it out of the way by doing it, they will do it; if experience has taught them that this does not work very well, they will turn to other means, illegitimate means, that wholly defeat whatever purpose the task giver may have had in mind.
Most of my classes I just "got through". I was one of the nerds, blowing the curve, getting good grades, answering the teachers questions, but rarely did I enjoy a class. School was what I did, something to do. I even got good at it. To the point that after high school, I couldn't imagine not being in school, so I went to college. I didn't have a purpose in mind, no goal to obtain, just knew that I was good at school and that's what good students did after highschool- they went to college.
What bothers me, is that I see my own children approaching school this way. As something to get through. Something that stands in their way of doing the things they love to do. An obstacle preventing them from living life to the fullest.
Friday, June 15, 2007
homeschooling and statistics
King Aardvark said...
Off topic, but Zeno has a post about homeschooling right now. It's not really about homeschooling in general and is really attacking a right-wing nut who wants to do away with the public school system, but it was kind of interesting. Just thought you should give it a look.
King Aardvark- I'm not entirely sure that Sousa is hoping to do away with public school.
That being said, I think that public school is seriously flawed and needs radical improvement. No Child Left Behind has crippled educators and made it impossible for them to effectively teach anything but to the lowest-common-denominator and towards those damn yearly tests.
As for Zeno's post he quotes Sousa, then responds, so I've inserted a few of my own comments.
Sousa: Homeschooling may not be for everyone, but there are certainly indicators that it works well for most and extremely well for some.
Zeno: After the peroration, would it surprise you to learn that the rest of Sousa's opinion piece is devoted to explaining how unusual and extraordinary homeschooling students and families are? He must have a very curious notion of “works well for most.”
Me: Sousa wasn't saying that homeschooling works for most of America, it works for most homeschooling families. If it didn't work, they'd stop doing it. I would love to see information from homeschooled students themselves to see if they are happy with the experience, to see if they felt adequately prepared for adulthood.
Sousa: The families of homeschooled children are clearly different from those of traditional schoolchildren. Some 97 percent of homeschooled children live in married couple households; the comparable number for public school students is 72 percent. Nearly 88 percent of homeschooled parents continued their own education beyond high school; less than 50 percent of the general population has attended college.
Zeno: Okay, homeschooling families are something less than typical. Sousa, however, is keen to promote the practice.
Me: Homeschooling usually involves dropping down to single-income status. That's not easy for most people to do and thus tends to determine who is capable of even affording to homeschool. That being said, I belong to several yahoo groups with single moms making a go of homeschooling some with homebased businesses. As for level of education, I would say that most people with just a high school education don't feel like they know enough to teach their children at home. At least that is what I have heard from some of them. Of course Sousa is promoting homeschooling, he sees good results from it.
I don't know King A. I'm not really sure what Zeno's problem with Sousa is. Zeno is a math teacher at the junior college level. Yet he doesn't mention if he has ever had homeschooled kids in his class, if he felt that any or none were ever adequately prepared.
Homeschooling is very individualistic. Everyone does it for slightly different reasons and there is certainly no universal results achieved, methods used, or reasons for homeschooling.
Yes, there are a lot of fundamentalists out there in the homeschooling world. Yet there is a growing number of christian secular homeschoolers. Wrap your mind around that dicotomy! They seperate their christianity from the classroom and even teach evolution.
On the other hand, not all do. My mate works with a guy who was homeschooled and his Mama taught him that dinosaurs were a trick perpetrated by scientists to disprove god. Or some such twaddle like that. Unforunately for her, he was a dinosaur buff and didn't buy into her religious fantasy.
The statistics game is a tricky thing, it doesn't really accomplish much at the end of the day. I would rather see testimonials reported and personal experiences shared than numbers quoted in or out of context.
As for winning the spelling and geography bees of course homeschoolers will brag. How do public schools fare on a world wide level in math, science etc...? It is embarassing when you see how far down on the list the United States always ends up. There is something wrong with public schools. Sending your child there is a crap-shoot at what they will be exposed to and whether or not they will learn anything at all. Homeschooling is an option. Some public school teachers are very VERY threatened by this.
I went back for my 5 class reunion several years ago and talked with one guy had become a highschool science teacher. He was horrified that I was homeschooling and said he absolutely disagreed with my decision to do so. I gently told him we'd have go agree to disagree on that particular subject.
Off topic, but Zeno has a post about homeschooling right now. It's not really about homeschooling in general and is really attacking a right-wing nut who wants to do away with the public school system, but it was kind of interesting. Just thought you should give it a look.
King Aardvark- I'm not entirely sure that Sousa is hoping to do away with public school.
That being said, I think that public school is seriously flawed and needs radical improvement. No Child Left Behind has crippled educators and made it impossible for them to effectively teach anything but to the lowest-common-denominator and towards those damn yearly tests.
As for Zeno's post he quotes Sousa, then responds, so I've inserted a few of my own comments.
Sousa: Homeschooling may not be for everyone, but there are certainly indicators that it works well for most and extremely well for some.
Zeno: After the peroration, would it surprise you to learn that the rest of Sousa's opinion piece is devoted to explaining how unusual and extraordinary homeschooling students and families are? He must have a very curious notion of “works well for most.”
Me: Sousa wasn't saying that homeschooling works for most of America, it works for most homeschooling families. If it didn't work, they'd stop doing it. I would love to see information from homeschooled students themselves to see if they are happy with the experience, to see if they felt adequately prepared for adulthood.
Sousa: The families of homeschooled children are clearly different from those of traditional schoolchildren. Some 97 percent of homeschooled children live in married couple households; the comparable number for public school students is 72 percent. Nearly 88 percent of homeschooled parents continued their own education beyond high school; less than 50 percent of the general population has attended college.
Zeno: Okay, homeschooling families are something less than typical. Sousa, however, is keen to promote the practice.
Me: Homeschooling usually involves dropping down to single-income status. That's not easy for most people to do and thus tends to determine who is capable of even affording to homeschool. That being said, I belong to several yahoo groups with single moms making a go of homeschooling some with homebased businesses. As for level of education, I would say that most people with just a high school education don't feel like they know enough to teach their children at home. At least that is what I have heard from some of them. Of course Sousa is promoting homeschooling, he sees good results from it.
I don't know King A. I'm not really sure what Zeno's problem with Sousa is. Zeno is a math teacher at the junior college level. Yet he doesn't mention if he has ever had homeschooled kids in his class, if he felt that any or none were ever adequately prepared.
Homeschooling is very individualistic. Everyone does it for slightly different reasons and there is certainly no universal results achieved, methods used, or reasons for homeschooling.
Yes, there are a lot of fundamentalists out there in the homeschooling world. Yet there is a growing number of christian secular homeschoolers. Wrap your mind around that dicotomy! They seperate their christianity from the classroom and even teach evolution.
On the other hand, not all do. My mate works with a guy who was homeschooled and his Mama taught him that dinosaurs were a trick perpetrated by scientists to disprove god. Or some such twaddle like that. Unforunately for her, he was a dinosaur buff and didn't buy into her religious fantasy.
The statistics game is a tricky thing, it doesn't really accomplish much at the end of the day. I would rather see testimonials reported and personal experiences shared than numbers quoted in or out of context.
As for winning the spelling and geography bees of course homeschoolers will brag. How do public schools fare on a world wide level in math, science etc...? It is embarassing when you see how far down on the list the United States always ends up. There is something wrong with public schools. Sending your child there is a crap-shoot at what they will be exposed to and whether or not they will learn anything at all. Homeschooling is an option. Some public school teachers are very VERY threatened by this.
I went back for my 5 class reunion several years ago and talked with one guy had become a highschool science teacher. He was horrified that I was homeschooling and said he absolutely disagreed with my decision to do so. I gently told him we'd have go agree to disagree on that particular subject.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
standardizing american education
I would like to introduce you to William Torrey Harris. David H. Albert, author of Homeschooling and the Voyage of Self-Discovery calls him "the individual who is probably single-most responsible for the standardization of American Education." Harris was the U.S. Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906.
This "interview" is adapted from the Philosophy of Education, published by Harris while he was the Commissioner.
Me: Mr. Harris- Many people see a connection between establishing the appropriate school environment and student performance. How should American schools be set up to achieve the purpose you have defined for them?
Mr. Harris: "The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places."
Me: And what is that purpose?
Harris: "It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. Schools should develop the power to withdraw from the external world."
Me: I'm not sure I understand the benefits of withdrawing from the external world. Creating an artificial environment, isolated from reality seems to set itself against meaningful learning. How would you describe the students that emerge from this environment?
Harris: "Ninety-nine (students) out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom."
Me: So schools turn out good little citizens. Obedient to leaders. Unquestioning of social policy. Content to do what everyone else is doing without rocking the boat. Is that what you believe education is for?
Harris: "This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual."
Me: So you wish to eliminate the uniqueness of students. Eliminate their individual strengths. Perhaps even dumb classes down to teach to the lowest common denominator. Turning now to another source of online info, not necessarily the most reliable, here is Wikkipedia. What information do you have about William Harris and his effect on education?
Wikkipedia: "Throughout time, his influence has been only momentarily recognized, disregarded and misunderstood by historians. Harris’ extreme emphasis on discipline has become the most glaring misrepresentation of his philosophy."
Me: So you believe Harris has been misunderstood and maligned by his detractors. Yet you provide no supporting quotes to substantiate this claim.
Wikkipedia: "On the surface it seems that Harris is a proponent of self-alienation in order to better serve the great industrial nation of America. In fact, it can be found that quite the opposite is true of Harris when you are able to go beyond the surface of his educational philosophy.
Me: Without any quotes by him to support that claim, what do you know about Harris?
Wikkipedia: Harris, a devout Christian, is quite concerned with the development of morality and discipline within the individual.
Me: The discipline of a dark, airless, and ugly place. That kind of stark and austere environment sounds rather bleak doesn't it?
Wikkipedia: Harris believed those values could systematically be instilled into the pupils, promoting common goals and social cooperation, with a strong sense of respect for and responsibility towards one’s society.
Me: Wouldn't it be better to teach young minds how to think and reason for themselves? To eliminate mysticism and irrational beliefs? To instill a love of discovery and a life long pursuit of knowledge? What is so important about "common goals"? Why should people want the same things? And I get the heebie-jeebies when people start talking about "social cooperation".
This "interview" is adapted from the Philosophy of Education, published by Harris while he was the Commissioner.
Me: Mr. Harris- Many people see a connection between establishing the appropriate school environment and student performance. How should American schools be set up to achieve the purpose you have defined for them?
Mr. Harris: "The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places."
Me: And what is that purpose?
Harris: "It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. Schools should develop the power to withdraw from the external world."
Me: I'm not sure I understand the benefits of withdrawing from the external world. Creating an artificial environment, isolated from reality seems to set itself against meaningful learning. How would you describe the students that emerge from this environment?
Harris: "Ninety-nine (students) out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom."
Me: So schools turn out good little citizens. Obedient to leaders. Unquestioning of social policy. Content to do what everyone else is doing without rocking the boat. Is that what you believe education is for?
Harris: "This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual."
Me: So you wish to eliminate the uniqueness of students. Eliminate their individual strengths. Perhaps even dumb classes down to teach to the lowest common denominator. Turning now to another source of online info, not necessarily the most reliable, here is Wikkipedia. What information do you have about William Harris and his effect on education?
Wikkipedia: "Throughout time, his influence has been only momentarily recognized, disregarded and misunderstood by historians. Harris’ extreme emphasis on discipline has become the most glaring misrepresentation of his philosophy."
Me: So you believe Harris has been misunderstood and maligned by his detractors. Yet you provide no supporting quotes to substantiate this claim.
Wikkipedia: "On the surface it seems that Harris is a proponent of self-alienation in order to better serve the great industrial nation of America. In fact, it can be found that quite the opposite is true of Harris when you are able to go beyond the surface of his educational philosophy.
Me: Without any quotes by him to support that claim, what do you know about Harris?
Wikkipedia: Harris, a devout Christian, is quite concerned with the development of morality and discipline within the individual.
Me: The discipline of a dark, airless, and ugly place. That kind of stark and austere environment sounds rather bleak doesn't it?
Wikkipedia: Harris believed those values could systematically be instilled into the pupils, promoting common goals and social cooperation, with a strong sense of respect for and responsibility towards one’s society.
Me: Wouldn't it be better to teach young minds how to think and reason for themselves? To eliminate mysticism and irrational beliefs? To instill a love of discovery and a life long pursuit of knowledge? What is so important about "common goals"? Why should people want the same things? And I get the heebie-jeebies when people start talking about "social cooperation".
Saturday, April 7, 2007
when did you start homeschooling
I am the type of person who, when confronted with a new situation, reads up on it. Found out I was pregnant, got all sorts of books about pregnancy, child-birth, new baby-care etc... Read everything I could get my hands on, decided what made sense to me, threw out what was left and went from there.
My favorite books were the "what to expect" books. I got the What to Expect when you are Expecting book, the What to Expect the First Year book, and the What to Expect the Toddler Years. And each one was worth it's weight in gold. With the 3rd book it gave developmental tips, ranges and your child should be able to, might be able to, could possibly be able to lists. It was like a little competition built in to each chapter, can my Punkin do any of this stuff?
Which is really what got me to looking for educational type stuff. We never allowed brain-dulling toys around our Punkins. All of the toys, especially when they were young, were imagination driven designed to stimulate mental growth, etc.... From chewy, touchy feely toys for babies, to blocks and things to dump/measure/pour for toddlers.
I saw so many parents getting there kids dollies that talk/cry/sleep/burp etc... that there was no room for the child's imagination. A lot of the toys out there are like that. Little barnyard sets where every animal is a button that will tell you "the cow says moo", or "D is for Duck", or whatever. But does not allow the child to set the animals in a row, make the horse fly or the chicken boss the other animals around. The animals just sit there stuck in place waiting to be pressed. Blech.
As Punkin #1 grew older, she became more interested in counting and ABC's so I ordered little monthly learning kits in the mail. They came with a book, workbook, stickers, and an arts-&-crafts project. We had a lot of fun with those pouring over them, filling in the questions, etc...
I think the willingness to homeschool for us just kind of grew out of what we were already doing.
So after reading Ayn Rand's article about the effects of public school on the developing mind, I knew I needed to do something different. Free day-care along with social indoctrination provided courtesy of the government wasn't going to cut it for my little Punkin.
I am very glad I found the Well-Trained Mind. It helped me break the elephant into bite-sized pieces. When you think of education your child as just taking one step at a time and it growing with your child it's not nearly as overwhelming as, "my daughter is 6 how will I ever do chemistry?????"
The next step, after determining on a method for learning to read (100 Easy Lessons) was to find a program for math. What I really needed to do was to touch and feel the options.
Off to a homeschooling convention....
My favorite books were the "what to expect" books. I got the What to Expect when you are Expecting book, the What to Expect the First Year book, and the What to Expect the Toddler Years. And each one was worth it's weight in gold. With the 3rd book it gave developmental tips, ranges and your child should be able to, might be able to, could possibly be able to lists. It was like a little competition built in to each chapter, can my Punkin do any of this stuff?
Which is really what got me to looking for educational type stuff. We never allowed brain-dulling toys around our Punkins. All of the toys, especially when they were young, were imagination driven designed to stimulate mental growth, etc.... From chewy, touchy feely toys for babies, to blocks and things to dump/measure/pour for toddlers.
I saw so many parents getting there kids dollies that talk/cry/sleep/burp etc... that there was no room for the child's imagination. A lot of the toys out there are like that. Little barnyard sets where every animal is a button that will tell you "the cow says moo", or "D is for Duck", or whatever. But does not allow the child to set the animals in a row, make the horse fly or the chicken boss the other animals around. The animals just sit there stuck in place waiting to be pressed. Blech.
As Punkin #1 grew older, she became more interested in counting and ABC's so I ordered little monthly learning kits in the mail. They came with a book, workbook, stickers, and an arts-&-crafts project. We had a lot of fun with those pouring over them, filling in the questions, etc...
I think the willingness to homeschool for us just kind of grew out of what we were already doing.
So after reading Ayn Rand's article about the effects of public school on the developing mind, I knew I needed to do something different. Free day-care along with social indoctrination provided courtesy of the government wasn't going to cut it for my little Punkin.
I am very glad I found the Well-Trained Mind. It helped me break the elephant into bite-sized pieces. When you think of education your child as just taking one step at a time and it growing with your child it's not nearly as overwhelming as, "my daughter is 6 how will I ever do chemistry?????"
The next step, after determining on a method for learning to read (100 Easy Lessons) was to find a program for math. What I really needed to do was to touch and feel the options.
Off to a homeschooling convention....
Friday, April 6, 2007
first things first
Once we made the decision to homeschool it opened up a whole world of new things I needed to learn about. How to teach the basics. Which basics to even start with. That one was fairly easy: reading and math.
There is a debate over how to teach young children to read. Whole word method or phonics. The one is typical in public schools, the other is common in homeschools. The one requires that you memorize word shapes (for example tall-letter, short-letter, tall-letter, tall-letter written underneath a picture of a boy playing fetch with his dog) well that word boys and girls is "ball". OMG. How do they expect anyone to remember tall-letter, short-letter, tall-letter, tall-letter = ball???? They don't. Not really. But THAT is a whole different theory and one I am not going to explore yet.
Phonics will teach you that the letter b says "buh" the a says "ahh" the l says "luh". (Hmmm I've never tried to write out the phonics sounds before, not as easy as it would seem.) Then when you add that t says "tuh" you can read ball, at, tab, blat, etc...
Anyway, the books recommended in Well-Trained Mind for beginning phonics are Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons and Phonics Pathways.
How the heck was I supposed to know which one to pick???? The choice was made very simple. When I got to B&N one was on the shelf, the other would have to be ordered in. I hate waiting.
Punkin and I had a lot of success using the Teach Your Child book. The lessons were prescripted with the teacher stuff to say written in red. You sit with your child and you both look at the same book and it was a really cozy and cuddly time. She did GREAT and learned to read with really no struggle and no tears. We just took it easy, went slow. Somteimes we would take a break from it for days, even a week or two, and come back, usually repeating the last 4-6 lessons to get back up to speed.
Sometimes I wish that we had used Phonics Pathways or even Explode the Code for a more thorough grounding in phonetic sounds etc... But, Teach Your Child did the job I wanted it to do, which was to get my daughter reading.
There is a debate over how to teach young children to read. Whole word method or phonics. The one is typical in public schools, the other is common in homeschools. The one requires that you memorize word shapes (for example tall-letter, short-letter, tall-letter, tall-letter written underneath a picture of a boy playing fetch with his dog) well that word boys and girls is "ball". OMG. How do they expect anyone to remember tall-letter, short-letter, tall-letter, tall-letter = ball???? They don't. Not really. But THAT is a whole different theory and one I am not going to explore yet.
Phonics will teach you that the letter b says "buh" the a says "ahh" the l says "luh". (Hmmm I've never tried to write out the phonics sounds before, not as easy as it would seem.) Then when you add that t says "tuh" you can read ball, at, tab, blat, etc...
Anyway, the books recommended in Well-Trained Mind for beginning phonics are Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons and Phonics Pathways.
How the heck was I supposed to know which one to pick???? The choice was made very simple. When I got to B&N one was on the shelf, the other would have to be ordered in. I hate waiting.
Punkin and I had a lot of success using the Teach Your Child book. The lessons were prescripted with the teacher stuff to say written in red. You sit with your child and you both look at the same book and it was a really cozy and cuddly time. She did GREAT and learned to read with really no struggle and no tears. We just took it easy, went slow. Somteimes we would take a break from it for days, even a week or two, and come back, usually repeating the last 4-6 lessons to get back up to speed.
Sometimes I wish that we had used Phonics Pathways or even Explode the Code for a more thorough grounding in phonetic sounds etc... But, Teach Your Child did the job I wanted it to do, which was to get my daughter reading.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
the beginning
My homeschool journey began when Punkin #1 was about 3 years old. I had just read an article by Ayn Rand entitled "The Comprachicos" in a collection of her works called The New Left: The Anti-Industrical Revolution. I knew I didn't want my baby girl's mind to be stunted by modern education. I also vividly remembered the 13 years of misery I endured in a small town public school. I would never wish that on my own child.
I knew I could never stand by and allow her special and absolutely uniquely precious inner-self to be destroyed before my eyes. Then and there my mate and I decided to homeschool.
Then it became- how?????? How in the world do I set about educating our precious punkin????
I looked at many recources, searched the library and B&N for books, methods. Reading anything and everything I could get my hands on it. I came across the Well-Trained Mind by Susan Wise Bauer and Jessie Wise. I couldn't believe how fortunate I was. A method of education based on building subjects from the ground up, preschool through highschool. Complete with book recommendations, cources of study and schedules.
I breathed a sigh of relief. At last I had a starting point. Whether or not I followed it to the letter, which I don't, at least I had a place to start.
I knew I could never stand by and allow her special and absolutely uniquely precious inner-self to be destroyed before my eyes. Then and there my mate and I decided to homeschool.
Then it became- how?????? How in the world do I set about educating our precious punkin????
I looked at many recources, searched the library and B&N for books, methods. Reading anything and everything I could get my hands on it. I came across the Well-Trained Mind by Susan Wise Bauer and Jessie Wise. I couldn't believe how fortunate I was. A method of education based on building subjects from the ground up, preschool through highschool. Complete with book recommendations, cources of study and schedules.
I breathed a sigh of relief. At last I had a starting point. Whether or not I followed it to the letter, which I don't, at least I had a place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)