Is homeschooling right for your family?

My brother and I were homeschooled from preschool through high school by my mother who did not have a college degree. We went on to college and graduated summa cum laude and magna cum laude, respectively. Neither of us had trouble making friends or dealing with a classroom environment. We also took a standardized test every year that was required by our state while we were homeschooled. We scored above average on most subjects. I am now a married, mother of one and I plan on homeschooling my child.

Can I add an "AMEN!!!"?

That was so very well said. So very well.

Somehow Suburban's comment seems to lean a little on the condenscending side and it appears as tho she thinks of herself as some kind of martyr. To assume that parents "put (their) child in school (public or private) because there are other things you would rather be doing with your time during school hours" is a ridiculous over-simplification and an insult. And once you get past the first year or two of elementary school, the education accelerates way beyond "basic arithmetic" and "teach(ing) them to read". Again, just a major over-simplification on her part. At least at my children's school. My 3rd grader experiences Language Arts, Math, Computer Science, Social Studies, Spanish, Science, Music, Art and PE during her school week. Teachers don't learn all these things just by reading books, they learn them through experience as well. One parent cannot possibly possess a thorough knowledge of all these subjects. Of course I re-inforce a lot of her learning at home with books, etc - any good parent does, because we "want to", contrary to what Suburban implies in her last sentence. Hope you're not passing that judgemental attitude on to your children as you attempt to educate them!!

That's not a representative sample of ALL homeschoolers, though. It's only a representative sample of those homeschoolers in your area who decided - and probably quite rightly, if those stats are correct - that they weren't doing a very good job.

jen, your friend says these are the kids whose parents aren't doing a great job of homeschooling and so are giving up. The ones she doesn't see are the kids whose parents are doing a great job and are not giving up.

I have a friend who sent her young son to a fancy, very expensive boys' school that specializes in turning around problem students. When he re-entered public elementary school, he was 2 years behind. Some kids are just going to be behind.

I have a step-niece who homeschooled her son for a year or two. Her stated reason was that she didn't want him going to school with lower-class kids (not like she isn't a four-time welfare mom herself, but whatever). She didn't work with him properly, but left him on his own with a computer, and he didn't keep up with writing skills. No surprise there. She put him back into the public school where he needed some help to catch up. Now mind you, she herself had flunked in public school by his age, so is it any wonder her kid isn't a straight-A student? Yet this will go into the statistics as a mark against home schooling.

The overall statistics show that home schooling turns out kids who are competent in all areas. Are there exceptions? Sure, at both ends of the spectrum. Your friend should be glad that the homeschoolers whose kids struggle are putting their kids back in public school before too much damage is done.

SKL - I actually know several of the parents that homeschooled and then switched to my friend's school, and they didn't "give up". They tried extremely hard to do a "great job" - but the materials around 5th grade and above take a huge amount of time for the parents to learn/review before they teach it to their kids, and then of course they have to "grade"/evaluate what their child actually is learming. Some also felt their children needed a point of view, educationally, other than just their parents'. None of the families I know that left homeschooling fit at all with the two examples you gave (i.e. the boys school for problem students or the welfare mom pretending to homeschool). Your last sentence makes no sense - these parents had been homeschooling since kindergarten using all the current and appropriate homeschool materials available, and they were actually shocked to find that their kids were behind - the "damage" was caused by the concept of homeschooling, not because of any failure by the parents to try hard enough.

In our state, they have tests that homeschooling parents can use to determine if their kids are on track. Maybe that's not the case where your friend teaches.

My point is that just because homeschooling may not have been right for some parents - and they figured this out and put their kids in public school - doesn't mean it's not right for any parents. That's as illogical as saying that just because a disproportionate number of the kids in the annual spelling bee are homeschooled, your kid will be a genius (or at least a great speller) if you home school.

Some parents are not equipped or motivated and some kids may do better in school. The opposite is also true - some kids will advance multiple grade levels in one year if their parents home school. Neither can be used as an argument that all homeschooling is a bad or good idea for every parent / child.

Like I said, you are looking at anecdotal evidence with a bias - that is, the fact that the kids are back in public school means they are not in the group that does well with homeschooling. The objective statistics paint a different picture.

Once again, I don't see how this somehow comes down to parents "not doing a good job" or being judged as "not equipped or motivated" if homeschooling doesn't yield good results. SKL, I think your "statistics" are biased as well. I would be curious to know just how many people who start with homeschooling at the elemetary ed level, stick with it through high school. I would bet not many. And my "anecdotal" evidence based on the years and years of direct, hands-on experience of teachers who have to make up for the deficiences caused by well-meaning (and well-educated) parents who just weren't meant to teach. But I'm sure homeschooling does work well for families who want to control all aspects of their children's lives.

jen, you are completely missing the point. You clearly don't understand how global results are tested. Either that, or you are so adamant about your position that no evidence could convince you to change it.

Uly - I never said my 8 yr old would have thorough knowledge of all these subjects in one year!! Of course she won't - but I certainly want her exposed to all of these subjects, and over the course of her education she will continue to learn from people who love to (and know how to) teach and who have a thorough knowledge of their specific subjects - unlike home-schooling parents who keep up a chapter at a time, as one poster implied in a previous post. (i.e. it's simple, just read some books!!) And if homeschoolers have to run around finding outside teachers for language, sports, music, computers etc, where is the benefit? You're ending up having someone else teach your child anyway.

Except in cases of extremely poor public school systems, or when a child has an alternate learning style that can't be accomodated, I view homeschooling as the ultimate in "helicopter parenting" - parents who can't let go and must be in control over their kids 24/7.

My family has an 'alternate' learning style. We like to explore the world outside of a full time classroom. It's called the real world, and when you have experience in it before you leave home, it makes it a lot easier to not have Mummy there holding your hand.

Well, Kate, some people would rather that their child learn a few crucial subjects in depth instead of simply being "exposed" to many subjects and being taught that it's okay to simply understand them shallowly.

As for "where is the benefit", I don't know. Maybe in having your child taught individually or in small groups rather than in a large class? Maybe in having your child take the subjects they are interested in or you deem appropriate instead of being compelled to take certain subjects because that's what's being done this year? Maybe in having a child who isn't bored because the work is too advanced or too slow - instead, it's right at the child's pace? Maybe in just spending time with your family - instead of sending your kids off to separate classrooms for most of their waking hours, and then spending much of the afternoon doing (or arguing over) homework.

You call it the ultimate in helicopter parenting. Oh, you could be right. But I'm thinking that historically speaking school systems such as our own are *incredibly* recent. A blink in the course of human history. Children the world over spend their days with their families. Why shouldn't they?

Laura is totally right, by the way.

Here are the two options:

She's gaining a thorough knowledge of these subjects - you've said she isn't.

Or, alternatively - and I think this is more likely - she's getting a very *shallow* knowledge of these subjects. You are the one who used the word "exposed". I do not "expose" children to math, or science, or music, or spanish, or computers. I suggest *teaching* them instead. In depth, a few things at a time, until it's mastered. Skipping around is *forcing* shallow grasp.

She may be doing well in all her classes, but I do not believe that means much when her time is spread thin over so many subjects. All it means is that she's doing well in attaining an "exposure".

"Your argument just proves that one or two parents with limited knowledge cannot possibly educate the whole person."

How does it prove that?

"BTW, "historically speaking", most children were with their parents working in fields and factories, not being homeschooled by priveledged SAHMs with nothing better to do."

Most children were spending time with their parents learning the skills they needed to survive in a natural environment.

"And Laura's argument barely made any sense. Her kitchen table (or wherever the homeschooling takes place) is not the real world"

I'll guess - and probably be correct - that Laura's children spend the day in museums, in libraries, in friends' houses, in sports or dance or music lessons, in stores, possibly in jobs or internships or volunteer work, in field trips.... These places aren't the real world? They're a heck of a lot more real than school is.

And I doubt Laura spends *all day* with her kids either. Yes, I do think it's nice for children to spend a large part of their day with their families. That's why we *have* families - to spend time with each other instead of having everybody divvied up every day. But I'm certain that Laura's kids spend a lot of time outside of their family as well. And even when they're with their mom, they're probably out and about in the real world filled with real people - not age-ranked cohorts where you're only allowed to talk at lunchtime (if you're quiet) and you're told repeatedly that you're "Not Here to Socialize".

Laura's argument made plenty of sense. You're just stupid. (And on that note, I highly suggest that *you* never homeschool.)

Uly - based on the immaturity of your final coment, it is obvious you do not have the capability to have any type of reasonable discussion without resorting to childish name-calling. God help your children through their so-called "education".