[Visirale]

Can homeschooling adequately prepare a student for the academic level of an ivy league school? Are there chances to take AP classes? Why draw from one person's knowlege when you can draw from 7 people who have college degrees in their specific areas of study?

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Awzmgd117

so, i thought i'd see if you had anythoughts on how to rectify this situation. its something i haven't seemed to find an answer too. i mean i know there is social outlets for hs kids, but they are with other isolated hs kids. did you find this to be true, or if not what did you do different

This one is gonna require some thought. It's a good question.

Originally Posted by Visirale

Can homeschooling adequately prepare a student for the academic level of an ivy league school? Are there chances to take AP classes? Why draw from one person's knowlege when you can draw from 7 people who have college degrees in their specific areas of study?

Well, since there's three questions here, I'll take them one at a time and then give my overall impression.

1) Can homeschooling adequately prepare a student for the academic level of an ivy league school?

I suppose that mostly depends on who's teaching the student. Some parents could do it, some parents could find people who could do it, some parents couldn't do it at all.

2) Are there chances to take AP classes?

I believe homeschoolers can get into AP classes at community colleges or local highschoolers. I never did any AP classes so I don't have first-hand experience. Any homeschoolers with first-hand experience of AP can chime in here.

In any event, the importance of AP classes varies from place to place. At Loyola (my school) they don't seem to care too much. It's very difficult to get any sort of credit for highschool work. You have to have great standardized test scores and then take specific placement tests at Loyola. So, in that case AP wouldn't matter too much. Perhaps it makes a difference for getting into the honors program. I don't know about that though.

3) Why draw from one person's knowlege when you can draw from 7 people who have college degrees in their specific areas of study?

Are you saying that all highschool teachers have college degrees in their specific areas of study? That doesn't strike me as very likely. I'm sure they have college degrees, but I doubt they're all in the particular area of study that they teach.

In any event, resources are irrelevent without a real opportunity to benefit from them. With all the chaos in public schools (at least the ones where I live), you're quite unlikely to be able to actually benefit that much from your teachers' expertise. Also, in most highschool, and certainly all previous, work, a degree is not really that important. At least I don't see it as being that important. Anyone who's passed highschool should have the knowledge to teach at least K-8 classes. Actually, I think anyone who's passed highschool should have the knowledge to teach K-12 classes since they had to do them to pass highschool.

So, I think most parents should have the knowledge to teach their children through highschool. What sets homeschooling apart then is the personalized attention that you just don't get in highschool. The public school system around here at least is known for being full of disruptions and teachers taking half the class time getting people to be quiet and pay attention. You may as well have trained apes teaching the classes if there's not gonna be a real opportunity to learn! The environment needs to be conducive to learning. I think the home is very easy to set up as an environment conducive to learning because of the great amount of personal attention can be given. Learning in a disciplined environment is also important and difficult to set up in public school.

Conclusion:

What you need to get into good colleges is academic excellence, not necessarily good classes. For better or worse, standardized tests are "standard." I have no experience applying to Ivy League schools but that's a tiny minority of the college population anyway. Not only that, I think if I really wanted to, I could've gone anywhere. However, it depends on what the parents and the child want. Certainly not everyone in public school is educated for Ivy League schools. If homeschooling parents want to, then they can get their child into community college classes in highschool and find other homeschoolers (or anyone else) who can teach advanced subjects that they may not be able to teach. Even better, the parents can learn it and then teach it.

I don't think homeschooling limits a student's educational potential in any way. On the other hand, I think public schooling does a lot to limit it, or at least stifle it's development.

(Feel free to ask follow-up questions of any kind)

[mattslope]

Where do you find the most value lies?

In protecting children from the compromise and delusions offered by public schools.

-or-

In molding and guiding a child personally to maintain the highest levels of personal educational development?

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by mattslope

Where do you find the most value lies?

In protecting children from the compromise and delusions offered by public schools.

-or-

In molding and guiding a child personally to maintain the highest levels of personal educational development?

I think it moves from one to the other over the course of the homeschooling. I think it's important that parents do protect their children but I think it's more important that they teach their children to protect themselves. So, until the children can protect themselves, I think it's more important that the parents protect their children. After the children have learned how to protect themselves, I think it's more important that the parents do what is in the best interest of the child's educational (including moral and spiritual education) development.

To give one answer, in the end I think the most important thing in the choice of schooling is the education of the child.

However, I think part of that education is learning to protect yourself. So, even by the act of protecting their children, parents are looking for the educational development of the child (that is assuming they will teach their child to protect himself).

Fair enough? More detail?

[mattslope]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

...I think it's more important that the parents do what is in the best interest of the child's educational...

...parents are looking for the educational development of the child...

Fair enough? More detail?

I agree, and this should be the focus of homeschool. In my experience, parents that have chosen homeschooling for their children to meet the best interest of the child's education often are guilty of not possessing the skills to develop their children's minds. In the case of parental weakness, how would you suggest the government regulate education?

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by mattslope

In the case of parental weakness, how would you suggest the government regulate education?

I think the idea of requiring homeschoolers to submit IOWA or CAT tests (standardized grade-level tests) could do the job.

(I'm not going deeply into this because this is about homeschooling, not government. I don't want to get sidetracked by talking too much about the government's role in education.)

[Visirale]

Ok.

How about comparing social segregation public school programs to homeschool.

What I'm talking about here is programs that students have to volunteer to be in. It keeps students that actually want to learn away from those who are just there because the law says they have to be. In my example, it's the International Baccalaureate program. This program is a school within a school of sorts. These classes are taught by teachers that only teach these students. All the teachers have repeatedly told me what a joy it is to teach these classes after having to teach "normal" classes. Substitutes line up to sub for the program because the students don't get out of hand, and do work without having to be told to. My history teacher described it as getting a prestigious private school education for free.

If you had a program like this locally, would you choose to home school your child, or send him to the program?

What I'm getting at is that public school isn't a giant orgy in all of its forms.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Visirale

What I'm getting at is that public school isn't a giant orgy in all of its forms.

I realize that public school isn't always bad but I think for the great part it is.

Let's move on to the question at hand.

If you had a program like this locally, would you choose to home school your child, or send him to the program?

I would probably still choose homeschooling but I think if there was such a program around here it would definitely be a good thing. The problem, of course, is that such programs are the exception, not the rule.

I would make much less of a binary issue out of homeschooling versus public schooling if that were the norm and not an exception.

I think you've really hit at what public schooling (actually any kind of schooling) NEEDS to offer students.

[Visirale]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I realize that public school isn't always bad but I think for the great part it is.

Let's move on to the question at hand.

I would probably still choose homeschooling but I think if there was such a program around here it would definitely be a good thing. The problem, of course, is that such programs are the exception, not the rule.

I would make much less of a binary issue out of homeschooling versus public schooling if that were the norm and not an exception.

I think you've really hit at what public schooling (actually any kind of schooling) NEEDS to offer students.

Ok, I see your point now. Yes, I'll admit that a majority of public schooling sucks. However, I live in an amazing county, and we have a plethora of special programs, and one of the best public school systems period.

But the rest of our state? Heh ...

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Awzmgd117

what i was struggle with when people ask me how i feel about homeschooling is the social bubble it creates. i was homeschooled at a young age, so it wasn't relevant to me, but i had friends later, who were homeschooled throughout high school. i always understood how they liked to have all the free time, i was always one with what i called wasted time in high school, where teachers taught concepts slow enough for everyone to catch on when i got it right away and was ready to move on. but at the same time, the kids who were homeschooled, were always a bit, odd. they really had no concept of pop culture or what was going on in the world. in short they lived in a bubble. i didnt think this was good.

so, i thought i'd see if you had anythoughts on how to rectify this situation. its something i haven't seemed to find an answer too. i mean i know there is social outlets for hs kids, but they are with other isolated hs kids. did you find this to be true, or if not what did you do different

Alright, I think I'm ready to tackle this.

I think there are a few sub-questions that I can infer and answer that will lead to a good overall answer.

First, is it more important to develop social and cultural knowledge or academic knowledge? More accurately, which is it more important to learn from school?

I think it's clear that school exists for academic education. Now, some degree of cultural and social development is certainly important, but I think in the school system (be it homeschool or public school) cultural and social development should take a back seat to academic development, at least in K-12.

Now, assuming that social and cultural development is still important:

Where should one get their social and cultural development? Or maybe, HOW should one get it?

I think a large part of being socially and culturally "mature" is to be able to be a social and cultural critic. Simply being aware of what's going on isn't as important as being able to understand and make decisions about what's going on. From fellow students, all you're gonna get is a knowledge of what's going on. Most of the time, I don't even think you're going to get relevent knowledge of what's going on. When I think of "pop culture," I think of fassion and music and slang: none of that is really important in my min. How many kids come to school talking about REAL news?

Now, on analyzing and processing "news":

This can be taught in either public school or homeschool but it takes seriousness and discipline to have rational discussions about social and cultural issues. I think it's much easier to provide seriousness and discipline in a homeschooling context.

You don't even have to specifically talk about the news. My college professors make a big deal about reading the newspapers but I think general critical thinking skills are more important. Someone who knows how to think critically will have a mind that is naturally more able to process news than an untrained, uncritical mind.

I really don't think public school does a good job of teaching critical thinking, so really I think homeschool BETTER prepares a student for processing and analyzing social and cultural information.

Well, what about "pop culture"?

Again, you may be odd and look like a dork if you don't understand pop culture but how much harm will it really do to you?

Even assuming it's extremely harmful to not understand pop culture, pop culture can be picked up from other sources than school. Actually, it seems a little crazy to me to try to draw so much from school. I see school as a place of education, not of learning pop culture. Why not just pay attention to people? You'd be surprised what you can discover.

(A more specific definition of pop culture would be immensely helpful.)

Ok, but you don't want to be isolated from the "real world," do you?

Certainly not. But, as I've talked about before, I don't think public school is the "real world." I think it sets up a lot of artificial interaction and culture. Things that are important to your average jr. higher or highschooler and not often to important in the "real world." Also, as I've said before, the interaction in public school is not representative of interaction in the "real world."

That said, what do we conclude?

We conclude:

1. Academic education is more important than social and cultural development but that social and cultural development are important.

2. Social and cultural development require a knowledge of real news, not of fassion, slang, or music.

3. Social and cultural development require the ability to think critically.

4. Critical thinking is difficult to develop in an ordinary public school environment because of a lack of seriousness and discipline.

5. Social and cultural development is as easy, if not easier, in homeschool.

---

After re-reading your question, I see that I've missed a few points. Let me go through a little bit of personal experience and thought to try to answer those points.

On different kinds of interaction:

Public school is an entirely age-based system; the real world is not. I think this is a serious problem that actually leaves public schoolers a bit "sheltered." I've learned (or at least would like to think I have) how to relate to people of all ages because I have experience with people of all ages. I have friends that are as much as 6 or 7 years younger than me and as much as 15 years older than me. Now, I'm not saying these are traditional types of friendships but I think the traditional view of friendship is also bunk. "Traditional friendship," like public schooling, is very much age-based. I think this is actually set up a lot in public schools. People don't learn how to relate to younger or older people. They're actually "taught" to look down on younger people and admire older people based on no other quality than their age.

I think homeschooling gives better opportunities to learn to interact with different types of people because of the time available and because you aren't stuck in a group of a bunch (even up to a thousand or more at some schools) of people that are the same age as you.

i mean i know there is social outlets for hs kids, but they are with other isolated hs kids. did you find this to be true, or if not what did you do different

Ok, I see what you're saying here. Homeschoolers socialization but with other sheltered homeschoolers so how does it really help anything?

I think homeschoolers who have learned critical thinking can gain a great deal by interacting with each other. Self-examination and examination of the "real world" is a vital part of life. I think homeschoolers tend to do more of this than public schoolers do. (Blanket statement, I know.)

Home schoolers do not HAVE to be isolated and sheltered either. In some ways I was but in most ways, I was not. Through interactions at church and other activities, I got a chance to see what people were like and apply some of that to myself.

Now, I will freely admit that I got a shock when I started going to Loyola. I had this strange though in my head that people paying thousands of dollars for their education would be serious about it and that somehow that seriousness would translate to morality. I was wrong. However, I think I've learned how to "fit in" (not in a sense of becoming like the group but in a sense of finding my place and behaving as I should in such a situation) rather quickly because of my critical thinking skills. I think I know how to examine different cultural, social and ethical ideas. I can look at what I see around me and decide what I should do about it. This, I think, is what social and cultural development is all about.

I will do some more thinking about how to bring about such social and cultural development but for now... that's all folks.