Homeschooling what-if...

[Vort]

My son just broke up with one girl so he could focus on another girl he was dating. Though he had to make the choice (where's polygamy when you need it?), he was upset - "She was OK with homeschooling." I knew we'd discussed this, but had no idea it was on his marriage material list.

Heh heh.

My wife was rather adamantly anti-homeschooling when we married. Admittedly, that was back when homeschooling was much less mainstream than it is today, but it was still a remarkable change of heart between the time we married and the time we began considering our oldest child's imminent public schooling experience.

[Leah]

Which of these do you think is merely my opinion?

• Two generations ago, or even one, it was common for most households to be run on a single income.
• What is undeniable is that our expectations have increased dramatically.

Based on the above two observations, I came up with what I thought was a reasonable conclusion:

• Thus, I suspect that a return to a more modest and sustainable standard of living would allow the large majority of households to function on a single income.

Obviously my conclusion is opinion. But I substantiated it with what I thought were pretty commonly accepted observations, nothing very controversial.

Which generalizations or judgments are you talking about?

Not sure how to answer this question.

Have you corrected for inflation of wages as well as prices? Googling around, I see that gasoline in 1960 cost the equivalent of about $2.20 per gallon, not all that much less than it costs now. Factoring in the better mileage of modern automobiles, the cost of fuel is more or less a wash. The federal minimum wage is somewhat higher than the 1960 level. In 1960, an average house cost about $12,500; in 2010, it cost about $240,000. Average wages in 1960 were about $4750, or a bit over 1/3 the cost of a house; in 2010, they were about $42,000, or roughly 1/6 the cost of a house. So the cost of housing appears to have doubled. But consider that in 1960, the average single-family house was 1000 square feet, while in 2010, it was almost 2400 square feet -- more than double the size! And that's for an average family size of less than 2.6, compared to an average family size in 1960 of almost 3.3! Our parents put more people in less square footage.

These statistics look to me to bear out my contention: We have higher expectations, and this is the root of many of our financial problems.

What makes you think I have some sort of lifestyle assumption of two-income families?

Pretty sure I did no such thing.

Oh, Vort, anyone can take random google "facts" and combine them with their own observations and biases and come to the conclusion they want. I wish there was a cure for Right-Man-Syndrome.

YOUR WORDS show you have a life-style assumption of two-income families! You're sure they are all living in huge houses, with loads of fancy crap they don't need! That may be true for some, but it is not true for all. I bet you for every McMansion dweller, I can show you at least two families who are squeezing multiple children to a room, just like my parents did. Rooms with NO TVs or computers. With furniture that's been around a few years and carpeting that has seen better days.

You know I lubs you and might even date your older brother if you had one...but the question I was asking is why is it okay for you to form an opinion on whatever random "facts" and anecdotes you want to assemble to claim you're right and others are wrong...why is that okay but when several someones have a different opinion or conclusion, they MUST be wrong and you MUST be right?

There are people telling you that it is NOT always possible to survive on one income. Even living the standards you dictate. There are people who are doing everything you would require of them and are still struggling. But you dismiss those experiences out of hand because it doesn't fit your "facts".

Ack. I don't know why I bother!

[Vort]

Oh, Vort, anyone can take random google "facts" and combine them with their own observations and biases and come to the conclusion they want.

Then do so. I did not intentionally bias my results; I searched for a few markers and put up the results. Had I been biasing my results, I would not have bothered to mention that houses seem to cost twice as much now.

I provided evidence of my opinion. I simply asked others to do the same. I am perfectly happy for people to explain why my evidence doesn't mean what I take it to mean.

I wish there was a cure for Right-Man-Syndrome.

Which I take it afflicts me but not you? (But then, you're not a man...)

YOUR WORDS show you have a life-style assumption of two-income families! You're sure they are all living in huge houses, with loads of fancy crap they don't need!

This is false. Period. You are wrong. I do not in fact believe what you assert I believe. And since I'm me, I am the final authority on what I believe.

You know I lubs you and might even date your older brother if you had one...

I do in fact have an older brother. I've almost always enjoyed our conversations since you first joined the site a year or two ago, but your MoE-like personal attacks on my character belie the idea that you lubs me.

but the question I was asking is why is it okay for you to form an opinion on whatever random "facts" and anecdotes you want to assemble to claim you're right and others are wrong...why is that okay but when several someones have a different opinion or conclusion, they MUST be wrong and you MUST be right?

Can you demonstrate any such thing?

I asked for evidence of opinion. I provided evidence of my opinion. You are welcome to shred my evidence, if you like. If I'm convinced by your counterarguments, I might even thank you for enlightening me. I don't think it's too much to ask that others back up their bare assertions with evidence.

There are people telling you that it is NOT always possible to survive on one income. Even living the standards you dictate. There are people who are doing everything you would require of them and are still struggling. But you dismiss those experiences out of hand because it doesn't fit your "facts".

False. Did I say "always"? Please back up your assertion that I made any such claim.

[annewandering]

This is true for adults, but much less so for children. Children under ten or twelve respond to how things are presented. It is the duty of the parents to figure out how to educate their children or otherwise to see to their education.

You appear to be modeling education as a primarily passive activity: The child or youth sits in a chair and gets educated. In fact, good education is primarily an active activity. With the help of books and other external aids, the student educates himself (herself). This is seen even -- or especially -- in the best post-secondary schools, where the students are empowered and even required to assume the burden of their education.

Nevertheless, for those who absolutely cannot or will not educate their children, we should still provide resources for them to fulfill their duty. Ultimately, it is and should be the parents' duty, not the state's, to see to the child's education.

Nope. Not doing the passive idea. Sadly most so called education is passive as it stands now. Its a rotten way to teach. Anyway its a pointless argument. I have seen people who will never understand the basics of educating their children and you havent. Duty and capable are not tied together in fact. Ideally maybe. Would be nice.

[Roseslipper]

This sounds good but this will not work without a HOLISTIC approach to society's care of children.

The Children's Education is a product of overall Societal Culture. Asian cultures, for example, are not big on home schooling. They are mostly for "sending their children to be taught by those better than they are"... with every hope of the child becoming better than their parents.

Therefore, the problem you presented as the culture shift from parents reneging on their duties as educators and handing it to the government/businesses is not really solved by shifting the society's norm to home schooling. The problem can be addressed holistically by a change in culture to put importance on the welfare of children to be of a higher and paramount objective than the comfort/needs of the parents. To do this, you have to instill a culture of FAMILY.

And that's the reason why I believe that the Family Proclamation issued by the First Presidency should be adhered to by THE WORLD and not just Mormons. Shifting to a culture of Family will help solve education problems.

Would help solve alot of things!!! I think home schooling is great but not all parents can teach its not for all.....

[Wingnut]

And since I'm me, I am the final authority on what I believe.

Really?

[Irishcolleen]

Jenn, I know where you're coming from so I understand your point of view. But, I think there's a lot of things that you assumed from homeschooling that is not quite correct.

Let me clarify one point:

" If they don't have the means to have internet or other advantages, they don't learn as much, they don't move up in the "class" system. "

I am a Montessori method fan. In the Montessori method of teaching, the theory is that children are capable of self-learning. So that, students are not dependent on what the teacher/facilitator teaches. They learn by self discovery and capitalizes on the instinctive curiosity of children. This applies, not only to children with "normal learning capacity", but also to special needs children. Therefore, the teacher (facilitator) is not the only source of information. The student is encouraged to find different sources of information to satisfy his curiousity. For example - if the student wants to know how long the shadow will be when the sun is blocked by the flag pole at 2PM, they can go find a flagpole or build a mock-up and measure the shadow. The natural curiousity of children will cause him to discover why that is and take different measurements of different objects and different positions of the sun and try to make sense out of it. At this point, all the teacher has to do is give them a theory book on the subject and the student can find out for themselves - Aha! That's why! As you can see here, the teacher did not have to teach the math on the properties of a right angle - the student learned it for himself from direct observation.

So, the teacher doesn't really have to know the subject. All the teacher needs to do is give the student access to where the information can be found. And it is completely okay if the student knows more about things than the teacher. It's a natural progression as each individual have their own "specialty" of curiousities. Some people are more curious about natural sciences while others are more curious about numbers. The teacher just tries to make sure that the student tries to learn about a wide variety of subjects and not just things that they are especially curious about.

So yes, in America, resources are always available. The library is free. Parks are free. Museums are free. You can find all kinds of creatures everywhere. In the Philippines, you'll be hard-pressed to find a bird bigger than a budgie in a populated area - they don't last 5 minutes as they usually end up in someone's dinner table. And, if you can find a public library (rare) it would be a challenge to find a book written at least within the past 30 years.

So, what is important is that parents/teachers/facilitators encourage that natural curiousity among children and find room for it to grow, take root, and find an outlet. It's not necessary to know the subject themselves.

I am a huge Montessori fan, too! Our goal as a homeschool family has been to teach the kids how to learn, so they can learn anything.

[Vort]

Really?

Yes, really.

[Jennarator]

Others, such as MoE, Wingnut, and Jennarator, have attempted to make me the topic. When I challenge them on their false assertions, they go silent, thus allowing their falsehoods to just sort of live on in the cyberspace luminiferous ether. I admit it's a quixotic and pride-driven quest, but I want to challenge such untruths.

I only went silent because I needed to take care of my children. I am a very busy person, except when at work....well,today anyways I wasn't busy, but most of the time I am.

[classylady]

I'm grateful for public schools. If they weren't available, my children wouldn't have been educated! I have a college degree, and I love learning but, I'm not a teacher. I'm also not a motivator. Just like I couldn't teach my own children to play the piano (they wouldn't listen to me or practice for me, but they would practice for a different teacher), I feel they wouldn't have listened to me as a teacher.

How do homeschooler's pay for all the books, materials, etc.? Is it out of their own pockets? I have no idea. But, if it had to come from my own pocket, my family wouldn't have been able to afford it. After I was furloughed from my job, all activities such as sports, piano lessons, dance lessons, etc. stopped for the kids. We no longer had the money to provide for any extra activities. We only had one car and my husband used it to get to and from his job. (It was actually quite nice to no longer ferry the kids to soccer practice, music lessons, etc.) I also no longer was able to participate in crafts or outings with Relief Society that required any fees or money. If the kids needed Scouting or Young Women money, we simply had to say no to the activity. We had no extra money for anything. Literally, we didn't have an extra $5 per month for anything beyond the bills and gasoline. So, in our circumstance, if we would have had to pay for supplies, text books, etc. we wouldn't have been able to afford homeschool.

[Dravin]

How do homeschooler's pay for all the books, materials, etc.?

Like many things it depends on where you are. My brief foray into home school as a student in Alaska had school district learning packets, designed to take 4-6 weeks, and textbooks we'd check out. There were fees but it was comparable to public school fees. Of course Alaska was set up not to discourage home schoolers because of the large amount of rural people in the state who didn't have nearby schools. That system wasn't Vort's utopia though, my parents didn't have control over the textbooks used and baring some elective wiggle not even much over the packets IIRC.

That said, unless I missed it, Vort has not laid out any sort of detailed plan about how home schooling would work in his hypothetical. So proposing that the shift he proposes in the OP would see the creation of subsidized materials were they aren't already available is a perfectly valid proposed consequence of a change in societal attitude.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Dravin

[Vort]

Like many things it depends on where you are. My brief foray into home school as a student in Alaska had school district learning packets, designed to take 4-6 weeks, and textbooks we'd check out. There were fees but it was comparable to public school fees. Of course Alaska was set up not to discourage home schoolers because of the large amount of rural people in the state who didn't have nearby schools. That system wasn't Vort's utopia though, my parents didn't have control over the textbooks used and baring some elective wiggle not even much over the packets IIRC.

That said, unless I missed it, Vort has not laid out any sort of detailed plan about how home schooling would work in his hypothetical. So proposing that the shift he proposes in the OP would see the creation of subsidized materials were they aren't already available is a perfectly valid proposed consequence of a change in societal attitude.

Apparently, the title of the thread is deceptive. Sorry about that. My intent was not to explore homeschooling. Rather, from the perspective of a homeschooler, I asked a "what if": What if education were truly considered a parent's duty instead of the state's duty?

[Dravin]

Apparently, the title of the thread is deceptive. Sorry about that. My intent was not to explore homeschooling. Rather, from the perspective of a homeschooler, I asked a "what if": What if education were truly considered a parent's duty instead of the state's duty?

Yes, and subsidized materials would be made available to assist parents in that duty is a response inline with that what-if. Policy changes are a 'foreseeable' consequence of a shift in societal attitude. Currently the state devotes resources to what it perceives as it's duty, education, if that perceived duty was shifted to parents then it is reasonable that resources would be devoted to the parental duty of education. Particularly if an increase in numbers of home schoolers allows for a reduction in the resources being spent on public schools. Note I'm not declaring this must be so, as with all what-ifs you are limited to a fuzzy idea of what you consider reasonable.

I realize you aren't interested in getting into the nuts and bolts of a perfect home schooling system, but it seems to me that society would subsidize the endeavor is the type of 'prediction' that is in line with the larger scope of your hypothetical. To be fair though it's not clear that I wasn't aimed in the direction of nuts and bolts based off the post you were responding to.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

Others, such as MoE, Wingnut, and Jennarator, have attempted to make me the topic. When I challenge them on their false assertions, they go silent, thus allowing their falsehoods to just sort of live on in the cyberspace luminiferous ether. I admit it's a quixotic and pride-driven quest, but I want to challenge such untruths.

I go silent because it's not worth my time or mental energy to continue arguing with you, when you only see what you want to, and have double standards.

[Guest]

I'm grateful for public schools. If they weren't available, my children wouldn't have been educated!

classylady... I am quite certain, without a shadow of a doubt, that your children will still have been educated if they or you desired it.

Really.

There are tons and tons and tons of Filipinos who are poorer than the poorest of Americans who STILL found their way to be educated in such a manner as to compete internationally.

[Vort]

I go silent because it's not worth my time or mental energy to continue arguing with you, when you only see what you want to, and have double standards.

Naturally. Your passive aggression is my fault. I should have realized that.

[Guest]

How is walking away from an argument being passive-aggressive?

[Vort]

How is walking away from an argument being passive-aggressive?

It isn't.

[Wingnut]

Naturally. Your passive aggression is my fault. I should have realized that.

Didn't say it was. By the way, I've rarely been accused of being passively aggressive. :)

[Wordnerd]

So without directly quoting everyone, here's my two cents on the various issues. I think the lack of parental responsibility over education is partly a consequence of a dwindling work ethic, and partly a consequence of the bureaucracy of public education trying to push parents out. We could enshrine the parents rights to allow them the ultimate responsibility over education but it won't change the fact that some people can't be bothered. And I think this lack of work ethic is a direct consequence of living in a wealthy society with a social safety net. If we were a primarily small holding agricultural society like we used to be you would see a greater work ethic, because "work or starve" is a powerful argument. This in my opinion is why as Anatess mentioned many people from the Phillipines go on to higher education despite the abject poverty in their country, they learn how to work and the importance of enhancing their earning power because they have to.

It is true that many more people could stay home than currently choose to, and sometimes that requires a leap of faith if it is what we truly want. I know because I have been in the situation where I truly had to work, and then where I "had" to work to support our chosen lifestyle. Now I don't work outside the home, but I do help my husband run his business, which enables him to make more money, not everyone can do that though. We need to remember that the past generation's "one income" families sometimes only appeared that way, my "one income" family as a child had my father, working as a truck driver, and my mother home with the kids during the day. Except at night she cleaned vacant houses for a property management company for grocery money. Even though we lived in a low income neighbourhood my reality growing up was that mom's stayed home, but they always in our neighbourhood had to earn extra cash or families weren't going to eat. Moms at home is the ideal, and used to be the standard, but those families weren't always single income, and despite the vast increase in wages since the early eighties, living expenses have gone up more, so it could well be possible that my mother would not be able to close that gap with night work and stay home in this economy, and we only owned one beater car, one tv, no cable, couldn't afford to buy a house and rented a townhouse in an undesirable area.

I think the whole point of the educational system in the first place was to train the poorest who would not have been educated, to be capable of factory jobs, to create a common denominator so the economy could grow. It is not designed to accomodate different learning styles or different outcomes. If you want more than that for your own children you need to take their education in your own hands already, be that homeschooling, tutors or other enrichment.

[Guest Ronal2dduff]

[AnthonyB]

Do they have parent controlled schools in the US?

My kids go to a PCS, the school up front says that education is a parental responsibility expected of them by God (its a CPCS (Christian PCS)), that the school is a tool for assisting the parents in this responsbility. Education is far more than what any school can teach, kids need to learn more then the 3R's. Parental involvement is very consistent but voluntary, every class for the first 3 years generally has 2 parent helpers for every class every day. (That is around 10 helper per week per class about 50% of the parents in any class)

Parents are members of as association who make the big decisions for the school and elect a board made of parents (and principal and teachers rep) to run the school. Principal runs day to day.