h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

One of today's edited entries is 'Home education' A799365

Having read the article that WM linked to, I want to add a little more to my point about zones of proximal development.

The theory is that we need our hands held if we are to travel cognitively from state A to state B without falling over. The old-fashioned method supplied this support by narrowly controlling a specific route for a series of ZPD which closely matched the average performance of the average child. As a result, many students in a class were able to make use of this 'scaffolding' help even if it wasn't the optimal way for them, as individuals, to learn.

Collaborative learning doesn't do away with the 'old' methods, in the way that some innovative programs in the past have appeared to do. What is suggested here is that by loosening the control, tailoring the start and finish points to the individual, recognising that there are many ways of getting from A to B and providing a range of interactions with other people (teachers, other students, parents, visitors, classroom assistants, computers...) you can get better learning for everyone without the tendency to move towards the mediocre. It's a different way of thinking and shouldn't inheritently cost more. However, when people start to think in collaborative learning framework the problems of teaching 30 children in a classroom for blocks of 35 minutes are thrown into sharp relief. We need more guiding hands in the classrooms whatever our underlying philosphy. What we don't necessarily need is more teachers in the sense of 'interpreters of what's important in our culture.'

I really must look for some good reference materials in a moment.

[MTG]

Morning, all.

Thank you all for the various rants, raves and rambles re: education. I agree, on the whole, that more choice needs to be given to the students in reference to what they learn and study. On the other hand, if it weren't for requirements, I would have missed out on many subjects that I came to love - not the least of which is psychology, my field of study to be. Some requirements are good as it gives people a chance to find new things they would never have thought to learn about on their own.

*sips , warms her hands and feet, and tries not to think about the fact that she needs to go clean shortly*

Whether it's home schooling or classroom learnin', we still have to deal with assumed values by the teacher/parent. As the rants about book banning made clear, even in a public school it is possible to hinder a child in the free acquisition of knowledge.

As regards socialization, I believe that is less the fault of home schooling as a concept than the beliefs of the parents. We have a family down the road who home school their children. They talk about God as if he's in the guest room: "Oh, I learned that from God." "Oh, we got that from God." This is socialized in respect of their family group and in respect of the vehemently born-again milieu to which the family tries to confine itself, and you can be certain that if the family has its way the children will marry into this group and home-school the children to carry on the belief system. In this way, the progeny are protected from ever hearing about such immoral things as evolutionary theory....

So this is where I find myself agreeing with d'Elaphant. A public education is the only hope you have, in many cases, of liberating a child from the confinement of the belief system in the home. The fundamentalists call corruption what we call a rounded education.

Sorry if I'm not making sense -- I haven't had any tea yet.

*goes off to the kitchen to make tea and thus steps out of view of the webcam in the cottage, but tea-making noises are heard*

[{Courtesy}]

[H]

I think I'm on the side of GL on the socialisation issue, to an extent. Although I must say that I think I gained quite a bit of character from a rough ride at school, I am fighting a small quiet battle at work to get teen classes effectively dissasembled. This is partly because there are no descent teen textbooks (my personal theory is that those who can, teach, and those who can't, write coursebooks for teenagers), but mostly cos it's a pain in the butt to teach a group of hormones in the same class. Funnily enough, I've never had a problem with those teens shoved occassionally into adult groups, and we all get down to an awful lot more work.

I agree with some of your assessment of our type of school, too, GL. But you can't have it as a model for unseperating the haves from the have nots. We are ferociously expensive for the average Russian, and since the only really sensibly paying jobs are with foreign companies at the moment, well...

And then, you know, I really appreciate being forced to do stuff, even if it turns out I am really bad at it, or if it isn't really my cup of tea when alls said and done. I would never voluntarily have read DH Laurence, for example, though now I am rather pleased I did, and while I quite enjoy studying poetry in a class, I never, for some reason, read it outside of class. Then I'd never have met Emily D.

As for exams. Hmm. Thing is, sometimes it depends on the exam. I quite like teaching the first 6 monthes of the Cambridge exam courses we do here, as I consider the exam generally sound and have seen students raise their game enourmously as a result of having to aquire the knowledge and skills necessary to pass it. And there did come a time last year when I was seriously considering kissing the best part of 3 000 dollars goodbye and dumping the course I was on. Which would have been a mistake as I learned a lot of things I would never have done in quite so much depth or intensity as I did cos I was getting examined on it. Having someone make an extremely minute and critical assessment on my ability to teach (in particular)was an extremely salutory, but ultimately very very helpful experience. But I know my failings, and I need that kind of boot up the bottom to get moving. Obviously not everyone learns best like that.

Now I'm off to play with Amy's collaborative model thingy...

There's no such thing as a perfect system. We have to make the best choices we can in our own particular situations.

As to socialization skills, some of the home schooled kids I know are shy and awkward around other kids. But others are just the opposite. I went to public schools and was painfully shy. I don't know many home schooled families who are so isolated that the kids don't have an opportunity to interact with other kids.

The two things that bother me the most about home schooling have been touched on already. Many of the families I know have chosen to home school for religious reasons. They are "protecting" their children from being influenced by people who do not share their religious beliefs. I think that kids need to be exposed to all sorts of opinions so they can learn to think critically. Also, many parents home school for a year or so then put their kids into public or private schools anyway. And according to the teachers, this causes a problem because the kids are never at the same level as their classmates. They may be significantly ahead in one area and behind in another.

I would still like a reasonable explaination on the determination of learning disability in Utah. I am trying to figure out why if I am ahead of my peers I am learning disabled.

This makes me glad that I am in The Real World (such as it is) and I am judged on quality (for the most part).

Sadly, I seem to be judged on quantity. Must find new job...

At the risk of being pelted by for extending this topic, what does everyone think of the Montessori method/schools?

Montessori is great at a younger level, although I think it becomes harder to do effectively in older ages (from about 8 on). I like the idea of building on previous knowledge, although some Montesori schools are a little too structured for my taste. And there seem to be an awful lot of Christian Montessori schools opening up lately.

My dream school for Daarte would be a Waldorf school. If children learn by doing, then a Waldorf school is the ultimate in hands-on. Direct observation of nature, building, art, music, tons of field trips to expand one's horizon....it's wonderful. The problem is, having all those options available means that it runs in the tens of thousands of dollars for a year at one of these schools!

FG, for reference, Sussex School is built on a combined Montessori/Waldorf model, although it tends more towards the Waldorf side of things.

{[caer csd] *eating her way through a bowl of Wall's Vanilla Lite icecream*

There is a private schooli n SLC called Realms for Inquiry, that I intend to send my children to, when/if I have them. It has a good focus on science and letting the students structure the classes around their interests.

I will see if I can find more info on it and let you know what they do.

*on the monitor*

Mike A spent his first year of education in a Montessori school, his parents said. I must ask him what he thought of it.

Could someone ask Matina to send over groceries so I can cook a dinner? I don't know whether she has been told that I'm stuck over here.

*on her way to the kitchen, when she suddenly remembers that she isn't here - yet*

I've never heard of Waldorf schools before. The only Waldorf I've had experience with is the salad. *chopping apples and walnuts*

I'm sending fresh apples from my garden and caramels to tide Lil over until Matina does the shopping.

Ah-hah! I've finally reached the end, so now I may post...

My comments about the whole education debate (and a very long one it has become as well) are about the expanse of the system. What occurs early in one's life - be one home-taught or taught in a school - affects pretty much everything in later life. For example, society at present requires people to have qualificatations to get into most jobs. These can, in Britain at least, take the form of degrees, A-Levels and such. Those in turn can only be attained by attending college or university, and those can only be visited with previous qualifications.

Well, no, I lie really. GCSEs, examples of earlier qualifications, aren't really needed to get into college, as long as sufficient knowledge of the subject matter learnt during the compulsory school time is shown; so home-taught children may well be able to acquire the higher qualifications.

However, to get A-Levels, you cannot, as far as I am aware, be taught at home without considerable effort (viz. a proper following of the course syllabus, which is also necessary in order to obtain GCSEs). As such, anyone who has been home-taught for the earlier years will find it very difficult indeed to suddenly fit into the education system of colleges - almost everyone else there will have a dramatic head start in that field!

Another point: society is now based on the principal of everyone being educated through the normal channels, with a few lucky exceptions who do manage to fit in, as it were. (Incidentally, by 'fitting in' I do not mean fitting into a stereotype or peer group or some other such classification, which I so despise. I mean fitting into society itself, which is an entirely different matter by my definition.) As I have said, jobs and further education assume you have studied the 'normal' way, as do social groups. It is perfectly possible for those who have not been taught at school and experienced the same things as everyone else to fit in, but highly unlikely, in my view.

I was going somewhere with that argument, but I can't remember where... Basically, note that education sets one up for life, and has done for simply ages. Defying that - while a bold move and something that must be done for variation in society - would, in the long run, be a bad move, unless everyone did it at the same time, even in different ways. Changing the education system would change society in itself, and that... well, that would be a most impressive feat.

Anyway, onto a few topics I can remember...

Congratulations, MR on the job!

Belated (as usual, from me) happy birthday to Marv and WM!

Lil, great to have you almost back!

Heheh... That's the longest post you'll get out of me for a while.

Good to see you back Chris.