Janitrol said:
The fact of the matter is that there are definitely some parents that may be better teachers than most teachers. However, at most public schools students will have learned from at least 15 teachers by the time they graduate. Each of whom will have brought a different set of opinions to the table.It is up to the child to decide which are right and which are wrong. Over their lives, children are going to be faced with decisions, and one of the greatest skills that one can have is the ability to discern between good and bad on their own.
And homeschooled children don't hear different opinions?
They might choose differently from their parents. Scary I know, but that's part of growing up; becoming your own person based on your own personal beliefs of who you are, not what anyone tells you you should be.
You mean like government schools, that constantly tell children that they're homophobic if they disagree with homosexuality?
And yes, kids at public school do drugs, they drink, they have sex, they drive too fast and they talk disrespectfully to the opposite sex.
And yes, if your child is not in a public school, they will be shielded from most of these things.. and they may very well grow up to be lonely adults who have a hard time keeping stable relationships because of the 12 years of unbridled socialization that they've missed.
Why do you believe homeschooled children don't encounter these things outside of government schools? Why do you assume that a government school is the only place children receive socialization?
Why don't they receive "unbridled" socialization in any of the other activities they're involved with? Why don't they receive "unbridled socialization" from their homeschooling peers?
In a government school classroom, children are with other children their own age and most likely of their own socio-economic background. Part of socialization is learning to deal with people who are different than you are.
I guess things must have really changed since I was in school and taught in government schools because, back then, children were not allowed to socialize during class. They would frequently get detention for doing so.
And what's more, socialization most certainly isn't exposing your children to bad behavior in the hopes that it will make them able to resist bad behavior.
You know what they call people who do devote a great deal of effort to grammar and other points of academia that most normal people would not? Teachers.
I could give crash-courses on history, and a variety of other subjects, to children, but I am in no way qualified to be a teacher.
Honestly? You give teachers way too much credit.
All somebody has to do to be "qualified" to teach is to pass two tests and they're really not all that hard. I still have my Praxis II prep book and very little of what's in the book relates to anything that actually went on in any of my classes.
When somebody goes to school to get an education degree, they learn things like Bloom's Taxonomy, Bronfrenbrenners Ecosystem, Maslow's Hierarchy, classroom management, etc. Heck, in one class, I spent half a semester just learning to create a rubric.
They actually learn very little about the subject or how to teach it.
Let's be honest. If government school teachers were as great as you say, then our government schools wouldn't be in such sorry shape.
Teaching isn't hard. Being a teacher is hard because of all of the things required of you but teaching, itself, isn't hard at all.
Public school is far less about true education than it is social development. Children need to learn how to interact with peers outside of their home/church, someday they will be all alone in the real world.
Again, why is interacting with peers in a government school better than interacting with peers in the real world?
What are my kids going to get in a government school that they're not getting in church, with our homeschool group, in 4-H, in their various sports teams, in Scouting, in volunteering, at work, etc?
I guess that's the big difference between us. You say that children will be in the "real world"
someday. We say that our children are already in the real world and are already participating in it.
InHisSpirit said:
As a Christian Momma with two in public school I have to say with all honesty I am no way qualified to Home school.
Why not? You taught them how to dress themselves. You taught them how to tie their shoes. You taught them their ABC. You taught them colors. Why aren't you qualified?
Sure, in lower level classes I can help, but there will soon be a time when I will be unable to teach them what they need to know to excel in their academics.
But why couldn't you use any of the many resources available to homeschoolers?
Also, I believe there are people out there who are qualified and able to Home school and I say more power to you!
Whether you believe it or not, you're one of them.
2intime said:
Just from the structure of your sentence I would hate to be your kid.
Was that really necessary?
Also, "a home shooler" is not only one word but also it is singular.
Actually, it can be one word, two words, or hyphenated. All are correct.
You've made so many mistakes just in one sentence that I fear your children will be as uneducated as you are. Education is not a bad thing and if you aren't capable of teaching your children yourself you should leave it to the professionals.
So who teaches your children manners?
Oh, and by the way, there are several grammatical errors in your post. You might want to take care of those before you so rudely attack somebody else for their grammatical errors.
