Kids and education and stuff

[Clinton]

This thread in the VIP Lounge motivated me to start a new conversation about education.

I have three kids between five and nine years old. Earlier this year I took them out of school for two months to visit Australia. Not everybody agrees with taking kids out of school to go on holiday, but ours did learn more in those two months than they would have learned all year in school!

That got me and the wife talking about schools and education and how much kids do or don't learn in school. We realised that 99% of what kids know is what they learned from mum and dad - from walking to wiping their backsides. When it comes to academic stuff our kids are several years ahead of their peers in Maths, English and IT. It's not because they're particularly intelligent. It's because their parents had the time and interest to play word games with them, work together on maths puzzles etc. i.e. we are mainly responsible for that, not the school.

So why on earth do we send them to school?

I did a bit of research and was getting more and more convinced that this whole school malarkey is a bad idea. A very bad idea. I watched Ken Robinson's videos on Youtube, particularly this one and this one. I watched several others (like this cognitive psychologist's take on why school is prison). I did other research and read books on "unschooling" and "free range education" where they make arguments that school is unnatural. School is an invention of the last couple of hundred years - a blink of the eye in terms of human evolution - and came about because we've industrialised everything including a large part of the "rearing" of our young.

So we took a big decision. We've taken our kids out of school permanently and are going to educate them ourselves. We've figured that one morning of 1-to-1 teaches more than a whole week at school and that leaves them free to enjoy themselves, go to other experts to teach them music, German... of whatever the kids fancy learning!

I'm now a convert. Anybody else here with kids? If you had the time to teach them would you take them out of school? The internet gives us a fantastic opportunity to earn money in new and exciting ways. But why stop there? That very internet can free us from working at a desk or living in a particular country. It also provides resources for the kids to learn tons of stuff that we can't teach them ourselves. It frees us from schools!

What do you think?

[MrP]

Yes Clinton, I have kids - but only five of them

Two are still of school age - one of them attended for about a month 4 years ago. Since then he has been 'educated otherwise'. I will admit we've found it hard sometimes, juggling work commitments and the kids education. On the up side though not being tied to the 'national curriculum' enables a lot more focus on the children's needs and interests.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that in school, you are forced to learn what the government think you should know, when they think you should know it. In may cases this leads to unhappy kids, not wanting to listen or learn. Being able to follow their interests makes for a happier and more sponge like learning experience. Also, everybody has a different rate of learning, some find one thing easier to understand than others - in my opinion it's not possible for one teacher to assist a class full of pupils and bring out the best in them, at the rate in which they have to cover different areas of a subject.

We do have one slightly annoying thing going on though - once a year we have to 'prove' to a visitor from the Education Welfare Office, that we are indeed educating our 'child' to a standard that will allow him to survive in todays modern society.

Why wouldn't we..? - We want the best for our kids!

Here's a quote from Section 7 of the 'Education act 1966'

"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable ;
a) to his age, ability, and aptitude, and
b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."

[Kay]

I'm not a parent - we are deliberately child-free - so I don't know how things are these days. But I remember as a child I used to enjoy going to school (up to a certain age) because that's where I made friends, joined the hockey team, the choir, and did all sorts of things that I'd never have had the opportunity to do otherwise. I think that going to school can be a good experience for a child. It's not so much what you learn in terms of the three Rs, it's more about functioning within a social group.

I'm not against home-educating at all, but I know some rather thick people who've opted for that and I think "poor kid". If you want to home-educate then perhaps you ought to pass a test of competence first. That said, I've seen plenty of teachers who can't even spell the word teechur. Gawd help us.

[MrP]

it's more about functioning within a social group.

That's a good point. We are quite lucky in that where we live, there are a wide variety of clubs that our kids can attend to make friends and learn to function socially.

Recently, after playing with friends at the local park, our 9yr old asked if he would be able to 'try' going to school again. We found it quite tricky trying to explain to him that, unlike the clubs he attends, it's not something he can 'try'. Either he has to register and attend school properly or he can't go. This does seem a bit odd though, that they can't work out some sort of trial system. I mean, you can do a work trial to see if the job suits you.

[Andy]

Great subject Clinton... I think.

Speaking from experience, I homeschooled my two eldest for one school year. (My youngest wasn't born yet.) It was a tough year for me as I was administrator and teacher. I also devised and developed the curriculum for each child. Let me tell you I worked very hard even though the boys usually finished up their work quite early. I was left to grade papers, track activities, work on the next day's lesson plans, etc.

Having said all that, I determined my kids did not have a proper basis in Math and English especially. So I set out to correct this. I drilled them endlessly in math basics. I made them write essays and such nearly every day. The result?

My eldest, now in 10th grade is taking a math class populated by Seniors and consistently blows them off the charts. From the start he eschewed using a calculator and now several students have taken up that challenge.

My youngest son came home yesterday with yet another performance in his class. They paired off into teams, it seems he didn't have a partner. He finished 15 minutes ahead of everyone else with a 100% score. Next semester he will take High School Geometry (he's an eighth grader) as they do not have any other math class to accomodate him.

Granted, they both were taking more advanced classes in their previous school so that had something to do with all of this, but I firmly believe much of this has to do with their strong basis they got in homeschool.

What bothers me most about the whole situation is each state has very strict rules for homeschoolers and yet when it comes to public education, they pretty much do whatever they want. Talk about a double standard.

So would I go back to homeschooling? I'm torn. One of the reasons they went back is for the social experience, even though this is often as negative as it is positive. And yet, they have to learn to deal with both sides don't they? Besides, by schooling them at home, the school is deprived of THEIR influence.

In addition, they now have access to opportunities I cannot provide. Here in VA, they could all go to what's called "Governor's School" where they could graduate with a High School diploma AND and Associates Degree. Thus they could enter college at 18 as a Junior. Plus, my eldest is taking JR ROTC and enjoying this immensely. He's getting some top-notch leadership training and a bit of discipline to boot.

Even so, I believe the choice to school at home is a personal one that every parent should consider. No matter what, public school in no way relieves the parents from the responsibility to see their children are well educated. I almost missed this when I just looked at their grades and left things at that.

Most of us have NO IDEA what our kids know and what they are lacking. I strongly urge anyone with children to set them down and find out how well they read, write and what their math skills are. Pay CLOSE attention to how they can perform basic functions - addition, subtraction, multiplication and division as well as fractions and decimals. All math stems form these and if they can't do all of these deftly, they stand little chance of doing well in higher grades.

Andy

[crabfoot]

I'm not for or against home learning. There are so many considerations to make. I can say that, while I went to a very good secondary school (Telegraph Premier League in today's terms) I was constrained in my option choices at A level, and I would have done much better academically and in later life if I had been given greater freedom regarding choice of subjects.

When I was young there was still a side industry in teaching adults what they wanted to learn. Languages and "get a trade qualification" courses were in all the small ads of the national papers, and they were expensive. If I could have afforded a Linguaphone course I'd have done well. I remember at 16 it took me months to save up for a £15 cassette recorder ... and even then, I could only afford new batteries once a fortnight. The courses were so expensive ...

Nowadays those materials are relatively cheap, often sold off second hand on eBay. If you have an interest in a subject, particularly a language, it is not that hard to teach yourself whilst teaching a child at the same time. Let Linguaphone show that their courses actually work!

[circa75]

Clinton, great personal post.

I'm currently sans kids – but your decision seems an entirely smart choice to me.

In the west, most people follow the herd and assume that living how everyone else lives must be right. A lot of us here know different. The majority do what society/parents/peers "expect" of them: get a job/profession [doing the same thing forever], buy a house, get married [once], have kids, send them to school, etc. It's a cycle of life our governments are happy to encourage us is the "right" way. Because it keeps things on an even keel and lines their pockets.

Add to this the fact that much of our educational system and many of the schools themselves haven't changed since Victorian times or earlier [in the UK at least], then it's no wonder there's a growing trend for taking kids out of that outdated and many say broken "system".

It's inspiring to see people walk a different path, and it sounds as though you've found a nice alternative to the mainstream. I know many teachers who would hurl x, y and z reasons and stats at you – but most would be coming at it from a "job" perspective, not a quality of life perspective.


All I can say from my own experiences [as Kay mentioned and many feel] is that I enjoyed school not for the lessons learned, but for the friends made and the times we shared together. From building survival rafts on Lake Windermere, to cricket tours of Barbados, to kissing at school discos, amongst others! Haha, rose-tinted nostalgia.

Perhaps that would be my one real concern if I were in your shoes: how best to give the kids good time away from their folks that enables them to meet new/other kids, build new/other friendships and have fun. That's what maketh the person. But I'm sure you've considered that and got it covered.

[Clinton]

Now for what's called the "S" word.

Schools are the worst environment for children to pick up social skills! The absolute worst. What social skills do we want our children to develop? We want them to learn to respect others, be able to work as part of a group, learn to form friendships/resolve differences etc. The playground isn't the place for that. The playground is where a bunch of kids let off steam after being cooped up in a classroom the rest of the time.

I was watching a group of HE children the other day. A 14 year old boy was playing with a seven year old neighbour. A 10 year old girl was reading to an eight year old. There were numerous examples of children working together across age barriers. That tends not to happen with school children - they don't want to associate with children younger than them. They consider it demeaning. Yet there is no situation in life where you are put with 29 other people your exact age and told to work together as a group. You've got to be able to communicate with, form partnership with and work together with people several years older and younger than you. School - with its emphasis on age grouping - hampers the development of some of the right social skills.

We are lucky in that there are many HE children in our locality so our children would get to socialise when school children are having playtime ... and when they're not! HE children in the UK who live near any major city get to socialise a lot more than school going children and, in my limited acquaintance with HE kids, seem to have better social skills.

MrP, with respect your "work trial" comment - some schools offer what's called flexi-schooling. Speak to some heads of local schools. Also, I don't know why you bother with the local EWO. Tell them to sod off. They have no right to demand any "proof" from you of anything!

I know many teachers who would hurl x, y and z reasons and stats at you – but most would be coming at it from a "job" perspective, not a quality of life perspective.

What do teachers know?! Teachers call it the three Rs - they haven't yet figured that writing is spelt with a "W" or that Rithmetic just doesn't add up!

[MrP]

Schools are the worst environment for children to pick up social skills! The absolute worst. What social skills do we want our children to develop? We want them to learn to respect others, be able to work as part of a group, learn to form friendships/resolve differences etc. The playground isn't the place for that. The playground is where a bunch of kids let off steam after being cooped up in a classroom the rest of the time.

Lets not forget the Bullies that pick on others just because...

I was watching a group of HE children the other day. A 14 year old boy was playing with a seven year old neighbour. A 10 year old girl was reading to an eight year old. There were numerous examples of children working together across age barriers.

Watching as my five kids grow, it stand out a mile how much benefit the younger ones get from having older brothers and sisters. They watch and listen and strive to be like big Brov' or big Sis. The kids that came later in our family definitely learned to do things like walk, talk, draw, read etc, a lot quicker than the first of our kids.

MrP, with respect your "work trial" comment - some schools offer what's called flexi-schooling. Speak to some heads of local schools. Also, I don't know why you bother with the local EWO. Tell them to sod off. They have no right to demand any "proof" from you of anything!

I have heard of 'flexi-schooling' but have not yet investigated it. I understand that it is the decision of the individual heads of the S's. Also that most try to avoid it due to it not conforming with the natural flow of the S-day.

Regarding the EWO, they don't actually 'demand' proof. They do however expect us to show bookwork/paperwork showing the child's progress in various subjects [which should include - maths and literacy]. Telling them to sod off would indeed be a great pleasure, but since they have one of our kids their list, they are obligated to check his progress - If they are unsatisfied, they can take legal action to force enrollment in S.

How did our 'one' child get on there list..? - The S he attended for about a month, notified them that we withdrew him from their S.

However, our youngest who has never been registered or attended school is not on their list. They never ask how she is doing, or to see her work.

[Fish]

There were numerous examples of children working together across age barriers. That tends not to happen with school children - they don't want to associate with children younger than them. They consider it demeaning. Yet there is no situation in life where you are put with 29 other people your exact age and told to work together as a group. You've got to be able to communicate with, form partnership with and work together with people several years older and younger than you. School - with its emphasis on age grouping - hampers the development of some of the right social skills.

This reminded me of something I read a couple years back. I hadn't thought of it before. It's true that throughout history kids have had to mix with all ages, even adults, as they grew up. Until recently, they were never confined to their age group, though that's what people see as natural now. I'm speculating from what I've read, but it seems that kids 100 years ago were more advanced, both emotionally and academically, than kids today. Still, the social argument against home schooling holds weight where there is little/no social community outside of school, which is the case on most urban areas.

So far as the education itself, I remember thinking when I was a child what a waste of time it all was. The stuff that was covered in a typical week at school could be taught in a few hours. The rest was fluff, propaganda and social engineering. Much of it, even the hard science, was just false. I was 50 years old before I realized that the brontosaurus never existed. It was a hoax. And they still teach science that way, as though it is fact rather than mostly theory. And absolutely nobody learns how to manage money, run a business, or even make a nutritious meal in school.

I used to wonder why we spent a week on George Washington Carver in school, more than George Washington, and more than any other historical figure. Despite that week of conditioning, I still didn't get why inventing peanut butter put him on top of the pack of history. Now I do. And I'm quite sure it's 100 times worse now.