Publik Skule vs. Home School

[dude1394]

One of the best things we EVER did for our kiddos.

townhall
-------------
Printer-friendly version
Publik Skule vs. Home School
Doug Giles (back to web version) | email to a friend Send

January 8, 2005

I was sitting at our neighborhood pool New Year’s morning, enjoying the great South Florida weather while trying to grind out a couple of chapters for my new book, when three high school girls took the chaise lounges next to me and started talking about their New Year’s Eve party with their high school mates.

Seemingly still semi-drunk from the party, the 16- and 17-year-old girls began to recount how much coke, weed, vodka, guys and girls they did the night before. Listening to the F-bomb riddled report of the previous night’s peccadilloes left me thinking, how sad … and … what a waste … and … thank God my wife and I yanked our kids out of the public school system and away from these visionless, dissolute and spoiled morons.

It’s been eleven months since we pulled our teenage daughters out of the public school system and started to home school them, and I could kick myself for waiting so long. The educational, emotional, spiritual and physical progress they have made has been amazing. Not that they were anti-intellectual psychologically teetering bloated decadent nut jobs before they started home schooling, it’s just that I’ve been ecstatically stunned at how they have aggressively embraced this new lease on their educational life.

Now … they actually get to study the basics, pursue their educational and athletic interests, without waiting for the 186% overcrowded class to decide to cease fighting and copulating long enough that the teacher can teach the students how to write their name so that they can endorse their unemployment check later on in life.

Also, it seems that our alpha females really do not miss …
· Having everything they hold dear from a Christian standpoint trashed like a hotel room with Sum41 in it, by secular and atheistic teachers and students,
· Enduring the daily physical assaults and threats made by the multitudinous scum bag thugs and punk gang bangers on campus,
· Watching the constant drug trafficking, and
· Trying to ignore the lesbian, queer and over-the-top heterosexual make-out sessions during their lunch break.

Instead of being the goofy-looking home-schooled inbred stooges portrayed by TV and movies, my ladies are sharp, solid and full of holy chutzpah. Yeah … they’re clipping along at a nice pace, taking classes like macro-economics, logic, Latin, intelligence and national security, and afterward, pursuing the martial art of jiu-jitsu from the world-famous Gracie family, surfing and occasionally going with me big game hunting and fishing. Getting away from the prison-like public school system has caused their spirit and vision to soar even higher as they have resolutely separated from the pack and decided to run their own lives, rather than schlep with the lemmings.

My ClashPoint is this: parent … home schooling isn’t as tough as you think it is. With the advent of online virtual schools, plus the tens of thousands of people who have bailed out of the system, there are afforded to you, the home schooling parent and student, amazing resources, local networks of like-minded families and world-class curricula, to help you help yours be the leaders God intends for them to be.

Initially, I was a bit concerned about how home schooling was going to work within the insanity which is the Giles household, but it has been relatively painless. The adjustments my wife and I have had to make to our routine to accommodate our daughters for greatness are far less painful than the worry and concern we had sending them off to the monkey jungle which is the Public School system.

[Epitome22]

Yawn!, You would have a better chance at making a point if the evicence wasn't anecdotal, the source wasn't laughingly partisan (Townhall) and thr author wasn't an extremist psychopath. If this b grade level stuff impresses you then by all means...

[dude1394]

I guess you are right, it's like quoting krugman and maureen dowd from the nytimes. I shouldn't pick so obviously partisan sources.

[Murphy3]

There's no way I'd ever advocate anyone that I know to home school their children...

[dude1394]

Well you know I felt the same way until I did it. I have never regretted it. Both children finished tops in sat's, both one just graduated with a physics degree going for a phd and the other a business degree focusing on art. She wants to run her own shop..

I also was close-minded about it.

[kg_veteran]

Interesting subject. I was home schooled from the 8th grade on, and I have heard all of the misconceptions out there from people who haven't done it or been involved with it but think they know so much better than those that have.

Bottom line, if you have parents who are committed to the process, there is no better way to educate your children.

[Jbrjo]

For those of you who were homeschooled:
Did you feel like you missed out on any of the sports programs or any other extracurricular programs? I've always wondered about this for when I have children (in the far far future), but my only concern would be for me to have a son that would miss out on being the next Peyton Manning. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] OK not really that, but since I went to a very small private school I always did feel like I missed out on some of the sports programs and stuff like that.

[Murphy3]

To each their own, but I have seen my share of bitterness out of the people that I know that were home schooled.

But, there's also bitterness the other direction I'm sure.

[jacktruth]

My oldest is 4 and we plan to home school. Let's call public school what it is. . .Government run education. The greatest aspiration of the public school system is the run as smoothly as . . .the post office?

Something like 75% of the time spent in elementary education is on logistics and discipline. That is pathetic and it means that you could teach your kid all they need to know in the amount of time it takes you to drive them to and from school.

Plus, if you have any religious conviction, you will go to battle with your enemy using school-aged soldiers. Even our military has sense enough to wait until a person is 18 years old.

My son can read better than most kids 2 years older than him. What is the public school going to do with him? Nothing. They will teach to the lowest common denominator and he will be bored and more likely to get into trouble.

What will they miss as far as social interaction? Gangs, drugs, profane language, atheism, moral relativism, peer pressure.

What will they miss as far a sports and extracurricular activities? Too much emphasis on sports anyway. Even so, some districts will still let you play sports. There are plenty of activities outside of school to keep them busy.

My wife teaches at a home school coop at our church. There are plenty of kids to interact with and they coordinate field trips, sports training, enrichment, and they can take any class they are ready for regardless of thier age.

We plan to homeschool through elementary, then UMS through High School.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: jacktruth

My son can read better than most kids 2 years older than him. What is the public school going to do with him? Nothing. They will teach to the lowest common denominator and he will be bored and more likely to get into trouble.

This is what clinced it for us as well. Our kiddos had been at a montessori school and when it came time to put them in public they were like 2 grades ahead in a few subjects. We talked to the school admin about whether we could supplement the curriculum because they had already completed the math curriculum.

It was like talking to an ATM machine. "We teach the state MINIMUM", "we teach the state minimum".

The "state minimum" clinched it for me.

We had them in home-school until high-school when they wanted to check that out. This was 20 years ago mind you so there wasn't the support groups available. On hindsignt things like music/sports needed more attention. The public schools make available really cheap music lessons and sports lessons..

[chumdawg]

Dude, what school district are you talking about? There are some terrific school districts here in North Texas. Of course there are some bad ones, too. I'm sure in both cases it depends heavily on the specific circumstances.

KG, why do you say there is no better way to educate a child if the parents are committed to the process? If the child is in a school where the educators are equally committed and the environment is positive, why would the trained professionals not be able to do as good a job?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Interesting subject. I was home schooled from the 8th grade on, and I have heard all of the misconceptions out there from people who haven't done it or been involved with it but think they know so much better than those that have.

Bottom line, if you have parents who are committed to the process, there is no better way to educate your children.

There is an alternative: private school. It is (IMHO) where the students are best prepared for college.

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
There is an alternative: private school. It is (IMHO) where the students are best prepared for college.

Of course, that depends on the private school. Even some Christian schools aren't a whole lot different than public school, except they pray at the beginning of each day. Anyway, you're crazy if you pay $4000+ per year for someone to teach your first grader how to make letters. high school might be worth it, only if it guarantees a college scholarship.

We were looking at a pre-school program at a local private school that was about $40 per day. Half of that day was spent taking a nap. Heck, I could pay my kid $9 per hour to take a nap at home and do better than that.

[Of course, there are some days that I might pay as much as $15 for them to take a one hour nap.]

[Murphy3]

Honestly, my parents could have been committed as any parent at the home school thing but it wouldn't have mattered....if they would have home schooled me, I'm pretty sure that I would surpassed their ability to teach by the 6th grade or so.

My dad is an intelligent enough person...went to A&M..but...I sincerely don't think that most parents are cut out to teach their children..

[kingrex]

It is a shame that many choose to opt out of the public school system rather than fight to improve it.

The amount of effort it takes to provide a truly positive home-school experience can arguably be better served in helping to seek improvements to an existing (and already paid for by taxes) school system. I agree that it is a daunting task, but the situation is not hopeless in most school districts. In other words, unless you are in one of worst districts, there is always hope for improvement.

Moreover, if the kids are somehow co-opted into the drive to improve their school, then think of what they could learn in that effortl.

Like some of you, I can see the appeal of having the direct control of what your child learns, however, we don't live in a homogenous world. Our kids need to learn how to distill information whether or not it lines up with our own.

[kg_veteran]

Wow, I forgot to check back on this thread and it got pretty interesting in a hurry. I don't have time now, but I'll try and post a response tonight. Chum, Jbrjo, Mavdog, I didn't intend to ignore your posts -- just didn't see them until now.

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
Honestly, my parents could have been committed as any parent at the home school thing but it wouldn't have mattered....if they would have home schooled me, I'm pretty sure that I would surpassed their ability to teach by the 6th grade or so.

My dad is an intelligent enough person...went to A&M..but...I sincerely don't think that most parents are cut out to teach their children..

This is just misinformation. It's not like parents have to make up all the cirriculum and be an expert on everything. I never knew how much home school cirriculum there is out there until I looked for it. The options are endless. By the time a kid reaches the 6th or 7th grade, it is mostly learning and not teaching. If the parents put in the effort, they can do it. Plus there are tons of support groups that will teach things that you can't.

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: kingrex
It is a shame that many choose to opt out of the public school system rather than fight to improve it.

The amount of effort it takes to provide a truly positive home-school experience can arguably be better served in helping to seek improvements to an existing (and already paid for by taxes) school system. I agree that it is a daunting task, but the situation is not hopeless in most school districts. In other words, unless you are in one of worst districts, there is always hope for improvement.

Moreover, if the kids are somehow co-opted into the drive to improve their school, then think of what they could learn in that effortl.

Like some of you, I can see the appeal of having the direct control of what your child learns, however, we don't live in a homogenous world. Our kids need to learn how to distill information whether or not it lines up with our own.

That's crazy. I'm not going to sacrifice my child's education in some vain attempt to change the system. It's insane how much money is currently thrown into the public school system and how crappy it remains. The only way to change the system is to have more choices and alternatives, to have home schooled children continually outperform publicly educated children, for Universities to begin to notice the difference between the two (which is already happening). Finally, the ultimate reform is a quality school voucher program that allows school choice and accountability. You aren't going to get that from your kid's 4th grade teacher.

The best way to affect the system is to be part of the school board elections, city elections, state elections and make changes from the top. The greates problems in the system are things like teaching evolution as fact when it is in fact a theory that cannot be proven and all attempts to prove it are diseased with scientific error. Why does it continue? Because of politics. That's just one example.

Allowing my children to be subject to a failed, Godless socialist education system is a horrible strategy for change.

[Epitome22]

Why is it an either or thing? By sending your children to public school, do you somehow forfeit the right to teach your children in your own private time?

Questions and doubts about how throrough your child's education will be is understandable. But shunning public school in the hopes that you can protect your child from the big bad world and all that entails it (as if a bunch of kids talking about getting wasted and making out is an indictment of the public school system rather than their own upbringing) well you're certainly welcome too, I'm just glad my parents weren't like you.

Needless to say, someone who deprives their child of the public school experience or even the private school experience (depriving them of peers to mature in the experience with) citing the wishes to shield them from "atheism and moral relativism" (I remember those were my first 2 courses in high school) who think that the biggest problem with school is that they teach evolution instead of creationist fairy tales, and who dub public schools 'godless' and 'socialist', well they're significantly out of the mainstream and under the radar enough so that decent human beings need not worry. If someone's delusions conflict with the advanced world so much, there is no place for them to move but inward.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
Honestly, my parents could have been committed as any parent at the home school thing but it wouldn't have mattered....if they would have home schooled me, I'm pretty sure that I would surpassed their ability to teach by the 6th grade or so.

My dad is an intelligent enough person...went to A&M..but...I sincerely don't think that most parents are cut out to teach their children..

This pretty well sums up my thoughts on the matter. A typical high-school student will have, what, twenty or more teachers by the time he graduates? Each one will (or at least should) have expertise in his subject area. It just doesn't seem like a one-person task to me--regardless who the person is. And that's assuming that the parent (or some surrogate) commits full-time effort to the child's education, which I doubt is always the case.

Apart from that, what about the other resources that are not available to the home-schooled student? The labs and such.

And what happens to home-schooling after high school graduation? Then it's off to the university, right? Is the thinking that the universities get it right, but the secondary schools don't? Or that the negative influences cease past high school?

I don't doubt for a minute that some people can thrive in a home-school environment. I just wonder if it's necessary, if the student wouldn't have thrived even more in a good school system.

Having said that, I do feel strongly that the "home" part of a child's education is supremely important, regardless where the kid goes to school.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
Honestly, my parents could have been committed as any parent at the home school thing but it wouldn't have mattered....if they would have home schooled me, I'm pretty sure that I would surpassed their ability to teach by the 6th grade or so.

My dad is an intelligent enough person...went to A&M..but...I sincerely don't think that most parents are cut out to teach their children..

Actually with most of todays curriculum, a lot of the higher education stuff is self-paced and self-learned units. For example in my 7th, 8th grade classes the school experimented with self-paced learning. Me and a bud hardly went to class for the whole year in math, history, science. However we ran way past the rest of the class that still had the teacher in attendence. In fact the teacher was there for questions, but I don't think I was "taught" (ala lecture) anything those two years. Changed my life to be honest, until then school was a complete bore.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: kingrex
It is a shame that many choose to opt out of the public school system rather than fight to improve it.

The amount of effort it takes to provide a truly positive home-school experience can arguably be better served in helping to seek improvements to an existing (and already paid for by taxes) school system. I agree that it is a daunting task, but the situation is not hopeless in most school districts. In other words, unless you are in one of worst districts, there is always hope for improvement.

Moreover, if the kids are somehow co-opted into the drive to improve their school, then think of what they could learn in that effortl.

Like some of you, I can see the appeal of having the direct control of what your child learns, however, we don't live in a homogenous world. Our kids need to learn how to distill information whether or not it lines up with our own.

I was not willilng to sacrifice my childrens lives to let them become educated to the state minimum. The problem with public school as the article states is that you have little or no control over what your child is learning. Also just the fact that providing a 1-on-1 teacher/student ratio is always going to be better than a 1-20. X% of the kids are bored because the pace is too slow, Y% need more instruction, Z% pace is about right.

As well, there is no way to tailor the curriculum for what the kids are interested in. For example a unit my wife taught was the pilgrims. They spent (I think) about a month diving deep into the pilgrims. Doing tasks they did, making clothes, cooking meals many things that the school system just cannot do with 20 kids. Of course they kept up with all of their other stuff, but the point was the kids showed an interest in something, she was able to do a deep dive just because they wanted to.

We took the Iowa basic skills test every year to make sure their core sciences were up to snuff. We even let them pick some subjects sometime to do reports work on. My son picked thoreau's life and work which had a deep effect on him. My daughter picked charles dickens and his work.

It was cool.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: chumdawg

This pretty well sums up my thoughts on the matter. A typical high-school student will have, what, twenty or more teachers by the time he graduates? Each one will (or at least should) have expertise in his subject area. It just doesn't seem like a one-person task to me--regardless who the person is. And that's assuming that the parent (or some surrogate) commits full-time effort to the child's education, which I doubt is always the case.

Apart from that, what about the other resources that are not available to the home-schooled student? The labs and such.

And what happens to home-schooling after high school graduation? Then it's off to the university, right? Is the thinking that the universities get it right, but the secondary schools don't? Or that the negative influences cease past high school?

I don't doubt for a minute that some people can thrive in a home-school environment. I just wonder if it's necessary, if the student wouldn't have thrived even more in a good school system.

Having said that, I do feel strongly that the "home" part of a child's education is supremely important, regardless where the kid goes to school.

You would think so. How many teachers effected you? For me it was about 4 that I remember, maybe more, but I don't think so.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
Why is it an either or thing? By sending your children to public school, do you somehow forfeit the right to teach your children in your own private time?

Questions and doubts about how throrough your child's education will be is understandable. But shunning public school in the hopes that you can protect your child from the big bad world and all that entails it (as if a bunch of kids talking about getting wasted and making out is an indictment of the public school system rather than their own upbringing) well you're certainly welcome too, I'm just glad my parents weren't like you.

Needless to say, someone who deprives their child of the public school experience or even the private school experience (depriving them of peers to mature in the experience with) citing the wishes to shield them from "atheism and moral relativism" (I remember those were my first 2 courses in high school) who think that the biggest problem with school is that they teach evolution instead of creationist fairy tales, and who dub public schools 'godless' and 'socialist', well they're significantly out of the mainstream and under the radar enough so that decent human beings need not worry. If someone's delusions conflict with the advanced world so much, there is no place for them to move but inward.

What is so holy about sending your child to a public school?? I'm not sure why you pick some of your points as very few of the people on this board are taling about "atheism and moral relativism". I think they might be concerned about drug abuse and teenage peer pressure however. Pretty valid points. Kids can get peers all of the time, church, neighborhood, sports teams etc.

By your argument experience with gang-bangers in the hall is a good thing?

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: chumdawg

This pretty well sums up my thoughts on the matter. A typical high-school student will have, what, twenty or more teachers by the time he graduates? Each one will (or at least should) have expertise in his subject area. It just doesn't seem like a one-person task to me--regardless who the person is. And that's assuming that the parent (or some surrogate) commits full-time effort to the child's education, which I doubt is always the case.

Apart from that, what about the other resources that are not available to the home-schooled student? The labs and such.

And what happens to home-schooling after high school graduation? Then it's off to the university, right? Is the thinking that the universities get it right, but the secondary schools don't? Or that the negative influences cease past high school?

I don't doubt for a minute that some people can thrive in a home-school environment. I just wonder if it's necessary, if the student wouldn't have thrived even more in a good school system.

Having said that, I do feel strongly that the "home" part of a child's education is supremely important, regardless where the kid goes to school.

The thinking about universities are that the students are much older and less impresionable. All you can do is look at stats about the performance of home-school children which is quite good. I'm also not as impressed with educators in general, they are usually the poorest students at a university.

[chumdawg]

[quote]
Originally posted by: dude1394

You would think so. How many teachers effected you? For me it was about 4 that I remember, maybe more, but I don't think so.

This is probably one of those situations where it's very hard to tell how the kid would have come out in the other environment. Maybe the kid who got a great education in public school would have learned just as much in a good home-school environment. Maybe the kid who didn't have a good home-school experience wouldn't have done any better in public school. But in my case, I can think of several teachers who I felt taught me a great deal.

Then again, I feel lucky to have gone to a good public school. I'm sure it's rough in some places.

[dude1394]

Again I think you can only look at stats. I really don't know what they are, however I think the home school kiddos fare pretty well. Just googled something but didn't research it.

pa homeschool

For example, this fall Susan and I again tested homeschooled students using a standardized test called the CTBS/4 (Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, 4th Edition). We tested 986 students, mostly 3rd, 5th, and 8th graders. The median homeschooled student score was the 85th National Percentile in reading and the 80th National Percentile in Math. These are almost exactly the same as the 85th percentile in reading and 79th percentile in math that we reported in 1994 (Issue #49 of this newsletter).

Of course, these positive results do not necessarily mean that homeschooling is more effective than school-education. Most homeschooling families are 2-parent families where mother stays home with the children. We attend church or synogogue at a higher rate than the general popluation. Homeschooling parents (averaging about 2 years of college) are also better educated then the general population. If school-educated children came from such stable families with such high parental-education background, school-educated students would probably score much better as well.

[MavKikiNYC]

You would think so. How many teachers effected you? For me it was about 4 that I remember, maybe more, but I don't think so.

Was one of them an English teacher?

[dude1394]

Yes... An english teacher in advanced english in high school, my 7th,8th grade math teacher and my high school geometry, advanced calculus teacher.

A few in college as well, but honestly that's about all that I remember up through high school.

[MavKikiNYC]

I'm also not as impressed with educators in general, they are usually the poorest students at a university.

I think that you may be mis-recalling the result of some ranking from a few years back, which found that graduates of Colleges of Education had lower aggregate GPAs than students in other academic colleges. (I myself forget if there were also some correlation made to these students' SAT scores or other standardized test measures--but the finding was anything but an endorsement for Colleges of Education.)

If I recall correctly, this finding was part of the motivation for a reform of educator standards in the state of Texas about 15-20 years ago. I'm kind of hazy on the specifics, but the reforms required teacher certificaiton candidates to be degree holders in their academic disciplines, rather than holders of Education degrees.

I "get" that it's popular in some quarters to paint broad slams against educators. I myself have been unimpressed by some large groups of educators that I've observed. OTOH, in terms of raw intelligence, some of the smartest individuals that I've encountered have gone into careers in public edcuation.

[dude1394]

I actually got this from a book on education by thomas sowell. It was an analysis of public schools, how they are organized, funded etc.

With respect to some of the smartest individuals that you've encountered have gone into careers in public education doesn't discount the aggregate. If I remember correctly the sowell book he was either comparing average sat scores for education majors or their gpa.

Interesting about your individuals that have gone into public education careers. Where did they end up? Teaching, administrating?? One of the most interesting items in sowells book was the sheer politics of school boards, administrators. In many cases and in many cities they are the 2nd or 3rd most powerful people in the city and may times used as political stepping stones. They usually control one of if not the biggest budgets in the city for example.

[dude1394]

There is also another book out from a couple of liberals that has been showing how poorly we are doing especially with respect to lower-income folks. As I understand it these are liberals with impeccable credentials. Obviously not an endorcement of home schools, but certainly NOT an endorsement of the status quo. It's just another instance where one side of our politic just wants to defend the status quo. I think you know who I'm talking about. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

excuses


From Publishers Weekly
The Thernstroms, senior fellows at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, deliver "a tough message" about how "to close the racial gap in academic achievement." Although the 48 graphs and tables, 566 footnotes and statistics galore may muffle the work's polemical aspects, the Thernstroms produce a case for standards-based testing and charter schools. Despite caveats (e.g., "Not all Asian parents and their children fit the stereotype... and Asian Americans are not actually one `group' "), the authors' assessment of success and failure attributes much to ethnic cultural factors. Family expectations and hard work lead to success for Asian-Americans, who embrace "the American work ethic with life-or-death fervor," while "the limited education of many Hispanic parents" and "their propensity to work in unskilled jobs that don't require a knowledge of English" underlie the poor performance of Latino students. African-American failure rests in "the special role of television in the life of black children and the low expectations of their parents." "Conventional wisdom" about improving schools (more money, improved cleanliness, smaller classes, etc.) is inadequate, they say. Title I and Head Start appear to have accomplished little, they lament, but Bush's No Child Left Behind (and its mandatory testing program) gets high praise. For the Thernstroms, ideal schools break from tradition and are liberated from such "roadblocks to change" as "hands-tied administrators" and unions. Enter vouchers (implicitly) and charter schools (quite explicitly), where the Thernstroms seem particularly taken by students chanting "answers-with claps and stomps and fists held high" and reciting "rules in unison."
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

[MavKikiNYC]

The point is not to confuse Education majors with public school educators generally--they're not the same thing. If Sowells failed to make the distinction, then he wasn't writing very carefully.

I've heard a lot of public school educators complain about the insipid content of Education courses that they were required to take as part of their teacher certification, and more than a few disdainful comments about their fellow educators who were holders of Education degrees.

The other point was not to discount an aggregate--just that I've observed both the generalization and some marked exceptions.

[dude1394]

I'm pretty sure he was talking about education majors and the relative difficulty of the curriculum. Also in general what level of student majors in education.

[Epitome22]

[quote]
Originally posted by: dude1394 [/i]

[i]

I'm not sure why you pick some of your points as very few of the people on this board are taling about "atheism and moral relativism".

I was referring to a specific poster.

I think they might be concerned about drug abuse and teenage peer pressure however. Pretty valid points. Kids can get peers all of the time, church, neighborhood, sports teams etc.

Yes because we all know that sports teams are peer pressur free zone, and no one is ever exposed to drugs in their 'neighborhood'. If those are your prime motivations for your antithesis to public school, then it's based on false premises.

By your argument experience with gang-bangers in the hall is a good thing?

I'm not in highschool anymore, but I seem to remember 'gang-bangers' having an easier time in the 'neighborhood' than in super bureaucratic public highschools. Of course in my four years of highschool, I can't recall any experiences with 'gang-bangers in the hall' but perhaps I was the exception.

[vinnieponte]

keep your kids out of oak cliff and you will be fine [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Rhylan]

I've always thought that home schooling young children did them a disservice, socially. Once the kid gets to be middle school or high school, if the public school can't meet his/her educational ambitions, then it seems a lot more appropriate. At that age, the parents and the kid can make a joint decision. However, like Murph, there's no way my intelligent parents could have taught me.

I think the ideal situation is a public school that is at least decent, with a kid that has attentive, involved parents. You don't have to be "fighting the system" or be a genius family to help your kid get the most out of it. There are so many things nowadays for kids to do outside of school that can enrich their experiences, nurture their ambitions, and teach them a ton in the process. Dealing with screwy circumstances is a part of life, anyway. Life is a monkey jungle, too. Worse than public school, I think!

Also... people need to rediscover small towns. Believe it or not, I got a kick-ass education in Hamilton, TX.

[Smiles]

Okay, I admit, I skipped a ton of replies. Just thought I'd contribute to the topic.

I was homeschooled from 6th grade on, and it was the best thing for me. I'd been in a really good private school that utilized accelerated curriculum, but I was still held back. (Pardon the spelling and gramamtical errors) [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

In VA, we lived in a military community, and we (organization founded for/by homeschoolers) had sports, drama, choir, prom, school paper. After I graduated, a mother who'd worked for NASA started teaching labs for area students. That would've helped me. My mom wishes they'd put me in school the last 2 yrs so I could attend labs and that sort of thing.

Some of us got to take classes at the Junior college when we were 16 (my prom date was 15 when he started, and had his Associates degree by high school grad), so that was cool for his goals.

In thlast years, I pretty much taught myself some things, or my mom would read and teach herself and help me learn it (I'm refering to higher maths, chemistry, mostly). It wasn't easy when that happened, but I still went far beyond what I would've found in the school district we were in at that point.

Depending on the school, I am open to having my children attend public school. Certainly, I intend to make time to be active in their education no matter the circumstances.

[Chiwas]

(Didn't Smiles live at Oak Cliff? Kinda coincidence.)

[Smiles]

No, I didn't live at Oak Cliff. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] I'm not very familiar with that end of town. I'm still relatively new to DFW.