Anyone on the board do it?

I know I am jumping the gun so to speak, but the more I think about it recently the more I realize that I think I may go that route with my kids once I have them. Then again considering the costs of having a small library etc it may not be so much jumping the gun if I ease into it by buying books from now till then.

Was wondering if anyone had experiences doing it?

Dimitri

I have a sister in law and a niece who have both done it with their kids, with varying success. A lot depended on the motivation of the parent, and especially, the child.

Also, you need to have the time, ability and knowledge to do it properly, otherwise its the kids who suffer down the track.

As for buying books now, well I suppose that the basics will never change... (1 + 1 = 2, or it did when I went to school), but the curriculum's change so often these days that if you want your child to pass with a recognised qualification, then you would probably be better off leaving it till just before they will need the text book. Text books are also terribly expensive mate.

Don't rush into it mate. By the time your children are ready to go to school, then things may well be very different to what they are today.

Cheers, Vince

Vince wrote:

Text books are also terribly expensive mate.

That they are, was not as much thinking about textbooks however. More along the lines of reference material. Yes there are many sources online but I do like a good edited by a decent publishing house book over the internet myself.

Encyclopedias, science and technology books, self learning English/Math/etc books and the like that are based on the topic at hand and not one specific "curriculum" so they'd be more or less universal to help the kids even if I don't home school is what I had in mind.

Dimitri

Some homeschooling is fine. Like Vince sadi depends on the parent and child. Some areas have it where they have mini-classes once a week to help in areas the child is weak in. Some school districts have a based curriculum they want you to follow. Also make sure they meet the bench marks can be hard.

Even some the "normal" books that you mention change with time. I have fun looking at my brothers old books from the 70's. So just keep your optinos open for now.

Schooling for the kids up to year 10 are more focused on the interaction to other kids.
They learn to socialize, rationalize and emphatize with friends of the same age.
The real study/foundation for their future should be YOU at home.

With the curriculum that were made to encourage slowest student and bore the sharper ones,
I found that the education provided by the NSW public schools are a tad lacking.
I also found that the private schools are not that much better either.
So, I compromise by sending my children to public school and tutor them nightly with a range of subjects that I deem necessary for their education.

It seems to work well.

My daughter is homeschooling Ronnie and Doogie, my grand kids and they are doing great as far as the work goes. Another benefit is that my daughter has become much smarter too.

The way it's done legally is you hook up with a home schooling association, there are hundreds of them out there, so you have to find one with good credentials and one that has the same beliefs that you do about what an education consists of. In MHO regular school kids do not really get much of an education in history, and most of what's there is written or rewritten by modern academists who for the most part are extremely liberal. We didn't want that for our kids and have found an association that provides a very well rounded curriculum. They also sell the books required for the school year and most of the work is completed on the computer, with complete assignments sent in over the internet.

On the state and federal tests the kids have to take twice a year they are outperforming others in their age group by a very considerable margin.

It is working great for us, and I help with math, economics, science, and all things outdoors, that's my favorite class.

I was also worried about them not having contact with kids their own age, but I have been to the local high school, I provide mentoring, and tutoring, in all the above, as well as computer science. Just something I do to give a little back. Anyway, being there several times a week I am glad my grand kids are not exposed to the, looking for a good word, OK have to settle with morons that I meet there and I am not just talking about the kids.

So, I still worry a little about interaction with their peers, but they seem to be doing OK, they have a few friends their own age that they met at church. Those kids are being homeschooled also. But, mostly the grand kids think more like adults than teenagers, I am unsure if that is good or bad.

All in all it's working great for us, and I would recommend it to anyone with kids.

rdncktink wrote:

Some school districts have a based curriculum they want you to follow. Also make sure they meet the bench marks can be hard.

As Tinks rightfully said 'Mitri...what you teach the children is, to a certain extent, governed by the curriculum laid down by the relevant Government body. I know that my sister in law and niece had regular visits from the Education Department rep in their area to see how the kids were going.

My niece was on a "warning" for a while that her children would be required to go to school if they didn't meet certain standards. This was more a reflection on her teaching than anything, but she had to follow the guidelines as laid down by the State Education Department. This also ensured that when the kids "finished" their schooling they would meet the standard set for the end of schooling certificates etc.

Cheers, Vince

My ex sister in law use to home school her kids and they did very well. I contribute a lot of that to her. Compared to other kids of the same age her kids seemed to have more knowledge. So I think it can be a very good thing but like stated I think it depends on the parents and children's ability to work together in that type of situation.
Joe

Yah, teachers at a school I used to volunteer at back in high school suggested that I should become a teacher. This is one of the reasons I think I'd do ok with home schooling.

Big reason homeschooling comes to mind is the total waste of time a lot of it is. A lot of topics are taught just plain wrong in elementary school and later in the final years of high school are "retaught" (such as Science classes), to overly repetitive things such as being made to read Shakespeare 5 times when there are many other influential authors to read as well, to making everything a art or drama class.

Dimitri

Lester and Vince are spot on about Home Schooling D.
It works great if the Parents put in the time.

If you intend to Home School D., then you figure that your Wife will get the outside job, or are you just going to add the schooling to all of the other work that you intend to pile onto your future Wife.

Eric

Actually Eric, I'd hope to find a job that would support both me and whole family. Would be nice to let her stay home with the kids while I worked. What can I say, I'd love to be able to come home and say "Honey I'm home" to be greeted by her and the kids after work with dinner on the table.

I do like Geland's method of doing things though. Night time classes for the kids to improve their knowledge if homeschooling wouldn't work out.

Dimitri

OH BOY!!!!!!!!

Dimitri---Dimitri---Dimitri

You have a lot to learn my friend.


Eric

What Eric? I can't hope for a 1950's dream in the 2010's?

Dimitri

D,

Hold on to that dream. It might just come true.

I could never understand why (it seems) that everyone in this country is always looking for progress and growth. Personally, I think things were better 15 or 20 years ago than they have been in the past 5 or 10 years. This goes for business and culture (this includes the culture that our children are exposed to in school). The culture factor is a good enough reason to home school). Go for it D, I'm behind you 100%.

The other day a news person on TV said that the economy was in horrible shape. He said that it hasn't been this bad since 1995! I thought....Whoa........., what was wrong with 1995. I thought that was a great year. Think about it. Up until the 1970s, a man could get a job and make a living (in 1970 dollars) for his family, without his wife having to go out a get a job (I'm sure there were exceptions). Sure, most incomes are higher now, but are they really (compare today's dollar to the dollar when we were on the gold standard), I think you'd be surprised.

Cary

Warning, warning, warning; a bit off topic and political.

But, then too, Obama is anti homeschooling, so it sort of fits.

Elyboy, this is a political statement and a rant, and you are warned that you may choose to ignore what I have to say.

Cary,

I agree '95 was not a bad year, but politicians do what politicians do, to make themselves seem more in tune with those who wouldn't know the difference if '95 was a good or bad year. Those that have never worked an honest job, those who have never had anything and won't ever have anything (because they won't get up off their deadbeat asses, "Oh, I am entitled you need to give me what I want, woe is me.") or be able to get ahead, even with all the money the taxpayers spend giving them all sorts of advantages.

Why? All in an effort of the politicians to gain and keep votes, and stay in office. I might do the same (hopefully not) but look at the benefits they get, lifelong pensions (regardless of whether they have met their constituents expectations), great health care, and speaking engagements for the rest of their lives. Not a bad living, I wish the common citizen had the same benefits, but then we are just common. The new royalty has spoken. But, to hold their office they must make us feel like we are uncaring, bigots, racists, and that they know what is best. AK, AK, AK, sorry I was chocking there for a minute.

The real problem are politicians that tell folks it is not their fault, that it is the fault of our racist society, (oh and that old discrimination factor, from 144 years ago), and further their own leaders that pound the same loser mentality into their heads. It has an effect, they believe they have no future, that the Man is out to keep them down, what a bunch of malarkey.

You want to see racism, look around the world, and even in Africa, racism and genocide is rampant, but here in the US our leaders would have us think we are bigots and racists, Humbug.

The market is in bad shape, but that is because our leaders want to perpetuate the myth of the downtrodden, not because they are down trodden, but because they are too stupid to see the lies that the politicians are perpetuating. The market still has no trust that anything that is happening will have a positive effect on the future. The market only sees a 7 fold increase in the US deficit in the next 8 years.

An excerpt from last night's Presidential News Conference; Obama;

"It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

This was in regards to the AIG fiasco that we now know he knew of well in advance of the the bonuses being paid. Oh wait that does not matter because

1. He said SO, and

2. We are all to stupid to see what is going on.

And, then bashing Bush because of what he (Obama) inherited in a deficit.

Oh, BTW we had Katrina, and two wars going on, just a thought.

To continue;

OK, Ed Henry. Where's Ed? There he is.

Q: Thank you. Mr. President. You spoke again at the top about your anger about AIG. You've been saying that for days now. But why is it that it seems Andrew Cuomo seems to be in New York getting more actual action on it?

And when you and Secretary Geithner first learned about this 10 days, two weeks ago, you didn't go public immediately with that outrage. You waited a few days. And then when — you went public after you realized Secretary Geithner really had no legal avenue to stop it.

And, more broadly, I just want to follow up on Chip and Jake. You've been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And, to be fair, it's not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again.

You keep saying that you've inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?

OBAMA: Of course I do, Ed, which is why we're doing everything we can to reduce that deficit.

Look, if this were easy, then, you know, we would have already had it done, and the budget would have been voted on, and everybody could go home. This is hard.

And the reason it's hard is because we've accumulated a structural deficit that's going to take a long time, and we're not going to be able to do it next year or the year after or three years from now. What we have to do is bend the curve on these deficit projections.

And the best way for us to do that is to reduce health care costs. (What a bunch of CR-P) That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of almost every single person who has looked at our long-term fiscal situation. (Not true, many highly esteemed Economists have stated that he is fudging the figures and that his actions will bankrupt the USA)

Now, how do we — how are we going to reduce health care costs? Because the problem is not just in government-run programs. The problem is in the private sector, as well. It's experienced by families. It's experienced by businesses. (One way would be to stop paying the health care costs of illegal aliens, and the costs associated with Octomom, she was on welfare and the system paid for her new 8 children)

Three paragraphs deleted due to hem being CR-P, and lies!!!

Continued;

OK?

Q: But on AIG, why did you wait — why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York and the attorney generals office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we're outraged. Why did it take so long?

OBAMA: It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Oh, he forgot that he knew about this from the very beginning, but he needed a few days so we could think about this, first who is us, or we, only royalty uses the phrase "WE".

I believe that some politicians come to office to try to enact changes for the better, but once in they are easily corrupted by those that were there long before. The most important job to a politician is to be reelected, it is no longer to do what is right for the USA.

How do we get reelected, we tell those who are not; getting ahead, that have no motivation, no skills, no wish to improve their education, no wish to do anything but breed more children, or just hang out on the corner they won't have to pay taxes, but then none of them realize that they never did!!

That was a bit of a rant, but I am not ashamed. There are a lot of folks like me out there just look up tea parties.