Homeschooling Opponents

[skeptech]

Public schools today don't prepare kids for real life. They segregate the kids, based solely on age, for eight hours a day. I've yet to see a job, as an adult, where I work with the same thirty people (all my age) for thirteen years straight. I know that when I graduated high school, I wasn't ready for real life. It took me three years after that before I finally accepted responsibility for myself and my own situation instead of wanting the government to prop me up.

I don't think that the age segregation is entirely unjustified. At least as an adult, regardless of age, there is some expected level of maturity. Kids of different ages have vastly different maturity levels. Kids of the same age should at least be close in maturity, and have somewhat similar life experiences on which they can base their learning. And often they are grouped not just based on age, but also ability. All of the schools that I went to (except the one Catholic school!) had different classes for different academic levels within the grade.

In what ways didn't public school prepare you for real life? As an army brat, I went to many different public schools, and I feel like I got a great education. (I did go to a Catholic school for 1st and 2nd grades.) Granted, I was a pretty good student, followed the rules, and ended up in a very well regarded high school. Sure, I've had my share of classes that were an academic waste of time, and seen kids whose "special needs" were neglected, but overall it seemed like a success to me.

I'll tell you one way that I was unprepared for real life -- parenthood! Yikes!! Nothing ever came anywhere near indicating the sacrifices I would have to make.

 

[ebenz47037]

I don't think that the age segregation is entirely unjustified. At least as an adult, regardless of age, there is some expected level of maturity. Kids of different ages have vastly different maturity levels. Kids of the same age should at least be close in maturity, and have somewhat similar life experiences on which they can base their learning. And often they are grouped not just based on age, but also ability. All of the schools that I went to (except the one Catholic school!) had different classes for different academic levels within the grade.

What do we do about kids who are way advanced or way behind their age group, then? I'm not talking about just one or two years ahead. In second grade, my daughter was reading at a sixth grade level and doing algebra because she had asked me to teach her the summer before. My nephew couldn't read in the third grade (until he came to visit me and I homeschooled him for a few months) and could just barely do basic addition and subraction problems in math. Before coming out here, my nephew was put in special education. But, when it came to my daughter being ahead of her age group, I was told that I should make her slow down.

In what ways didn't public school prepare you for real life? As an army brat, I went to many different public schools, and I feel like I got a great education. (I did go to a Catholic school for 1st and 2nd grades.) Granted, I was a pretty good student, followed the rules, and ended up in a very well regarded high school. Sure, I've had my share of classes that were an academic waste of time, and seen kids whose "special needs" were neglected, but overall it seemed like a success to me.

I was a navy brat. I went to a grand total of twenty-two schools from kindergarten thru twelfth grade. In the fourth grade, I was in gifted classes. The next year, they cancelled them because parents of children who weren't in those classes complained. I pretty much skated through school because everything came too easily for me. I expected things to be the same way when I graduated. :chuckle: Needless to say, a big surprise was waiting for me when I was eighteen.

I'll tell you one way that I was unprepared for real life -- parenthood! Yikes!! Nothing ever came anywhere near indicating the sacrifices I would have to make.

I wasn't prepared either. But, that's what caused me to grow up and quit expecting everything to come so easily for me.

Here's a question: If it's in everyone's interest that we all have a good education, then shouldn't there be some minimum standards? And shouldn't there also be a system by which everyone is guaranteed to get those minimums?

I decided to give this one a stab as well.

The reason I don't go for the minimum standards (I don't believe in setting minimum standards) is because people tend to just meet the minimum standards that are set no matter what the age. And, you can't set national minimum standards for education when every state in the country has a different educational standard anyway. Not every state teaches the same things at the same ages (I remember this from attending all those schools in my own childhood).

How could that be implemented nation-wide without public schooling? (OK, it was a few questions.)

It can't be implemented nation-wide with public schooling. Why should it be expected in non-public education?

 

[docrob57]

Sure, but unless the parents are willing to teach their kids, then there's a point where they need to accept some loss of control. You can't expect to agree with every nuance that comes out of the teacher's mouth. Somewhere you have to find a balance with what you're willing to tolerate.

Here's a question: If it's in everyone's interest that we all have a good education, then shouldn't there be some minimum standards? And shouldn't there also be a system by which everyone is guaranteed to get those minimums? How could that be implemented nation-wide without public schooling? (OK, it was a few questions.)

First, I have to question that premise that it is in everyone's interest for us all to have a good education. A major problem in this country is that far too many go to college. As a result, college curricula are "dumbed down" and a college education severely devalued.

Given "a" I do not believe in minimum standards. Even if such standards were a good idea, responsibility for setting such standards is beyond the legitimate authority of government, and it is unlikely that we could achieve any real consensus on who should set the standards. I think we should strive for maximum achievement, given the real abilities of the individual, rather than a minimum standard which everyone could meet.

 

[ebenz47037]

Hey, docrob, did you enjoy teaching for the co-op?

 

[docrob57]

Hey, docrob, did you enjoy teaching for the co-op?

It was great . I didn't expect it, but the students' moms sat in as well. I am trying to see if we can extend the meetings so that we can cover more material.

 

[ebenz47037]

It was great . I didn't expect it, but the students' moms sat in as well. I am trying to see if we can extend the meetings so that we can cover more material.

:chuckle: Moms have to make sure they know the material. I've sat in on classes too.

 

[skeptech]

What do we do about kids who are way advanced or way behind their age group, then?

Usually kids who are "way ahead" or "way behind" are either moved up in grades or held back. (It doesn't seem that you should be opposed to this, based on your previous comments on age-grouping.) But there are always going to be exceptions. Public schools aren't perfect, but they don't need to be, and no method will achieve that. Just because public schools aren't meeting everyone's needs fully doesn't mean that the very idea is bad. And for the extreme cases, or those who don't want public schooling, there are the options that you advocate -- private schools, tutors, home schooling, etc.

I think it's great to be encouraging about the alternatives, but it's important to remember that public schools can be the best alternative in some cases, too.

I was a navy brat. I went to a grand total of twenty-two schools from kindergarten thru twelfth grade. In the fourth grade, I was in gifted classes. The next year, they cancelled them because parents of children who weren't in those classes complained. I pretty much skated through school because everything came too easily for me. I expected things to be the same way when I graduated. :chuckle: Needless to say, a big surprise was waiting for me when I was eighteen.

The "skating" part was pretty much the same for me, except I've never heard of a gifted program being cancelled. And my "surprise" came a little more conventionally, after college and marriage. I definitely would have felt a LOT less prepared if I'd had a kid right out of high school....

Maybe the issue is more a matter of balancing the education we get at school (that prepares us to be productive to society) with what we get outside of school (that prepares us to have good personal lives). Maybe there's a good way to introduce real-life-preparation into public schools. (Or maybe it shouldn't be! This is a new idea for me. I'll have to think about it some more.)

The reason I don't go for the minimum standards (I don't believe in setting minimum standards) is because people tend to just meet the minimum standards that are set no matter what the age.

It doesn't seem that public schools are set up to meet the individual's needs, but rather society's needs... or maybe "the system's" needs. I agree that a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best, but that's exactly why I keep jumping in on these threads to say that home-schooling isn't for everyone either. But for the "common man", I think that public schooling will always be the default alternative. On such a massive scale, meeting individual needs is impossible, and good enough will always be good enough. Even in a co-op, the issues would be the same, just on a smaller scale.

Do you think that it will ever be practical to eliminate public schools? Or that co-ops are significantly different somehow, more than just in scale?

And, you can't set national minimum standards for education when every state in the country has a different educational standard anyway. Not every state teaches the same things at the same ages (I remember this from attending all those schools in my own childhood).

But you have to draw the line somewhere. And if it isn't right, then it should be improved, not just abandoned. I think there will always be a healthy need for public schools.

It can't be implemented nation-wide with public schooling. Why should it be expected in non-public education?

Well, maybe it's done poorly, but I wouldn't say it can't be. But if you're going to standardize education, then there must be some way of standardizing the measure of success.

 

[docrob57]

Usually kids who are "way ahead" or "way behind" are either moved up in grades or held back. (It doesn't seem that you should be opposed to this, based on your previous comments on age-grouping.) But there are always going to be exceptions. Public schools aren't perfect, but they don't need to be, and no method will achieve that. Just because public schools aren't meeting everyone's needs fully doesn't mean that the very idea is bad. And for the extreme cases, or those who don't want public schooling, there are the options that you advocate -- private schools, tutors, home schooling, etc.

I think it's great to be encouraging about the alternatives, but it's important to remember that public schools can be the best alternative in some cases, too.

The "skating" part was pretty much the same for me, except I've never heard of a gifted program being cancelled. And my "surprise" came a little more conventionally, after college and marriage. I definitely would have felt a LOT less prepared if I'd had a kid right out of high school....

Maybe the issue is more a matter of balancing the education we get at school (that prepares us to be productive to society) with what we get outside of school (that prepares us to have good personal lives). Maybe there's a good way to introduce real-life-preparation into public schools. (Or maybe it shouldn't be! This is a new idea for me. I'll have to think about it some more.)

It doesn't seem that public schools are set up to meet the individual's needs, but rather society's needs... or maybe "the system's" needs. I agree that a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best, but that's exactly why I keep jumping in on these threads to say that home-schooling isn't for everyone either. But for the "common man", I think that public schooling will always be the default alternative. On such a massive scale, meeting individual needs is impossible, and good enough will always be good enough. Even in a co-op, the issues would be the same, just on a smaller scale.

Do you think that it will ever be practical to eliminate public schools? Or that co-ops are significantly different somehow, more than just in scale?

But you have to draw the line somewhere. And if it isn't right, then it should be improved, not just abandoned. I think there will always be a healthy need for public schools.

Well, maybe it's done poorly, but I wouldn't say it can't be. But if you're going to standardize education, then there must be some way of standardizing the measure of success.

But why standardize education? I don't think any of us who support homeschooling want that. In fact, attempts at standardization are one of the major problems with education in this country.

 

[skeptech]

First, I have to question that premise that it is in everyone's interest for us all to have a good education.

I guess that depends on what we mean by "good education". To me, it means to have the skills necessary to make good decisions and fit in as productive members of society.

A major problem in this country is that far too many go to college. As a result, college curricula are "dumbed down" and a college education severely devalued.

I don't view colleges as part of the main public education system, since they are not mandatory. Ostensibly, people who go to college are interested in a higher education, and have some kind of vision for where they're going. (I know this is often not how it goes, but I still think it's a separate issue.)

Given "a" I do not believe in minimum standards. Even if such standards were a good idea, responsibility for setting such standards is beyond the legitimate authority of government, and it is unlikely that we could achieve any real consensus on who should set the standards. I think we should strive for maximum achievement, given the real abilities of the individual, rather than a minimum standard which everyone could meet.

I don't think you can get maximum achievement until you lay a good broad foundation of the basics, which is what I think public schools attempt to do. Pick your specialty after you get out of high school, whether it's going to trade school, college, or flipping burgers.

I'll be out for a few days, but look forward to more discussion when I get back!

 

[docrob57]

I guess that depends on what we mean by "good education". To me, it means to have the skills necessary to make good decisions and fit in as productive members of society.

I don't view colleges as part of the main public education system, since they are not mandatory. Ostensibly, people who go to college are interested in a higher education, and have some kind of vision for where they're going. (I know this is often not how it goes, but I still think it's a separate issue.)

I don't think you can get maximum achievement until you lay a good broad foundation of the basics, which is what I think public schools attempt to do. Pick your specialty after you get out of high school, whether it's going to trade school, college, or flipping burgers.

I'll be out for a few days, but look forward to more discussion when I get back!

Let me know when you get back, it is a good discussion. (sort of unusual for these parts, eh?)

 

[ebenz47037]

Usually kids who are "way ahead" or "way behind" are either moved up in grades or held back. (It doesn't seem that you should be opposed to this, based on your previous comments on age-grouping.) But there are always going to be exceptions. Public schools aren't perfect, but they don't need to be, and no method will achieve that. Just because public schools aren't meeting everyone's needs fully doesn't mean that the very idea is bad. And for the extreme cases, or those who don't want public schooling, there are the options that you advocate -- private schools, tutors, home schooling, etc.

Neither in Indiana nor in California did the public schools I've dealt with move kids up grades. In California, the private school I dealt with didn't move kids up grades either. But, none of the schools I've dealt with have a problem with making a child who is gifted academically slow down to allow the other students to keep up with her or, in the case of a Christian school in California, with wanting to hold that child back because she's not got good socialization skills (my daughter was shy). They didn't have a problem telling me that I shouldn't have allowed her to learn to read before first grade or that I shouldn't have taught her multiplication tables in kindergarten or algebra in first grade because what they were teaching her bored her to tears. This is why I say that I have never seen a good school when dealing with my daughter's education.

My little sister (now 22 years old), in Illinois, was in the gifted programs and AP classes in public school. She showed me some of her work. It was the same stuff I learned in non-gifted and non-AP classes in high school! She ended up graduating high school with a 4.3 gpa. She told me that her classes were way too easy for her.

I think it's great to be encouraging about the alternatives, but it's important to remember that public schools can be the best alternative in some cases, too.

Although I believe that it's a parent's choice on how their children are educated, I agree with docrob about the public education system being shut down. As it is, it isn't working how it's supposed to. They throw more and more money into the program to "fix" it and then ask for even more money the following year.

If they would closed down the education system that we have now, I think that businesses should take over by sponsoring schools. They could make them private schools that charge tuition with scholarships available to those who couldn't afford it. Or they could make the entire thing except for schoolbooks and lunches free. And, without the government "owning" the education system, parents would have no choice but to step up and do what they're supposed to do (morally) and see to their childrens' educations, whether private school or homeschool or co-op.

The "skating" part was pretty much the same for me, except I've never heard of a gifted program being cancelled. And my "surprise" came a little more conventionally, after college and marriage. I definitely would have felt a LOT less prepared if I'd had a kid right out of high school....

In California, they're more politically correct than any other state that I've been in. They were the first state that I heard of that considerred doing away with the SAT and ACT testing for college because the tests were racially biased, according to some minority parents and students.

Maybe the issue is more a matter of balancing the education we get at school (that prepares us to be productive to society) with what we get outside of school (that prepares us to have good personal lives). Maybe there's a good way to introduce real-life-preparation into public schools. (Or maybe it shouldn't be! This is a new idea for me. I'll have to think about it some more.)

I don't know. I kind of doubt that the government could handle it, although I have no doubt that they'll someday try it.

It doesn't seem that public schools are set up to meet the individual's needs, but rather society's needs... or maybe "the system's" needs. I agree that a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best, but that's exactly why I keep jumping in on these threads to say that home-schooling isn't for everyone either. But for the "common man", I think that public schooling will always be the default alternative. On such a massive scale, meeting individual needs is impossible, and good enough will always be good enough. Even in a co-op, the issues would be the same, just on a smaller scale.

As for meeting individuals' needs, I don't think the school system will ever get to that point again. From what I saw as a child, what my grandmother told me, and what my mother told me, the system has been going downhill with each generation.

Believe it or not, anyone can homeschool. I know there are people who say, "I can't do it." But, I've taught people who used to say that how to homeschool their children. And, like I said before, without the government being involved in the education system, someone, whether it be businesses or parents coming together as a group, would have to pick up the slack. Right now, public schools are pretty much babysitters/daycare for parents who either don't know how to or don't want to deal with their children's educations.

Do you think that it will ever be practical to eliminate public schools? Or that co-ops are significantly different somehow, more than just in scale?

My opinion of co-ops is that they are a lot like public schools except the parents are in charge of the children's educations. I have no problem, whatsoever, with co-ops taking the place of public schools.

Do I think it practical? Yes. Do I think it probable? No.

But you have to draw the line somewhere. And if it isn't right, then it should be improved, not just abandoned. I think there will always be a healthy need for public schools.

If the public schools were handled the way they should be, on a state and local level, I would have less of a problem with them I think. But, I also think that there are more people out there like me, who would have no problem helping to educate children not in public school with no financial gain (in fact, I tend to lose money when it comes to educating children).

Well, maybe it's done poorly, but I wouldn't say it can't be. But if you're going to standardize education, then there must be some way of standardizing the measure of success.

My point is that I don't want to standardize education. The government has been doing it since, at least, WWII. From what I've seen, instead of the standards getting higher, as they should in any well-working organization, standards are getting lower. People are not pushing themselves or their children to be the best that they can be.

 

[Highline]

I just read this. I think this has been an interesting discussion, more thoughtful than I expect from TOL. I just want to point out that it is true that homeschooled children score higher on standardized tests, but I would point out it would be expected that the children of these parents score higher than the average because these are parents who care. Involved parents of public school children genrally score higher than other children. Also, homeschooled children belong to other favorable demographics- their families have some money, they are white, and they live in locations that test well. I know that some will dispute the money part but these are generalizations. I also question wheather people homeschool tough kids, such those with disabilities, but I could be completely wrong on that.

I am not saying that choosing to homeschool your child is not the best choice for many children, but it is not the best choice for all children and parents. And no matter what you do, modeling productive behavior (come home and read instead of watching TV) and parental involvement are extremely important.

 

[docrob57]

I just read this. I think this has been an interesting discussion, more thoughtful than I expect from TOL. I just want to point out that it is true that homeschooled children score higher on standardized tests, but I would point out it would be expected that the children of these parents score higher than the average because these are parents who care. Involved parents of public school children genrally score higher than other children. Also, homeschooled children belong to other favorable demographics- their families have some money, they are white, and they live in locations that test well. I know that some will dispute the money part but these are generalizations. I also question wheather people homeschool tough kids, such those with disabilities, but I could be completely wrong on that.

I am not saying that choosing to homeschool your child is not the best choice for many children, but it is not the best choice for all children and parents. And no matter what you do, modeling productive behavior (come home and read instead of watching TV) and parental involvement are extremely important.

All this is true. Obviously, Christian homeschooling parents object to public schools on grounds beyond simple educational quality, including public school teaching on sex, evolution, etc.

Keep in mind that I personally live in the New Orleans area which features the absolute worst and most dangerous public schools in the country. And I really can't afford private school tuition. For us, homeschooling is really the only responsible alternative.

 

[RobE]

All this is true. Obviously, Christian homeschooling parents object to public schools on grounds beyond simple educational quality, including public school teaching on sex, evolution, etc.

Keep in mind that I personally live in the New Orleans area which features the absolute worst and most dangerous public schools in the country. And I really can't afford private school tuition. For us, homeschooling is really the only responsible alternative.

And most public education systems spend between $5,000 and $9,000 per year to educate the kids. How much is private school. We home school at a cost of about $500 per year for our first child. The other cost less since we use the same materials.

How about the elimination of public schools and we use the money for private education? :thumb:

Rob

 

[docrob57]

And most public education systems spend between $5,000 and $9,000 per year to educate the kids. How much is private school. We home school at a cost of about $500 per year for our first child. The other cost less since we use the same materials.

How about the elimination of public schools and we use the money for private education? It's cheaper than community college. :thumb:

Rob

And all God's people said . . . . .

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Highline]

On the first issue of living in a bad school district and not doing it just for the quality but the concern about values; I am not telling anyone what they should do. I am just pointing qualifying the numbers regarding test scores.

And most public education systems spend between $5,000 and $9,000 per year to educate the kids. How much is private school. We home school at a cost of about $500 per year for our first child. The other cost less since we use the same materials.

How about the elimination of public schools and we use the money for private education? :thumb:

Rob

These numbers are disengenuineous (no idea how to spell that). I presume an actual person is doing the teaching, surely their time has significant value. Put a value on you or your spouse's time and your cost to educate your child is high. Also, regarding the public school costs, I often see these numbers compared to private (or charter) schools, but keep in mind the public schools spend the most money on the hardest to educate children. A lot of money is spent on delinquents, and also on disabled and abused children. The delinquents are another discussion, but I think we can all agree to need try to educate the abused and disabled.

I agree education needs some changes, and I think choice should play a roll; but I think people are careless when they suggest eliminating public education. Someone suggested business sponsorships, do you really want coke, nike, or MTV responsible for education? Not to mention the problem that businesses will more likely contribute to their own kind, both geographically and culturaly (I need spell check).

I'll throw my radical idea out there, I think we make a mistake in attempting to educate every child through high school. It seems to me if a child has discipline problems or just wants to quit, we should be able to send them into the work force. Teachers spend the most time with these kids. They'd have no skills, but this might mitigate our need for skilled labor. Then we could set high school equivalancy classes (GRE) for the ones who work for a few years, realize it sucks to be uneducated, and are eager enough to pay tuition.

 

[ebenz47037]

On the first issue of living in a bad school district and not doing it just for the quality but the concern about values; I am not telling anyone what they should do. I am just pointing qualifying the numbers regarding test scores.

You're right. Homeschooled children tend to do better on standardized tests than public school students because their parents care about their educations. But, just because the public schooled children are not taught what they should be in order to do well on these tests is no reason to lower the bar for everyone.

I used to make everyone in my classes mad because most of my teachers graded on the curve scale. In other words, the highest grade on the test would receive an A and the scale would be based on that grade. I almost always scored an A on my tests. And, I'm not talking about an A on the curve. My scores were between 92 and 100 percent on these tests. My scores would set a higher standard for everyone else to have to measure up to.

My daughter had to deal with the same thing in both public and private schools. They lowered the standards because of the children who weren't able to score well by grading on the curve. When my daughter tested higher, she was accused of cheating (in the second grade). Like me, my daughter tests very well.

These numbers are disengenuineous (no idea how to spell that). I presume an actual person is doing the teaching, surely their time has significant value. Put a value on you or your spouse's time and your cost to educate your child is high. Also, regarding the public school costs, I often see these numbers compared to private (or charter) schools, but keep in mind the public schools spend the most money on the hardest to educate children. A lot of money is spent on delinquents, and also on disabled and abused children. The delinquents are another discussion, but I think we can all agree to need try to educate the abused and disabled.

Actually, RobE was pretty much on the button with how much each school spends per year on each child. My local public school (K - 12) publishes their funding and expenditures each semester in the newspaper. They receive about $5000 per student from the government. That's not all they get. For each student who lives outside the school district, not only do they get $5000 per year, they get $5000 per year from the parents of the child for "tuition." On top of that, they charge $250 to $500 a year for school books and $100 a year for computer lab fees. They also "rent" out computers to the families of the students.

The private schools that I've been involved with charged about $3600 to $5000 a year for my daughter to attend. That did not include uniforms, lunches, field trips, or transportation to and from school. Now, she only attended private schools for kindergarten, first grade, and half of sixth grade.

I have no problem educating the abused and disabled children. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if over half those disabled children were misdiagnosed in order for the schools to get more funding. My own nephew was diagnosed as ADHD/ADD when he was in first grade because he couldn't read. By third grade, he still wasn't able to read. My sister sent him out to visit me for a few months, during which I homeschooled him. By the end of two months, he was reading and becoming interested in the algebra that my daughter was doing.

I don't put a monetary value on the time I spend teaching my daughter and other children because it's something I love to do. And, besides that, I spend less than three hours a day with teaching my daughter when it comes to school. Why does the public school drag it out for eight hours? Even my nephew only took four hours a day.

When my daughter was in sixth grade, I taught at a private school (volunteered). My duties were to teach their youngest non-kindergarten students (two boys in second and third grades and my daughter in sixth grade) and to teach Spanish to the older children. Spending two hours a day with the second grade boy, I taught him to read and write in less than six months.

I agree education needs some changes, and I think choice should play a roll; but I think people are careless when they suggest eliminating public education. Someone suggested business sponsorships, do you really want coke, nike, or MTV responsible for education? Not to mention the problem that businesses will more likely contribute to their own kind, both geographically and culturaly (I need spell check).

That was me. I have no problem with Coke, Nike, or other businesses sponsoring education. Although they would more than likely concentrate on things needed for the children to work for them when they were older, as long as basic educational needs are met, there should be no problems.

Keep the parents involved. Have a school policy that if the parents are not willing to be involved in their children's education that the children cannot attend that school. That would solve a lot of problems there. Give the parents choices on how or where to educate their children.

I'll throw my radical idea out there, I think we make a mistake in attempting to educate every child through high school. It seems to me if a child has discipline problems or just wants to quit, we should be able to send them into the work force. Teachers spend the most time with these kids. They'd have no skills, but this might mitigate our need for skilled labor. Then we could set high school equivalancy classes (GRE) for the ones who work for a few years, realize it sucks to be uneducated, and are eager enough to pay tuition.

That's not a bad idea either. I have another one to add to that. The parents of those children with discipline problems who say, "My child is an angel. The teacher must be the problem," should be required to spend one week in the classroom assisting the teacher. But, they cannot tell their children the schedule they've worked out with the teacher. :chuckle:

 

[Highline]

Interesting insight ebanz.... Thank you. For the sake of comparing costs, I think it is only honest to put a value on your time; even if you do love it.

It does not surprise me it takes less time to teach something to one student compared to a classroom full of students. I've found that to be true with teenagers and adults.

An interesting thing to think about, in Japan class size does not affect performance. They have really big class sizes too; but in the U.S. is does.

 

[docrob57]

Interesting insight ebanz.... Thank you. For the sake of comparing costs, I think it is only honest to put a value on your time; even if you do love it.

It does not surprise me it takes less time to teach something to one student compared to a classroom full of students. I've found that to be true with teenagers and adults.

An interesting thing to think about, in Japan class size does not affect performance. They have really big class sizes too; but in the U.S. is does.

That is interesting. Any ideas as to why that would be? Is it that education is more valued culturally in Japan?

 

[ebenz47037]

Interesting insight ebanz.... Thank you. For the sake of comparing costs, I think it is only honest to put a value on your time; even if you do love it.

It does not surprise me it takes less time to teach something to one student compared to a classroom full of students. I've found that to be true with teenagers and adults.

An interesting thing to think about, in Japan class size does not affect performance. They have really big class sizes too; but in the U.S. is does.

I think it's more than class size. I've been working in education, as a volunteer, since I was in high school. Even as a teacher's aide/tutor, I had no problem teaching children quickly. The schools I helped out in averaged thirty students or more per class. The teachers I've watched have to spend more time coddling and holding hands than I ever have.

What I've witnessed is that the teachers, not only don't put high standards on their students but, they don't seem to expect more than mediocre academic achievement from their students. I've come to realize that if you want high achievement, you've got to set and expect high goals to be met. I've done this and it worked, even with disabled children.

The disabled children enjoyed meeting a challenge that everyone else had told them they couldn't do. And, I loved seeing their faces when they met the goals I had set. They were so proud of themselves!

From the Japanese foreign exchange students I have met, I know that your statement is true. But, Japan as a whole is more disciplined (almost any Asian nation is).