Smrt Lernins

In the midst of the Egyptian Revolution, JJ asked, “How do you integrate breaking news into your school day? Do you put lesson plans on hold and devote the day to a discussion of freedom, rights and civil action? Or do you integrate it in, but limit it so as not to overwhem the kids?”

We don’t have any live TV being pumped into the house, so all our breaking news comes in online. This makes it a lot easier to moderate (or modulate) the news. They can’t just turn on the TV and see protesters being run over by police vans or villages burning or women weeping in the streets. While I think these are important images for us to see, I think that most news channels tend to hyper-focus on a handful of shocking images for the sake of sensationalism, rather than present a broader picture of what’s happening. As an aside, this is one reason why I have come to value Al Jazeera English — no histrionic fear about Islamists, no “pro-Western to the exclusion of all other” viewpoints, multiple perspectives.

We don’t interrupt our lessons for breaking news under most circumstances. I try to give the children the security of routine. Upsetting news is hard enough to hear without throwing off the schedule on top of it. Additionally, not all upsetting news falls within the purview of topics my children need to know about. A revolution in Egypt (which sparked this question) is something I want them to hear about. Police officers being killed on the job? Horrible things happening to children? I’d rather preserve their innocence a little longer.

One big reason why I don’t cancel our regular school plans for news is that I’d rather awareness of local, national, and global happenings be viewed as part of the normal course of life. I don’t want them to wait until special events to engage. I don’t want them to be drawn to the news because of crisis, but because they’re invested in what’s happening in their world. We don’t turn off the news or stop discussing it when they’re around. We also don’t sit them down in front of it and say, “Here. Watch this.” It’s integrated into our lives. Interest in current events should be a regular thing. I will call attention to certain topics of interest, such as initiating discussion with them about the Egyptian revolution, because I know they’re hearing the adults talk about it and should have a broader context for it.

If you wait to talk about civil rights or political unrest until they’re upon you, you’ve missed a lot of golden opportunities for discussion. I try to engage my children in these kinds of conversation on at least a semi-regular basis, because I want them to know my views, to understand what the opposing views are, to look more deeply into the motivations of both sides, to develop educated opinions of their own, and simply to grow up with the knowledge that just because they’re white, middle-ish class, and male, with all the intrinsic privilege that comes with that, it doesn’t mean everybody has it so easy…or that they will always have it so easy. They need to know that people may one day treat them differently, even badly, because of a difference of belief, background, or biology. They need to know that there is no perfect political system, that things don’t always stay the same, that the world is in a constant state of change and movement.

There’s also the element of filtering the news for myself. I’ve scaled back my own news watching over the last two years, because I really stopped being able to handle the “police officer killed” stories. Oddly enough, I am a regular reader of Officer Down, because I do feel it’s important to know what risks are out there for my officer, but the format (a police, formal report, not a drama-filled and/or morbid newscast) is more comforting. I get a little obsessed and even a little worked up over horrible things happening to people, especially when I know there is very little I can do to help. I try to limit myself to a few trusted news sources, only x amount of time spent mulling over one topic, only a handful of blog posts or Tweets or FB status updates about a topic. Uncertainty about the world is difficult for me. I like everything to be neatly wrapped and everyone to be safe and happy. The news puts too big a dent into my pretty pink and blue thoughts!

Anyway, that’s how the [Smrt] Homeschooler treats breaking news. We watch and learn, but not to the exclusion of our normal lessons. How about you? How do you integrate breaking news into your school day?

Deva (my children’s delightful and wonderful godmother, and mother of quite possibly the cutest not-mine baby ever in the history of babies) asks, “I’d love your take on the whole “Tiger Mom” controversy.”

For starters, I’ll say that a) I wasn’t raised by a “Tiger Mom” and b) I am not a “Tiger Mom” so I don’t really have a dog in that particular fight. I also think there is a disparity between how the “Tiger Mom” is presented in the Wall Street Journal and in Amy Chua’s book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. The Wall Street Journal didn’t paint a completely accurate picture of her book, and she pointed out in the San Francisco Chronicle that she was very surprised to see that:

The Journal basically strung together the most controversial sections of the book. And I had no idea they’d put that kind of a title on it. But the worst thing was, they didn’t even hint that the book is about a journey, and that the person at beginning of the book is different from the person at the end — that I get my comeuppance and retreat from this very strict Chinese parenting model[...] I’d also note that I’m aware now of the limitations of that model — that it doesn’t incorporate enough choice, that it doesn’t account for kids’ individual personalities.

A newspaper sensationalizing something? SHOCKER!

However, let’s look at the concept of the “Tiger Mom.” In WSJ , Amy Chua’s edited-for-sensationalism segment says her children (and Asian children as a whole) are “stereotypically successful” because they were never allowed to:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

What, exactly, is the definition of “successful” here? Makes high grades? Gets into a good college? Excels at a specific musical instrument? If those are the only yardstick by which one measures success, then I suppose those children could be considered successful. That much pressure to succeed academically doesn’t come without a cost, however. In May of 2007, CNN did a piece on the link between the cultural push to succeed and a high rate of suicide among Asian-American women, finding:

Asian-American women ages 15-24 have the highest suicide rate of women in any race or ethnic group in that age group. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for Asian-American women in that age range. [...] First and foremost, they say “model minority” pressure — the pressure some Asian-American families put on children to be high achievers at school and professionally — helps explain the problem.

“In my study, the model minority pressure is a huge factor,” says Noh, who studied 41 Asian-American women who’d attempted or contemplated suicide. “Sometimes it’s very overt — parents say, ‘You must choose this major or this type of job’ or ‘You should not bring home As and Bs, only As,” she says. “And girls have to be the perfect mother and daughter and wife as well.”

That list above doesn’t look like steps to success, at least, not success for her children. I see children being forced to live their parents lives and not being adequately prepared to forge lives of their own. Of course, if the children adequately live the lives their parents choose for them, the parents will feel it’s successful, though as the sobering statistics from the Department of Health and Human Services show, all that “success” comes with a price. If you’re willing to risk your child’s mental health to make them a certain kind of success (as defined by you), I don’t know that I’d call you a superior mother. I think I’d call you a selfish mother, motivated by how good your child’s success makes you look (to the outside world) or feel (when they achieve what you wanted and couldn’t/didn’t get), rather than by what is actually best for your child.

I’m not saying that pushing your child in some areas is a bad thing. I am not saying that having high expectations or expecting your children to strive for excellence is a bad thing. I challenge my children. I set standards slightly higher for them in some areas than other parents might set. Their schedules don’t revolve around long periods of time with other same-age children, though I think they do get enough time with peers of interest/intellect (as opposed to peers of age). I expect them to put in a little time with a musical instrument (of their choice) during childhood. I put them in activities and we have stints of time where our schedules are pretty full. I suggest extracurricular activities, in order to facilitate trying new or enriching things, though I don’t typically force them to continue activities they hate past the one semester/season and I prefer to find activities that suit their interests. None of that seems harmful to me, because, while it’s not always child-driven, it’s at least child-conscious. My friend Patchfire’s children are even more heavily scheduled than mine and they don’t seem the worse for it. The appear to thrive within their busy week. My goal isn’t to make my children into a narrowly-defined type of success, but to give them an education that is deep enough and wide enough that they can find a foundation for whatever type of success that they ultimately want to strive towards.

Full, varied schedules don’t appear inherently harmful to me, if those schedules include a) reasonable expectations for performance, based on the child’s abilities, b) at least some activities that meet the interests of the children, c) experiences that are enriching in multiple areas, not just one or two, and d) activities that provide for socialization (not socializing). In other words, don’t forget that the schedule you’re making for your kid actually includes a person in there somewhere, who will one day have to grow up and make choices for him/herself. Don’t squash your children’s ability to figure out what they want/like, don’t punish them if they don’t want/like the same things you do, and don’t make “making mom happy” the only goal in life, ok?

To summarize:

1) The controversy surround Chua is overblown.
2) The “Tiger Mom” does exist, however, within many cultures (not just Asian cultures), and she’s harming, not helping her kids.
3) The problem isn’t the high standards, but the shaming when they aren’t met and the completely lack of freedom/personal fulfillment for the children.
4) In the face of unremitting pushing from parents, culture, and social expectations, a significant percent of people are going to break.
5) Your kids have to grow up to be their own people, so try not to get in the way of that, will you?

Anyway, that’s what [Smrt] Homeschooler thinks about Tiger Moms. How about you?

This little meme has been going around the blogging service I use for my personal journaling. Thought it might be fun to try out here, especially since I’m constantly nagging y’all for “Ask a [Smrt] Homeschooler” questions, anyway:

We like to think we “know” the bloggers we read, but posts don’t usually say everything we want to know. Sometimes we wonder if it would be rude to ask a personal question, so we don’t. Is there anything about me you want to ask? This is your chance to ask me anything about me/my life. You can be as personal as you like — if I don’t feel like answering it, I’ll just say “NUNYA!” like my kids do.

Patchfire asks, “Some homeschooling advocates have complaints against colleges that require additional information and/or standardized testing from homeschooled students that they do not require from students that have attended accredited institutions. Essentially, the colleges wish to corroborate the parent-issued transcript. To clarify, the colleges are not requiring stated minimum scores or higher scores from homeschooled students; they merely want evidence of the testing. Is this discrimination?”

No.

Come on, really? People are calling this discrimination? Parents are mad that colleges won’t just believe what they say about their student’s achievement without any sort of corroborating paperwork or testing to back it up? Really?

These colleges aren’t making homeschooling parents (or students) jump through extra hoops. They aren’t asking for this stuff to punish homeschoolers or give them grief or because they get a laugh off of them. It’s not even because they think homeschooling parents are inherently dishonest. They just have no way to know from family to family what the standards are for any given subject, how rigorously or extensively any subject is taught and tested.

Public schools must meet certain standards — whether you think they’re high enough or too high, there ARE standards set for them that they must meet in order to keep accreditation. Private schools must also meet certain standards to keep accreditation. Accreditation is how those institutions receive external validation of their academics. Coming from an accredited school certainly doesn’t mean that a student is smarter or better educated, but it does generally mean that the student meets a minimum expected level of proficiency in certain subjects. It’s as simple as that. When public institutions make it up as they go along (“it” being grades, testing, whatever), they tend to get busted for it — hard and publicly. Haven’t you seen news segments on school systems being caught messing with standardized testing or failing standards and losing accreditation?

Standards can vary wildly from parent to parent, however, and educational method/philosophy to method/philosophy. There is no overseeing board for all homeschooling parents. There is no Department of Homeschool Education that sets minimum standards for performance. Parents aren’t assessed yearly under threat of funding revocation if their students aren’t demonstrating certain skills or testing to certain levels. Individual parents aren’t accredited. Because there isn’t a process by which parent-teachers can become accredited as individuals, they are asked by some schools to provide some other example of external validation of their academics. This isn’t asking something extra; it’s just asking the parent directly for what a larger institution would be expected to provide on behalf of the student: a means of demonstrating the means by which the student came by a set of grades.

If you’re sitting around feeling oppressed because the college won’t just take your word for it on a transcript, it’s time to suck it up and get over yourself. Your word isn’t infallible. Why on earth should the college treat it as such? Not all parents are honest with themselves about their students’ abilities. Public schools (and private schools) may not provide an ideal education for all/most/some (take your pick) children, but those types of institutions do have to answer to at least some sort of higher authority and adhere to a specified minimum set of standards — at least if they want to remain accredited, which most of them do — two things that many homeschooled parents do not have to do.

You chose to take/keep your child out of “the system.” Well, most colleges are part of “the system.” They will set expectations based on that system. If your child wants to be a part of that system, they’ll have to demonstrate they have met the standards set by that system. It’s great if they scored well on their SAT/ACT, but that’s only a part of the admissions process. Transcripts are another big part of it, and if the student (homeschooler or otherwise) doesn’t come from an accredited school/program, that student should expect that have to demonstrate that his/her abilities and knowledge are at least at a level that one would expect from an accredited program.

One of the costs of homeschooling is that sometimes you might be expected to provide a little extra proof for the grades you give your child, especially when that child is using those grades to apply to college. It’s not even a particularly high cost of homeschooling. Providing proof that your kid took the occasional standardized test isn’t a particularly difficult thing to do, either. Put on your big girl panties and deal.

For starters, have you made your “awesome” lists yet? If not, you’d better get right on that.

Now, for today’s “Ask a [Smrt] Homeschooler” question, submitted anonymously through Formspring.

You seem to be kind of anti-waldorf (correct me if I’m wrong!). Do you feel it’s one of those methods that doesn’t work for you but is fine for others, or do you feel about it how you feel about unschooling? Why?

I really don’t think that Waldorf and unschooling are quite analogous. Waldorf education tends to be done in a structured environment, with text books and a curriculum. It’s a methodology that is applied in multiple settings, from private Waldorf schools to public schools (though the method’s application in public schools has been a subject of controversy) to homeschooling. Some unschoolers even espouse a “Waldorf philosophy,” though by that, I think they mean a focus on nature, open-ended play, etc. more than an implementation of Waldorf methodology. My problems with unschooling lies in the lack of formal/structured education, while my issues with Waldorf education lie in the philosophy and implementation. Either could result in a well-rounded, well-educated child. Either could result in a child who is educationally short-changed. Neither strike me as the ideal education for all or most children.

I like the Waldorf-inspired toys, I like the wide array of art forms Waldorf schools teach to their students, I like that nature is valued, and I like the cool way they paint their walls…and that’s about where my “like” of this methodology ends. I feel that Waldorf can probably work for some children (just like unschooling can work for some children), and some Waldorf schools may not embody all the unpleasant aspects of Waldorf philosophy, but on the whole, I don’t see the Waldorf method as a means of imparting a thorough education in a child. In fact, in confirming some of the things I’d heard and read about Waldorf education, I have actually found some downright frightening aspects to it. I don’t think parents who choose the Waldorf method are being neglectful or have negative/harmful attitudes or intentions, but I also think that many of them don’t explore the roots of Waldorf or consider the greater implications of some of the philosophies and methodologies.

Waldorf education does have some specific aspects that greatly put me off, such as:

No technology — Sorry, folks. I’m a believer in the written word, both the hand-written word and the printed paper book, as much as the next bibliophile, but technology is absolutely ingrained in our society…and much of it with good reason. Technological literacy is as much a necessity as reading literacy at this point, perhaps even more so. Labeling all technology as evil or harmful is absurd. Technology is neutral, on the whole; what you do with it is what gives it weight. Rather than “protecting” children from the supposed dangerous influences of technology, I feel it is important to introduce children to responsible uses of technology in education.

Technology provides an incomparable fount of research and resources, far beyond a library’s physical (and financial) capabilities to hold. Technology provides a means for a child whose brain works faster than his hands or who has certain learning disabilities to get the words out without frustration. This “fearing technology just because” mentality makes no sense — electric lights were a technological advance, the printing press was technological advance, the eyeglasses or contact lenses you wear were a technological advance. What makes them acceptable and not other technology? Because of the newness? Because someone has arbitrarily decided certain technologies are acceptable, but others are not? I don’t think computers necessary need to be in every classroom or used all the time, but there’s an expectation in many Waldorf schools that computing should not be done by students at all, television watched at all, technology from their disapproved list used at all. It’s one of many ways in which Waldorf education attempts to extend its sphere of influence beyond the classroom.

The downplaying of the importance of technology is also one of my biggest qualms with classical education, come to think of it. Come on, guys. I don’t think classical education is a perfect methodology, either.

Intentionally delaying reading — The Waldorf method discourages “early” reading, which they classify as reading before at least 2nd grade. They don’t just mean “don’t push reading.” They actually mean “try to delay it.” Independent reading is discouraged, because apparently reading is somehow damaging to a child. Y’all know how I feel about the importance of reading.

While some Waldorf parents (and some Waldorf schools) may simply not encourage (or in their words, “push”) reading before second grade, some do, in fact, outright discourage “early” reading. The wording “discourage early reading” is used throughout multiple pro-Waldorf information sites. This isn’t just a matter of not teaching or not encouraging reading, but of actively thwarting the learning process if possible, in order to protect the “development of the etheric body.” Rudolph Steiner himself said, “A child who cannot write properly at thirteen or fourteen (I can speak out of my own experience because I could not do it at that age) is not so hindered for later spiritual development as one who early, at seven or eight years can already read and write perfectly.” This is not an education method that loves or values literacy.

Claiming to encourage artistic qualities and creativities, while really controlling the artistic process — The “no black crayons” thing is a great example of this. Elementary school students aren’t allowed to use black crayons in many Waldorf schools. I heard this one directly from my future sister-in-law (who went through Waldorf education) and thought that surely it must have been her school only! Since then, I have had it confirmed in multiple places. Black crayons might lead to horrible things like drawing outlines and black is a “dead color,” apparently. Scroll down to “About Black Crayons at Waldorf” to learn more about that.

Of course, if you have black hair or very dark skin, you’re out of luck. My future-SIL said that her school encouraged substitution of the color blue for black when coloring hair. A commenter in this thread (whose children were enrolled in Waldorf education) expresses quite well why I find this anti-black(and sometimes even brown!) crayon sentiment to be so damaging:

There is no way to express or comprehend how an oriental or African American child must feel being unable to draw their own hair or the hair of their family members. And while there may seem like a stretch to make a racial connection with this, we hear time and time again of children who have tried to draw angels with dark skin or hair and are corrected by the teacher and told angels must have light skin and golden hair.

Waldorf schools often tend to discourage the use of pencils, markers, or anything else that can draw a crisp line. Children are typically given block crayons that can only make wide swaths of color and discouraged from detailed face drawings. Much of their art is “wet on wet” watercolor art, which doesn’t allow for much detail work. There also seems to be a heavy emphasis on copying other artwork examples or art under specific direction, at least early on, rather than truly creative artistic expression.

It’s more than a little bit cultish — I was unaware of how much of Waldorf education is wrapped up in anthroposophy. They call it a “spiritual science,” a term I have difficulty even dignifying, as there is absolutely no evidence for their supposed scientific claims. What teachers are taught to teach is sometimes just plain bizarre. The more I read, the more cult-like Steiner’s foundations of Waldorf education seem. The fixation with “demons” (like Lucifer and especially this “Ahriman”), the strange melding of eastern philosophies with European mythologies in order to create a magical world that–of course–only a Waldorf-education person could contact and understand, the encouragement of Waldorf families to associate with only other Waldorf families (I’ve seen this one first-hand), Steiner’s beliefs about racial superiority. Though Steiner’s defenders like to claim his quotes are taken out of context, I’m not sure what context, exactly, would justify statements like, “If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence that is independent of blondness.”

While blatant racism may not be tolerated in Waldorf schools, Waldorf education’s roots are planted in questionable soil and I have found plenty of examples of Waldorf schools subtly and not-so-subtly presenting white as right. By devaluing the colors black and (sometimes) brown and by insisting that angels must be drawn as blonde-haired and fair-skinned, Waldorf schools may be sending dangerous messages about race.

Downplaying the importance of the study of history. — The Waldorf method seems to present history and mythology as essentially same thing, especially in the early years. While I’m not as history-centric as some classical (or neo-classical, as I’m starting to think of myself) educators, the idea of dismissing history as a separate subject entirely or presenting it solely or primarily through myths and legends is troubling and I have a hard time believing that a thorough historical education could be had through such means. Myths have an important role to play within the context of history, but when you remove them from their historical context, you essentially boil the entirety of the human experience down to fairy tales.

What I have written here is my own set of concerns regarding Waldorf education. I have tried to, by and large, use only pro-Waldorf links in my examples above, though in the area of racism/anthroposophy, I have linked to experiences and examples on sites with a negative view of the Waldorf method. I haven’t address Waldorf as it applies to homeschooling, because I honestly have no idea how much of the Waldorf method could be applied at home (as Waldorf method teachers seem to require a goodly amount of specialized training in the methodology/philosophy), outside of the more benign art-and-nature-focused aspects of it. The former Waldorf students I know have been taught in traditional Waldorf method schools, not at home, and their experiences and accounts have had the most significant influence on my perception of Waldorf education.

If you’re interested in reading more about concerns and pitfalls of Waldorf education, you can find quite a few sites out there that actively explore and deconstruct the philosophies and practices of the Waldorf method, including those site I linked in the section on anthroposophy and racism. Mothering.com’s forums have multiple discussion threads about negative experiences with Waldorf or with specific aspects of the method. Other parents have had experiences like this blogger’s and written about it. You can also find many sites and accounts that praise the method, including those I have linked in most of the above post.

To answer my anonymous questioner, no, I don’t feel that the Waldorf method is one that “doesn’t work for [me] but is fine for others” in a larger sense. Like with unschooling, I feel there are people and circumstances that can probably do it very well and very right, with the result of a well-educated and thoroughly delightful student. As with unschooling, I think it has merits that can make it seem quite appealing. I don’t think those merits and the slim possibility of the stars aligning for a perfect education are strong enough to consider Waldorf education a good call for most families. Your mileage may vary. If you are a Waldorf family, I sincerely hope your mileage does vary, because (as with unschooling, believe it or not) I’d like to be wrong on this one.

Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com or ask me anonymously on Formspring.

Danielle at Merryment and Mayhem asks, “Can you expound more on socializing as a homeschool parent/student? I would like to homeschool and this is my husband’s main argument against it. He thinks there are things that ’school teaches you that your parents can’t teach you’ though he has yet to tell me what exactly these things are (we’re working on this, as we don’t even have kids yet!).”

For starters, Danielle, is your husband’s concern about socializing or socialization? I think that’s at the root of many misconceptions about homeschooling right that, that socializing and socialization are the same thing. They aren’t, however, and they don’t serve the same purpose. Socialization is the process through which a child learns the customs, behaviors, and expectations of certain culture/society. Socializing is getting together for a social/common purpose. It’s an activity, not a process. My children, homeschooled though they may be, have opportunities for socialization and socializing.

As far as socializing go, my children do get to spend time with other children of roughly the same age group. We are involved in the homeschool soccer league and Math Olympiad. We have playdates with other families, homeschooler and otherwise. Patchfire and I have set up a weekly family get-together for Thursday afternoons, now that soccer is over for the season. My children also have friends in the neighborhood (and in my mother’s neighborhood) that they play with several times a week. They get invited to birthday parties. They hang out and play video games with buddies. I don’t keep them in a bubble and they don’t lack the ability to strike up friendships and conversations with peers. I’d say that means they’re reasonably good at socializing.

Socialization is an ongoing process and it’s not a concrete one. There isn’t one way to be socialized. Socialization starts at birth and is developed in the family setting. I certainly can thinks of aspects of popular culture and commonly acceptable social behaviors to which I do not want them socialized, and that is one very strong reason why I choose to homeschool. “Socialization” in an of itself isn’t inherently good or bad, but your culture’s rules and expectations can certainly be good or bad, moral or immoral, and I want to have that additional level of control over the culture into which my child is being socialized. I don’t want my children well-socialized to the bullying culture common in so many public schools. I don’t want them to be a part of the Lord of the Flies behavior common in some peer groups. I don’t see anything wrong with eschewing that particular aspect of socialization.

My children are, however, being socialized in the aspects of decent and polite interaction with others. That isn’t something you get from peers solely or even primarily. It’s modeled by the adults around them. It’s practiced through controlled social interaction. It’s experienced through interactions with intellectual or interest-based peers, rather than age-based. I don’t feel a large group of often poorly-supervised 10-year-olds has a lot to offer Captain Science in the way of the particular brand socialization that I’d like to see him develop. I do think he is being well-socialized into a culture of mixed age-groups, where he spends time with older and younger children, adults, teachers/coaches, family, and social groups assembled based on similarity of interest and personality. I think he’s developing ways of interacting with the world that will do him much better than the pack mentality I have seen evidences in many institutional (public or private) school settings. He’s different socialized, but that’s not a bad thing. He’s very social and he’s able to deal with a wide variety of people, at least as well as any slightly-surly prepubescent kid can be.

The issue of socializing/socialization seems to be a major sticking point for people who are against homeschooling, but I can’t figure out why that is, exactly. Are they really so threatened by the idea of someone being different? Is this the only thing they can specifically come up with to explain their otherwise hard-to-pin-down concerns about homeschooling? Of all the questions I’m asked about homeschooling, “are homeschooled kids socialized” seems to be the one I hear the most. I like this little video. A little heavy-handed (most people aren’t so dense that they can’t eventually understand what we’re talking about re: socialization), but sort of a nice representation of the sheer onslaught of concerns expressed over socialization. Just pretend that this one clueless mom represents ALL clueless people.

Anyway, the [Smrt] Homeschooler thinks she’s doing a pretty good job with socializing her children and allowing them plenty of opportunities to socialize. I just don’t think they’re exactly the same thing or that my children need to be socialized in the way deemed best by people who don’t live our lives.

Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com

Cassie writes, “What do you think of curriculums like Calvert or Oak Meadows? I know you kind of have a hodge podge of stuff, but I’m wondering if a one-stop shop would be easier.”

The short answer is that boxed curricula are definitely not for us, because my children’s needs don’t fix all that neatly into a box.

The long answer begins with what boxed curricula can offer:

• A complete curricula in a box can make lesson planning much easier, as the scope, sequence, and individual lesson plans are already there for your use. You don’t have to choose texts and then develop lesson plans for them.
• Packaged curricula typically includes assessments, which can be especially valuable if you’re uncertain about how well your child is processing and retaining information or if you live in an area that requires more meticulous record-keeping.
• Literature, history, and geography are all nicely synced up for content.
• It can lower costs, since putting together your own curriculum for a subject can sometimes get pretty expensive, especially when you start buying multiple supplemental books.
• Some boxed curricula do place a greater emphasis on the important role of technology (Calvert’s 5th grade package includes a technology overview, typing skills, a primer in how to use the Internet for research, and even an introduction to using HTML), which is too-often (in my opinion) underplayed in classical education.
• You can expect a reasonable degree of consistency in format, methodology, and philosophy across a company’s prepackaged curricula line, so if you find something that works well for your child(ren) and your personal beliefs, you won’t have to expect sudden changes at the next level.

Here are some areas where a prepackaged curricula doesn’t meet our needs:

• Lack of flexibility of scheduling. When everything is so carefully synced to a pre-established timeline, your entire schedule can be thrown out of whack if your child needs additional time with a certain material. One of the reasons we chose to homeschool was to have more flexibility with our schedule, not less. I like to be able to tailor our day to meet our needs and tailor the workload to fit our day.
• Difficult to integrate off-grade-level work. Boxed curricula works on the assumption that a child is working at the same “grade level” in each subject. However, if your child is working at different levels in different subjects, the boxed-grade approach is likely going to present a problem. Though Captain Science is technically in “fifth grade,” he’s working quire far ahead of what both Calvert and Oak Meadow offer in grammar/language arts and mathematics. We’d have to do some serious restructuring in order to make any boxed curricula work for us and at that point, we’d have lost the benefits of prepackaging.
• Not progressive/Has obvious historical bias. For example, Oak Meadow’s 5th grade curriculum seems very Columbus-centric. Overall, the history programs in these two boxed curricula appear very Euro-centric and in line with a more traditional, less progressive, understanding of history. We’re trying to teach history more objectively and without presenting Europe/US as the center of the world. This is why we spent additional time on ancient history, to allow adequate focus on Eastern and New World history.
• Under-emphasizing and under-teaching science. Boxed curricula don’t meet my standards for adequately teaching science. The teaching of science tends to be basic and shallow, as though science were either not incredibly important or too touchy a subject to delve into in depth. It’s much better to get a science curriculum from a publisher that specializes in science, IMO.
• That’s not where we’re at in history. Pretty simple explanation right there. We aren’t doing US history in 5th grade. We finished ancient history and are now working on the middle ages. We’d have to jump into history at a completely different point.
• Condescending language and low expectations. I expect a lot more from my fifth grader than putting his vocabulary words in alphabetical order. One reason we’ve enjoyed Michael Clay Thompson’s language arts curriculum is that he doesn’t speak down to the student, but rather, models the kind of writing excellence I expect from my child.

That’s what the [Smrt] Homeschooler prefers to mix and match curricula, rather than rely on a prepackaged set. In homeschooling, as in life, your mileage may very. Obviously, many families feel their children receive a rigorous and thorough education from these boxed curricula. Others don’t find it difficult or bothersome to tweak the curricula to meet their needs. For us, however, the the benefits of prepackaged curricula are outweighed by the things it doesn’t offer us.

Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com

This question wasn’t so much submitted as brought up in general education-related conversation. A single dad friend of mine found himself in the precarious situation of having his living situation shaken up rather suddenly on Friday and having no idea in what school district his child would need to be on a Monday. He dropped me a quick message asking a) how hard it would be to get them registered as homeschoolers, at least for the short term and b) if he was crazy for taking on homeschooling as a work-from-home single dad.

The answer to the second question is that being crazy is one of the most important prerequisites for homeschooling. The answer to the first question was “not that hard, but…” and I offered him a third option, using the free Georgia K12 Cyber Academy (virtual public school, done at home). He looked through the info, we talked about different ways he could go about it, how he could integrate other homeschooling stuff as needed, that there are many resources for homeschoolers locally and online (including resources for his 2e son) and he asked a semi-joking, semi-serious question, which becomes our “Ask a [Smrt] Homeschooler” question of the day, “If it’s this easy to homeschool in Georgia, why doesn’t everybody do it?”

So, why don’t all parents choose to homeschool?

“I don’t want to.” I guess the most obvious answer would be that not everybody wants to. Some people have no desire at all to homeschool their children. They’re perfectly content with the education their children are receiving elsewhere, with knowing their children are in a safe and controlled environment for 8 or so hours a day (handy if both parents work outside the home), and with the current education status quo. They figure if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and if they’re happy, their kids are happy, and the education their children are receiving meet everybody’s basic needs, more power to them. I wouldn’t try to talk happy away-schoolers into homeschooling.

“I work full time.” Parents who work outside the home would definitely have additional difficulties attempting to homeschool. The child care issue is just one part of it. Finding affordable child care for the 8+ hours both parents are working puts homeschooling outside the realm of possibility for many families. Some still find a way to make it work, though. Some parents find ways to move their shifts around, so one parent or the other is home with the children for most of the day. Some manage to telecommute some or all of the time or find work-at-home jobs that allow them to be present in the home during the day. Some parents, the ones who do have someone to watch the kids during the day, homeschool in the hours after work. It’s not impossible, but it’s definitely not easy.

“I wouldn’t do a good job.” Some parents fall into the trap that I was once caught in, of believing that they wouldn’t be capable of homeschooling or couldn’t do it “right.” The idea of homeschooling being like the Highlander (there can be only ONE way to homeschool!) is a little comical now, but was certainly a fear at the beginning. As a prospective homeschooling parent, you worry about a lot of things. Will I cover the right material? Will I cover enough material? Will I be able to teach my child (more on this in a minute)? Will my child be unsocialized (also more on this)? What on earth am I supposed to be doing every day? Luckily, if this is the major stumbling block between you and homeschooling, it’s amazingly easy to overcome it. Start by reading The Well-Trained Mind, because it gives you a handy-dandy outline for what your child should be covering at roughly every grade level. You can tweak the suggestions up or down based on your child(ren)’s abilities. You can talk to other parents about which curricula they use. You can get a homeschool mentor to walk you through her daily, weekly, and yearly schedules. The panic-inducing question of what you’re supposed to cover and when can go piffle out the window with a little research and friendly assistance — so if you’re considering homeschooling, don’t let that fear stop you!

“My child and I wouldn’t be get along.” I also believed, before I became a homeschooler, that there was no way I could handle being with my child all day long, let alone actually manage get along with him well enough to hep him learn anything. We fought so badly about homework every night, how could we possibly do school work all day long together? What I discovered, however, is that this wasn’t at all the case — it’s a much different beast to homeschool than to do homework every night. While we do occasionally butt heads over an assignment, it’s nothing like the constant bickering and nagging and whining that used to be involved with homework. As for being able to stand having my kids home all day, now I couldn’t imagine wanting to send them away five days a week! Homeschooling vastly improved the qualify of my relationship with my older son, but I never would have thought that could be true before I was a homeschooler.

“My child wouldn’t be socialized.” Other parents may have concerns about socialization. They worry that keeping their kids home could hinder them socially, emotionally, or developmentally. There’s a common belief that homeschoolers are unsocialized, simply because they don’t spend all day, every day with children their own age. I’ve found the opposite to be true for many homeschoolers, though. True, it’s not a constant mingling with same-age children, but there’s a lot more interaction with a wide array of ages, people, and situations throughout the day. It also means that the child’s peer group can be much more interest and ability based than age based, so the connection with peers (at co-ops, clubs, or other activities) can run a lot deeper. Homeschoolers may be differently socialized, but different doesn’t mean un. If this is what’s keeping you from homeschooling, put that fear aside.

“I’m not a teacher!” (also known as “I’m not qualified!”) Another concern parents have is that they aren’t qualified to teach their children, because they don’t have teaching degrees or subject-area expertise. Folks, you’ve been teaching your child since s/he was born! You know how your children learn; don’t buy into the propaganda that you suddenly lose that knowledge when math or language arts is involved. You don’t have to have a teaching license to know that your child learns best through reading, that she does really well if she can use manipulatives for math, that he responds great to timed tests. The key is finding curricula that match up with those learning styles (another place where a mentor is helpful) and either finding additional resources (co-ops, tutors, etc.) for the subject areas where you have less knowledge, finding curricula that explains the materials in such a way that you don’t have to have the knowledge yourself, or (and here’s my favorite) learn the subject along with your child! Life of Fred has really helped refresh some of my math skills and our Michael Clay Thompson language arts has brushed up my grammar. No one is more qualified than an involved, dedicated parent.

“I’m not religious/evangelical/a creationist.” I think the idea of homeschooling as being a strictly fundamentalist Christian pursuit is on the way out, but some people still have concerns that there’s no room in homeschooling for secular, evolutionist, etc. families. It’s true that the bulk of homeschooling materials do have a decidedly Christian flavor, but even this is starting to change. Secular or inclusive homeschool groups are cropping up in many parts of the country and many curriculum options are available for nonreligious families. Homeschooling isn’t just for people who don’t want to see evolution or sex ed taught in school. Many people homeschool to give their children better and more expansive education in those areas! Christians and non-Christians alike have found a home in homeschooling, so don’t let your own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) be the reason you don’t homeschool.

Those are some reasons the [Smrt] Homeschoolers can think of that might keep parents from choosing to homeschool. Some are very reasonable and some are based in misconceptions, understandable though they might be. Whether you choose to homeschool exclusively or to send your children to a public, private, or parochial school, however, don’t make that decision based on unfounded concerns, but on the educational choices that are best for your children.

Today’s question is from an anonymous commenter on Formspring. S/he asks, “How do you find time for your relationship with your husband when you’re so busy with your kids? In a world where divorce is common, how do you keep that spark there? What do you talk about in the evenings? Do you ever find homeschooling consumes you entirely?”

What? What’s that you say? I can’t hear you, as homeschooling has eaten my head. *crunch crunch*

In all honesty, homeschooling does sometimes consume me entirely. It takes up most of my morning and afternoon. Planning takes up a portion of my evenings. Homeschooling certainly takes up a large percentage of my thoughts. I spent a neat little chunk of time writing about homeschooling.

Homeschooling hasn’t been the biggest stumbling block in our marriage this past year+, though. The thing that has really been draining is parenting in general. I have spent the last five straight years pregnant, breastfeeding, or a combination of the two. We have three children, ranging in age from 17 months to almost ten, plus a beagle. Someone always wants something from me. I’m tired and drained, physically, mentally, and emotionally, much of the time. I’m tired of people touching me. I have stints of a lot of anxiety, both generalized and specific. I can’t use the bathroom without a pottience or someone banging on the door, hollering through the door, sniffing and scratching at the door, crying “Mama! Mama! Mama!” outside the door, or getting into a fight downstairs. We’ve had one or more small people sleeping in our bed with us for the last four years. Mix that up with Officer Daddyman’s work (very late nights) and the homeschooling in the morning, and sometimes it does feel like the whole world, or at least the portion of it occupied by our children, is trying to come between us.

Keeping the spark is hard. A lot of the time, I couldn’t care less about the spark. I’m starved for a few minutes of intelligent adult conversation far more than I’m starved for romance. I sometimes trend towards not making enough effort, because I’m just too lacking in energy to care. Even in the less sparkful times, however, I always find Daddyman interesting. I like talking to him. I’m interested in what he has to say, whether it’s stories from work or explanations of a game system he’s working on. I like how he seems interested in all the probably-boring stuff I did during my day. I stay up almost every night until he gets home, even if that means forgoing a couple extra hours of sleep that I probably need. We spend a little time talking, maybe watch an episode of whatever show we’re watching on Netflix (right now it’s Studio 60 on Sunset Strip), maybe eat a little snack. Sometimes we have Quality Adult Time™ together. Sometimes we just have time together.

We have periods when we spend a lot of time together, periods where we drift too often to our separate computers, but mostly, I like Daddyman more than I like just about anybody else, and he seems to like me pretty well, and I think that’s what keeps us going. I like parenting with him, having general life stuff with him, having conversation (however trivial) with him. We actively work on getting it together and keeping it together. We’re honest with each other and we try to lay it all out there so nothing is hiding, building up resentment. Every once in a while, we have great big fights and great big make-ups, and that’s always nice, too, in the long run. It’s a work in progress, but I think any good marriage is. I want to keep working to find ways to make it better. I want to keep working to find ways to not just keep the spark, but to want to keep the spark. I see us making a lot of improvement in that area. I think it will keep getting easier.

Ultimately, I don’t think homeschooling is any more (and probably less) of problem in our marriage than any thing else. It’s a common interest and a shared project, and it means we’ll nearly always have something to talk about.

Care asks, “What do you think regarding using the library for materials? Is it worth going out and buying your own copy of all materials? Will the library (be likely to) have core texts and you can just use all their books? Is a blend a reasonable and feasible option?”

Many homeschoolers rely on public libraries for part or all of their materials. Public libraries can provide a perfectly valid way of cutting monetary cost while homeschooling. Depending on the size of your library system, the speed at which books can be ordered from other locations in the system, and your ability/willingness to travel frequently to the library to order, check out, and/or renew books (some systems allow online ordering and renewal), the library may be a useful part of your homeschool year…or it might be more trouble than it’s worth.

Adrienne Furness even wrote a book for librarians whose libraries see a high volume of homeschoolers, Helping Homeschoolers in the Library. Adrienne also has a website called Homeschooling and Libraries with great resources for both homeschoolers using the library and librarians assisting homeschoolers. Denise G. Masters also has some suggestions for ways library systems can become more accommodating to homeschoolers. If your library system doesn’t currently have any of these systems or protocols in place, find out if there’s someone you can speak with to start implementing some of these changes.

If your budget is significantly constrained, you have free and easy access to a great public library system, and your homeschooling philosophies/methods don’t call for a lot of consumable materials, the library may be just the ticket for you. My personal experiences have not made me into a huge library-for-homeschool enthusiast, however. I’m of the opinion that buying your own copies of materials is almost always worth it. Libraries aren’t my first choice for homeschool materials for many reasons, such as:

1. Time is money, especially with multiple children. Using the library as a source for all or most of your homeschool materials can greatly decrease the monetary cost of homeschooling, but the trade off is a potentially huge increase in the time cost of homeschooling. Every minute spent driving to and from the library is a minute that can’t be spent elsewhere. Every minute spent trying to locate the books on a library shelf (sometimes being thwarted when the book isn’t actually there) is a minute that isn’t going to actually reading the books in question. Can this time be well spent on these endeavors? Well, sure, if you can carefully plan your week around your library time. As each of my children begins homeschooling, however, I suspect our time is going to become an increasingly valuable resource, one that I can’t see spending on a lot of library back-’n-forth. I can order books online at night, during snack/lunch time, or when the kids are at outside lessons or playdates,  which makes that the more time-efficient one.

2. Library books are not meant to be consumable. If you’d like to keep checking books out from that system, you can’t mark in/on, tear pages from, or in other way “consume” a library book. Yes, I’m looking at you, Tank.  I enjoy making notes in my books. I like to be able to dog ear a page if I need to. While I discourage margin doodling (Captain Science is a notorious doodler), I want my children to be able to take a note, underline a word or passage, or work through a problem on the page if they need to. We do have some books, like Life of Fred, that I don’t allow marking-up, but most of our curricula is of the consumable variety — meant to be written in. The benefit of a writable/markable curriculum is that it cuts down on the number of binder and folder filled with looseleaf paper, which, incidentally, never actually stays in those darn binders.

3. You’re really not supposed to photocopy that copyrighted material. While I’m not the Queen of all Ethics (I’m sure some of the software on my computer isn’t entirely on the up-and-up), I do feel that one should purchase consumable materials for home use, rather than photocopy the pages that aren’t expressly marked “for reproduction” and use the photocopies. When you do that, you’re reducing the number of sales for that particular publisher/writer, and guess what? If they don’t have enough sales, there won’t be another volume or companion book or edition of that material!

4. My library doesn’t have it. “It” being pretty much anything that I want to use for homeschooling. Sure, I could rearrange my academic plans based on what’s in the library (or available free online), but that seriously limits what materials we can cover. While my public library system has multiple copies of The Well-Trained Mind (various editions) to help a homeschooler get started, it doesn’t have a single book in the Life of Fred series, anything by Michael Clay Thompson, or any of the beautifully-illustrated DK Publishing history books. I can find supplemental books there, but nothing that makes a thorough enough curriculum for my gifted child, who really does need the challenge and creativity of the curricula we have chosen. We went through quite a few options to find what worked for us and not a one of those options was available in our public library system.

5. It only saves you money if you don’t rack up fees. We…um…yeah, kind of misplace library books sometimes. We have a kinda-sorta system on making sure those books don’t get lost, but someone always snags one from the “library books go here” spot and carries it off, then it doesn’t get turned in with the other, or somebody forgets the date the books are due, or somebody assumes somebody else renewed those books whilst s/he was at the library last time, and before you know it, we’ve got $20 in fees on all of our library cards and have to start checking things out under pseudonyms (which takes us right back to that ethics thing, people).  We already do this with our pleasure reading books to the extent that it’s usually cheaper for me to just buy the damn book outright.

6. I’m a book junkie. For those homeschoolers among us who are book junkies, it’s not enough to just read the book. We have to own the book. A big fat bookshelf is ever so much more satisfying than a big fat wallet, don’t you think? I love the smell of books, the feel of books, the lovely weight and size of a trade paperback (as opposed to library-bound hardbacks or thumbed-apart cheap paperbacks).  Books are my dear friends and my precious treasures, but a loaner book from a library can never be more than a passing acquaintance or another man’s rhubarb. I get something of a high from opening a FedEx/UPS box with a new book inside. I derive great pleasure from my shelf of curricula (and even have great dreams of one day arranging it all by topic, like Patchfire’s shelves).

7. Friends make great lending libraries. Patchfire has loaned or gifted me with a great deal of curricula. I, in turn, am prepared to pass along the stuff that didn’t work for us (or is just too young for us) to other homeschoolers.  Patchfire loaned me all of her Greek/Roman materials, and when I give it back to her, it will be accompanied by all the Greek/Roman materials I purchased. Reciprocity amongst a homeschooling community can be one way to cut costs without completely giving up that library. In this way, any book has the potential to help many families. Plus, it makes for a great excuse to get together with other homeschoolers. We’re planning a “Curriculattes” meeting for homeschooling parents to drink coffee and show off or swap curricula. Free or cheap stuff AND a night out? You can’t tell me that isn’t better than a library.

8. Libraries want you to be quiet. Tank, people. I have Tank. I really don’t think I need to explain it any better than that, do I?

9. Sometimes I get a bad case of the gonnas. As in, I’m really gonna make it out to the library this time…if I get around to it. I procrastinate. I put things off.  I drag my feet.  I know this about myself. If I rely on sources outside my home as my primary educational tools, my poor kids are going to be making do with crackers and magazines some weeks, because as much as I think I’m gonna make it to the library each and every week, I know it’s not actually gonna happen. I was also gonna do a lot of art projects and a ton of field trips this year, but without careful pre-planning, that didn’t happen, either. If I were to use the library with great frequency, I’d have to stick very rigidly to that color-coded schedule! I could do it if I had to, but I’d have to overcome a whole passel of gonnas to get there.

10. Have I mentioned I have three kids? I know, I know. Plenty of moms with way more kids than I have pile them into their white conversion van once a week and trot them meekly and quietly into the library to make excellent use of the facilities and resources. I am not those moms, however. Coordinating Captain Science’s need for certain books with Tank’s hands-on curiosity with Babypie’s “you’ve set me down and now I’m going to run off” isn’t my idea of a great time. It’s enough of a pain when we go for pleasure reading.  If I’m trying to locate specific books on the shelves for Captain S., it’s harder to corral Babypie, and Tank is piling up picture books on the reading table, and…ACK! Smrt Mama starts approaching a Smrt Meltdown of her own. Daddyman is usually the one who ends up taking Captain Science (and sometimes Tank) to the library for free reading books, and that works just fine for us.

The long (very long) and short of it is that we haven’t had the need or inclination to rely primarily on the library for our curricula, but that certainly doesn’t mean it couldn’t work for you or anyone else. Learn what your public library system has available to you and develop a schedule and system that allows for regular visits and timely returns of materials…and when you do, please let me know!

That’s what the [Smrt] Homeschooler thinks about using the library. What do you think? How do you and your family use the library as a part of homeschooling?

Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com