Given our discussion of Dewey last week, the readings we have studied regarding democracy and education, and the question I had about home schooling, I wanted to look into a few alternatives to the public school system currently in place. Since there are a number of issues surrounding any sort of alternative, I have focused on two alternatives: home school and one non-traditional school. I realize that there are other forms of alternative education, including charter schools, schools set up specifically for disruptive children, military schools, art schools, and even special education. “Alternative education” is really a term to mean anything that isn’t traditional. What I want to focus on here is “alternative education” that is relatively comparable to a public school, specifically RMSEL (to be defined later).
1. Home school: Obviously, home school is one alternative to the public school system that does not require the same monetary investment needed to send a child to a private school with high tuition. Home school lacks many of the ideals of both Dewey and James Bryant Conant since it places children in a very isolated environment in order to complete their education. However, home schooling also has the potential to open doors that public education cannot. Robert Reinhold’s article “Class Struggle” placed great emphasis on the debate surrounding a new series of social studies texts. The new textbooks are greatly needed to address the diversity of American society, yet how can everybody be pleased? Even though there was much debate surrounding the new textbooks, “critics and admirers alike agree that the new books are superior to the soporific history texts used by generations of American students” (Reinhold, pg 89). I mention this in the section I’ve devoted to home schooling because, although parents who home school are required to teach certain subjects based on a state’s specific policies, there is no assigned textbook. This means that parents have the opportunity to present the whole story to their children/pupils, without worrying about whether a book is going to offend anyone. The potential is great, yet whether it is fully realized is hard to judge. That depends on the parents’ values, and what the parents want to teach their children. Is it likely that every parent who home schools will choose reading materials that present a diverse point of view of history, social morals, or religion, so that a child can put the pieces of the puzzle together for him/herself?
The other potential in home schooling is the ability to teach to the child. What I mean by this is that a curriculum can be entirely structured for a child’s specific learning style without being tied by NCLB standards, and there is greater potential to take the child out into the “real world” for learning purposes. Lisa Rivero put it nicely: “John Dewey's contributions to ideas of progressive education were monumental, but what has struck me most strongly in the context of home schooling is his emphasis on the child's experience and his call to understand the roles of subject matter and organization within rather than apart from that experience. If we watch our children, we see how their experience of the world is both rich in content and progressively structured from within” (http://www.besthomeschooling.org/articles/lisa_rivero.html).
The problem, however, lies in the environment. Home schools can isolate children if the parents aren’t part of a home schooling network. Thus, Dewey’s concept of teaching children in a manner that can be incorporated into real life falls to the wayside when the child is not “socialized”.
2. Alternative Education: The Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning, or RMSEL, is a public K-12 school in Denver, CO, that falls under the category of “alternative education”. Some jokingly call it the “hippy school”, or “hippy high” for the high school portion, mainly because of the strong association with the Outward Bound program. The mission of the school can be found on their website http://www.rmsel.org/ , but I would like to point out the strong focus on “engaging learning”. The students learn through everyday situations, in a very Dewey-esque manner. Children learn by being taken out into the world, and little time is devoted to classroom learning. However, the actual education that is received by the students is mocked by the very graduates themselves. I asked a graduate of RMSEL what he learned, and he responded: “nothing. I don’t even know basic algebra, but I know how to keep from getting lost in Mexico” (Xander Likes, class of 2003). This particular student even decided to take summer classes after graduation to better prepare him for a college education that he decided not to pursue out of fear. The transfer rate is also high, because parents fear their child’s lack of basic math, science, and history will prevent them from getting into college (thanks to Laura Lisk, mother of a middle-school transfer). Dewey’s ideas are so strongly incorporated into this school, where the children are engaged and learn in life situations as opposed to sitting in class, yet somehow the perception is that basic expectations of knowledge that are still important are ignored. Actual statistics show that the average ACT score of a RMSEL student is higher than the state average, so the knowledge is there. Why is it that students and parents alike don’t feel that the school provides an appropriate education?
3: Bringing the two together: Academics and Socialization: John L. Rury described high school life from a social point of view in his article “Democracy’s High School? Social Change and American Secondary Education in the Post-Conant Era”. What struck me in particular was his description of the students’ desire for self-expression. “These [cultural] developments were abetted by a general movement to expand students’ rights in high schools across the country. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, wherein it ruled that a suspension of two students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War represented a violation of their First Amendment rights (Zirkel, 1999). Tinker set off a wave of litigation that soon broadened the definition of self-expression to include everything from dress to hairstyles,…” (Rury, pg 315-316). In the context of using school to promote democracy, which has been studied in many of our readings thus far, Rury’s description of the student seems to portray a success in the education system. Since democracy is a goal of education, and is considered an important aspect of everyday American life, can we assume that promoting democracy in schools is a something that Dewey himself would approve? If so, then home schooling has another problem, since “democracy demands diversity and requires deliberation and discussion to flourish” (Rury, 309). Even Conant felt that a diverse class that promotes debate over current issues was necessary to promote democracy (Rury, pg 308). At the same time, however, “democracy requires discipline in addition to individual or group expression and a willingness to abide by …conventions that are collectively determined” (Rury, 317). Both concepts of democracy are in conflict with the education systems promoted by home schooling and by RMSEL. Is there a way to combine the benefits of home school and RMSEL to create a school that is Deweyan and provides students with proper knowledge to succeed in life?
Some websites that you might find interesting in the study of alternative education:
http://www.aaengroup.com/about.htm
http://www.urban.org/publications/411283.html
http://www.besthomeschooling.org/
http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=5
-Michelle M. B. Lilly
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Socialization is defined by dictionary.com as “a continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior, and social skills appropriate to his or her social position.” Every individual receives socialization (including home-schoolers), yet the begging question that remains is how to most effectively socialize the youth?
Homes-chooling is often denigrated because it is claimed that it does not provide the proper socialization that children need, yet who has the made modern schooling environment the litmus test for proper socialization? Is the best means of socialization really placing 25-30 elementary students together all day and allowing them to socialize each other (especially when the majority is taught very few positive social skills at home)? Such is the modern day elementary school: children socializing each other with adults supervising to make sure that they do not use the restroom on the floor or place a rock in another’s ear, though otherwise too strapped for time to make sure that the students are being socialized properly throughout their interactions. If you doubt this, there is a good chance you have spent little time in a predominantly low-SES elementary school. For further evidence concerning the lacking nature of the socialization process in school’s refer to Rury’s discussion on the rise of the youth culture and its effects on students and society.
Though I believe that the modern educational system is severely lacking in the realm of socialization, it may be the best that can be done when society’s goal is educating every American and yet does not provide adequate resources to do so both equitably and excellently.
I believe that home-schooling (or a similar arrangement), when done right, is the most idyllic arrangement for the socialization and education of youth. It is idyllic because of all of the points made in the above post, but also in its potential for socialization. If done right the parents (or educators) will involve the students in home-schooling associations or with other social activities that allow the child to be involved with others. This arrangement allows the child to receive an education totally tailored for them, keeping them continually at their zone of proximal development, while opening up plenty of opportunities for learning through experience as well as a socialization process that can be monitored by adults so as to filter out the poor social habits often learned through peer-interaction.
The question that remains however is how the vast benefits of a well-done home-schooling arrangement can be made available for the broader society?
I have to respectfully disagree with Matt's opinion about home schooling and socialization. (Or more specifically, socialization and public schooling).
In my opinion, socialization involves exposure to multiple viewpoints, ideas, and cultures. How can this happen when a child is only exposed to the ideas of his/her parents each day? Or given the most "ideal" situation, exposed only to other people who are home schooled. These people likely share the exact same beliefs and are usually the same culture as the home schooled child.
Additionally, children must be able to choose their own social networks. In so doing, children gain confidence in themselves. Matt states one of the benefits of home schooling is that socialization can "be monitored by adults so as to filter out the poor social habits often learned through peer-socialization." In my opinion, socialization should be about the exposure to these things but the student's ability to reject them on their own. What happens when the home schooler confronts these "poor habits" later in life? They must learn to be their own gatekeeper instead of becoming overly reliant on their parents.
Parents must be incredibly motivated to provide an ideal at home educational environment. In addition to socialization, I don't believe all parents are able to provide students with the best education possible. In the state of Wisconsin, parents need no certification to teach their child, and next to nothing is done to check on the achievement of the student.
While I do agree that students should be kept "at their zone of proximal development," I believe this is best done in the classroom with quality teachers. I wonder how this can be done when the majority of home schooling activities center around workbooks, videos and only the knowledge of a parent who may not even be certified to teach. Throughout schooling, I remember lessons that center around whole group activities, science experiments, and projects where I worked and learned from other students. How can this happen daily for child who is home schooled?
I think I fall neatly in the middle of Matt's and Emily's respective points of view. I used to be one of those people who said "there's no way home schooling can properly socialize a child." I really thought home schooling was backwards and detrimental to students and society. Then I got to college and became friends with people who had been home-schooled. They were strong critical thinkers, involved in myriad social organizations, and genuinely committed to an open-minded worldview. I think they had what amounts to Matt's ideal home schooling experience, with a great deal of social activity. It also helped that my main contact with home schooling came from a family of six children, so there was some inherent socialization there. However, it came down to the fact that they were simply not prepared for the rigor of study at a major university, particularly in the "hard" fields of math and science. My good friend had to go on academic suspension because he failed multiple science classes. He returned as a religious studies major (harder to fail, let's be honest).
As we heard at the school board meeting on Tuesday night, some societies provide subject-area specific instruction at all grade levels. We don't do that, but we at least recognize that by the time students reach high school, they need an instructor who is not only an expert teacher, but something approximating an expert in their subject area. How can we possibly expect any parent to have sufficient expertise in every subject area up to the 12th grade level?
What's more, although the particular parents in question did an excellent job instilling highly democratic values in their children, I am somewhat wary of protecting people from the fear of offending others. While I acknowledge that our society sometimes goes too far in the PC direction, I think it's an extremely important element of democracy that we make each other uncomfortable and then find ways to work through it. The most striking example, for me, was the Reinhold article’s exploration of the “Medicine Dance” depiction in the 3rd grade textbook. I have actually been to a Lakota Sun Dance, which is essentially the same thing. It is intensely sacred, violent, and ritualistic. People fast and dance for days in the hottest month of the year. Men insert pieces of animal bone into their skin and hang from them until the bone rips through the skin, making a flesh offering to show the sincerity of their prayers. On a hot day on the reservation, Lakota men walk around without their shirts, and their Sun Dance scars are displayed for all to see as a sign of their dedication to their families and to their prayers. One could easily question if such a ritual is appropriate to discuss with third-graders at all. If it is, though, I think we can all agree that it would need to be toned down to a third-grade level of understanding, which I think the book in question did successfully. On the other hand, I was sensitive to one woman’s comparison of the Sun Dance to the Crucifixion (the religious themes are actually strikingly similar), and to her questions about how some Christians would feel if that sacred event were portrayed in such a simplified manner. It would be easy for us to argue that neither subject belongs in a “secular” textbook, but I think it’s awesome and important that someone is trying to bring it to the curriculum, no matter how uncomfortable it makes some people. That level of discomfort is key to having the discussions we need to have about our society and our schools.
Perhaps the very real diversity of public school populations makes them the ideal place to create and address this discomfort. You can argue all you want that “diversity” initiatives in curriculum are merely lip service to different cultures, but that argument will be an important one. We read a lot about the problems of public school this week, and I agree that there are many, but I still cling to an idealistic belief that we can work within the system in a way that continually advances our social, democratic, and academic thinking, no matter how slow or incremental that advance is.
I want to diverge from the discussion of how well home school can socialize a student and focus on more of a glaring weakness of the home schooling system...accountability. In public education, teachers are held accountable to a high level. Test scores of students, teacher observations, and open houses for parents are all methods for holding teachers accountable. In homeschooling there is no method to check for accountability. The person running the homeschool creates the curriculum, puts in in action, and self-monitors it. A parent may be well intentioned, but lack the resources to properly educate their child. Obviously there are exceptions and many homeschools are exceptional and give a very good child centered curriculum, but that lack of accountability really makes me question the system as a whole. Due to the fact that we have compulsory education, there must be some sort of monitoring process to check that students are learning a full curriculum. How the curriculum is put into practice can be completely up to the homeschooler, but having a monopoly from the creation to execution to evaluation of a curriculm is suspect.
I find it very interesting that Michelle brought up The Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning, or RMSEL. My mom lives outside of Boulder, Colorado and sent me the latest copy of 5280, the city and regional magazine for Denver. The cover story is entitled, Denver’s Top Schools: There’s more to School Quality than Standardized Test Scores. Within this article they define four non-traditional schools of teaching: Montessori, Waldorf, Expeditionary and Global Citizenship. RMSEL is one of three examples of expeditionary learning. There is also The Odyssey School in Denver and the Renaissance School in Castle Rock. All three schools are part of the public school system.
The RMSEL mission statement says, “As a K-12 community, the mission of the Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning (RMSEL) is to empower students and staff to be learners, thinkers, citizens, and explorers engaged in and inspired by the real world.” This is exactly what we have been talking about all month in every foundations course this semester. We need to enable students to learn, think, explore and be active citizens. Their accountability report cards show both the elementary and middle schools as high achievers and the high school as average. If the ACT scores are above the national average for the past five years, then there is no reason for a negative perception of this non-traditional school system.
Why do people think that non-traditional schools are automatically sub-par?
I have to agree with Chuck. My main problem with home-schooling is not the socialization aspect, but the idea of accountability and the quality of education that home-schooled children receive. Parents who home-school their children probably do not have the training needed to teach their children effectively. But, more scary for me personally, there's no accountability for what the parents are teaching their children. I believe that people should have the right to practice their beliefs in their own homes and teach those beliefs to their children. But if the children are never exposed to ideas different from their own, what kind of view will they have of the world? Eventually they will have to leave the safety of their homes and deal with the world at large, which will include people different from them. If they have never been exposed to diversity, have will they interact successfully with others? The parents Amy Gutmann talks about "claimed that their children would be corrupted by exposure to beliefs and values that contradict their own religious views unless it was explained that the other views are incorrect and that their views are the correct ones." Are their beliefs so shaky that they cannot survive exposure to others? Gutmann later states that "it is a sad fact of democracy in the United States that some citizens still hold religious beliefs that reject teaching children the mutual respect for reasonable differences of opinion and rational deliberation among differing ways of life." If children are not taught to respect different opinions and ways of life, which they may not be in home school, how can they participate in democracy?
I wonder how far a government should go in determining how children should be raised. Lindsay makes the argument that people should be taught different view points and to respect different opinions. What if I said that my children will not be exposed to other opinions. Who's right is it to tell me how to raise my child. I have also meet many 'qualified' teachers who do not prepare children to pass test and the education system does not even teach democratic education. There can be failures in both systems so I would caution because the majority of public schools in this country are not doing such a great job either. Schools also have a record of clicks, hazing, harassment, and peer pressure. Not all socializing is productive for everyone.
Parents, who knew their children the best, should have the options available to make these choices for their children.
I think Zach makes a good point. In both systems (public schools and home-schooling) there can be huge failures. However, I think the huge difference is that public schools and teachers' will be noticed for failing. Like Chuck and Lindsay said, accountability is crucial. Hopefully, with a public school enough people will recognize the failures and do something about it (granted many times the "do something" takes a little longer...), whereas not nearly as many people will recognize if a parent is failing to effectively home-school their child.
Also, I think it is interesting to look back over the history of education. In our nation, education progressed from children being taught in their homes, to being taught in a one-room school house, to eventually being taught in larger schools that separated students by grade. Clearly over time, society felt as if the most efficient and effective way to educate the youth was in school/classroom settings. So today, when we see children being taught again in the home, does that mean we are reverting back in time? Is history bound to repeat itself?
I want to comment on the original post that states that the "potential in homeschooling is the ability to teach the child" in the sense that the teacher( parent) can focus on the personal way that the child learns. Although this potential is great for the child at that time in a child's learning, a child needs to also grow accustomed to and learn to work around other teaching and learning styles. If a child learns through a kinesthetic style, and the parent almost solely teaches in that method, how will the child survive in higher education by not having any contact with other styles? I think that a home schooling method must incorporate a real feeling of schooling which mixes all learning styles. That way, the child will be ready for higher education, which we all know does not rely solely on just one teaching style geared to certain learning styles. So then the student can have a higher chance of succeeding in higher education after being taught with different teaching styles to reflect different learning styles.
In reference to Julie’s question about reverting back in time…I would argue that it is not reverting, but maybe being more effective. It is stated that “Clearly over time, society felt as if the most efficient and effective way to educate the youth was in school/classroom settings.” I would argue that society might see it as more an idea of being more efficient, but not necessarily the most effective way. The ways schools are set up today, they ensure that students all receive education, so the focus is getting mass numbers through schools. But do we really teach them in the most effective way? We are pushing each child through a regimented curriculum and standards, but we are not necessarily meeting the needs of every child. I agree with Amy that it is important that students need to be involved in multiple learning and teaching styles, so mass education works, but really is it the most effective. Can homeschools provide a situation where children can have their needs met, but also encounter many different learning experiences and teaching styles? There are many homeschool networks that families can get involved in that allow students to go to conferences, workshops, field trips, and many other social and diverse learning experiences. Can these networks allow for homeschools to have the social needs along with the educational needs?
(a few examples of homeschool networks:)
Northshore HomeSchool Network: http://schoolcenter.nsd.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectionid=18
National Homeschool Organizations:
http://www.homeschoolcentral.com/hsorg.htm
Homeschool World (Texas):
http://www.home-school.com/groups/TX.html
Regarding the issue of accountability for those who are homeschooled- I thought that there was some kind of test that home-schoolers had to take in order to receive a high school diploma (or its equivalent.) If I didn't make this up, would this test be enough to prove that the child's curriculum included all that they should know?
Jumping back to the socialization issue, I go to a Nazarene church and it seems that A LOT of Nazarene families home school their children (feel free to make your own implications.) From being around these families, I have found that the home-schooled kids I know usually fall at the extreme of one side or the other. Either they don't know how to relate to others well and have a hard time fitting in, or they are the complete opposite- overly social and free thinking trendsetters. Like those before me have stated, the parents have a huge responsibility to give their children regular opportunities to socialize with other children with different backgrounds and viewpoints than their own.
To help RC out with this, to the best of my knowledge whomever is educating the child must have gone through several classes to be "homeschool" certified or some other equivalent, and while I'm sure there is a test out there for their HS Diploma, there is also the GED.
Home Schooling is something while I personally wouldn't strive to see. While I understand the opportunities it presents to the child, I strongly believe, like others who have said so here, that the child learns more in the classroom.
By more I don't necessarily mean knowledge in a direct SAT/Standardized Testing way, but in many other ways as well. By working with other students in their age range for the majority of their day they are learning thousands of important lessons that are just simply not taught in a home school environment.
RC points out that students tend to be on opposite ends of the spectrum and that to me is part of the problem. Each home school child seems to be "unique" in some way. While each child is unique, I think there is something particularly special about working and developing those relationships with your classmates and not just your teammates or whatever other organizations they are a part of.
My opinion on home-schooling boils down to 2 things: 1. the issue of accountability (as many of you have pointed out) 2. the parents' right to educate their children
Personally I am not an advocate for home-schooling, but I also believe in the parents' right to teach their children what they want to teach. If they prefer them to be educated at home, who am I to say that is wrong?
Also, if you take into account Dewey's perspective, I do not think he would agree with home-schooling as means of providing education. Since Dewey saw education as a way to change and advance society, he thought the learning environment should reflect society. A home-schooling environment, in my opinion, does not reflect society. I wonder if our education system reflects our society? Is it a true representation of the "real world?"
I think that some homeschooling programs allow for the students that are homeschooled to be more socialized than just staying at home and going to church while being taught by your parents (I'm from the South). A lot of my friends that were homeschooled were involved with communities of families that were also homeschooling their children and would meet once or twice a week for various activities or classes.
I am not an advocate for homeschooling purely on the basis of getting to know different kinds of people, learning how to deal with them, and learning how to deal with the problems that parents are trying to protect their children from. I also believe that a lot of learning happens in the classroom through discussion with multiple opinions as well as learning how to respond to them.
Post a Comment