Flexibility
Maybe it's because I was spoiled by a highly-academic Bloomfield-Hills education, but lately I'm frustrated with the fact that some home schooled kids just aren't learning. I'm ready to move on from in-home tutoring as a career pursuit, partially because parents don't seem willing to commit the money and time necessary to really help their children learn.
The true benefit of home schooling is the flexibility it offers for the parents, enabling them to plan education in the way that best suits each individual child’s needs. Home schooling can’t be one-size-fits-all any more than public or private schooling can, and still be expected to succeed.
Governesses or full-time tutors were used in the past, especially, it seems, for children like C. S. Lewis, who had other options but thrived in a one-on-one environment because he was bright and strange. His tutor was well-educated, scholarly, rigorous, knowledgeable of many subjects, and instrumental in forming character as well as intellect. Tutors may have an advanced degree or not, but I think a home teacher or tutor must have at least a Bachelor’s degree, i.e. the same education as a school teacher, in today’s society. Is this practical for home educators? Only rich families seem to have live-in tutors nowadays, but perhaps tutors could again play such an extremely formative role in many types of children’s lives. C. S. Lewis claimed that his future as a scholar would have been ruined had he continued at a boarding school. He credits his tutor with saving him from scholarly failure, with making him logical, which he credits with strengthening his faith. He places an utmost importance on the presence of the tutor in forming him for his future career, which of course will be different for everyone.
For example, many homeschoolers seem to be preparing their children for lives of faith or perhaps ministry and perhaps for manual labor, but not specifically for college---maybe because they (the parents) have no college education themselves. They want their children, however, at home, with the control and creativity it affords them as parents, and the ability to form their children’s emotional and spiritual lives.
However, traditionally parents desire something better for their children than for themselves academically. Early American pioneers formed schools and hired teachers to come, people who were probably more educated than they were and could devote time to education because it was their job to do so. Perhaps it depends upon the gifts and goals of the child and parent, but it seems children should have the option of pursuing a path that requires academic training if they are so inclined. Children, in other words, I think, should not be given short shrift when it comes to academics simply because they are home schooled.
Home schooling is not the culprit; it simply may be reality that parents are not prepared to offer rigorous academics. However, their control as home schoolers can actually give them the opportunity to hire tutors and seek out the best possible educational options to form programs that are custom-made to help their children succeed in the way best suited to them. So in other words, home schooling is actually a good thing, no matter what the child is like, because it offers flexibility and the chance to customize education for maximum success. Just as C. S. Lewis’ father was able to transfer him from a boarding school to a private tutor, which produced the desired results, home educators have many options. However, they need to take advantage of them and not limit their children to the education they can provide, especially if it falls short in some area, such as academics. Also, if children have creative talents they will benefit from being trained in art, music, dance, or writing. This training could mean the difference between finding their calling and being relegated to "drudgery."*
Teachers have never been particularly well-paid, but they have made a decent living off of their vocation. Private school-teachers and professors do live off their work, although humbly. The same should be the case with tutors, who are not babysitters, but teachers. If they are providing that invaluable part of a child’s education, i.e. academics, creativity, and character, then they should be compensated in a way that allows them to pursue this as a career. As independent business-people they should set their own rates, and parents should consider comparative costs for private school, college, piano lessons (and other lessons traditionally paid for outside of school curriculum). Parents and tutors should discuss the goals for the child and be on the same page; the tutors should have some amount of freedom but must also be structured and communicate about the progress of students. Parents, however, who are not willing to uphold the tutor’s teaching for the rest of the week, when the tutoring takes the form of a “class” one time per week, should not expect great results if they are not willing to cooperate and invest time, effort (to do homework or reinforce lessons), or money (to hire the tutor for more frequent lessons). The tutor does not want to fail and should not set impossible goals, i.e. these functionally illiterate children will become skilled writers with 1 hour of lessons per week and homework spottily done. The parent should be willing to listen to the tutor on matters of academics if that is why the tutor was hired, otherwise the parent should continue focusing on other things such as character or practical skills and not do the academics job half-way.
posted by Denise @ 7:58 AM
5 comments
