Skylark thoughts…

Gosh, I have been such the lagger on this. I must confess that I have only read chapters 1 and 2. This is seriously the 3rd or 4th time I have tried to read this book, and I just get bored every time. I'm not sure why. I guess I am more interested in philosophy and theory and research than stories. Anyway, I feel bad for not posting the "carnival" on time, and I apologize! As soon as I finish getting this typed up I will post the first edition, and set up the next one if anyone is still with me! Italics are quotes from the book and bold is my commentary.

Two of our most important homeschooling lessons:
we weren't going to be able to do everything ourselves, and hence would have to learn how to find other resources
I think this is a big one! My husband's and my interests play a big part in what our kids are interested in. Computers, video games, books, theater, music, swords, coins, gadgets... all are things that one of us loves and one or more of the kids also loves. However, we have encouraged and sought outside assistance for many other interests that we are not equipped to help with - computer programming, game design, gymnastics, tae kwon do, football, hockey, modeling/acting, etc. I want them to have the chance to try whatever they want to try, as much as it is possible for us to do so that they can enjoy this amazing modern world of ours and find their true passion!

we were going to be experimental in approach rather than be governed by someone else's narrow conception of “age-appropriateness”.

This is important. It seems to be common sense but is not in so many circles. My 7 year old can easily grasp complex (for "his age") math and science concepts, but still writes p's backwards half the time. Am I worried? Not even a little bit.

Our kids taught us that our task is to seek avenues for whatever inward leadings they exhibit to blossom, and to find ways for our children to become who they already are, or were meant to be.

I don't have anything to add to this, but I thought it was stated beautifully.

What I aspire to be is the strongest possible advocate for my children and for ensuring their learning needs are met in the best possible fashion.

Ditto.

The end I envision for my children's education is not the mastery of subject matter. It is perhaps here where, more than anywhere else, we part company with the practice of public education. For the end we envision lies not in the amassing of facts or concepts, which, in itself, has little more intrinsic value than the accumulation of shoes, baseball cars, or sports cars, but in the responsible exercise of freedom – the freedom to learn, to create, to grow, to be – unfettered by prejudice, their own or that of others, unhampered to the highest degree possible by others' expectations and their own preconceptions, fears, and self-doubts, uninhibited by dependencies not freely chosen.
Why are these mutually exclusive? First of all, I would argue that public education does *not* have mastery of subject matter as a goal. My local school's mission statement says something about, "Preparing Children to be Successful Citizens" - something I have seen in many, many school mission statements over the years. Of course because of NCLB everyone wants their students to know the standards well enough to do well on the mandated testing, but I don't think actual mastery of knowledge is even on the radar.

Secondly I would argue that it is infinitely easier to use that "freedom to learn, to create, to grow, to be" if one has a basis of knowledge to draw from.

Far from mutually exclusive, I would say it is almost impossible to have the latter without the former. I think his point may have been that there is not a true and official list of specific data each person needs in order to be a satisfied human being. That is obviously true... no two people would ever find that they know all the same things as each other, nor could they agree on the value of each bit of knowledge they have. I do, however, get a little tired of hearing the seeming dismissal of the importance of having a body of knowledge to work from. Learning is all about connections... connecting new knowledge to old knowledge and categorizing it. The more you know, the more you can put things into context and recall them later.

Does that mean we find a list of facts and make our little kidlets memorize them so that they can learn more later? I don't think so; even if it was interesting or even possible (neither of which are true longterm) it would be useless; information without context or texture is meaningless. I think it means we expose them to as much knowledge as we can possibly interest them in - the rules of math, the beauty of literature, the principles of science, the stories of history, the wonder of the arts, the utility of technology, all of it. I think it is important that they are interested, and I think it is important that they are exposed. That is what I consider to be my role as mommy/teacher/guide/whatever - to provide exposure to as much of the wonders of the universe as I can possibly interest them in. What a challenge!