Why Homeschooling Is Growing

Why Homeschooling Is Growing
.Subscribe
Homeschooling shows what’s great about American democracy, yet also where our national education system needs to improve.
Fifteen years ago, the homeschooling movement seemed small, obscure, and, frankly, a bit scary. As a group, they seemed to be running away from the “immoral” public school system, and you were as likely to find them on a ramshackle farm in the middle of nowhere as doing seventh-grade Algebra at a kitchen table (and in some extreme cases, featured in publications like Slate using it as a front to neglect and abuse their kids). In short, the homeschooling movement was brushed off as too quirky and fringe to be taken seriously. But fast forward, and the movement is burgeoning: It represents much of what is great about American democracy, and simultaneously shows what is good and what’s going wrong with education in America today. Homeschooling Is Growing Ridiculously Fast: Last year, USA Today reported that in 1999, homeschoolers made up a tiny sect of the American population. “An estimated 850,000 students nationwide were being homeschooled. By 2011-12, that number had more than doubled to 1.77 million.” According to a recently released Florida Department of Education report, “The number of homeschooled children in Florida saw its biggest increase in five years during 2014-15. Last year, the state counted 84,096 children in home schooling, up 9.6 percent from a year earlier.” The reasons? According to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly nine out of ten parents who homeschooled their children during the 2011-12 school year said school environment, meaning safety, drugs, and peer pressure, contributed to their decision. While the growth of the homeschooling movement is positive, it isn’t for everyone. For students who attend public school, the very reasons some of their peers are homeschooled demonstrate the need for the public school system to improve. Choosing A Different Path: Some parents choose to homeschool because they’ve done their research and don’t agree with the curriculum taught or social situations within public (or private) schools. Those with a degree in education may disagree with me—but isn’t that great? The freedom to choose what type of education your child can have should not be overlooked or underappreciated. The introduction of Common Core curriculum mandates and tests into the nation’s public schools, and many private schools, has driven many parents to homeschool. There are reports around the country of homeschoolers increasing, simply because of this one change. In Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the number of homeschooled students has more than doubled in the last school year, largely due to Common Core, and numbers statewide also are growing. In an interview last year with Fox News, Bob Lubke, a senior policy analyst for the North Carolina-based Civitas Institute said, “If you look at national, and even state polls, you can see that the more familiar people become with Common Core, the more they dislike it. They feel like they are losing control of what their kids are learning.” Likewise, the Heartland Institute reported that in North Carolina, parents are concerned enough with Common Core that home schooling grew by 14 percent during the last academic year: “More children are now getting an education at home than in the state’s private schools.” Michael Farris, father of ten and chairman of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told me via e-mail that Common Core is a “factor in homeschooling growth.” “The public schools continue to pursue failed theories,” he wrote. “The overall approach is not working for any meaningful improvement. The centralized planners believe that one-sized fits-all will produce great educational results if we just regulate it enough and test it enough. Those theories lie at the heart of the discredited Common Core curriculum.” The freedom to choose is a boon to homeschool education. The freedom to choose another means of education—whether that’s private school, charter schools, or homeschool—because of dissatisfaction is a hallmark of democracy. Some kids, like this homeschooled robotics team that invented a new way to teach beginners Braille, will owe their careers and general happiness to this simple choice. Homeschoolers Defy Stereotype and Shatter Stigma: Contrary to popular belief, the homeschooling movement is not entirely based upon—or growing exponentially because—homeschoolers are inherently against something. They aren’t sitting around bashing public schools and twiddling their thumbs in their living rooms. In general, homeschoolers tend to advocate for each child to learn according to his strengths and weaknesses, to spend as much, if not more, time learning outside the home in the real world.There are more opportunities than ever for parents to show their children real, hands-on learning. In other words, they aren’t exactly denim-wearing, backwoods-living hicks. Farris says, “Almost every parent with school-aged children knows at least one homeschooling family. And in the vast majority of cases, the impression is very favorable.” It’s this impression that inspires other families to choose to homeschool. There are more opportunities than ever for parents to show their children real, hands-on learning thanks to nonprofit organizations, museums, and other industries opening their doors to homeschoolers via special events just for them. Last year, USA Todayreported that “[m]useums such as the National Museum of Natural History and the New York Historical Society offer programs exclusively for home-schooled students. And there are listservs and other online communities where parents can seek advice and voice concerns.” Farris noted, “The biggest shift in the homeschooling movement in the last few years is the development of more co-op type approaches for some specialized classes. The heart of homeschooling is still a mom and dad teaching their own kids. But, there is a strong growth in shared specialty courses, especially at the secondary level. Science, math, history, and debate are very common courses for this shared approach.” What This Means For Traditional Schools: The homeschool movement is by no means at its pinnacle, both in numbers and execution. As with any education, it will have gaps. But the statistics, and reasons for their growth, should encourage public-school advocates to take a hard look at the issues causing parents to pull their children from that system. Not every parent is in a situation that would allow him to homeschool his child, should he want to, and not every child would benefit from being homeschooled. So while no system can be flawless, it should make changes where necessary to improve. Homeschooling is growing, which benefits our democracy, but also telegraphs a warning to our national education system: Make changes, or lose students. As for homeschoolers, thank goodness they’re more mainstream and perhaps even trending. Kids are our future, and they’re the ones who are benefiting most from a specialized, hands-on, parent-led education. Source: http://thefederalist.com/
Read More........

Five hidden pitfalls of fitness tracking

Sahar Bakr, Nottingham Trent University

Many people in the UK now use apps, smartwatches or wearable devices to track their physical activity. Fitness trackers promise to help users become fitter, happier and healthier versions of themselves. For many people, they can be useful: a nudge to move more, a way to notice patterns, or a reminder that activity does not have to happen in a gym.

But self-tracking devices do more than record behaviour. Through prompts, defaults, streaks, badges and automated feedback, they also shape it. There is good evidence that tracking can help some people become more active. But there are also growing reports of anxiety, shame and disordered eating among people who track closely.

This raises questions about how common these harms are and why they happen, which is what I have spent the past decade researching. Here are five reasons tracking can become harmful.

1. The fixation on steps

The 10,000-step target comes from a marketing slogan for a 1960s Japanese pedometer, and has no firm scientific basis as a universal target. Researchers continue to debate the ideal number, with some pointing to around 7,000 as a more realistic and beneficial target for many adults. Yet 10,000 steps remains widely treated as a badge of good health.

The trouble is that a single target cannot fit everyone. It can also distort what people think activity is worth. A tracker may misread wrist movement, or fail to capture cycling, swimming or strength training properly because these do not look like stepping.

This means trackers often privilege what they can easily count. Steps are visible, while strength work, mobility, Pilates, rehabilitation and recovery can appear less important, even though they may be exactly what someone needs. This can give users a skewed sense of what counts as worthwhile movement.

2. Movement loses its joy

The hardest part of becoming active is making it a habit that lasts. Chasing a target can work against that if it turns movement into a chore rather than something enjoyable. The point becomes closing a ring instead of noticing what your body can do.

Research suggests that repeatedly failing to meet goals can lead people to abandon both the device and the habits they were trying to build. Enjoyment helps habits stick, while external metrics can erode the internal motivation to move.

So the next time you head out, try leaving the numbers alone. Take a friend, put on a podcast, or call your mum. When you feel satisfied, go home. The activity still counts, and over time it may help you reach your goals without making the numbers the only measure of success.

3. The more-is-more approach

Many devices still make “more” feel like the default measure of success. The prompts are persistent, the summaries often feel like gentle reproaches, and the clearest currency is usually steps.

What this often misses is ability, skill and context. Do you know how much exercise you need? What kind of movement might cause injury? Can you interpret your own VO2 max data? These competencies are often taken for granted, but many people have never had the chance to build them.

Our research shows that people are most vulnerable to harm when they are left to manage with assumptions already made for them. They may hand their judgement over to the device and accept whatever it tells them. Yet the device may not know enough about whether you are recovering from illness, short on sleep, injured, newly active or pregnant to interpret today’s data safely.

4. The default user does not exist

Much of the design and marketing of these devices is aimed at a standard, average consumer. But research repeatedly shows that this person does not exist. We differ in our bodies, histories, goals and circumstances, so asking everyone to squeeze into the same mould is poor design.

The problem is the body imagined by the device: often able-bodied, non-pregnant, already confident with exercise and free to prioritise activity every day. Some defaults also follow narrow social norms, often built around male bodies, and amplify questionable ideas about health and beauty.

Think of BMI, which can penalise muscular bodies and treat perfectly healthy women’s bodies as problems to be solved. Similar assumptions can be baked into self-trackers when they nudge users towards weight loss by default or reinforce dated ideals about size and ability. At their worst, they can push some people towards over-exercising or under-eating, with real damage to body and mind.

5. It blames you when things go wrong

Sedentary living is a society-wide problem. Yet trackers often frame inactivity as a matter of individual willpower. That can draw attention away from the conditions that shape how much people move: safe streets, time, money, caring responsibilities, disability, local facilities and access to green space.

Many people report feeling pressure from the device. When life gets in the way of their targets, they may feel shame, failure, or give up altogether.

Research shows that people use these devices for a wide range of reasons and goals. That means support and personalisation are essential to making tracking safer. Devices should account for individual goals, experience and context rather than loading all responsibility onto the user, a familiar and unfair pattern across health and social care.

Some would call these harms unintended side effects. But they are also the predictable result of design choices that reward more, simplify health into scores and treat missed targets as personal failure.

For users, the first shift is to treat tracking as information rather than instruction. A watch can tell you what it has measured. It cannot tell you what your body needs today.

The bigger responsibility sits with developers. Trackers could place less emphasis on fixed step targets, make strength and non-step activity more visible, build in rest and recovery without guilt, and offer safer defaults for people with different bodies, abilities, health histories and goals.

None of this means abandoning the technology – it means refusing to let a made-up number decide whether movement has counted.The Conversation

Sahar Bakr, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........