Standards / benchmarks

[battlecrumpet]

DH and I are starting to think about what type of home learning approach we might follow, assuming we go down the homeschooling route.

Neither of us really feel the need for a detailed curriculum, but what we would like is to know what minimum academic standards / benchmarks children are supposed to reach by a certain age.
For example (and I'm just making this up, I have no idea what the benchmarks really are)...by age 7, a child is supposed to be able to (in maths) perform simple addition and subtraction; (in geography) they're supposed to know what country they live in and the names of the states....that sort of level of detail.

One reason for this is that, if we end up homeschooling for a few years and then putting DS into formal schooling after that (e.g. at the start of highschool), we'd want to ensure he knows all he needs to academically so he won't struggle academically at the start of highschool.

So I have a couple of questions, to help us get some feedback on our ideas and find out where to go for more info:

1. Where does this sort of approach (simple benchmarks but no detailed curriculum) fit into the homelearning pantheon? e.g. Natural Learning / other methods (Steiner, Monte) and if so which methods??

2. I'd love to get ppl's opinion about this type of approach e.g. whether benchmarks like I described are really useful; do you need a use a curriculum at all (apart from for registration purposes)?

Thanks!

[asimplelife]

I an't answer (sorry, no see on this keyboard - using old omputer) spe ifi ally in regards to Australia, but I like this list for my own referen e

http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?curriculum/grade1

[battlecrumpet]

Wow, thanks Asimplelife, that's the sort of thing I had in mind :)

[asimplelife]

great! also meant to say, although we are natural learners/uns hoolers and I do follow the kids interests and areas of learning with no planning, how I find the list abo e useful is just to in orporate into our dis ussions. Kind of like "strewing", only I pla e the information out there and see where it takes us. True uns hoolers may not do this. Dunno. But feels right for us.

[Belinda]

2. I'd love to get ppl's opinion about this type of approach e.g. whether benchmarks like I described are really useful; do you need a use a curriculum at all (apart from for registration purposes)?


Benchmarks are one of the moist highly contested areas of education, and that's why you don't see many Australian ones. If you can get the old syllabus documents it will have that level of detail, otherwise, its more difficult.

A problem with them is understanding the type of benchmark your looking at. For example is it where an 'average' child is? Where a child 'should' be? Or is it the bare minimum to be able to cope with the next level of school? Is it a red-flag kind of benchmark indicating that their may be problems?

There is also a problem with the uneven pattern of development. For example, sometimes children make huge advances because their brains have physically changed, and other times they don't seem to do much.

That's without going into who decides what's important enough to go on the benchmark!

I know they have their uses (the primary one being to help us feel better), just somethings to keep in mind.

[Ceres]

I've been musing this overnight. I can see the benefit of some type of standardised measure of learning as a way to reassure yourself that everything's going fine, but I don't think it does really fit with the natural learning philosophy. Some children are reading at 3, some are closer to 10, but in all likelihood they'll all have caught up at some point. I might look at what is being taught in mainstream schooling for interests sake but I'm wary of the idea of comparison.

[~Mel~]

As a teacher, the benchmarks are horrible both for the student and the teacher. I have a tough time placing students in pigeon holes, for each child performs at different levels for different subjects with different timeframes for completion and understanding.

For me, to use the benchmarks places undue pressure on the learner to have a timeframe to understand and develop those skills. This is why we are looking at homeschooling our son. He won't complete the work in the necessary time thus falling behind (in terms of mainstream schooling).

[battlecrumpet]

I guess, if kids receive individual attention in the form of homeschooling, they're highly unlikely to slip behind the level that they'd otherwise be at, at a mainstream school.

Re Belinda's question about what type of benchmark, I guess the main one for me would be "the bare minimum to be able to cope with the next level of school" (in case Caelan does end up in formal schooling). In real life, I wonder whether you'd know whether any particular set of benchmarks (e.g. the World Book ones) were of this, or another, type. (Can't find any info re this on the World Book site).

I guess because I'm so new to homeschooling / natural learning, the idea of benchmarks is reassuring to me right now, but perhaps later (e.g. by the time Caelan gets to school age) I won't need that kind of reassurance.

One thing I'm curious about now is that, if benchmarks aren't part of the natural learning approach, why is that...ie what do NL people see as the main disadvantages of benchmarking? As I understand from people's responses so far, it's mainly because kids progress at very different rates, and benchmarks don't adequately cater for those individual variations (between kids) in academic progress? ie do banchmarks make parents and kids unnecessarily stressed if you're not quite keeping up with a benchmark? Or is there some other reason why you'd avoid benchmarks?

As an example.....say Caelan (if he's anything like me!) isn't really interested in maths. So if his learning was largely self-directed, he wouldn't do a lot of maths stuff. But OTOH if he's to know how to manage his money as an adult, he'd need to know how compound interest works. So if we didn't use benchmarks, how would we make sure he learned about compound interest? I guess devising your own set of "benchmarks", rather than relying on externally produced ones, would be one approach? Or maybe yearly benchmarks are too over-the-top....as long as he knew how to read, write, do enough maths (e.g. compound interest) by age 15 (ie when he can legally go out into the workforce), then that's enough.....??

Wow this is a really meandering question but it's really helping me understand the principles behind natural learning. And hopefully challenge my preconceived notions of what's involved in education. :)

[Ceres]

One thing I'm curious about now is that, if benchmarks aren't part of the natural learning approach, why is that...ie what do NL people see as the main disadvantages of benchmarking? As I understand from people's responses so far, it's mainly because kids progress at very different rates, and benchmarks don't adequately cater for those individual variations (between kids) in academic progress? ie do banchmarks make parents and kids unnecessarily stressed if you're not quite keeping up with a benchmark? Or is there some other reason why you'd avoid benchmarks?
I'll try to address this point.
For me the reason it wouldn't fit is because it's "other" directed rather than "self" directed (the old extrinsic vs intrinsic motivations argument fits in here too). The natural learning philosophy is more about children following their interests and learning what they want to learn, rather than meeting external measures. This might mean that they spend 6 months learning about aeroplanes and doing no creative writing for instance, so it might seem unbalanced over the short term. In the big picture they will learn what they need to learn purely through needing to know stuff or through interest-based learning.

[Belinda]

I guess, if kids receive individual attention in the form of homeschooling, they're highly unlikely to slip behind the level that they'd otherwise be at, at a mainstream school.

That's what the research seems to indicate. Plenty of children fall below the benchmark in public schools!


In real life, I wonder whether you'd know whether any particular set of benchmarks (e.g. the World Book ones) were of this, or another, type. (Can't find any info re this on the World Book site).

Absolutely, unless the benchmark states it you aren't going to know. And educators and bureaucrats are eternally arguing about what/where /how those benchmarks should be set so it changes all the time.


So if we didn't use benchmarks, how would we make sure he learned about compound interest?


Ok apologies in advance for this nit-picking response...

What you are talking about here is more of a syllabus rather than a benchmark. I know that seems like edubabble and it is, but if your looking them up on the internet or were talking to an assessor it would make a difference. A syllabus is a document outlining all the areas you believe need to be taught, and usually when they should be taught, a benchmark is a document outlining what learning you expect children to show at a particular age and stage. Benchmarks are all about assessing children in particular things AGAINST OTHER CHILDREN. So you can have a syllabus without benchmarks, but it doesn't happen very often.

I'm not generally in favour of benchmarks for a number of reasons, but esp. because they aren't really that useful. If a child is below a benchmark, there is all the stress for kids and parents, and it doesn't tell you how to help the child. If a child is above it, it just tells you they are keeping up with other children. It doesn't tell you what the child needs to go to the next stage.

From what you've said, I think you want to know two things:

1. Have I covered everything my child needs to know? (syllabus/curriculum)
2. Will s/he achieve at the same level as other children (benchmark)

And I understand why you want to know that. I'm not saying don't use them, just remember that these aren't set in stone, even in schools. They are arbitrary and open to debate. So don't think if you do something different, the world will fall in.;)

(I am sorry, I can't help myself, I need a lot more deschooling, I suppose!:lol)

[battlecrumpet]

Thanks so much for that Belinda, as you can probably guess I have no background in education, so your explanations really help.

I guess, what my own child achieves vs other children is not that important to me. What is important is that C learns all that he needs to know, in terms of life skills (e.g. the compound interest example), and also to be able to go on with formal education if or when we need to (e.g. high school / university).

I wonder, with syllabus / curriculum, how you'd define what a child "needs" to know anyway?? For example, is it important that, in geography, he knows the names of all the countries in the world, or that in history, he knows the history of Australia since 1780? How do you separate "need to know" from essentially interesting trivia that he can pick up later as an adult?

Does a standard syllabus cover everything that I'd think C needs to know in order to become an active, responsible system e.g. most people don't seem to understand how our preferential voting systems work, they didn't seem to learn it at school, but to me that's kinda important....?
And in some of the more "political" subjects, I guess there's different ways of interpreting different syllabus. I don't know what details curriculums generally go into....but say that a syllabus stated that a child needed to learn the history of Australia since 1788. There'd be many different ways to teach this....when I was at school, it was taught from a very white European perspective, but as an adult I learned about indigenous perspectives on this, and I'd be keen to share this with C.

[Ceres]

The syllabus changes over time and goes through trends like everything in life, so I'd look at it more as what do they "want" kids to know than what they "need" to know. Really when you think about it, if they NEED to know it then there will be natural learning opportunities for it. Plus there is so much more they will learn from natural learning that their schooled peers won't have been taught.