The Chi Debate Part 1
Richard Clear asked:
In the West many debates have surrounded the idea of Chi and if Chi really exists. Chi is a Chinese word that when simply translated into English means Energy and or Life-Force. The debate(s) typically starts around the so called manipulation of the chi life force energy. Often, these skills are seen demonstrated by advanced masters during cultural events, festivals or demonstrations etc.
Unfortunately, to the average person these skills then appear to be along the lines of a circus sideshow or magic tricks where trickery or illusion and sleight of hand are involved. Also, many of the techniques of Chi Energy activation and cultivation have been kept secret so little explanation for the seemingly impossible feats of skill are offered and this adds to the idea that some kind of illusion is behind the skills being presented and/or demonstrated. Much of the secrecy is due to specific groups (religious or trade guilds) or families having a history and tradition of skills and practice that is supposed to be kept within the group or family and not revealed to outsiders. This is a part of the heritage and cultural phenomenon of the Chinese people and only in very recent years have these practices begun to come into the modern world of scientific exploration, methodology and measurement.
Most modern Masters of the arts agree that all chi phenomena can be explained and fits well within the realm of modern physics. So, after many years of study and teaching it is my personal feeling that really it is the idea of mind over matter that is at the heart of the debate.
There are other factors that compound the problem of understanding the reality of Chi activation, cultivation and flow. The first problem to be addressed is a language barrier. There are words that describe specific aspects of Chi and Chi Kung (Energy Work) practice for which there is simply no direct translation into English and often Chinese teachers of Chi Kung aren’t proficiently fluent in English like a native speaker so although they may know some English there is still a communication barrier…
Continued in “The Chi Debate Part 2″
In the West many debates have surrounded the idea of Chi and if Chi really exists. Chi is a Chinese word that when simply translated into English means Energy and or Life-Force. The debate(s) typically starts around the so called manipulation of the chi life force energy. Often, these skills are seen demonstrated by advanced masters during cultural events, festivals or demonstrations etc.
Unfortunately, to the average person these skills then appear to be along the lines of a circus sideshow or magic tricks where trickery or illusion and sleight of hand are involved. Also, many of the techniques of Chi Energy activation and cultivation have been kept secret so little explanation for the seemingly impossible feats of skill are offered and this adds to the idea that some kind of illusion is behind the skills being presented and/or demonstrated. Much of the secrecy is due to specific groups (religious or trade guilds) or families having a history and tradition of skills and practice that is supposed to be kept within the group or family and not revealed to outsiders. This is a part of the heritage and cultural phenomenon of the Chinese people and only in very recent years have these practices begun to come into the modern world of scientific exploration, methodology and measurement.
Most modern Masters of the arts agree that all chi phenomena can be explained and fits well within the realm of modern physics. So, after many years of study and teaching it is my personal feeling that really it is the idea of mind over matter that is at the heart of the debate.
There are other factors that compound the problem of understanding the reality of Chi activation, cultivation and flow. The first problem to be addressed is a language barrier. There are words that describe specific aspects of Chi and Chi Kung (Energy Work) practice for which there is simply no direct translation into English and often Chinese teachers of Chi Kung aren’t proficiently fluent in English like a native speaker so although they may know some English there is still a communication barrier…
Continued in “The Chi Debate Part 2″
Three Ways to Improve your Critical Thinking Skill in College
December 12, 2009 by admin
Filed under College And University
Chris Stout asked:
College is mental gymnastics at its finest. University campuses are alive with ideas, some scientifically provable, others entirely arguable. When you exist in this sphere of swirling minds you can’t help but feel energized by the exchanges you encounter. People all around you have something to say. Positions and postures come in all sorts of varieties. Questions are answered by questions that prompt more questions.
In this intense minefield of knowledge and half-knowledge, you need to have your wits about you. You need to be confident in your critical thinking abilities, and you have to be passionately willing and able to improve them.
Here are five ways to exercise your brain and stay academically athletic.
1. Discuss ideas outside of the classroom with intelligent people who enjoy a good debate.
College is a place for spirited arguments. When else are you going to have the opportunity to drink and discuss philosophy, economics, metaphysics, religion, politics and history on a nightly basis? Molten minds are forming all around you, and as the cerebral rocks cool, everyone wants to share. Get in on the debate, put in your two cents, no, better yet say a nickel’s worth. College is an open forum for any an all topics. Take advantage of it while you can.
.
2. Take classes that intrigue you.
Nothing spurs analysis like interest. If you want to trick your brain into thinking that it’s in hobby mode, not study mode, and then you better be passionate about your subject matter. There must be something that you find fascinating. Whatever it is, enable that curiosity. Tap into genuine interest, and school work will start to feel instantly rewarding. By following your personal preferences, you’ll be able to delve more deeply into the material you study.
3. Take notes like your life depended on it.
Seriously. When you try to create a written historical record of your lecture, in real-time, the results are amazing. You focus more one what’s going on in the moment. You associate the information you process with audio and visual imprints. You have a concise record of everything you were exposed to, and you can review this material quickly and completely. Don’t forget to take notes as you read, and write all over your books!
Do your homework like you’re supposed to and come to class prepared. Subject-specific critical thinking is all about recalling information. The more ways you imprint, the more you retain. Make sure you like your classes, because you’re going to be asked to digest mass quantities of whatever material you’ve signed up to absorb. Talk about what you’ve learned with friends and classmates, but don’t get in fights over the periodic table. Respect everyone else’s opinion, but express your own. Realize that no matter what, there’s always more to learn
College is mental gymnastics at its finest. University campuses are alive with ideas, some scientifically provable, others entirely arguable. When you exist in this sphere of swirling minds you can’t help but feel energized by the exchanges you encounter. People all around you have something to say. Positions and postures come in all sorts of varieties. Questions are answered by questions that prompt more questions.
In this intense minefield of knowledge and half-knowledge, you need to have your wits about you. You need to be confident in your critical thinking abilities, and you have to be passionately willing and able to improve them.
Here are five ways to exercise your brain and stay academically athletic.
1. Discuss ideas outside of the classroom with intelligent people who enjoy a good debate.
College is a place for spirited arguments. When else are you going to have the opportunity to drink and discuss philosophy, economics, metaphysics, religion, politics and history on a nightly basis? Molten minds are forming all around you, and as the cerebral rocks cool, everyone wants to share. Get in on the debate, put in your two cents, no, better yet say a nickel’s worth. College is an open forum for any an all topics. Take advantage of it while you can.
.
2. Take classes that intrigue you.
Nothing spurs analysis like interest. If you want to trick your brain into thinking that it’s in hobby mode, not study mode, and then you better be passionate about your subject matter. There must be something that you find fascinating. Whatever it is, enable that curiosity. Tap into genuine interest, and school work will start to feel instantly rewarding. By following your personal preferences, you’ll be able to delve more deeply into the material you study.
3. Take notes like your life depended on it.
Seriously. When you try to create a written historical record of your lecture, in real-time, the results are amazing. You focus more one what’s going on in the moment. You associate the information you process with audio and visual imprints. You have a concise record of everything you were exposed to, and you can review this material quickly and completely. Don’t forget to take notes as you read, and write all over your books!
Do your homework like you’re supposed to and come to class prepared. Subject-specific critical thinking is all about recalling information. The more ways you imprint, the more you retain. Make sure you like your classes, because you’re going to be asked to digest mass quantities of whatever material you’ve signed up to absorb. Talk about what you’ve learned with friends and classmates, but don’t get in fights over the periodic table. Respect everyone else’s opinion, but express your own. Realize that no matter what, there’s always more to learn
Peacocks & Penguins
Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:
Twelve years ago I read a small book that was far from the kind of reading that I’d normally read. I was ten years into having started a church, and I was seeing that the changes I had made from a denomination to a charismatic church weren’t enough. There was more. I didn’t FIT in the denomination, nor could I wear Saul’s charismatic armor.
The book was entitled, “A Peacock in the Land of Penguins”.
The COLORFUL Spirit that I felt and embraced didn’t match with the BLACK-n-WHITE constraints of this instead of that, ours and not theirs, as well as believe and don’t question! However, I had questions! I had doubts about things that I was told I could not question. When something didn’t make sense, I had simply been told to JUST BELIEVE.
That’s like telling a Peacock to paint their feathers black and white.
On top of that my “nature” was to question and to embrace all sides of an issue and not just that which I’d grown up with and thought unquestionable. I received a college scholarship because of my debate skills in high school. I attribute my success in part because of my debate coach. In my first debate, I was told I’d be opening the debate on the AFFIRMATIVE. So, I prepared all of the reasons why the question would work.
An hour before I was to debate, the coach came in and said, SURPRISE! Ernest, I want you to take the NEGATIVE side! Say what!
I had an hour to do an about face and prepare just the opposite arguments, but what I realized, to my amazement, was that in preparing for one side, I had to look at the other side to anticipate what they might say. Any good attorney will tell you that you never ask a question of the person on the witness stand that you don’t know what their answer will be – or at least have a good idea.
Unfortunately, most fervent and religious people only know what they’ve been told and that’s all they want to know. They spend their life “defending the faith” regardless of how illogical the arguments may be. And, they have not a clue as to what the other religions believe because they don’t care, etc. In life generally the Mars male doesn’t want to know how the Venus female feels.
Mars rules. NOT!
The heterosexual doesn’t even want to be around the ********* homosexual, let alone communicate or try and understand the emotions that they’re feeling, being trapped in a body that doesn’t match their emotions. It’s easier to just quote a Scripture and tell them to get “right with God”. Scientifically and spiritually we are ALL RAINBOW people- Peacocks. We’ve just allowed the doctrine, dogma, and law to paint us with a BLACK-n-WHITE brush. Our way or the highway.
Let your LIGHT(s- all the colors)) SHINE!
Twelve years ago I read a small book that was far from the kind of reading that I’d normally read. I was ten years into having started a church, and I was seeing that the changes I had made from a denomination to a charismatic church weren’t enough. There was more. I didn’t FIT in the denomination, nor could I wear Saul’s charismatic armor.
The book was entitled, “A Peacock in the Land of Penguins”.
The COLORFUL Spirit that I felt and embraced didn’t match with the BLACK-n-WHITE constraints of this instead of that, ours and not theirs, as well as believe and don’t question! However, I had questions! I had doubts about things that I was told I could not question. When something didn’t make sense, I had simply been told to JUST BELIEVE.
That’s like telling a Peacock to paint their feathers black and white.
On top of that my “nature” was to question and to embrace all sides of an issue and not just that which I’d grown up with and thought unquestionable. I received a college scholarship because of my debate skills in high school. I attribute my success in part because of my debate coach. In my first debate, I was told I’d be opening the debate on the AFFIRMATIVE. So, I prepared all of the reasons why the question would work.
An hour before I was to debate, the coach came in and said, SURPRISE! Ernest, I want you to take the NEGATIVE side! Say what!
I had an hour to do an about face and prepare just the opposite arguments, but what I realized, to my amazement, was that in preparing for one side, I had to look at the other side to anticipate what they might say. Any good attorney will tell you that you never ask a question of the person on the witness stand that you don’t know what their answer will be – or at least have a good idea.
Unfortunately, most fervent and religious people only know what they’ve been told and that’s all they want to know. They spend their life “defending the faith” regardless of how illogical the arguments may be. And, they have not a clue as to what the other religions believe because they don’t care, etc. In life generally the Mars male doesn’t want to know how the Venus female feels.
Mars rules. NOT!
The heterosexual doesn’t even want to be around the ********* homosexual, let alone communicate or try and understand the emotions that they’re feeling, being trapped in a body that doesn’t match their emotions. It’s easier to just quote a Scripture and tell them to get “right with God”. Scientifically and spiritually we are ALL RAINBOW people- Peacocks. We’ve just allowed the doctrine, dogma, and law to paint us with a BLACK-n-WHITE brush. Our way or the highway.
Let your LIGHT(s- all the colors)) SHINE!
Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up
James William Smith asked:
The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.
Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.
While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.
So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.
Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.
In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.
As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.
However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.
Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?
Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.
The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.
Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.
While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.
So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.
Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.
In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.
As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.
However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.
Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?
Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.
U.s. Economy Needs Skilled Foreign Workers
Samuel Martin asked:
Although many immigrants who enter this country are unskilled laborers who provide essential services in many sectors of our economy, of equal importance to the immigration debate are the highly educated foreign professionals whose skills play a vital role in the enrichment of our economy.
The U.S. economy has shifted significantly over the past 50 years. We are no longer the blue collar nation that we once were. The transformation from a manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy has created a growing demand for skilled technical workers. This demand has been accompanied by a decline in the number of native-born students seeking degrees in the fields of science, engineering and technology.
Our prestigious graduate institutions currently train more foreign nationals than U.S. citizens in these fields. To alleviate labor shortages, U.S. businesses must be able to recruit and hire additional foreign-born professionals.
We must retain the educated professionals whom we have trained internally in order to benefit from the unique skills that they possess. By sending the best and the brightest workers back to their respective countries, we only create competition for ourselves, thereby diminishing America’s economic clout.
In order to increase the number of highly skilled professionals in this country, it is necessary to reform the employment-based immigration system and provide a sufficient amount of avenues through which U.S. businesses can legally employ specialized workers. We must increase the number of specialized worker visas awarded.
H-1B visas, or temporary skilled worker visas, are currently capped at only 65,000 annually. Yet, this “cap” is reached in a couple of months, and U.S. businesses are barred from hiring foreign-born professionals for the remainder of the fiscal year.
At the same time, we must increase recruitment and training of U.S. students. H-1B visas accelerate this process; a hefty portion of the processing fees for the H-1B visas are directed to the education and training of U.S. students in science and technology.
It is important that skilled workers are not overlooked in the current debate regarding comprehensive immigration reform. Raising the H-1B visa cap is vital to maintaining our leadership in the world market. By retaining foreign nationals, we may ensure that U.S. businesses have the most highly qualified workers in their fields, helping America maintain its edge in an increasingly competitive global economy.
Deborah Notkin is president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. – NU
The Great Home Schooling Debate
May 7, 2009 by admin
Filed under Homeschooling
Lee Dobbins asked:
Home schooling has been around for quite some time now. The debate about it’s overall effectiveness has been going on for just as long. Recently however, home schooling has been gaining more and more advocates in support of it.
For the longest time, home schooling has been viewed with a somewhat contemptuous attitude by many. They’re under the misguided notion that this type of schooling is for weirdoes and social misfits.
People these days are much more open minded about the idea of home schooling. Lots more parents are choosing to put their kids in some kind of home based program.
So what are the possible reasons for parents to home school their kids? What are the advantages and disadvantages of home schooling? Is it right for your child and what must be taken into consideration when choosing to home school your child?
Home schooling has traditionally been for those children who suffer from some kind of condition or whose current circumstances don’t allow them to attend regular school. However, more and more parents are choosing to home school their children because they believe it to be a more beneficial alternative to traditional schools.
There are a lot of advantages to be taken from this type of schooling.
Home schooling allows a child be taught in a more individualized way. The child will not have to compete with several other students for the time and attention of the teacher. Their parent is their teacher and the one-on-one teaching that the child receives will increase the quality of learning.
The nature of this schooling allows for an incredible amount of flexibility and freedom in regards to learning. The lessons and curriculum to be undertaken can be custom made to suit the particular educational needs of the child.
The child can also learn at their own pace, seeing as there’s no set schedule that must be followed. A child can take as much time as they need to learn something without being pressured, or they can go as quickly as they can, learning things that would normally take a much longer time to cover in a classroom.
In many cases home schooling will enforce an inherent love of learning and will strengthen the child abilities to learn on their own. These skill will become a valuable asset throughout their lives.
Many parents home school their kids in order to instill moral values that can’t be sufficiently achieved in traditional schools. This is especially true if they feel that the child is easily influenced and the schools in the area are a particularly bad influence.
Home schooling helps to cultivate family ties. The time that the family spend together teaching and learning helps to strengthen family bonds.
Thanks to more advanced technology and in particular the internet, home schooling has become even more effective. The internet is a vast source of knowledge and you can find a plethora of home schooling resources like sample curriculums, lesson plans, and all sorts of guides.
The greatest criticism aimed at home schooling is that it might hamper the child’s social growth. Home schooled kids tend to be more isolated and many feel that this is harmful.
This isn’t necessarily the case though, as studies have shown that many home schooled adults have excellent social skills and are living happy, meaningful lives.
These studies also show that home schooled individuals tend to do better academically than traditionally schooled individuals.
Despite the seemingly many benefits of home schooling, it isn’t for everyone. Parents should take in mind several considerations before taking the plunge.
Home schooling takes a tremendous amount of time and effort on the part of the parents.
Teaching will take up most of the teaching parent’s day, so this means that the they will most likely not have the time to work. The family must be able to cope with this situation. This is especially difficult for single parents.
Also, the parent must be sure that they will be able teach their child properly and handle all the possible problems and responsibilities that come with being home schooled.
Home schooling, when done right can have very positive results. However, getting it wrong can result in absolute disaster. Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to assess their child and decide if home schooling is the right choice for them.
Home schooling has been around for quite some time now. The debate about it’s overall effectiveness has been going on for just as long. Recently however, home schooling has been gaining more and more advocates in support of it.
For the longest time, home schooling has been viewed with a somewhat contemptuous attitude by many. They’re under the misguided notion that this type of schooling is for weirdoes and social misfits.
People these days are much more open minded about the idea of home schooling. Lots more parents are choosing to put their kids in some kind of home based program.
So what are the possible reasons for parents to home school their kids? What are the advantages and disadvantages of home schooling? Is it right for your child and what must be taken into consideration when choosing to home school your child?
Home schooling has traditionally been for those children who suffer from some kind of condition or whose current circumstances don’t allow them to attend regular school. However, more and more parents are choosing to home school their children because they believe it to be a more beneficial alternative to traditional schools.
There are a lot of advantages to be taken from this type of schooling.
Home schooling allows a child be taught in a more individualized way. The child will not have to compete with several other students for the time and attention of the teacher. Their parent is their teacher and the one-on-one teaching that the child receives will increase the quality of learning.
The nature of this schooling allows for an incredible amount of flexibility and freedom in regards to learning. The lessons and curriculum to be undertaken can be custom made to suit the particular educational needs of the child.
The child can also learn at their own pace, seeing as there’s no set schedule that must be followed. A child can take as much time as they need to learn something without being pressured, or they can go as quickly as they can, learning things that would normally take a much longer time to cover in a classroom.
In many cases home schooling will enforce an inherent love of learning and will strengthen the child abilities to learn on their own. These skill will become a valuable asset throughout their lives.
Many parents home school their kids in order to instill moral values that can’t be sufficiently achieved in traditional schools. This is especially true if they feel that the child is easily influenced and the schools in the area are a particularly bad influence.
Home schooling helps to cultivate family ties. The time that the family spend together teaching and learning helps to strengthen family bonds.
Thanks to more advanced technology and in particular the internet, home schooling has become even more effective. The internet is a vast source of knowledge and you can find a plethora of home schooling resources like sample curriculums, lesson plans, and all sorts of guides.
The greatest criticism aimed at home schooling is that it might hamper the child’s social growth. Home schooled kids tend to be more isolated and many feel that this is harmful.
This isn’t necessarily the case though, as studies have shown that many home schooled adults have excellent social skills and are living happy, meaningful lives.
These studies also show that home schooled individuals tend to do better academically than traditionally schooled individuals.
Despite the seemingly many benefits of home schooling, it isn’t for everyone. Parents should take in mind several considerations before taking the plunge.
Home schooling takes a tremendous amount of time and effort on the part of the parents.
Teaching will take up most of the teaching parent’s day, so this means that the they will most likely not have the time to work. The family must be able to cope with this situation. This is especially difficult for single parents.
Also, the parent must be sure that they will be able teach their child properly and handle all the possible problems and responsibilities that come with being home schooled.
Home schooling, when done right can have very positive results. However, getting it wrong can result in absolute disaster. Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to assess their child and decide if home schooling is the right choice for them.
