Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

:tongue_smilie:I am in the middle of my annual breadth vs. depth struggle. Anyone else in there with me? I read the "What is your 5th, 6th, 7th...grader doing this year?" threads and I panic. My list is extensive (in my heart, I know it's too extensive) and yet it's considerably shorter than others. Somehow I just know I am going to miss this child's "gift" if I short-change him on music, art, a third language, logic, health, or geography in addition to his existing cores of language arts, math, science, history, Spanish, Japanese, technology, and philosophy. Oh! I forgot nature studies and current events.:svengo:

 

Then, if you can get the subject list under control, then you need to focus on covering everything within a specific topic. I mean if a mom with a second grader is asking if two writing programs is enough, by extrapolation my 7th grader needs like 5 programs, right? MCT for academic writing, Brave Writer for creative writing, something for diagramming (never mind that many of us didn't do that until high school), Editor-in-Chief or Easy Grammar for everything else I am sure I missed. No. Actually that would be adding in copywork and dictation because it's...well...it's the foundation of a classical education. Or was that Latin? Which we are not doing. Which will keep Swimmer Dude from going to Harvard Law School...I just know it. <pant, pant, pant>

 

One of my biggest gripes with "real" school has always been this attempt to cover everything. I now know the sad truth that there are people just like me (obsessed with the "perfect" plan) who write ps texts. You know the ones. For example, the lit analysis texts that give the child four pages of information including the plot, conflict, and resolution as a pre-reading assignment. At least it's efficient because the child no longer needs or wants to read the story. They are trying so hard to cover everything that they underwhelm the student.

 

Why the panic on my part? I just spent six hours going through my MCT materials for next year. I realized if I buckled down and really taught the material in depth, my son would receive a better language arts education than most kids his age. It would also take me a good chunk of time to teach it that way. Focus is so much more demanding than doing a little here and a little there of everything. So, will kids be bored without the breadth of subjects or are they bored with them because they don't spend enough time on topics to fully comprehend and engage in them?

 

ETA: My apologies in advance for the writing.:tongue_smilie:My brain and attitude are fried.

Edited by swimmermom3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 512
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We are new to homeschooling this year and I am having to learn a lot about what are the key things to teach kids..and how deep to go with it. I have 5 kids, 3 are ELL learners and older adoptees, so this is imperative for us. I am finding that deeper and more reflective seems to "stick" more than broad across the board. I'd rather my kids truly have a strong understanding of something rather than have been exposed a little to a huge variety of things.

 

Now my biggest problem is prioritizing what is on the "must know" list and what can be let go of!

 

Cindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ready for pearls of wisdom from someone who you all know hasn't been there and done any of this yet? :lol:

 

1. Does Swimmer Dude want to go to Harvard Law College?

2. Only perfect people require perfect educations and as far as I'm aware, there has only been on claimant in history. Sorry, but Swimmer Dude isn't him. ;) On the bright side, that means you can relax a little.

3. As to this point: "So, will kids be bored without the breadth of subjects or are they bored with them because they don't spend enough time on topics to fully comprehend and engage in them?" Have you asked Swimmer Dude's opinion?

 

:)

Rosie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ready for pearls of wisdom from someone who you all know hasn't been there and done any of this yet? :lol:

 

1. Does Swimmer Dude want to go to Harvard Law College?

2. Only perfect people require perfect educations and as far as I'm aware, there has only been on claimant in history. Sorry, but Swimmer Dude isn't him. ;) On the bright side, that means you can relax a little.

3. As to this point: "So, will kids be bored without the breadth of subjects or are they bored with them because they don't spend enough time on topics to fully comprehend and engage in them?" Have you asked Swimmer Dude's opinion?

 

:)

Rosie

 

:lol::lol::lol:Oh Rosie, you are wicked! Swimmer Dude wants to go to college where there is a really fast swim team, sun, and hot babes and he would probably tell you that he does not need a "perfect" education in order to topple Bill Gates (a stated goal as he is anti-Microsoft). I did ask him about more vs. fewer and he is for fewer as when we do more, we "seem to get behind."

 

Thanks for pointing out the fact I wasn't really thinking about the Dude in particular on this topic.:D It probably stems from my own anxieties about what is too much vs. what is not enough. My mind is forever thinking, "Well, it would be even better if I added this..." But it's hard not to wonder if it's similar to having a good stew in the pot and getting carried away with the spices or putting together a great outfit only to add two pieces too much of jewelry. Kwim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you only get this kind of panic once a year? I struggle with it ALL THE TIME. And I"ll have you know your own lists have triggered that kind of panic in me!

 

However, my attacks usually are shorter these days. Two reasons:

 

First, my daughter has Asperger's Syndrome, and she would not stand for one single minute to be subjected to the onslaught of a curriculum that stressed breadth of coverage at the expense of depth and leisure to contemplate a few topics of her obsessional interest.

 

Second, in my need to prove to myself that it is okay to embrace an education that endorses her "special interest" style, I have come across a whole lot of cross-cultural educational research that almost uniformly concludes the U.S. does its students a huge disservice by trying to do it all. This inevitably leads to superficiality of coverage and a lack of opportunity to explore, investigate, develop problem-solving strategies, see how different areas of inquiry or academic discipline inter-relate -- much less the opportunity to grow and develop in areas outside academic study.

 

I also keep reading books about people who either quit school or who devote minimal time to required topics in order to devote themselves to a subject of their passion: music, or programming, or a particular sport, or anthropological digs... anything and everything.

 

I think some people are born specialists and respond really well to a curriculum that stresses the lengthy exploration of a few issues or topics. Others are generalists and are perfectly happy to follow a broader, more humanistic curriculum. I also don't think it's possible to do both at the same time, and do both well. The scale is just going to tilt one way or the other, and while way too much emphasis on covering everything is counterproductive, leaning one way or the other to fit in with your child's interests and abilities is one of the many benefits of homeschooling. My daughter is going to be one of those with a few passionate interests. I do my best to expose her to a wider range of topics than she would pursue on her own, but I don't try to force it, and there are some areas I know won't fly at all so I don't bother.

 

Most of the time I'm at peace with this. And then I read your book lists.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are new to homeschooling this year and I am having to learn a lot about what are the key things to teach kids..and how deep to go with it. I have 5 kids, 3 are ELL learners and older adoptees, so this is imperative for us. I am finding that deeper and more reflective seems to "stick" more than broad across the board. I'd rather my kids truly have a strong understanding of something rather than have been exposed a little to a huge variety of things.

 

Now my biggest problem is prioritizing what is on the "must know" list and what can be let go of!

 

Cindy

 

I found the first bolded comment to be true for us especially this year. Or perhaps it was the fact that our most successful curricula tended to be streamlined and that allowed us to go deeper. My son had done 100s of pages of Easy Grammar the previous year but when he looked at certain topics, he didn't recognize them. This year we did MCT for grammar and it all seemed to stick and yet it felt like we were doing way less than in previous years. It's hard to know just where the cause and effect lie.

 

Your last bolded comment reminded me of a nagging feeling that I've had for a while that again, the subjects and curricula are less important than the actual skills taught.

 

Cindy, welcome to the wonderful world of homeschooling and I really do mean it's wonderful even if I am back up in the tree today, so to speak. :tongue_smilie:My best wishes to you and your family on your new venture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you asked Swimmer Dude's opinion?

 

:)

Rosie

 

Rosie asked the right question. Ask swimmer dude what he wants to learn and make sure that you add that as a priority. I've been gaining some wisdom lately from my big summer book choices (I skip the "beach reads" section entirely). What kind of education do you want him to have? What comes to your mind when you think "educated person"? Aim for that education.

 

Anyway. You can never get the perfect balance. It isn't real. What you can do is figure out what things are most important and make sure you are spending the most time on those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I did ask him about more vs. fewer and he is for fewer as when we do more, we "seem to get behind."

 

There you go, you have your answer! The problem isn't that one answer is right and the other is wrong, the problem is they are both right answers.

 

Thanks for pointing out the fact I wasn't really thinking about the Dude in particular on this topic.:D It probably stems from my own anxieties about what is too much vs. what is not enough. My mind is forever thinking, "Well, it would be even better if I added this..."

 

Now the Dude is sorted with a deep program, you can supplement yours with broad electives, and you'll be getting the best of both worlds! Never mind about him, he's just a kid and evidently doesn't appreciate the nuances :lol:

 

:tongue_smilie:

Rosie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you only get this kind of panic once a year? I struggle with it ALL THE TIME. And I"ll have you know your own lists have triggered that kind of panic in me! No, you are right. It's an ongoing issue, especially after the tumultuous year we've had. Oh dear, I cringe to think that my lists would make someone panic, but I can see how they would. Sending a fellow homeschooler up a tree is the last thing I would like to accomplish with my presence on this board.

 

However, my attacks usually are shorter these days. Two reasons:

 

First, my daughter has Asperger's Syndrome, and she would not stand for one single minute to be subjected to the onslaught of a curriculum that stressed breadth of coverage at the expense of depth and leisure to contemplate a few topics of her obsessional interest. When my oldest two children were 6 and 4, we took them to the circus. My son (4) at one point put his head on my lap and turned his face to my stomach. This is the child that goes 100 mph and would be the last person you would expect this behavior from. He was overwhelmed by the three rings of action and later told me, "Mommy, I couldn't "see" the lions. I kept losing them." Given your approach and awareness, I think your daughter will get to "see" the lions and will probably enjoy the show.

 

With regards to personal interests, earlier this summer Swimmer Dude had negotiated for a full schedule on M-Thurs. for the new school year with Friday being devoted to his own interests of technology, current events, stock market/entrepreneurial ventures and philosophy. I hate to admit this but I want to go back on the deal because I am worried about there being enough time for all of the other "stuff." I keep reminding myself that MCT says you don't have to do every page.:tongue_smilie:

Second, in my need to prove to myself that it is okay to embrace an education that endorses her "special interest" style, I have come across a whole lot of cross-cultural educational research that almost uniformly concludes the U.S. does its students a huge disservice by trying to do it all. This inevitably leads to superficiality of coverage and a lack of opportunity to explore, investigate, develop problem-solving strategies, see how different areas of inquiry or academic discipline inter-relate -- much less the opportunity to grow and develop in areas outside academic study. This is an area I would like to read more on because to me, it seems intuitively correct. One trend I see with my teens' ps materials is that they try to cover everything to the point that no problem-solving skills are required from the student.

 

I also keep reading books about people who either quit school or who devote minimal time to required topics in order to devote themselves to a subject of their passion: music, or programming, or a particular sport, or anthropological digs... anything and everything.

 

I think some people are born specialists and respond really well to a curriculum that stresses the lengthy exploration of a few issues or topics. Others are generalists and are perfectly happy to follow a broader, more humanistic curriculum. I also don't think it's possible to do both at the same time, and do both well. The scale is just going to tilt one way or the other, and while way too much emphasis on covering everything is counterproductive, leaning one way or the other to fit in with your child's interests and abilities is one of the many benefits of homeschooling. My daughter is going to be one of those with a few passionate interests. I do my best to expose her to a wider range of topics than she would pursue on her own, but I don't try to force it, and there are some areas I know won't fly at all so I don't bother.

 

Most of the time I'm at peace with this. And then I read your book lists.:D

 

I would agree that one can't do both at the same time and do both well. I have a thick file of movies and projects and extra books for history and I need to let them go in order for Swimmer Dude to have a chance to explore the areas that he enjoys but that always get pushed to the side for math or grammar or yet another history book. It should be easy when I know what the problem is, right?

 

Thank you for weighing in. I really do appreciate your thoughts on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swimmer Dude's Friday deal sounds absolutely fantastic! I think you have done a marvelous thing for him and his education. One thing I especially like is that he's choosing of topics; he's found what motivates him. I've always found it peculiar and sad that right at the time when kids are old enough to begin to have a real say in their education, in general we as a culture persist in keeping them passive and spoon-fed; we tell them what's important, what they need to read, what to think about it, what to write, how long it should be, what to do, when to do it, on and on. Choosing a course of study, pursuing a passion, finding a mentor, doing an internship or volunteering, and above all, beginning to learn about how education is set up in the world (to what end, by whom, who benefits, who decides, who profits financially, what is left out, etc.) -- all these things are central to a young adult's sense of purpose, confidence, competence, and overall understanding. Yet it's fairly rare that they get to do any of it. Hooray to you and Swimmer Dude for doing the deal together!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wrestling with the same issues as I try to plan next year. I definitely feel like I've been trying to do too much, which just makes me feel perpetually stressed out and like I'm always "behind" because I haven't managed to cram in as much as I would have liked. Which is crazy because when I look at my lists and plans rationally, I'm clearly trying to cram 2 yrs worth of HS and college level information into a middle-schooler every year! :tongue_smilie:

 

Depth vs breadth is something I've always struggled with, even in my own education — I want both. When I'm interested in something, I tend to research it to death (which is why I have about two dozen LA programs and 9 different Algebra texts on my shelf :lol: ). I always want "the complete picture," but I need to accept that maybe a 12 yo doesn't need "a complete picture" of Ancient Greece, KWIM? Maybe it's fine to just focus on the areas he's really interested in (Troy, Sparta, mythology, Greek ships & warfare, the Iliad & Odyssey) and not try to cram Greek History 101 into 3 months. (Ya think??? :001_rolleyes:)

 

I really want to try to simplify things for next year — multum non multa. And I mean that on two levels: fewer subjects but done in greater depth, and within each subject, fewer topics done in greater depth. I like the LCC philosophy of just doing a few things really well. We don't do Latin, though, so for DS the core subjects would be science, math, and composition. It will be hard for me to cut back on history and literature, though, because those are the subjects I love. Maybe studying 8 literary books "for school" (in addition to his independent reading), instead of 20, is enough. Maybe when we do the Middle Ages this fall we can just focus on everyday life and skip memorizing lists of dates and battles and monarchs. Maybe we can focus on art and inventions in the Renaissance and skim over the politics. I need to be realistic in what we can actually fit in, and I also feel like I need to make more time for creative stuff that's a bit more fluid & spontaneous, as opposed to a scheduled art lesson every two weeks or a scheduled nature walk or whatever.

 

When we first started homeschooling, DS had a lot more time to just draw, write stories, build things, mess around with Mindstorms, study birds and insects, etc. Then I started scheduling more and more "classwork", and then I found WTM and felt like he should be doing even more structured work. :tongue_smilie: WTM is the sort of education I would have loved, but I'm not sure it suits DS that well. He used to study all the different ant colonies we have on our property, and he could tell you the names of all the species and which were the most aggressive and how certain colonies would invade other colonies, and how they would send for reinforcements, etc. He did experiments, like placing dead insects at the entrance of each colony, and he discovered that all the species removed and discarded the wings before taking insects into their nest for food. He surmised that the wings were probably the least nutritious part and that removing them made it much easier to get the insect into the nest. Now that he has a stack of biology textbooks, he rarely does things like that anymore. :(

 

As a few pp have said, I'm currently trying to figure out what kind of education really suits DS best, and that may not be the WTM way. It may be a lot more fluid and hands-on and really deep in a few areas and just-the-basic-facts-ma'am in a lot of other areas — including areas where I, personally, would love to go a lot deeper. It may involve a lot more building and experimenting and observing and less reading and writing (at this point in his education — he will obviously need the writing skills in the future).

 

For me, the hardest part about homeschooling has been accepting that covering a topic doesn't mean having to know every. single. thing. about it. DS doesn't retain all the "trivia" (his words) that I pound into him anyway. But he can still tell you the name of every species of ant on this property, and he can describe obscure anatomical details of the phytosaur fossils he found last year or the proto-dino femur he found on last month's dig.....

 

Jackie

Edited by Corraleno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really feel like this is my biggest struggle of all (well, except for for trying to convince everyone else close to me that we really do need to put this much time into school, planning, etc.).

 

My older dd just told me she wanted me to put Henry 5th, Idylls of the King and Romeo and Juliet back on our schedule. We were so behind this year that I told her we needed to take them off and try to replace them another time. She really wants to read them. I used this as a moment to set new goals with her. She is very reluctant to read these on her own and this was an incentive to tackle that fear and go for it. I told her we could arrange to meet together twice a week to discuss her readings. She could mark areas she was confused/unsure of and then we would discuss it on these days. She seemed to like this idea and I love her growing confidence and desire to step out on her own.

Edited by Kfamily
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosie asked the right question. Ask swimmer dude what he wants to learn and make sure that you add that as a priority. I've been gaining some wisdom lately from my big summer book choices (I skip the "beach reads" section entirely). What kind of education do you want him to have? What comes to your mind when you think "educated person"? Aim for that education.

 

Anyway. You can never get the perfect balance. It isn't real. What you can do is figure out what things are most important and make sure you are spending the most time on those.

 

Succinct response, tough questions. Thanks, Karen!:D When I think of an "educated" person, I'm not sure that image or ideal is of this generation. I think it belongs to a time past and that I need to rethink what that means to me in today's terms. These are two questions I should probably contemplate for a while because no clear answer comes to mind. I always know what I don't want; the part about what I do want is a problem. Ugh! this is a bit like admitting we've been driving in foreign territory withou a road map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see those curriculum lists in signatures I see 31 flavors, but I don't want a scoop of each one on my cone. :D

 

Really, though, I'm such a curriculum junkie -- I *like* to read those lists and learn about all the different possibilitiies out there!

 

My own list includes things we plan to nibble but not devour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider, I'm finding that, with my dd anyway, depth doesn't always have to equal me stuffing knowledge into her. Really. And what a relief that is!

 

Lately she's been researching historical fashions and drawing a Hitty-like doll through the years. She's reading Roman Mysteries (the series) and plotting out times and places in our DK Historical Atlas. She's writing and illustrating multi-chapter stories for fun. She's a bright little thing but she's not crazy smart, she's just interested in things.

 

I couldn't say for sure, but I strongly suspect if I had spent so much time having her tool away at this kind of thing, she would be far less interested in spending her summer vacation playing with it. And I also strongly suspect the knowledge will stay with her much better when it's tied to her heart this way.

 

I absolutely make sure we spend our school year covering a good knowledge of grammar, math, some science, art, history, soon a foreign language (we are not unschoolers around here), but a good amount of free time to develop interests and follow them isn't a bad idea, at least to my way of thinking.

 

I'm sure your and everyone else's mileage will vary, but at least for my dd and her own personality, sometimes less isn't really less, if you know what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a bit of an advantage having graduated three now (two of them got full scholarships is that means anything...)

 

I do short lessons everyday in skills (writing, math, reading...technically foreign language would fit in here too). EVERY DAY. The content subjects and humanities are gravy. Seriously. Short lessons means less than 20 minutes for my rising 5th grader, less than 15 for my rising 3rd grader.

 

My goal is to give my kids the appropriate tools and show them how to use them at the appropriate time as they grow. IMO, kids who read well (and read well-written stuff), can articulate their ideas in writing, can extract info from non-fiction in order to learn something, and do math thru algebra 2 are WAAAAAAY ahead of the game.

 

It's not important that they remember the Greeks came before the Romans....it *IS* important to know how to find that information, how to organize that information, and how to write about it coherently. My job is to teach those skills the way that makes sense for each kid so that they can succeed in whatever they want to do with their lives.

 

Sure, I'd love for my kids to speak several languages, read all the Great Books and write amazing literary essays on them....appreciate great poetry, great music, great art......but there is plenty of time in their lives to pursue that stuff once they've grown. *I* am only one person. *I* didn't get a classical education, which means I'm learning right beside them. There just isn't time enough, energy enough, motivation enough to do it all.

 

One thing I've always appreciated about SWB and TWTM is that gives parents the confidence to teach those needed skills (readin', ritin', and 'rithmetic) within a context of chronological history study. I hope to give my kids a broad taste of the world, but not stuff them so full of unconnected tid-bits of info that they lose the desire to simply enjoy all that life offers. If I give them the skills and the confidence to use them....they can take them and run.

 

Sorry so long-winded.....I still panic after 13 years of doing this, but each year I get better at knowing where my focus should be. The rest is gravy...or Little Debbie Oatmeal Cakes. Whichever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a bright little thing but she's not crazy smart, she's just interested in things.

 

 

I think that is the most important part of it all. My sister has nearly always attained higher marks than either my brother or I have, but we've always got much more out of our educations because we actually care.

 

I tend to agree with the idea that an education should start off broad, then narrow down. Just because planning 20 years into the future is my idea of fun, I wrote out my plan to year 12. It turned out the only subjects I was convicted were absolutely non-negotiable regardless of who they turn out to be were English and Comparative Religion (including philosophy and psychology.) I was quite shocked! (I wonder what will really happen, heheh.)

 

Rosie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a bit of an advantage having graduated three now (two of them got full scholarships is that means anything...)

 

I do short lessons everyday in skills (writing, math, reading...technically foreign language would fit in here too). EVERY DAY. The content subjects and humanities are gravy. Seriously. Short lessons means less than 20 minutes for my rising 5th grader, less than 15 for my rising 3rd grader.

 

My goal is to give my kids the appropriate tools and show them how to use them at the appropriate time as they grow. IMO, kids who read well (and read well-written stuff), can articulate their ideas in writing, can extract info from non-fiction in order to learn something, and do math thru algebra 2 are WAAAAAAY ahead of the game.

It's not important that they remember the Greeks came before the Romans....it *IS* important to know how to find that information, how to organize that information, and how to write about it coherently. My job is to teach those skills the way that makes sense for each kid so that they can succeed in whatever they want to do with their lives.

 

Sure, I'd love for my kids to speak several languages, read all the Great Books and write amazing literary essays on them....appreciate great poetry, great music, great art......but there is plenty of time in their lives to pursue that stuff once they've grown. *I* am only one person. *I* didn't get a classical education, which means I'm learning right beside them. There just isn't time enough, energy enough, motivation enough to do it all.

 

One thing I've always appreciated about SWB and TWTM is that gives parents the confidence to teach those needed skills (readin', ritin', and 'rithmetic) within a context of chronological history study. I hope to give my kids a broad taste of the world, but not stuff them so full of unconnected tid-bits of info that they lose the desire to simply enjoy all that life offers. If I give them the skills and the confidence to use them....they can take them and run.

 

Sorry so long-winded.....I still panic after 13 years of doing this, but each year I get better at knowing where my focus should be. The rest is gravy...or Little Debbie Oatmeal Cakes. Whichever.

 

Not long-winded, and definitely inspiring. With your older children, as they got older, did the basic lessons get longer or did you still keep them relatively short? So writing, math, reading, and foreign language every day for consistent coverage without be exhaustive or exhausting. Everything else if there was time? Or just a couple of things like history and science?

 

The part about teaching the necessary skills really hits home. My oldest child, who has never been homeschooled, was smart enough to skate by in middle school but neglected to learn the relevant study skills for high school. It's been a tough and discouraging road for her to go back and make up those skills. I want to be sure my youngest doesn't go though that.

 

BTW, Cindy, your blog is very cool.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people are born specialists and respond really well to a curriculum that stresses the lengthy exploration of a few issues or topics. Others are generalists and are perfectly happy to follow a broader, more humanistic curriculum. I also don't think it's possible to do both at the same time, and do both well.

This really gets to the heart of the matter for me. DS is definitely one of those "born specialists." His interests have focused on biology and paleontology since he was a toddler. He spends a week every spring and every fall on paleo digs with grad students and post-docs, and he's been doing it since he was 10. The evenings he's spent sitting in the lab with them, cleaning and consolidating and cataloging the day's finds and talking "shop," have been the highlights of his entire life. It's funny how the "ADD" disappears in that context. ;)

 

I always thought it was my "job" to make sure he devoted just as much time and energy to all the other school subjects — and then after reading WTM I thought I should also be making him do Latin and logic and literary analysis and formal grammar and "great books" and a pile of other subjects if I wanted him to have a "really good education." Well, Latin was a non-starter, we never have time for logic, he hates literary analysis and formal grammar, and except for the Iliad, Odyssey, and Beowulf, he has zero interest in any "great books." All the seatwork seems to be sucking the joy out of learning, and yet (in his case) I really don't have a good answer for the question "what will I ever use this for???" 

 

When I look at all the things he's doing this summer, that he hasn't had much time for when we're doing "school," it really makes me stop and think: he's drawing in his nature journal, playing chess, studying a crazy crow that has started coming to the horse trough every morning and "washing" it's food in the water, watching and photographing ant wars again, tracking the burrows of the 4' long gopher snake that's taken up residence here (and trying to think of a way to catch it :eek: ). Last week he wrote an elaborate story, built all the "sets" and characters out of lego, took them outside and set them up in natural settings, photographed them (including close-ups, unusual angles, wide shots), imported them into Comic Life, and produced a 20 page comic, complete with dialog. He's writing a computer game (in Scratch) where the soul of a mummified Egyptian has to pass through various levels of the underworld to have his soul weighed against the feather of Maat. He's reading all kinds of stuff for pleasure, now that he doesn't have tons of "school" reading to do. And he's a much happier kid.

 

So I'm seriously rethinking my plans for next year, to focus on a few key subjects (math, science, LA) and then, for the other subjects like history and literature, to chose a few topics that DS has a particular interest in and explore those in depth rather than trying to cover it all (with the hundreds of must-use resources I've accumulated :tongue_smilie: ). I'm also thinking about taking an informal approach to everything except math and science, with more discussions and hands-on projects instead of tests and papers. I want DS to be more invested in the learning process, rather than just going through the motions of learning something he's not at all interested in — which will probably flop out of his head as soon as he's finished the assignments, because his mind was elsewhere anyway .

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great topic! Great post, Jackie. My ds is just starting to find his interests and they don't line up with my "plan". This summer I've been trying to redefine priorities, what subjects are not negotiable, what subjects are priority to my philosophy of education, what subjects will be important to character training (like lots of critical thinking for my son's personality:D), and what are his passions. It's still pretty much a jumbled mess in my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just glad others struggle too. My kids are bright but don't really have much interest in academics or education. My 6yo's love of twaddle is appalling and the 9yo just wants to run and jump. I've decided to just really focus on LA and math. They do like SOTW as a story and ds will tolerate quality read alouds. It's not my ideal but I'm going to pin my hopes on depth in the basics and pray the breadth takes care of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With your older children, as they got older, did the basic lessons get longer or did you still keep them relatively short? So writing, math, reading, and foreign language every day for consistent coverage without be exhaustive or exhausting. Everything else if there was time? Or just a couple of things like history and science?

 

The lessons were shorter than what say, SWB, says they should be. I gave them assignments, when they finished, they finished. Most of the time it was 30 minutes or less because they were motivated to get it done and move on to stuff they liked. My son led a band, wrote music, and loved to read and write stories, create stuff on the computer, etc. Math was barely tolerated, science was a bore, history just got done. And not everything was done each year. IME, colleges weren't as interested in credits for homeschoolers as they were with SAT scores and a list of the course of study used. They want to be sure this kid can hack the work at a college level.

 

I will mention that my olders were pretty self-motivated, didn't require a lot of hand-holding to get their work done. My 5th kid is a dreamer, VSL, whole-to-parts learner so I will obviously need to spend more time helping keep him focused. But short lessons are a MUST for him, and will be I"m sure til he is graduated. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corraleno, some of what you describe your son doing reminds me so much of stories of Gerald Durrell as a child!

 

Not every child has that kind of intense long-term focus, but for those that do, I am of the opinion it should be fostered in all possible ways (which it sounds like you're doing). Your son is acquiring a whole repertoire of academic skills: learning how to find information, how to observe, how to analyze, how to figure things out, how to design a scientific experiment, how to work through her interests and ideas in play form, how people work together on a common project, etc. It sounds as though he's getting the ideal education for what he already knows he wants. If his interests change, he's got those tools for exploring another passion and enough depth in the previous area to be able to make considered connections between and among topics.

 

For this kind of child I think the kind of plans you have for next year sound idyllic in every way. It's difficult to let go of the model of the well-rounded, all-around academic or the classical scholar model -- but kids with intense, specific, long-term passions aren't going to turn into that kind of academic no matter how much breadth of content we press on them. It's exactly as you say; their minds and hearts are elsewhere, deeply, seriously, and thoughtfully engaged. It's a gift to them to allow them time and opportunity to follow through with such engagement, a gift they will pass on through their own work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent 2 hours having coffee with KarenAnne this morning, :cheers2: and she mentioned this thread, so I came to find it.

 

I too have graduated a child, a kid who has had very specific interests from an early age. I gave up on logic and Latin with him, and as he really detested literary analysis we only made it through a few great-ish books. He specialized starting when he was 13, and as Corraleno describes, those ADD symptoms just disappeared when he was focused on his interest. After he finishes his gap year (working at DisneyWorld -- life is rough) he is going to major in that same field of interest, which is theater lighting design.

 

Even though he specialized early on, I'd still say he has the benefits of a WTM education because he knows how to think, form arguments and articulate them well through speaking or writing. He also has a broad general knowledge of history and science. I'd say this came from my approaching homeschool the way Cottagechick describes. I focused on skills, making time for the 3 Rs each week. The rest was gravy. I read aloud until my boys were 13, assigned reading and audio books, and as the books were my choice they were exposed to all sorts of literature and topics they wouldn't have found on their own. We watched every interesting documentary on tv, went on tours and to museums everywhere we traveled. We talked about everything we did, read or saw. This combination of a focus on skills, my guided exploration of the world, and lots of time for specializing resulted in a capable and interesting young man.

 

A final disclaimer, here. I write these posts and sound like I've got my act together, but no. I still freak out on a regular basis that I'm ruining my younger son's chances of having a brilliant science career. So Lisa, (aka Swimmermom3), my most important piece of advice to you is to find a twaddle-icious book to read, a bowl of ice cream to eat, and stop planning for next year!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corraleno, some of what you describe your son doing reminds me so much of stories of Gerald Durrell as a child!

Funny you should mention Durrell! I read My Family & Other Animals a couple of months ago, and it was actually one of the things that inspired me to rethink my educational philosophy. Especially when DS read it, and followed me around the house reading passages from it, in complete awe of Durrell's childhood. Given the hilariously intermittent and haphazard way Durrell's own "formal education" progressed, the lack of an all-encompassing, classical education didn't seem to hurt him in the long run. ;) OTOH, the freedom to explore and study and observe are really what made him the scholar/writer/thinker he became.

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though he specialized early on, I'd still say he has the benefits of a WTM education because he knows how to think, form arguments and articulate them well through speaking or writing. He also has a broad general knowledge of history and science. I'd say this came from my approaching homeschool the way Cottagechick describes. I focused on skills, making time for the 3 Rs each week. The rest was gravy. I read aloud until my boys were 13, assigned reading and audio books, and as the books were my choice they were exposed to all sorts of literature and topics they wouldn't have found on their own. We watched every interesting documentary on tv, went on tours and to museums everywhere we traveled. We talked about everything we did, read or saw. This combination of a focus on skills, my guided exploration of the world, and lots of time for specializing resulted in a capable and interesting young man.

This is very much the direction I seem to be heading in. I'm thinking of focusing more on ideas (and the history of ideas) rather than on learning and retaining millions of facts in dozens of subjects — especially with regard to history and literature. A few examples:

 

I'm thinking on our next pass through Ancients, instead of doing a broad survey of Greek literature, maybe we'll just focus on the Odyssey: read and compare a few different translations, read Alberto Manguel's "biography" of the Odyssey and it's interpretations throughout history, read Kazantzakis's Odyssey: A Modern Sequel, tackle at least parts of Ulysses, watch O Brother Where Art Thou, and look at other books and movies that relate to the Odyssey, etc. Instead of looking at a series of individual "great books" as separate entities, I like the idea of taking one book and going really deep in a way that combines history and literary analysis and cultural analysis.

 

When we do US History in 9th, instead of doing a typical course focusing on military and political facts and events, I'd like to focus on the key people and events and the ideas that drove them. Instead of combining it with a typical survey of American literature, I'm thinking of doing a study of Utopian/Dystopian literature and philosophy. Read Republic and Utopia and New Atlantis and Island and 1984 and The Communist Manifesto and lots of other fiction and nonfiction (I have a list of about 20 books DS can choose from). Relate utopian ideals and philosophy to the revolutions in the US and Europe. How do presuppositions about the "nature of man" influence one's conception of the "ideal" form of government and society? Etc.

 

I'm thinking of doing 20th Century World History in 10th, and tying it to a unit on existentialist literature and philosophy. The Teaching Co has several courses that I think would provide the basis for a terrific year-long unit: Terror and Utopia in the 20th Century; No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life; Modern Intellectual Tradition: From Descartes to Derrida; European Thought and Culture in the 20th Century. And again in lieu of a broad survey of great books, I'd concentrate on a few authors (Sartre, Camus, Kafka, Dostoevsky, etc) where the expression of ideas, especially in relation to the larger zeitgeist, are more important than literary analysis of plot and structure.

 

I think, for me, two different paths of thought are converging in the same place here: the desire to tailor DS's education to his unique abilities and interests, and my own ideas of what a "great education" might look like. From both perspectives, I'm beginning to think that deep is better than broad, and that focusing on ideas and analysis and critical thinking is more important than focusing on historical facts and details (dates, names, battles, authors, plot devices, etc). It also seems more efficient to me — combining history and literature and philosophy and political science, as well as relating them to the history and philosophy of science, by focusing on intellectual history and the development of ideas instead of seeing them as multiple, discrete "subjects." Writing would focus on analysis and synthesis of information and "connecting the dots" in a way that would be applicable to any type of paper, rather than writing to a formula in different genres (persuasive essay, literary analysis, research paper, etc.). I'm hoping that focusing on three core subjects (math, science, and writing/analysis) and then blending everything else together in a study of the history of ideas, will not only be more engaging for DS, but will also leave him a lot more time for creative pursuits and to follow his own interests and passions.

 

That's the theory, anyway. :tongue_smilie:

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have learned to stay away from reading the "what are you doing for # grade" except when I am looking for a particular idea to fill in a gap, or I am writing what I am doing. It is so easy to get intimidated by the 'lists'. I have more fun looking at others blogs (and I wish I could get mine going) and then I can see that even though they have 'lists' they are just regular people with regular kids doing the best they can just like I am.

I also have a tendency to explore every subject in depth but then reality slaps me in the face and I realize I don't really need to cover the Hopi with 10 different books and 2 movies just because they exist lol. So right now I vote for a touch of everything and then really explore what lights his fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think, for me, two different paths of thought are converging in the same place here: the desire to tailor DS's education to his unique abilities and interests, and my own ideas of what a "great education" might look like. From both perspectives, I'm beginning to think that deep is better than broad, and that focusing on ideas and analysis and critical thinking is more important than focusing on historical facts and details (dates, names, battles, authors, plot devices, etc). It also seems more efficient to me — combining history and literature and philosophy and political science, as well as relating them to the history and philosophy of science, by focusing on intellectual history and the development of ideas instead of seeing them as multiple, discrete "subjects." Writing would focus on analysis and synthesis of information and "connecting the dots" in a way that would be applicable to any type of paper, rather than writing to a formula in different genres (persuasive essay, literary analysis, research paper, etc.). I'm hoping that focusing on three core subjects (math, science, and writing/analysis) and then blending everything else together in a study of the history of ideas, will not only be more engaging for DS, but will also leave him a lot more time for creative pursuits and to follow his own interests and passions.

 

Jackie

 

Considering I have no idea about the history/lit of which you spoke, I'm coming to your house for class! :001_smile:

 

Regarding what I quoted above, that is certainly my philosophy. Partly b/c I have a poor memory, dates/facts do not stick in my mind. But if I study a system, learn how it works, I can retain how that system works in detail for years. There is so much info out there in science that you can't learn it all. I know it seems cliche, but if you know how to learn, that is what matters today. Here's a link to an article I recently read about the 7 skills you want your kid to have today. http://www.thedailyriff.com/2010/07/would-you-hire-your-own-kids-7-skills-schools-should-be-teaching-them.php If the link doesn't work, just go to http://www.dailyriff.com.

 

1. Critical Thinking and Problem-solving (Your son definitely has that covered!)

 

2. Collaboration Across Networks and Leading By Influence (He definitely has that covered!)

 

6. Accessing and Analyzing Information

 

"Employees in the 21st century have to manage an astronomical amount of information flowing into their work lives on a daily basis. As Mike Summers told me, "There is so much information available that it is almost too much, and if people aren't prepared to process the information effectively it almost freezes them in their steps."

 

It's not just the shear quantity of information that represents such a challenge. It is also how rapidly and constantly the information is changing. Quick, how many planets are there? While I was at Harvard in the early 1990's, I heard then Harvard University President Neil Rudenstine say in a speech that the half-life of knowledge in the humanities is ten years, and in math and science, it's only two or three years. And that was fifteen years ago! I wonder what he would say it is today."

 

7. Curiosity and Imagination (Yep, your son has that one covered!)

 

"Even in our best schools, we are teaching kids to memorize much more than to think. And in the 21st century, mere memorization won't get you very far. There's too much information, and it's changing and growing exponentially. Besides, most of the information we need is readily available on the nearest computer or PDA screen -- provided we know how to access and analyze it. Where in the 20th century, rigor meant mastering more -- and more complex -- academic content, 21st century rigor is about creating new knowledge and applying what you know to new problems and situations."

 

So it's less about how much you know, but can you ask good questions, locate information to help you answer that question, consume large amts of info, discard the crap, question the rest, come up w/ answers and apply that knowledge in new situations.

 

In the above article, it cited how the best schools start off w/ a complex problem that the kids have never seem before. They have to come up w/ multiple solutions. Then they have to explain their solution to every one.

 

It is the beginning of the period, and the teacher is finishing up writing a problem on the board. He turns to the students, who are sitting in desk-chairs which are arranged in squares of four that face one another. "You haven't seen this kind of problem before," he explains. "And solving it will require you to use concepts from both geometry and algebra. Each group will try to develop at least two different ways of solving this problem. After all the groups have finished, I'll randomly choose someone from each group who will write one of your proofs on one of the boards around the room, and I'll ask that person to explain the process your group used. Are there any questions?"

 

"There are none, and the groups quickly go to work. There is a great deal of animated discussion within all of the groups as they take the problem apart and talk about different ways to solve it. While they work, the teacher circulates from group to group. Occasionally, a student will ask a question, but the teacher never answers it. Instead, he either asks another question in response, such as "have you considered . . .?" or "why did you assume that?" or simply "have you asked someone in your group?"

 

What are some of the design elements that make this an effective lesson -- a lesson in which students are, in fact, learning a number of the Seven Survival Skills, while also mastering academic content? First, students are given a complex, multi-step problem that is different from the ones they've seen in the past and, to solve it, they have to apply previously acquired knowledge from both geometry and algebra. Mere memorization won't get them very far in this lesson; critical thinking and problem-solving skills are required. Second, they have to find two ways to solve the problem, which requires some initiative and imagination. Just getting the correct answer isn't good enough; they have to explain their proofs -- using effective communication skills. Third, the teacher does not spoon feed students the answers; he uses questions to push students' thinking -- as well as their tolerance for ambiguity. Finally, because the teacher has said that he'll randomly call on a student to show how the group solved the problem, each student in every group is held accountable. The group can't rely on the work of one or two students to get by, and the teacher isn't going to just call on the first student to raise a hand or shout out an answer. Teamwork is required for success."

 

where was I going with this? :lol:

 

Capt_Uhura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Employees in the 21st century have to manage an astronomical amount of information flowing into their work lives on a daily basis. As Mike Summers told me, "There is so much information available that it is almost too much, and if people aren't prepared to process the information effectively it almost freezes them in their steps."

.........

 

"Even in our best schools, we are teaching kids to memorize much more than to think. And in the 21st century, mere memorization won't get you very far. There's too much information, and it's changing and growing exponentially. Besides, most of the information we need is readily available on the nearest computer or PDA screen -- provided we know how to access and analyze it. Where in the 20th century, rigor meant mastering more -- and more complex -- academic content, 21st century rigor is about creating new knowledge and applying what you know to new problems and situations."

........

 

So it's less about how much you know, but can you ask good questions, locate information to help you answer that question, consume large amts of info, discard the crap, question the rest, come up w/ answers and apply that knowledge in new situations.

 

I think this really is the key skill our kids need: the ability to access/assess/analyze information, and to make connections (especially across disciplines) between things they're currently learning, things they already know, and things they need to further explore. Knowing what's important and what to leave out, and how to tie ideas together in a meaningful and original way is, IMHO, probably the most important component of good academic writing. For that matter, it's probably the most important component of good thinking.

 

I think the quote above bring up another issue: in order to teach our kids how to process information, extracting and developing the key points rather than just recompiling large volumes of factoids, we (parents/teachers) have to be able to do that ourselves. Which brings us back to the original question, and the problem of feeling overwhelmed with the quantity of information out there and trying to figure out what's really essential to a "great education" and what's optional.

 

Great discussion!!!

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jackie, I'm heading in the same direction you are. I've recently gone through a book put out by the history center at UCLA, which lists major themes in world history. Instead of doing a chronological spine that tries to cover anything and everything all over the world, I've picked two or three overarching themes, two or three geographical areas (it really needs to be just two, but I'm still an over-reacher) to explore. My daughter wanted to read about Renaissance England, so we're focusing on court culture (the literature, art, music, and other activities that grew up as formal, idealized expression of the glorification of Elizabeth) and global trade in spices, sugar, and slaves (and part of the function of global trade was to fund court culture).

 

In literature I tend to also focus on a single book, genre, or author for a long time (largely as a result of my daughter's obsessions; but it fits my philosophy increasingly). The more times my daughter re-reads, the more she has to say, the more connections she can make in terms of structure, style, how this author compares or differs from others, echoes of other books, etc. This only makes sense; it's impossible for me to analyze something well unless I'm utterly familiar with it. The first time I read something I can barely formulate an articulate response. Yet this "first time" off-the-cuff response is what we largely expect from our kids, year in and year out. This re-reading and exploration in detail helps set the groundwork for close reading and literary analysis in high school.

 

It is interesting to me that many of the very, very exclusive prep schools on the East Coast -- the ones that put out senators, presidents, top lawyers, bankers, etc. -- are increasingly dropping survey-type, memorization-laden AP classes from their curriculum and are offering focused seminars. I've been browsing on-line at some of them, where I have found syllabi, paper assignments, all kinds of stuff to think about. Not that they are the be-all and end-all, but someone out there is thinking the way I am, and this helps a lot in moments of great self-doubt.

 

And in the end, I always come back to my child. I would not make the claim that an education which stresses depth in a few subjects over broad coverage is the best for every kid or even for one child at every age; I think sweeping statements like this which begin with a pre-formulated pedagogy or one-size-fits-all philosophy are problematic on a number of levels. But I do think that there are a variety of ways a "great education" can happen, and ways in which we can produce kids with "classical" skills even if we don't happen to follow the very broadly based, coverage-oriented method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've recently gone through a book put out by the history center at UCLA, which lists major themes in world history. Instead of doing a chronological spine that tries to cover anything and everything all over the world, I've picked two or three overarching themes, two or three geographical areas (it really needs to be just two, but I'm still an over-reacher) to explore.

This sounds wonderful, do you have a link?

 

In literature I tend to also focus on a single book, genre, or author for a long time (largely as a result of my daughter's obsessions; but it fits my philosophy increasingly). The more times my daughter re-reads, the more she has to say, the more connections she can make in terms of structure, style, how this author compares or differs from others, echoes of other books, etc. This only makes sense; it's impossible for me to analyze something well unless I'm utterly familiar with it. The first time I read something I can barely formulate an articulate response. Yet this "first time" off-the-cuff response is what we largely expect from our kids, year in and year out. This re-reading and exploration in detail helps set the groundwork for close reading and literary analysis in high school.

THIS. And since it's truly impossible to formulate an authentic response to something when it's only a brief excerpt of the whole work, shoe-horned into a 4" thick HS English text :rolleyes:, kids end up being spoon-fed a pre-digested response that totally strips literature of it's power to challenge and provoke and move people.

 

And in the end, I always come back to my child. I would not make the claim that an education which stresses depth in a few subjects over broad coverage is the best for every kid or even for one child at every age; I think sweeping statements like this which begin with a pre-formulated pedagogy or one-size-fits-all philosophy are problematic on a number of levels. But I do think that there are a variety of ways a "great education" can happen, and ways in which we can produce kids with "classical" skills even if we don't happen to follow the very broadly based, coverage-oriented method.

:iagree:

Clearly there's more than one path to a "well-trained mind," and for some kids that path is not going to include Latin and memorization and years of diagramming sentences. It's taken me a while, though, to give myself "permission" to drop these things, and to stop worrying that by doing so I'll be giving DS a less-than-optimal education.

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am loving this discussion! Lisa, you always start great threads. Your threads always cause me to think deeper. Thank you!

 

Jackie, I love your ideas! It's funny but I have come across 'the teaching of ideas' quite a few times during this past year. I am intrigued by this and would like to venture into it with my kids, if I could only ditch that ps mindset that bogs me down. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think very seldom do OUR ideas of breadth match up with the CHILD'S ideas on breadth. You might think adding a 3rd language, geography, etc. is breadth, and he might think it's burial. But do a year of Star Trek stuff (lit, language, science) as his extra, and suddenly the kid is in hog heaven. Or with my dd this is the year of handicrafts. I have books on napkin folding, paper flower making, knitting, clothes sewing, etc.

 

I think in reality we project our maturity onto our kids and want things for them, things they aren't ready to want for themselves yet. That might not be all bad, but, as you're pondering, it's not necessarily all good either. If we see their gifts and bents and know we're taking them a good way, it's good. If we're shoving something down their throats that they could just as easily want for themselves and open wide for later, wouldn't it be better to WAIT for that later?

 

Clearly most bright kids are forever asking for a bit more breadth. I mean do you ever really satisfy them? But that's not the same as saying any breadth we chose for them will satisfy their itch. Depth and breadth in connection with what they really want and need, that's what we're looking for. So you add the third language for the kid who is language-bent, not the kid who could care less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny but I have come across 'the teaching of ideas' quite a few times during this past year. I am intrigued by this and would like to venture into it with my kids, if I could only ditch that ps mindset that bogs me down. ;)

Well, I had a typical PS education for HS, followed by more of a "history of ideas" education at a small LAC, and I can tell you which one was more useful in the long run. :001_smile:

 

I found PS/HS so shallow and boring that I actually petitioned the school to let me graduate in 3 years (this was a looooong time ago, before there were "gifted" programs). In order to do that, I had to take 11th grade English over the summer, at a neighboring HS that offered a summer school program in remedial English. When the teacher found out why I was there, he just told me to choose whatever I wanted to read, and write whatever I wanted to write about it. I read 4 Dostoevsky novels and wrote a couple of short essays and one long paper. Best HS class I ever had.

 

In college, the best lit class I ever had was when I did a summer in Greece and for my independent study project I chose to read half a dozen Kazantzakis novels. My grade was based on a single paper I wrote, integrating information about Kazanzakis's life, his novels, and Greek history and culture. One of the most satisfying courses I ever did, and probably the best undergraduate paper I ever wrote. I hated the sort of lit courses where we slogged through 1000 pages of the Norton Anthology and regurgitated the lectures in a few paragraphs on tests. :ack2:

 

I went to a very small LAC, and even though I was an Anthro major the most useful and important courses I took there were philosophy courses, especially Philosophy of Science and a couple of independent study courses I did on Epistemology and Hermeneutics/Phenomenology. When I got to grad school, I discovered that those courses had actually given me a big advantage, even over students who went to much larger universities with much more prestigious anthro depts that offered dozens of anthro courses (I think my college offered 5 or 6, total), because the philosophy courses taught me to think and question and analyze — skills which turned out to be more useful than having taken a dozen anthro courses.

 

Thinking about my own education — which parts were the most valuable and which parts I considered a waste of time — has been one more "thread" that seems to lead to the same place for me: the idea that focusing on analytical/thinking skills may ultimately provide a stronger intellectual foundation than covering a lot of different topics in a survey/anthology sort of way, and that understanding how other people, throughout history, have thought about the world, can be a unifying theme that pulls together what might otherwise seem to be deep but disparate studies of various subjects/topics/time periods.

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok KarenAnne, as usual you have blown my mind and shattered my world! First I thought it was insightful even to ponder whether our particular students learn best with survey or in-depth study. I really don't know and that COULD vary with the person, maybe?? Then you re-type out a whole explanation you had given before, that I KNOW you've tried to explain before, that FINALLY is clicking in my pea-brain! So for that I thank you. :)

 

In case that made sense to nobody, I'll just say that what has plagued me for some time now is this thought of Omnibus. Now I see that my internal itch is for meaning, themes, relevance, and I haven't been clear than Omnibus is picking the themes *I* want to pick. It never occurred to me *I* could pick them. LOL I just got stuck on my inability to drive those studies content-wise. But content and theme are different.

 

So anyways, I think y'all launched Swimmer's original question to heights unknown. She's now sitting on the epiphany of pondering how to view her whole high school education. And here all she wanted to know was whether to add a few more subjects to 7th grade. :)

 

Now I back up, because I'm trying to ponder whether my dd hyperfocuses in studies the way Corraleno's, KarenAnne's, etc. does. No, sometimes she does but in general it's much more mild. She's much more intense about her handicrafts and design stuff. (sewing, costumes, skits) But I don't know if that's the age or her bent or what. I don't know that she is going to be one of those who sits around feverishly studying things. She does for a while (horses, cat psychology, genealogies of somebody who takes her fancy), but then she moves on. Is that making any sense? I'm saying some kids need more structure to pull that together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about my own education — which parts were the most valuable and which parts I considered a waste of time — has been one more "thread" that seems to lead to the same place for me: the idea that focusing on analytical/thinking skills may ultimately provide a stronger intellectual foundation than covering a lot of different topics in a survey/anthology sort of way, and that understanding how other people, throughout history, have thought about the world, can be a unifying theme that pulls together what might otherwise seem to be deep but disparate studies of various subjects/topics/time periods.

 

Jackie

 

Ok, I'm buying into the whole of this. But does it naturally following that whatever was good for us in undergrad and grad IS going to be good for elementary, middle, or high school? Is there an age-appropriateness to this? Or put another way, don't you think there's a roll for the foundational survey work that gives the dc PERSPECTIVE on his more pigeon-holed studies? Or to put it a third way, isn't it possible to have dc too pigeon-holed, without breadth, who then have a narrow basis for their interpretations and opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So anyways, I think y'all launched Swimmer's original question to heights unknown. She's now sitting on the epiphany of pondering how to view her whole high school education. And here all she wanted to know was whether to add a few more subjects to 7th grade. :)

 

 

:lol: Actually Elizabeth, this thread has been taken in exactly the direction I hoped it would go. When I am contemplating how I teach, why I teach, what my son wants, what he needs, or when the urge to really deviate from "standard educational practices" is nagging at me, I come here. Unfortunately, those times often render me more inarticulate than usual in trying to ask the "real" questions. I wasn't at all pondering whether to add more subjects but whether I could cut the number of subjects, deepen our focus, and yet not bore my son or myself to death. I was questioning the purpose of my doing 10 subjects vs. say, 4. When I write threads like this it is my fervent hope that those of you who can read between the lines and the fear will come forward and lend your wisdom to the thread. As always, I am grateful to those who have taken the time to respond and share.

 

While I love a good curriculum or crockpot:D thread, it's dialogue like this that helps me grow as a teacher and a parent and keeps me coming back to this board. Sometimes I am so awed by the responses I feel like I need to sit in a corner for a day and just think about it all.

 

Jackie, I owe a huge thank you to you for sharing where you are at right now. We both love to research and plan so when you say you are reconsidering how you do things, I know I am on the right track. I really thought that if I narrowed my focus to the basics that I would have to give up all the fun brainstorming. You've shown me otherwise. Where do you get all those ideas from?:D

 

KarenAnne and Jenn, I can't be the only one who fervently wished they had coffee with you both this morning. I love how you turn education or rather learning, on its end and make it work for you and your children. Jenn, I suppose this would be a good time to whip out my copy of your blog entry on gaps, eh?

 

Michele, thanks for the link to Janice's post; it's one of my favorites.

 

Again, to anyone I have panicked by my original post, my apologies. My mentioning a third language was tongue-in-cheek. I was mocking the mental process I was going through in my turmoil. My sig reflects where things are at right now until I start trimming the list down.:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm buying into the whole of this. But does it naturally following that whatever was good for us in undergrad and grad IS going to be good for elementary, middle, or high school? Is there an age-appropriateness to this? Or put another way, don't you think there's a roll for the foundational survey work that gives the dc PERSPECTIVE on his more pigeon-holed studies? Or to put it a third way, isn't it possible to have dc too pigeon-holed, without breadth, who then have a narrow basis for their interpretations and opinions?

I think it really depends on the child. For those like my DS, whose interests and abilities converged in a very specific way at a very early age, I think it makes sense to build his education around the "core" that is already there. He just naturally thinks like a scientist, he looks for patterns and connections and reasons for why things are they way they are, so it makes sense for me to relate other subjects to that base. And even though his focus is science and mine was humanities/social science, we think alike in a lot of ways — I was also always interested in patterns and connections and why things are the way they are, but my focus was more on art/literature/ideas and world cultures. So while what worked for me in college and grad school wouldn't work for every kid in middle or HS, I know that it would have worked for me at that age, and I'm becoming more and more convinced it will work for DS. And I feel like what we're doing now really isn't working for him. It's just a lot of "stuff" that he's not connecting with, so he's not retaining it and he's starting to see education as drudgery, which is even spilling over into subjects he loves, like science.

 

OTOH, DD7 is a totally different kid, and I'm not sure what will be the best path for her. She's not a deep thinker; she's curious about lots of little things, but when she asks a question she's satisfied with whatever answer she gets, instead of the endless chain of "But why...." questions that inevitably follow my feeble attempts to answer DS's questions. She loves workbooks, likes memorizing facts, and approaches school as an efficient little worker who's always proud to be finished before her big brother, lol. In her case, I think I'll eventually need to push her to question more and think more deeply about things, but she may not be ready for that approach until HS. It seems so unfair that we never seem to get two of the same type of kids, so after we figure it all out with one, we have to start all over with the next one!

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to a very small LAC, and even though I was an Anthro major the most useful and important courses I took there were philosophy courses, especially Philosophy of Science and a couple of independent study courses I did on Epistemology and Hermeneutics/Phenomenology. When I got to grad school, I discovered that those courses had actually given me a big advantage, even over students who went to much larger universities with much more prestigious anthro depts that offered dozens of anthro courses (I think my college offered 5 or 6, total), because the philosophy courses taught me to think and question and analyze — skills which turned out to be more useful than having taken a dozen anthro courses.

 

Thinking about my own education — which parts were the most valuable and which parts I considered a waste of time — has been one more "thread" that seems to lead to the same place for me: the idea that focusing on analytical/thinking skills may ultimately provide a stronger intellectual foundation than covering a lot of different topics in a survey/anthology sort of way, and that understanding how other people, throughout history, have thought about the world, can be a unifying theme that pulls together what might otherwise seem to be deep but disparate studies of various subjects/topics/time periods.

 

Jackie

 

AH Jackie, you really have me thinking early this AM! The bolded parts above are exactly what I took away from the article I cited above at Riffraff.com.

 

My son takes a course 2x/year with an archaeologist. He talks about the tools he wants to impart to the kids, analytical skills, asking the right questions, observation skills and his venu for doing this is archaeology but you can do it w/ any subject. Some choose history, literature, others choose science. That has been my eternal struggle since I started HSing. DS was under-challenged in school and it left us no time for his passion, science. That was my avenue for teaching those critical thinking skills, analyzing, questioning. But then DS went on a history bent and has stayed on it. He still loves science but I find that I can't give either justice....not enough time...he's a kid that needs LOTs an LOTs of playtime. And as he's gotten older, now 5th grade, you feel like they do need to start working on those foundational skills (writing, spelling, grammar, lit analysis (which he really enjoys).

 

I do think the critical thinking skills are what's important. My DH's company was losing billions of dollars b/c of a failed project. They let go the project manner and handed it to my DH to bring from the ashes. He looked at years of data, asked some great questions and solved the problem. How? Using his vast storehouse of knowledge? NOPE. He went down the hall and asked the head of a similar project if they had ever encountered this problem before. Yes, they had, 2yrs prior. OH really. How did you fix it? We did A,B,C. Why wasn't that communicated to Project XYZ? I tried but they wouldn't listen. (Read: egos too large). DH went back to the lab, made modification to A,B,C to fit his system, and solved the problem. Of course DH is now the hero when he feels he really didn't do anything...he connected the dots and asked the right questions.

 

One of my strengths was that I could consume large amounts of information, synthesize, and then give a lecture on how that information affected our lab or changed the direction in which we should go. HHmm I do the same now w/ homeschool curriculum and then give my Hsing friend a digest version and she makes her purchases based on that.

Capt_Uhura

Edited by Capt_Uhura
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a great conversation. My ds is just starting to develop his area of passions. In the past he has hyper-focused on one thing for about six months, explored it to its end and moved on. None of these have had to do with traditionally academia, and I'm glad we homeschool so he has time to pursue these activities on his own.

 

This conversation has been most helpful to me. I am eternally planning for years ahead and I've been confused about how to balance the education *I* want him to have and allowing time for his passions (and how to quantify them for high school credit).

 

I am pleased to read about the benefits of building critical thinking skills. Y'all have given me much to ponder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it really depends on the child. For those like my DS, whose interests and abilities converged in a very specific way at a very early age, I think it makes sense to build his education around the "core" that is already there.

Jackie

 

OhElizabeth, this is similar to what I was trying to say to you last night when I got so tired I just deleted my post as senseless. It was no mistaking from a VERY early age that my daughter had specific, focused, intense interests; equally clear was her disinterest in everything that lay outside those interests, unless I could somehow tie them in with her passions. If you have a child on the extreme end of this spectrum, you will know it. And it will be miserably hard (for both of you) to try to work against their natural wiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...