The breadth vs. depth question

[Sahamamama]

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?

 

I do this. :001_huh:

 

Anyway, I don't know if this will help you plan, but so far it works for me:

 

1. Make your Year Plan with everything on it. Everything. Every LA resource/idea you like, every math program you like, every language you want to study, every everything. Then breathe.

 

2. Go drink some chamomile tea, you sound like you need it. :001_tt2:

 

3. Let The Plan sit for a bit. A week? A month? I don't know what amount of sit time you need, nor your time-frame is for ordering what you need, but just let that plan SIT. You need to back away from it a bit. Instead of researching curriculum until you can't see straight, study your students. What do you notice about them?

 

4. Then, drink more chamomile tea.

 

5. Come back to The Plan, and edit it. Highlight what really fits. Put gold star stickers next to what you are in love with. :001_wub: Plot it all out on a weekly schedule -- where will you fit it in? -- to be sure you are planning with your feet in the Real World. Then cross off the rejects that will not fit into a reality-based schedule, and let them go..... Breathe.

 

6. Breathe. You do NOT need to do it all..... HTH. :grouphug:

[PeterPan]

Karen, yes, yes, those are the things we do and what I'm pondering!!! She reads a lot about Q. Eliz and is very into her. And you're fundamentally hitting on what is bugging me. I don't think the traditional GB lists are diverse enough. I don't think it's a problem to read many (or all) of them, but I think doing that doesn't give proper breadth to the girl or the person with other interests. They OUGHT to have acknowledgement of their gender, their interests, etc.

 

Of a truth, I've been chicken to do this, to sit down with Omnibus or other GB lists and just start editing and making them our own. But you know, you've brought something else to the table that I hadn't pondered, which is that dd herself can have opinions and input on this. Maybe it's something *I* don't have to sort out so much as a way for me to present options. (Here's the starting point, need to include this percentage, what to remove, what additional rabbit trails to add.) There I am making your beautiful unit study method all mathematical, lol, but that's how I get there. And you're right, it could be as simple as that. We could sit down together, add some, throw out some, and get to where we want to be.

 

And yes, I collect women-centered books any time I can find them. I don't even view it as feminism so much as knowing your own heritage, kwim? How else are you supposed to know who you are and who you can be?

 

You know, you've taken a huge strain off my shoulders? It had never occurred to me to pursue it that way, as an interactive process, but it certainly would work. Thanks! :)

[PeterPan]

I do this. :001_huh:

 

Anyway, I don't know if this will help you plan, but so far it works for me:

 

1. Make your Year Plan with everything on it. Everything. Every LA resource/idea you like, every math program you like, every language you want to study, every everything. Then breathe.

 

2. Go drink some chamomile tea, you sound like you need it. :001_tt2:

 

3. Let The Plan sit for a bit...

 

Now see I do just the opposite. I research everything, get lots of ideas, then walk away from it and let it gel. Later I start writing and only put down what still remains in the forefront of my mind as important. It's my way of letting the chaff fly.

[Guest]

One thing, though, that keeps ringing in my head as I read this thread is that in order to give my kids this kind of education I need to be well-read, which I am not. Yes, I have read a few of the Great Books and classics but not enough to be able to pull off anything of what has been suggested.

When I read Karen Anne's ideas for Elizabeth, I am reading all new things. I didn't know half (okay, more than half) of the information that she wrote about. This is so intimidating. But it is exciting to think of all of the possibilties.

 

Much of this stuff I've only learned about since my daughter has been off and going in this direction! The women's writing/women's relations with the classics I did in grad school; but I had never read The Hobbit or LOTR until my daughter did a couple of years ago, nor did I know about Tamora Pierce or any of the other women out there who are whipping out revisions of male-oriented fantasy. I didn't know about history with an emphasis on science and technology; I'm only getting some of this now (I'm reading What God Hath Wrought, a history of the pre-Civil War period that focuses on technology and inventions as the pre-eminent theme) and then doing searches for related kid-lit.

 

Part of it is liking to research, which I just do in a geeky way; another part is breaking free of the mental curricular box, and I am again indebted to my daughter and her Asperger's mind for helping me to do that! I've also been hugely encouraged by some of the women on these boards (and a special thank-you to JennW for that).

[Capt_Uhura]

Karen Anne, thank you so much for that post! So many wonderful ideas! This invites me to brainstorm on how to educate my oldest for next year.

 

One thing, though, that keeps ringing in my head as I read this thread is that in order to give my kids this kind of education I need to be well-read, which I am not. Yes, I have read a few of the Great Books and classics but not enough to be able to pull off anything of what has been suggested.

When I read Karen Anne's ideas for Elizabeth, I am reading all new things. I didn't know half (okay, more than half) of the information that she wrote about. This is so intimidating. But it is exciting to think of all of the possibilties. My children love to do unit study-like learning. They thrive on learning this way. So I think this would work so well for us. I just now have to figure out how to do it. I also need to get at the reading. ;)

 

Yes, I thought how wonderful! Then the panic sets in that I don't know who to do it b/c I don't know it. Same w/ Correlano's post. But my DD is only 3.5yrs old so I suppose I have some time to do reading for her! :lol:

[Capt_Uhura]

KarenAnne - you reminded me of a book I believe someone mentioned here and I hope I put it on my wish list at Amazon. It was a book about plants and the critical role that plants played in history (tobacco, sugar, cotton, spices, etc). That certainly would be a great rabbit trail to follow.

[Guest]

KarenAnne - you reminded me of a book I believe someone mentioned here and I hope I put it on my wish list at Amazon. It was a book about plants and the critical role that plants played in history (tobacco, sugar, cotton, spices, etc). That certainly would be a great rabbit trail to follow.

 

Now I've got to go find that, too. A few years ago I came across an older book in the library that was a similar, only about the crucial role of animals in history: rats, horses, and one other animal I can't remember! My daughter was too young when I found it, but I read it and learned all kinds of things.

 

For older kids Marc Aronson has a book coming out this fall called Sugar, about the multi-faceted aspects of the development of sugar plantations and the related trade in rum, slaves, etc. This is the kind of history I adore, because it pulls together so many different issues and aspect: politics, wars, technology, trade, economics, race and class, etc.

[Capt_Uhura]

I have it. It was in my wishlist. http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Change-Plants-Transformed-Mankind/dp/1593760493/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1TT2SFJNJTVZN&colid=9S6SDSALROKQ

[Rosie_0801]

Cabbages and Kings is pretty cool too.

 

Rosie

[Guest]

I have it. It was in my wishlist. http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Change-Plants-Transformed-Mankind/dp/1593760493/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1TT2SFJNJTVZN&colid=9S6SDSALROKQ

 

Thanks -- now I have it too! The "six plants" reminds me further of the book History of the world in Six Glasses -- using beer, wine, gin/rum, tea, Coke, etc. as prisms through which to view historical change.

 

This is really fun: it's How Many Ways We Can View History. I love it.

[Matryoshka]

Thanks -- now I have it too! The "six plants" reminds me further of the book History of the world in Six Glasses -- using beer, wine, gin/rum, tea, Coke, etc. as prisms through which to view historical change.

 

 

Botany of Desire has a similar theme... there's a video, too. I have both the book and the video on my to-do list.

 

Had quite a bit of fun reading Salt, too - how salt has affected the course of history.

[Rosie_0801]

This is really fun: it's How Many Ways We Can View History. I love it.

 

I took an interesting class at uni on the history of cities. Not of any specific city, but of cities as entities, I suppose. It was interesting to see what each new wave of modernity affected the lay out and who lived where. We are used to the idea of good and bad parts of town, but in some times and places all classes could be represented in the same building, with the richest being on the middle floors. No idea of a penthouse suite before the elevator was invented :)

 

Rosie

[Guest]

I took an interesting class at uni on the history of cities. Not of any specific city, but of cities as entities, I suppose. It was interesting to see what each new wave of modernity affected the lay out and who lived where. We are used to the idea of good and bad parts of town, but in some times and places all classes could be represented in the same building, with the richest being on the middle floors. No idea of a penthouse suite before the elevator was invented :)

 

Rosie

 

Do you remember any of the books you read? I took a class on a similar topic a VERY long time ago and I remember being absolutely bewildered and not having any idea of what to grab onto as a focus. Wouldn't mind trying again.

[Corraleno]

KarenAnne - you reminded me of a book I believe someone mentioned here and I hope I put it on my wish list at Amazon. It was a book about plants and the critical role that plants played in history (tobacco, sugar, cotton, spices, etc). That certainly would be a great rabbit trail to follow.

 

For older kids Marc Aronson has a book coming out this fall called Sugar, about the multi-faceted aspects of the development of sugar plantations and the related trade in rum, slaves, etc. This is the kind of history I adore, because it pulls together so many different issues and aspect: politics, wars, technology, trade, economics, race and class, etc.

 

Cabbages and Kings is pretty cool too.

 

Botany of Desire has a similar theme... there's a video, too. I have both the book and the video on my to-do list.

 

Had quite a bit of fun reading Salt, too - how salt has affected the course of history.

 

I have Botany of Desire, but I'm adding all these others to my wishlist! I *love* reading "biographies" of plants and foods. The New Yorker did a 2 part biography of bananas many many years ago and I thought it was one of the most interesting pieces they ever published. I've also got a book on the history of cotton (Cotton: The Biography of a Revolutionary Fiber), and recently bought DH one on coffee (Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World). Maybe DD7, who loves to cook, will eventually want to study history through food!

 

Jackie

[Susan in KY]

:tongue_smilie:I am in the middle of my annual breadth vs. depth struggle. Anyone else in there with me?

 

Yup.

 

I have to say, though, that whenever I get discouraged or overwhelmed by this, thinking of the US Dept. of Education assessment regarding why Singapore is consistently #1 in the world in math and science usually cures me.

 

I haven't time to hunt down the link, but the conclusion was that US schools go for breadth (average of 117 topics/year in math) while Singapore goes for depth (average of 68 topics/year). The results of each method are clear. Then I don't feel bad for focusing so narrowly. :001_smile:

[Rosie_0801]

Do you remember any of the books you read? I took a class on a similar topic a VERY long time ago and I remember being absolutely bewildered and not having any idea of what to grab onto as a focus. Wouldn't mind trying again.

 

Ooh. Now you're asking. For kids, http://www.amazon.com/City-Story-Roman-Planning-Construction/dp/0395349222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278808785&sr=8-1 Actually I bought it for dh and he really enjoyed it.

 

I have an idea that I might even have my notes from that class in a locatable place. Give me a bit and I'll go have a look.

 

Edit: I knew I was keeping those notes around for some reason ;) Here's the reading list:

 

Cities in Civilization, Peter Hall

The Culture of Cities, Lewis Mumford (He has another one, The Culture of Cities)

Victorian Cities, Asa Briggs (We were using sections of the 1963 edition, this seems to be an updated version.)

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas

Cities in Evolution, Patrick Geddes

The Contemporary City for Three Million People, Le Corbusier

The Radiant City, Le Corbusier

The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs

Soft City, Jonathan Raban

Mental Maps, Peter Gould and Rodney White

 

And my hot tip (copied from my notes, of course) is that the Sacre Coer in Paris was built at the same time as the Eiffel Tower, with rival ideologies. How 'bout that?

 

Is that a good enough start? There are a few more listed here if you want.

 

Rosie

Edited July 11, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[mcconnellboys]

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Voltaire

 

 

Your subjects for this upcoming year are simply amazing. (Do you rilly, rilly want your son to go to Harvard Law? Have you seen the articles on grade inflation at the Ivies?)

 

I think Nike had the most amazing ad campaign of the 20th century: Just Do It.

 

This one simple phrase encompasses everything you ever need to know about any given situation. All the planning and dreaming and worrying won't give your child a sound education. Choosing something you can manage and getting to it - just doing it - will. (Oh, and you live nature studies every time you spend time outdoors and you live current events if you're engaged in the world. I wouldn't worry too much about formal study if you can't fit another thing in. Just live it.)

 

We can never read all the good books. Me

 

Hugs to you.....

[mcconnellboys]

There are TONS of great schools that also have great swim teams! I am anti-Microsoft! If he does the start-up to topple them, I will be his first investor!

[mcconnellboys]

I could not have allowed my older son to focus on areas of specific interest to him only. He has auditory and sensory processing problems that make many things difficult for him and he has an economy of both thought and physical activity that prevents him from attempting things that are difficult. That said, he is extremely bright and needs to be challenged. For instance, symbolic language is difficult for him. This has translated into difficulty with foreign languages, higher level maths, etc.

 

He can learn foreign languages, but it is difficult. He wishes to study Classical civilization. He must take either Greek or Latin. I believe that Greek would be neigh on impossible for him, so Latin he has studied. He finished it up early and took a modern language the last three years of high school. Now he will have to begin again in college because he very quickly forgets things that he doesn't use or that were not easy for him in the first place.

 

Things that do come easily and that he loves he absorbs almost immediately and without study. He can recount the most detailed minutae from story lines like The Lord of the Rings, from classical mythology, etc. We visited the Parthenon in Nashville last year, I think, about three years since he'd studied Greek mythology. We walked into the room with the mock-up of the freize and he stood there and named every single personage included. (He was correct. I checked.) The couple standing next to us were gaping......

 

Because things that are easy for him are SO easy, he does not understand (still) what it is like to study and learn the things that are difficult. Despite my attempts to help him with this over the years. Pray for me as he heads off to college. Please.

 

I think that many kids who may not have a specific learning quirk may also just not be of a temperament to attempt a focused, very specific sort of education at a very young age. I do believe, however, that more depth should be allowed and encouraged in high school level work than what we're typically seeing in this country now. And even colleges are causing kids to continue to have to be generalists for the first two years with some of the general requirements they have in place. It's no wonder to me that so many kids have difficulty in attempting to decide on an area of focus for a career.....

[mcconnellboys]

That's right and I read an article a while back that this is very true for science, as well. The US is going for too much breadth and at too young an age in science topics. Other schools start later and focus on fewer things. The children retain better and have a much better understanding of the basics when they get to high school.

[Ester Maria]

(I wanted to see what happened to this thread before going to bed, but seeing that meanwhile a few more pages were added and I got stuck on the page 8 with more than enough material to reply, I might be repeating some later points or miss some other questions aimed at me or concerning my comment. Will get back to that though.)

 

I feel strongly that, for my family, having more 'school' subjects isn't the best way to achieve breadth... we don't need a textbook, a program, or a schedule - and I don't have to give assignments to achieve a rich variety of educational and enrichment experiences. (Not that you were saying otherwise!)

Over the course of the years, I have found my ways to implement some of the "breadth" into my children's lives outside of the formal curriculum. We might not be talking about the same thing, but what I did was, to say so, allow kids to experience the synchrony of art before the diachrony (i.e. I did not start with the historical study in context and I spared them formal art or music history in elementary and middle years completely, but we travelled, we saw and talked about architecture, we went to opera and museums, etc.).

 

Now, I might be too much of a formalist sometimes :), I agree (can't go against my own education, even though I realize that I might be quite romanticizing it at times and forgetting about the side-effects of such an approach) - I honestly DO believe that, unless at some point you cover diachrony "property", you lack crucial "glue" (not so much crucial knowledge, really, it is more about the "glue" of that knowledge and the perspective) to deal with the subject. That is, if we talk about humanities and, especially, if we talk about the study of texts (call it literature, call it philosophy, call it Judaics - the cases of "dialoguing texts"). While dry diachrony alone is probably a recipe for a high school torture (ask any Italian student that was a subject to it in a few fields), it is an indispensable part of a formation in a given field. It is also, I believe, precisely what one should do BEFORE the university.

 

I view the high school period (approx. grades 8-12, covering both the remains of ginnasio and the classical lycee) to be, essentially, university-prep in sense of getting the "dry" parts down, getting the foundations down and building a model of the world that's to be expanded upon later. Generally, I believe in the type of university that's quite "specialist" - you come there knowing what and why you wish to study, and you study THAT. The notion of American universities where you "decide" about your major for the first year or two, "explore" things and then end up having had comparatively little classes on your major, seems to me like a prolongued high school - like doing in university that which was supposed to be done in high school. So while I had a mishmash of everything and anything in high school, when I came to university, it all "clicked" and found its place, and I was free to study what I chose to study - but the systematic knowledge I had been given prior to that helped me SO MUCH: literacy in a few foreign languages, very strong Latin foundation, strong diachrony of history and arts, combined with formal logic, scientific reasoning they had been cementing through all those Bio/Chem and Physics lessons and with a lot of dull time I used to secretely read or think and have random illuminations - I realized that it ALL had its place in my education. And as I was growing up more and intellectually maturing more and more, I was more and more appreciative of that broad "torturous" formation I received in the institution on whose doorstep we wrote in chalk Lasciate ogni speranza out of frustration (and lack of original thought) with "all those insane old crackpots who each teach us as if we are going to major in their field".

 

That was, of course, before the modern pedagogy invaded the classrooms with the ideals of how learning should be fun and oy vey if it's NOT all about fun, of Rousseauish ideals of man and of "menu-like" schools (schooling becoming a randomized event: you get a "menu" and pick "courses" - the structure is LOST and, in fact, even despised as something not fitting to the utilitaristic ideals of education). If there is anything I wish looking at my education now, it is even MORE structure - not necessarily in terms of more subjects (I doubt we could have taken with sanity more than we already had), but in terms of a more organized, less randomized study of what we studied.

 

However, I ramble as usual. Yes, I agree with what you say. It's not all about formal subjects, there are many ways to familiarize yourself with something. I just advocate a proper diachrony in history, arts and text-based studies at some point, for the sake of perspective.

 

(Not sure if I ever told you either, but I love reading your contributions here as well, by the way. ;))

Many successful people have managed without a highly structured education, and many others have actually been successful *in spite of* such an education.

This is actually an interesting thought. Only I would reverse it: many have succeded IN SPITE of the horrible lack of structure in their studies. ;) I suppose it depends on how you view it, though. I believe more harm can be done in NOT offering that kind of education, than in offering and realizing that not everyone will go through it. As homeschoolers, of course, we have quite some freedom of "shortcuts" here.

 

Elizabeth also has a great point about the trap we often get into - thinking that what works for a particular child that's "wired" a bit differently can easily be "prescribed" to the majority. I sometimes catch myself doing it, and I have two quite atypical kids when it comes to the capacity for abstract thought at young age and methods for teaching those kids might NOT work with most children.

On top of that, we have our national obsession with "covering" every topic in the universe. This is not merely breadth, but breadth taken to absurdity. And on top of THAT, as a culture we're test-happy and obsessed with measurement.

While I DEFINITELY agree with the second part (and I'll use this occasion to promote Liessmann's book AGAIN - it's really good!), I'm not so sure about the first one.

 

Maybe you're not American (I'm terrible with usernames and locations and remembering that), but from what I've seen here, this system is so NOT focused on any sort of high quality breadth! Quite the opposite in fact - it works by the "menu system" I ranted about above, focusing on less but more thoroughly, without crucial connectors and stability of the education, and without the notion of education as a process and self-cultivation. It, on the contrary, seems to make kids specialize young - only to then come to universities which (at least in cases of liberal arts colleges) work by the tweaked concept of "breadth" and "exploring" things as opposed to recruiting fairly skilled people, and producing experts for the field. They need this "exploring" since they were deprived of high quality breadth and diachrony in high school - and expertise is left for Masters and beyond. And since they don't get that either - but randomized pieces of the puzzle instead - it ultimately leads to nowhere.

 

If there is a single prejudice about this nation that I still sort of hold to, since quite often I get to meet the embodiments of this concept, after ten years of living here, it's the one about, how the Germans put in their precise way of describing things, "der Fachidiot" - a blinkered specialist without context and without substantial education outside of his particular "Fach" that was cultivated from very early years. Somebody who knows a lot about a very narrow field, and nearly nothing about everything else - somebody whom they did a BIG disservice by "utilitarian" approach in education that's cemented in kids' heads practically from kindergarten - learn this because it has a practical utility in your future field, and don't learn anything you're not interested in or won't profit from (unless it's the three Rs, which are thankfully still not a subject for a debate).

 

Maybe it's only my personal impression, though - but our schools were a LOT more about breadth, and still are today. And expertise begins at the undergraduate study (of course, Bologna changed that a bit too, but if I start rambling about all those issues in tertiary education and beyond - which is actually "my area" a lot more than lower stages of education - I really won't have the power to stop myself). :)

[Jane in NC]

Coming into this conversation quite late. There are so many posts to which I would like to respond, but I fear that I do not have the time at the moment.

 

First let me say that this has been one of the most enjoyable threads that I have ever read on these boards. I applaud all of the participants for their thoughtful responses.

 

The breadth vs. depth issue is one which occupied much of my time as a homeschooler (my son leaves for college in the fall--sniff! sniff!), particularly in the high school years as I mulled the merits and my personal issues with Advanced Placement courses, classes that are notorious for breadth but not the depth that one often has in a college class which they are suppose to replicate. Ultimately I decided that my son needed depth not provided by much of AP (Latin-Vergil may be an exception).

 

To add to the discussion points on the table (and at the risk of sounding snobby): I wonder if Americans require an education of breadth because so many do not receive the greater cultural breadth outside of school. Let me give an example of a young lady who was a house guest in a home where I was also a house guest. She complained that her summer reading books (The Man who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and some standard fictional work) were "boring". What did she want to do? Watch television, specifically programs geared toward teens. If students only read interesting books when assigned, if parents are not introducing their children to music outside of popular culture, if science is not part of the regular discussion within a home (since it certainly is not covered with any intelligence in the standard media, print or broadcast), what are teachers to do but to cover subjects in great breadth? I think that the feeling may be that giving students a minimal cultural vocabulary (Dickens, Tchaikovsky, Whitman) is equivalent to an education. The sentiment is echoed in American television trivia programs like Jeopardy in which people who can regurgitate a wide variety of facts are considered intelligent.

 

Balance is once again needed. It was recently my privilege to have dinner with a famous scientist who is a man of great breadth and depth. I think that it is both of these qualities which have allowed him to make leaps not performed previously. His depth gives him focus. His breadth allows him not only to make connections between seemingly disparate ideas, but to make him a pleasant dinner companion. (Anyone who knows me understands that I view the Pleasant Lunch or Dinner Companion test as an important one. Should I tell you that Mich elle from the boards passed? We had a lovely lunch together recently, but I digress...)

 

Education should not be a marathon. To me this is what constant breadth does. Opportunities for depth allow students to wander down rabbit holes and educate themselves--provided they are interested in that process. For the unmotivated student is breadth easier than depth i.e. from a teacher's perspective?

Edited July 11, 2010 by Jane in NC
clarification

[Capt_Uhura]

 

If there is anything I wish looking at my education now, it is even MORE structure - not necessarily in terms of more subjects (I doubt we could have taken with sanity more than we already had), but in terms of a more organized, less randomized study of what we studied.

 

 

Ester Maria, can you expand more on the above for me, please? I understand better w/ examples. :001_smile:

 

Capt_Uhura

[PeterPan]

For the unmotivated student is breadth easier than depth i.e. from a teacher's perspective?

 

We finally get to the crux! There are huge differences in motivation levels with kids, and we are assuming that kids, in general motivate when given the chance to go deeply. That's sort of idealistic. My dd enjoys everything deeply, as long as she remembers to pursue it. But her continuance on something is very short (not clinically short, but not as long-term focused as some of the others are describing either). In other words, I HAVE to create that breadth, or her own limitations of working memory and focus would hinder her diversity. She often says to me that she WANTED to do xyz and would have done it if I had just reminded her.

 

So I do think we get a clash between idealism and reality.

[Corraleno]

If students only read interesting books when assigned, if parents are not introducing their children to music outside of popular culture, if science is not part of the regular discussion within a home (since it certainly is not covered with any intelligence in the standard media, print or broadcast), what are teachers to do but to cover subjects in great breadth? I think that the feeling may be that giving students a minimal cultural vocabulary (Dickens, Tchaikovsky, Whitman) is equivalent to an education. The sentiment is echoed in American television trivia programs like Jeopardy in which people who can regurgitate a wide variety of facts are considered intelligent.

I think there are two related issues here, the first of which is the movement in education towards the quantification of information. Since standardized tests are now the ultimate measure of an "adequate education," the process of teaching has been reduced to drilling kids in endless lists of trivia — disjointed lists of names/dates/facts that lend themselves to multiple-choice testing. It's gotten to the point where the test itself is the goal, instead of a measure of how effective the education was, and that has led schools and textbook publishers to present the information in a predigested format that will maximize test performance, but which strips the information of all context and meaning. There's so much trivia to cram in that there's no time to actually read whole books and explore them in deeper ways; instead kids get a brief excerpt of the Odyssey or Romeo & Juliet, prefaced by pages of "Key Concepts" and directions of what to look for — and what to think about it. Critical thinking is counter-productive — a student who develops their own interpretation and response to literature might not tick the correct box on the standardized test, which makes the school look bad. (I read an article about a school board in CA that had forbidden teachers from teaching whole books instead of excerpts. One board member criticized the teachers for "teaching the books instead of the standards." Yikes.)

 

And that leads into the second issue, which is basically the same process applied to the larger culture here. Everything is predigested and presented in a way that encourages passive consumption without engagement or involvement. Food is chemically altered, pre-prepared, and presented in a way that allows people to avoid thinking about what they're putting in their bodies; news is predigested and pre-slanted to save viewers the trouble of reading the facts and developing a thoughtful opinion of their own; entertainment is streamed 24/7 on 600 channels, requiring no more involvement than changing the channel with the push of a button. Why bother cooking from scratch, or reading a newspaper, or reading a book, when it's so much easier to just push a button? And then there are video games — who needs to play outside when you can sit in your bedroom and kill aliens? Who even needs friends, when you can have one long adrenalin rush playing video games 8 hrs/day?

 

When eating no longer involves actual food, and news no longer involves facts, and "playing" no longer involves activity or even friends, why should we expect education to include thinking? It's too much work, and too hard to quantify.

 

Jackie

[elegantlion]

I've been poking around online, looking at into the British system of schooling. I found this website from University of Cambridge that lists many of the A & AS level courses. There is a syllabus listed under each course. There is also a resource list, which would be great for going into depth on a subject.

[Capt_Uhura]

Jackie - :iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I know i have much less time than friends b/c I spend a lot of time cooking and I spend much less time cooking than my grandmother when you made chicken stock from scratch, for ex.

 

"One board member criticized the teachers for "teaching the books instead of the standards." Yikes.)" :confused::cursing:

 

If you read the article i posted at http://www.riffraff.com, he gives an example from an AP class where the teacher writes the answer to a question which is normally found on the exam. THAT IS NOT LEARNING!

[Guest]

There is breadth, which I don't think anyone on this thread is actually arguing against, and then there is the absurdly enormous "coverage," superficial by nature, consisting largely of disconnected and unexplored lists of facts and vocabulary words, that characterizes so much of US educational pedagogy (culminating in much of the AP curriculum). Then on one hand there is depth, which again I don't think anyone is arguing against, and on the other there's early and EXCLUSIVE specialization.

 

Between the poles lies quite a wide area of varying degrees of emphasis and structure and choice of study.

 

Corraleno and I, along with several others, have been saying all along that the child's inborn wiring is a determining factor in which way one tilts a child's education. We are not arguing for the superiority of depth over breadth for every child. No one is saying that we don't also seek to expose our kids to a broad range of cultural, historical, literary, artistic, scientific, issues and events. We're only saying that using this as the structural basis for our particularly children is counterproductive to their own learning drives and passions. Other people (and Ester Maria is a perfect example) are very different kinds of thinkers, seeking systematic, orderly, "even" study across a wide range of academic disciplines. The particular philosophical, and I would say neurological, end she is aiming for is different from that which someone like, for instance, Gerald Durrell was seeking. My larger point has been that this is perfectly valid in every way: for both of them. They want, need, expect, search for different ends.

 

Because the prevailing cultural model goes very much against my thinking, I have been making the best argument I can for selective, concentrated depth in a few areas as the basis for an equally wonderful, equally effective education. There are a lot of kids out there (not just special needs kids) who may not only thrive under, but NEED, a different framework and focus.

[Corraleno]

We finally get to the crux! There are huge differences in motivation levels with kids, and we are assuming that kids, in general motivate when given the chance to go deeply. That's sort of idealistic. My dd enjoys everything deeply, as long as she remembers to pursue it. But her continuance on something is very short (not clinically short, but not as long-term focused as some of the others are describing either). In other words, I HAVE to create that breadth, or her own limitations of working memory and focus would hinder her diversity. She often says to me that she WANTED to do xyz and would have done it if I had just reminded her.

 

So I do think we get a clash between idealism and reality.

Elizabeth, can you give an example of what you mean by "creating that breadth" for your daughter? Are you saying there are some areas you want her to cover that she just can't or won't "go deep" in, so you have to aim to just cover everything on that topic? Or are you saying that her interests are quite narrow and she wouldn't branch out from there unless you make her study other things? If it's the second, then wouldn't KarenAnne's suggestions (about tying her studies to women's issues) work to provide depth while still covering a broad range of areas in history and literature and art?

 

I guess I'm not clear whether, when you talk about needing to choose breadth over depth, you're talking about trying to cover everything in a given subject (like all of history for every part of the world, covered chronologically from the beginning to 2010) or whether you mean covering a broad range of subjects, but allowing your DD to go deep into areas that interest her within those subjects. If the latter is what you mean by "creating breadth" then I think we're on the same page (because that's what I mean by favoring depth). OTOH, if you mean that there are some areas where you feel she just needs to check all the boxes regardless of whether any of it interests her, then I'd be interested to hear why you think this is true.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

There is breadth, which I don't think anyone on this thread is actually arguing against, and then there is the absurdly enormous "coverage," superficial by nature, consisting largely of disconnected and unexplored lists of facts and vocabulary words, that characterizes so much of US educational pedagogy (culminating in much of the AP curriculum). Then on one hand there is depth, which again I don't think anyone is arguing against, and on the other there's early and EXCLUSIVE specialization.

 

Between the poles lies quite a wide area of varying degrees of emphasis and structure and choice of study.

Yes, my own implementation of this would be to cover a reasonably broad range of subjects, providing a very basic overview of each (e.g. using the TC's Medieval World course) and then allowing my DS to pursue, in depth, numerous areas within that subject that are of particular interest to him. Then I'll help him (through Socratic questioning, discussions, and additional suggested readings) tie those areas together in a coherent way within the subject, as well as connecting those areas to other subjects, so that the end product is not so much a checklist of disparate facts, but more of a web or network, with interconnected "hubs" of deeper learning. My own choice of theme is the history of ideas, because for me that will tie in well with DS's interests, satisfy my own vision of what a "good education" would entail, and provide an efficient way of teaching and modeling critical thinking skills. For another family the theme/core might be technology or women's issues or linguistics or whatever.

 

Other parents may lean much more towards breadth in every subject, focusing more on coverage of a list of standard facts and adding a bit of depth with, for example, a research paper on one topic per semester. One could almost see it as a coordinate grid, with the X axis representing a continuum ranging from extreme breadth at one end and very narrow specialization at the other, and the Y axis representing a continuum of "theme" subjects from literature through history into science and math. Every family will plot their own point on that graph depending on the goals of the parents and the needs, interests, and learning style of each child.

 

Jackie

Edited July 11, 2010 by Corraleno

[PeterPan]

We finally get to the crux! There are huge differences in motivation levels with kids, and we are assuming that kids, in general motivate when given the chance to go deeply. That's sort of idealistic. My dd enjoys everything deeply, as long as she remembers to pursue it. But her continuance on something is very short (not clinically short, but not as long-term focused as some of the others are describing either). In other words, I HAVE to create that breadth, or her own limitations of working memory and focus would hinder her diversity. She often says to me that she WANTED to do xyz and would have done it if I had just reminded her.

 

So I do think we get a clash between idealism and reality.

 

Clearly I was talking about something in my head that I didn't get out very well. :)

 

I have scads and scads of things that I look through and go Oh yeah, we really wanted to do that! My dd does many, many things well. They're mostly history and arts/hands-on things, but she also is very, very good at math and science. For many years now I've kept our schedule trim on the thinking that plenty of free time would enable her to pursue her diversity of interests. Reality is, she doesn't. She would enjoy the variety, benefit from the variety, appreciate the variety. So I have to dredge from myself the energy to get that organized and make it happen. There are some things where I DON'T have to work so hard. For history we've almost always been pretty loose, allowing her to do what she wants. But I have to make the breadth happen, doing that with ALL the categories of study, or it just doesn't.

 

Take for instance logic puzzles and games. We have quite a few of them, but we totally forget to play them. Instead we get on whatever kick we're on (mysteries, history, whatever) and we just totally forget about the rest. So if I want those things to happen, I actually have to put it on the schedule and remind myself that we could do other things, lol.

Edited July 11, 2010 by OhElizabeth

[Wildiris]

I've been poking around online, looking at into the British system of schooling. I found this website from University of Cambridge that lists many of the A & AS level courses. There is a syllabus listed under each course. There is also a resource list, which would be great for going into depth on a subject.

 

Interesting. Thanks for sharing the link.

 

Coming into this conversation quite late. There are so many posts to which I would like to respond, but I fear that I do not have the time at the moment.

 

First let me say that this has been one of the most enjoyable threads that I have ever read on these boards. I applaud all of the participants for their thoughtful responses.

 

The breadth vs. depth issue is one which occupied much of my time as a homeschooler (my son leaves for college in the fall--sniff! sniff!), particularly in the high school years as I mulled the merits and my personal issues with Advanced Placement courses, classes that are notorious for breadth but not the depth that one often has in a college class which they are suppose to replicate. Ultimately I decided that my son needed depth not provided by much of AP (Latin-Vergil may be an exception).

 

To add to the discussion points on the table (and at the risk of sounding snobby): I wonder if Americans require an education of breadth because so many do not receive the greater cultural breadth outside of school. Let me give an example of a young lady who was a house guest in a home where I was also a house guest. She complained that her summer reading books (The Man who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and some standard fictional work) were "boring". What did she want to do? Watch television, specifically programs geared toward teens. If students only read interesting books when assigned, if parents are not introducing their children to music outside of popular culture, if science is not part of the regular discussion within a home (since it certainly is not covered with any intelligence in the standard media, print or broadcast), what are teachers to do but to cover subjects in great breadth? I think that the feeling may be that giving students a minimal cultural vocabulary (Dickens, Tchaikovsky, Whitman) is equivalent to an education. The sentiment is echoed in American television trivia programs like Jeopardy in which people who can regurgitate a wide variety of facts are considered intelligent.

 

Balance is once again needed. It was recently my privilege to have dinner with a famous scientist who is a man of great breadth and depth. I think that it is both of these qualities which have allowed him to make leaps not performed previously. His depth gives him focus. His breadth allows him not only to make connections between seemingly disparate ideas, but to make him a pleasant dinner companion. (Anyone who knows me understands that I view the Pleasant Lunch or Dinner Companion test as an important one. Should I tell you that Mich elle from the boards passed? We had a lovely lunch together recently, but I digress...)

 

Education should not be a marathon. To me this is what constant breadth does. Opportunities for depth allow students to wander down rabbit holes and educate themselves--provided they are interested in that process. For the unmotivated student is breadth easier than depth i.e. from a teacher's perspective?

 

Lovely response. :iagree: Wow! I'm not the only one who regards the "Dinner Companion Test" as important.

 

It occurred to me as I was reading this post that students today, unlike students ten years ago or twenty years ago, have so many more gadgets which compete for their attention that to read The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat does not appeal. How technology is reshaping education, reading, writing, social interaction and the ability to focus amazes me. Paging through Time Magazine today compared with the Time Magazine of my youth, I see the articles today resemble snippets of information with little in depth analysis compared to the more lengthy articles of my youth which necessitate a sustained effort to follow the line of reasoning presented by a journalist and to question that line of reasoning.

 

Balance and the Middle Road

 

The act of voting in California requires not just a breadth of knowledge but a depth of thinking. With its ballot propositions vying for limited state funds, a California voter must read beyond the propaganda to the fine print of how a particular ballot measure will impact the state.

[Jami]

I think there are two related issues here, the first of which is the movement in education towards the quantification of information. Since standardized tests are now the ultimate measure of an "adequate education," the process of teaching has been reduced to drilling kids in endless lists of trivia — disjointed lists of names/dates/facts that lend themselves to multiple-choice testing. It's gotten to the point where the test itself is the goal, instead of a measure of how effective the education was, and that has led schools and textbook publishers to present the information in a predigested format that will maximize test performance, but which strips the information of all context and meaning. There's so much trivia to cram in that there's no time to actually read whole books and explore them in deeper ways; instead kids get a brief excerpt of the Odyssey or Romeo & Juliet, prefaced by pages of "Key Concepts" and directions of what to look for — and what to think about it. Critical thinking is counter-productive — a student who develops their own interpretation and response to literature might not tick the correct box on the standardized test, which makes the school look bad. (I read an article about a school board in CA that had forbidden teachers from teaching whole books instead of excerpts. One board member criticized the teachers for "teaching the books instead of the standards." Yikes.)

 

And that leads into the second issue, which is basically the same process applied to the larger culture here. Everything is predigested and presented in a way that encourages passive consumption without engagement or involvement. Food is chemically altered, pre-prepared, and presented in a way that allows people to avoid thinking about what they're putting in their bodies; news is predigested and pre-slanted to save viewers the trouble of reading the facts and developing a thoughtful opinion of their own; entertainment is streamed 24/7 on 600 channels, requiring no more involvement than changing the channel with the push of a button. Why bother cooking from scratch, or reading a newspaper, or reading a book, when it's so much easier to just push a button? And then there are video games — who needs to play outside when you can sit in your bedroom and kill aliens? Who even needs friends, when you can have one long adrenalin rush playing video games 8 hrs/day?

 

When eating no longer involves actual food, and news no longer involves facts, and "playing" no longer involves activity or even friends, why should we expect education to include thinking? It's too much work, and too hard to quantify.

 

Jackie

 

Fantastic observations. I very much agree.

[Ester Maria]

Ester Maria, can you expand more on the above for me, please? I understand better w/ examples. :001_smile:

Even though most of the areas were structured very well, I believe there was a certain lack of it in a couple of areas as well, that were a subject to "randomization" - namely, foreign language literature and, to an extent, philosophy. I had a feeling that those were quite fad-oriented (except for the general periodization that they provided in a year), and I wasn't the only one with that impression.

 

On the other hand, they did something completely amazing with arts. :D There was a fixed minimal number of operas, theatre productions, art exhibitions, classical music concerts and, generally, "cultural events", that you had to attend yearly. It was totally your choice WHAT you are attending (the only "minimal norms" you had were something like one opera or ballet yearly + a theatre production, an art exhibition and a classical music concert semestrally), but afterwards you had to do some kind of written or oral reflection on it, or find other people's reflections (usually critics) and talk about why you agree or disagree with those. You couldn't get a grade in Art History and Italian (the theatre part) without that. That's, in my opinion, a good example of how to create certain important habits AND expose kids to art in a non-invasive way, allowing them to choose from a plethora of things that are offered.

 

But still, I find that SOME formal instruction was needed to profit maximally from those events as well. It wouldn't have worked out that well if they just told us to do it, without providing us with any meaningful frame at the same time.

Other people (and Ester Maria is a perfect example) are very different kinds of thinkers, seeking systematic, orderly, "even" study across a wide range of academic disciplines. The particular philosophical, and I would say neurological, end she is aiming for is different from that which someone like, for instance, Gerald Durrell was seeking.

Exactly. :)

But, since kids find areas in which they need and want the depth, they actually get the best of both worlds in "my system" (which is the final goal). The structure is there to assure a fair progress in all fields deemed necessary, and to allow certain amount of "security", a place to go back to in case you change your mind (which happens a lot with kids - I remember my own youth, in which I wanted to be everything from a doctor to a philologist) and still find yourself comfortable.

 

So my older kid does REALLY advanced literature, Latin and Hebrew, and the younger kid does REALLY advanced sciences and math. But it's not "freeing" either of them the obligation to go through the "standard package" in addition to their particular interests which they're free to pursue on as advanced level as they wish.

[Corraleno]

Clearly I was talking about something in my head that I didn't get out very well. :)

 

I have scads and scads of things that I look through and go Oh yeah, we really wanted to do that! My dd does many, many things well. They're mostly history and arts/hands-on things, but she also is very, very good at math and science. For many years now I've kept our schedule trim on the thinking that plenty of free time would enable her to pursue her diversity of interests. Reality is, she doesn't. She would enjoy the variety, benefit from the variety, appreciate the variety. So I have to dredge from myself the energy to get that organized and make it happen. There are some things where I DON'T have to work so hard. For history we've almost always been pretty loose, allowing her to do what she wants. But I have to make the breadth happen, doing that with ALL the categories of study, or it just doesn't.

 

Take for instance logic puzzles and games. We have quite a few of them, but we totally forget to play them. Instead we get on whatever kick we're on (mysteries, history, whatever) and we just totally forget about the rest. So if I want those things to happen, I actually have to put it on the schedule and remind myself that we could do other things, lol.

Ah, okay, I think I get it now — left to her own devices, she's only focusing on a few subjects so you want to schedule in a few more? Do you think an LCC-ish approach would work for you, where you cover the core subjects she's doing regularly (history, math, science?) in the morning, and then just schedule one extra subject each afternoon (logic on Mondays, foreign language on Tues/Thurs, or whatever)? It seems like that might minimize the time and energy needed for organization and scheduling, while still increasing the chances these other subjects will get done.

 

Jackie

[Guest]

 

So my older kid does REALLY advanced literature, Latin and Hebrew, and the younger kid does REALLY advanced sciences and math. But it's not "freeing" either of them the obligation to go through the "standard package" in addition to their particular interests which they're free to pursue on as advanced level as they wish.

 

I think where we differ is in two places here: the content of the "standard package" -- whether and why a child is obligated to go through a curriculum for the sheer sake of coverage or exposure, and how that content is set up (whether it can be flexibly adjusted for the child's passionate interests and inborn way of thinking, as in a history program from a technological point of view or whether the parent pre-determines the approach); and second, exactly what constitutes freedom to pursue one's interests. You are defining much of that freedom as separate from standard requirements on some level, and quite specifically in terms of accelerated learning.

 

I would define that freedom, particularly its relationship to the rest of a coverage-based curriculum, quite differently.

 

You and SWB have very similar mindsets, including a strong preference for teaching systematically, chronologically, and inclusively. It's fascinating for me to see this, because I am so very different -- I adore the messy, rather inefficient process of researching and thinking about particular issues or topics in detail, and only then figuring out how they fit into a larger pattern. I go backward and forward chronologically; I don't want to learn everything all in order. I LOVE doing this and have always hated being fed information that is pre-packaged and ordered for me. I really enjoy moments of intellectual confusion or dissonance that make me hunt for patterns and connections.

 

We're probably on (opposite) outer edges of a spectrum of types of thinking here. What I find continually interesting and problematic is how easy it is for one's own inherent approach and preferences to color how we assume everyone else must therefore likewise think, and therefore education should look like what we personally prefer.

 

These boards are wonderful because they help me uncover my own assumptions, both personal and cultural. Perhaps I'm also hyperaware of this issue because my daughter, an Aspie, is so VERY different from me and I've had to work really hard to figure out her world view, how she learns, how she makes connections best. I've been reading neurology and brain research for the past several years, which has made me further aware of how incredibly different people's responses to various kinds of teaching and curriculum can be. I see tradeoffs and compensations in different view of how education should work; I don't think of my daughter has having a perfect education or the best of both worlds, but as having an education that honors and nurtures her learning processes. Note "an" education, not "the" education -- I also think that I haven't found the Holy Grail as far as she's concerned. There are probably a few different ways it could all be set up, and different models, different teachers, will stretch her in new ways.

 

I really admire your particular version of rigor and system. But it's funny -- you said in one post that if you could go back to redo your own education you'd want it to be even more systematic and orderly... I'm exactly the opposite. I'd want much more looseness of structure and freedom to go my inefficient, unsystematic, quixotic way. Only I'd really want someone there to discuss it all with.

[Ester Maria]

I really admire your particular version of rigor and system. But it's funny -- you said in one post that if you could go back to redo your own education you'd want it to be even more systematic and orderly... I'm exactly the opposite. I'd want much more looseness of structure and freedom to go my inefficient, unsystematic, quixotic way.

We're different, yes. Nice to see different perspectives. :)

 

Mind you, I always say that the most important thing is to raise healthy and happy kids. If your way of doing things adds to the happiness and emotional health of your children - that's probably the way to go, as opposed to making the kid miserable.

[Corraleno]

I think where we differ is in two places here: the content of the "standard package" -- whether and why a child is obligated to go through a curriculum for the sheer sake of coverage or exposure, and how that content is set up (whether it can be flexibly adjusted for the child's passionate interests and inborn way of thinking, as in a history program from a technological point of view or whether the parent pre-determines the approach); and second, exactly what constitutes freedom to pursue one's interests. You are defining much of that freedom as separate from standard requirements on some level, and quite specifically in terms of accelerated learning.

 

I would define that freedom, particularly its relationship to the rest of a coverage-based curriculum, quite differently.

:iagree: I think you summarized this perfectly.

 

You and SWB have very similar mindsets, including a strong preference for teaching systematically, chronologically, and inclusively. It's fascinating for me to see this, because I am so very different -- I adore the messy, rather inefficient process of researching and thinking about particular issues or topics in detail, and only then figuring out how they fit into a larger pattern. I go backward and forward chronologically; I don't want to learn everything all in order. I LOVE doing this and have always hated being fed information that is pre-packaged and ordered for me. I really enjoy moments of intellectual confusion or dissonance that make me hunt for patterns and connections.

Oddly enough, I'm generally a very linear, logical, systematic sort of person — but, like you, I have a very strong need to find the patterns and systems and logical connections myself. I hated high school (and I mean really really despised it, to the point of almost suicidal depression), because it seemed like such a meaningless, mechanical process. I felt like an empty box being shuttled along a conveyor belt in some vast educational factory, with pre-packaged bags of "knowledge components" dumped in at each station, and at the end an inspector would check that all the correct parts were there before sealing the box and sending it on it's way.

 

But it's funny -- you said in one post that if you could go back to redo your own education you'd want it to be even more systematic and orderly... I'm exactly the opposite. I'd want much more looseness of structure and freedom to go my inefficient, unsystematic, quixotic way. Only I'd really want someone there to discuss it all with.

THIS. Especially the part about wanting someone to discuss it with. I had *one* class in all of HS where I was actually allowed to read what I wanted and chew on it and puzzle through it without some textbook or teacher telling me in advance what it all meant and what my response should be. That was the summer after 10th grade and it was actually the first time I considered going to college. Despite 99th% on the PSATs and being a NMScholar, I had no interest in going to college until I took that ONE 8-wk summer course, with ONE teacher who would sit there and talk to me about Dostoevsky as if it mattered what I thought. That was the first glimmer of hope I had that college might not be just another factory like high school was.

 

If I could redo my education, it would be so much deeper and messier and more creative and so much more meaningful, with many more teachers like that ONE.

 

Jackie

[PeterPan]

Karen, you're hitting this from a lot of angles obviously, but the one jumping out at me as obvious is just the idea of parts to whole vs. whole to parts learners. WTM is of course survey/coverage driven in the early years, but for high school/rhetoric, it switches over to the WEM-style study which is EXACTLY what you say, the freedom to take a topic and run with it through time. She advocates any genre (poetry, women's lit, science fiction, anything) studied over time as a means of study. So in that sense, you and SWB are not so far off. :)

 

I think the only real problem comes when you have an extremely whole to parts mom with a parts to whole kid or vice versa. Then the styles clash. I have extreme trouble loosening my need for structure (whole to parts) to fit my dd's ability to cover a variety of things and pull them together (parts to whole). She can read the Middle Ages and american history and more, all in the same year, and somehow file it away and make connections. Me, I'd just be left thinking there were millions of years of history, which there aren't. Took me until adulthood to figure that out though, lol. No one bothered to explain to me that some events were CONCURRENT. I just figured they all happened, somewhere, in some sequence, and if you mushed all the history books you got there, meaning it was one LONG timeline. Yes, I'm warped. :)

 

Next I'll grant the value of hyper-focusing and going in-depth with a global thinker, AFTER they have surveyed, that is. And you know, I've never felt the need to see such a contradiction between WTM and my dd's ability to go at multiple pieces at once or out of order. I figure we can take the basic principles (get a survey, make some hooks, go at it deeper the next time) and do it in any order or way we want. I've never felt like the ORDER or chronology in WTM was a hill to die on. It was more just a logical way of approaching the skill and content acqusition, THEIR way of doing it. We can get the same skills and content our own way, no biggee. JW and SWB are mortal; I've met them. :)

[PeterPan]

Jackie, yes, that is where I've ended up with my scheduling. I read Drew's rough draft of LCC back when it was in the yahoo group files and I never pursued it further to get an actual copy. I suppose that's my bad, but there you go. But yes, it was sort of this hill I had to overcome, that my idealism wasn't going to get us there, that I would have to schedule things or get some routine and habits to make them happen. We made quilts this year because I scheduled it as a regular, weekly class. For this coming year I want to do a knitting club, again for the same reason. Problem is, I find myself wanting to do 4 handicrafts with her this year, a little nuts, lol. In fact, the older she gets the less I care about stuffing her into some mold and the more desperate I get to do these fun things with her, things I know she'll be glad for later. So many people graduate with brains but no skills or ability to live. Dh suggested I focus on living skills this year. :)

[Rosie_0801]

a student who develops their own interpretation and response to literature might not tick the correct box on the standardized test, which makes the school look bad.

 

Ooooohhh. We don't have an ARGH smilie that ARGHs as much as I want to here. The lousy thing about this particular point is that it carries right through into university. My sister missed out on first class honours by one measly mark because she put something that wasn't in the syllabus in her diary, which was supposedly to be a record of her developing opinions. I couldn't believe she had done that and said something like "ARGH, what on earth did you do that for? Everyone knows 'your opinion' really means 'guess what the teacher thinks and write that!'" She knew that, of course, and kicked herself for naivety. She though that maybe, just maybe, surely, at honours level 'your opinion' would actually mean 'your opinion.'

 

On the other hand, they did something completely amazing with arts. :D There was a fixed minimal number of operas, theatre productions, art exhibitions, classical music concerts and, generally, "cultural events", that you had to attend yearly.

 

That is SO COOL! I was just talking to dh last night about fairy tales last night because I'd been playing the sound track to "Into the Woods" and he said it didn't do much for him because he wasn't familiar with fairy tales (:confused: his mum was an English teacher.) The only one he knew was Peter and the Wolf because he saw that on stage with school. The reason I'm jumping up and down with glee at Ester Maria's comments above is our primary schools used to pack us off to a theatre show or some such thing every year or so, presumably for cultural exposure or something, and I don't think it did anyone much good. That once was enough to teach most kids that it was boring, but a good way to get out of class, whereas if it had been more regular thing and some context was provided, they might have developed a taste for it.

 

Oddly enough, I'm generally a very linear, logical, systematic sort of person — but, like you, I have a very strong need to find the patterns and systems and logical connections myself.

I realise you guys are talking about older kids, but this is why I really like BFSU. It's systematic, so it guides the kids in the right direction but it doesn't go so far as to pre-digest tit. Surely it is the student's job to tidy up the wonderful jumble science is.

 

Rosie

Edited July 11, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[Guest]

Yes, for high school TWTM does advocate the freedom to take a topic and investigate it in depth; for me the key word here is "a." A topic. And even this level of specialization must wait for high school.

 

What I am talking about is different in a number of ways. Again, I preface this with saying that I begin with my child and her needs and learning style; this is not a claim to some overarching, Superior Way. First, I don't think some kids -- even many kids -- need to wait until high school to specialize; a curriculum does not to be even-handedly, broadly coverage-based across all subject areas. This does not have to mean dropping major subjects to let a child do only what he wants. But I do think a child with a passion for science and technology, to use the topic we began the thread with, can approach history, literature, even art and writing, through this interest.

 

I think also that a child's passionate investigation of invention, or the natural world, or computer programming, or anything that constitutes a driving passion, is perfectly valid work rather than a hobby that can be pursued after the "real" work of conventional school. I think a curriculum can be weighted towards areas in which a child has a desire to spend more time and energy even when the child is young -- if there is desire on the child's part, or evidence of a child's continuing, self-motivated searching for information or knowledge about a particular topic, idea, issue.

 

I'll go even further here and say that the way in which specialization is defined in TWTM is -- and again I specify for ME, and potentially for my child -- restrictively academic, centered around research and the writing of a formal academic paper. It's not that I don't think this is a great idea, a great exercise, and shouldn't play a part at some point in every child's education (including my child's). Rather, I object to its being the single validated process and form of output.

 

And finally, I still don't think a survey has to come first, or be the foundation or default mode for every subject over the years. I don't have any profound reason for this except that it is not the way I learn or prefer to learn. Nor is it the method my daughter uses. The stepping back to look at how this particular topic fits into a larger narrative happens at various points along the way, or at the end, or some months afterward when we come across another topic, or are reading wider history or science or whatever. Much of the time the processes are so interwoven that it seems artificial to me to separate them out, much less accord them precedence or priority.

 

Learning is messy. We all need some way of organizing our learning, structuring our days and our minds. But that way is not going to look the same for everybody; for some it will look very different indeed. I'm perhaps more balanced in my approach than it would seem from some of what I've written here, but equally, I can imagine an education which consists in large part of a series of extensive investigations into particular but diverse topics without particular concern for a survey-type coverage or framework being set up in advance. I can also imagine a very narrow, obsessive education in a single topic which eventually leads a person to make all kind of connections outward from that topic: the exact reverse of the typical elementary to high school to college to grad school model.

 

I recently came across a young woman who was obsessed, as a young teenager, with the Romanovs and imperial Russia (the interest had begun years earlier). And that was pretty much it. She read every single thing she could find out about them and was talking about them all the time (a pretty one-sided conversation, as most people know very little about this!). She ran across a private high school in which she was told that she could do the bare minimum in other subjects as long as she went to a college night class and began to learn Russian. She became fluent, traveled to Russia to visit every site associated with the Romanovs, and went to Wellesley on full scholarship. There, she finally broadened her scope and began reading more widely in Russian and Asian history, and the global history of that time. It's an interesting exercise to speculate how this might have worked out had she been told she had to spend much of that time and intellectual energy being even-handedly thorough and "rigorous" across all her subjects, or needed read a survey of Russian history or of the world in 1900 -- no, wait! of the world all the way up until 1900 -- before she could then pick one topic to investigate further.

 

Extreme example? I think there are a lot of kids with specific interests at a young age. It's just that the structure and emphasis of their formal education discourages or outright prevents them from following through on what might be their own different pattern or relationship to breadth and depth.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Guest

[Corraleno]

What I am talking about is different in a number of ways. Again, I preface this with saying that I begin with my child and her needs and learning style; this is not a claim to some overarching, Superior Way. First, I don't think some kids -- even many kids -- need to wait until high school to specialize; a curriculum does not to be even-handedly, broadly coverage-based across all subject areas. This does not have to mean dropping major subjects to let a child do only what he wants. But I do think a child with a passion for science and technology, to use the topic we began the thread with, can approach history, literature, even art and writing, through this interest.

 

I think also that a child's passionate investigation of invention, or the natural world, or computer programming, or anything that constitutes a driving passion, is perfectly valid work rather than a hobby that can be pursued after the "real" work of conventional school. I think a curriculum can be weighted towards areas in which a child has a desire to spend more time and energy even when the child is young -- if there is desire on the child's part, or evidence of a child's continuing, self-motivated searching for information or knowledge about a particular topic, idea, issue.

 

I'll go even further here and say that the way in which specialization is defined in TWTM is -- and again I specify for ME, and potentially for my child -- restrictively academic, centered around research and the writing of a formal academic paper. It's not that I don't think this is a great idea, a great exercise, and shouldn't play a part at some point in every child's education (including my child's). Rather, I object to its being the single validated process and form of output.

 

And finally, I still don't think a survey has to come first, or be the foundation or default mode for every subject over the years. I don't have any profound reason for this except that it is not the way I learn or prefer to learn. Nor is it the method my daughter uses. The stepping back to look at how this particular topic fits into a larger narrative happens at various points along the way, or at the end, or some months afterward when we come across another topic, or are reading wider history or science or whatever. Much of the time the processes are so interwoven that it seems artificial to me to separate them out, much less accord them precedence or priority.

What a wonderfully elegant and concise summary — I agree wholeheartedly with all of this (but wouldn't have been able to express it as well.) I have to say, this has been one of the most interesting and thoughtful conversations I've had since grad school! :lurk5:

 

Jackie

[Guest]

[quote name=Corraleno;1866612I have to say' date=' this has been one of the most interesting and thoughtful conersations I've had since grad school! :lurk5:

 

Jackie[/quote]

 

I think so, too. It's been wonderful to talk about an encompassing issue, models of education, ways of learning, with people who are thoughtful, passionate, questioning, responsive, generous.

[swimmermom3]

After 16 hours of crunching numbers in a sauna (indoor pool) this weekend I have little brain power left to respond intelligently to so many thought-provoking and insightful posts. Instead, I have managed to pick up at post #78, read from there and I now have 8 sticky notes with comments stuck to the coffee table. So right now, I just want to thank all of you once again for taking the time to really discuss this issue. Your input is appreciated more than you can know.:grouphug:

[PeterPan]

Karen--All I can say is that some people here are going to be jealous of situations or dc like that. In some ways it seems like it would be easier (I know, not from your perspective!) to have someone so hyper-focused and self-driven, rather than having to wake up and go through the monotony of the same litany of subjects every day, with every kid.

 

There's also the sense in which being able to follow your interests doesn't necessarily help you find yourself or what you're good at. Like your friend, I studied russian in high school, reading russian history and poetry in my spare time. But I also pursued quite a bit of math, science, and english, so that it was really unclear to me (at the time) what my strengths were. In retrospect I wished a wise mentor had come along and helped me see myself in a way different than I could at the time. So even allowing the student to pursue his own vision has its limits, because the student has only his own self-perception of his strengths and abilities. You may see otherwise. I think we all know people who have followed rabbit trails and put time into areas or college majors that WEREN'T their strengths and WEREN'T going to work out.

[Kathie in VA]

Wow what a thread! I'm here a bit late and have only read the first 7 pages ... but thought that I'd better post my comments now before my computer crashes or something.

 

...

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.

 

 

This thought has just been hitting me lately as I rethink math for my 34th child. My first 3 kids used the same currculum but I switched near 6th grade or so because they were getting bogged down. I was tempted to switch my 3rd kid to something more 'challenging' but he really was doing just fine. Now I'm tempted to start my 4th with something different just because I've heard how good it is at some aspects that I think my curriculum might not have. Then I discovered that my 3rd ds just got 100% on both CAT end of year math tests. hmm, maybe my current prgm really is a good one for us. It's the skills. It's the skills. (I need to keep repeating this :lol:)

 

...

...

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

 

...

 

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.

 

....

 

Capt_Uhura

 

Oh this was an interesting post. I do agree that kids today will need to learn how to analyze lots of info. Thinking skill really are important, I'm not arguing with that idea. But I do still think that memorization is still important. Yes we can look anything up and yes many facts do change. However time is so critical these days that the more you already know, the less time you need to spend looking things up. Take a math test. Even the kids learn that memorizing simple facts is faster then using a calculater! What about hearing a country name. Wouldn't it be better to *know* where on the earth it is then to have to spend time looking that up also? Think of those classes where they break down into small groups and all try to solve a problem that they haven't seen before. Which group will do better? The one with the great thinking and researching skills that begin their work by looking up definitions, map locations and/or math formulas; or the one with the same great thinking and researching skills that begin their work by taking all the definitions, map locations and/or math formulas needed and use that to begin their research?

 

...

..

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

 

Great examples of the importance of thinking and processing skills!! Thanks for sharing.

 

I'm thinking maybe there's more than one way to do "breadth." . . . .

 

The struggle for me — what's held me back from embracing the idea of just choosing a few core subjects and allowing DS to approach other areas much more on his own terms — has been the nagging fear that he would just have lots of separate little "pockets" of information, with nothing to connect them together. The concept of using a "history of ideas" as the framework to integrate all these "pockets" of knowledge in history, literature, philosophy, political science, history of science, art history, etc., has been the big "aha!" moment for me, because it not only solves that problem, it also provides the perfect framework for teaching the sort of analytical and critical thinking skills I want him to have. ......

 

Jackie

 

I'll agree here also. I too like the idea of using an overall framework, like history, to pull in some of the other subjects. The thought of having all separate subjects that do not try to connect to each other really sounds daunting.

 

 

At some point I'll try to finnish reading the other posts (at this point there are another 7 pages, but that's still growing! :lol:)

 

hmm, breath of information or depth of information? I think I'm more likely to do breath but dip into the depth whenever possible. I mean, while my kids are younger than 16years or so, I probably will not have them take a semester or year to study just the strategy of war (like my 14 yo ds would like). That can wait till 11th, 12th grade or college. On the other hand, if we are covering a war or a couple of wars and he wants to do a paper or project on the strategies used, then that is fine. ... That's what I mean by depth within a framework of breath.

 

Also, as I noted before, I still believe in memorization however for me this works better when I've dipped into the content instead of just memorizing the words.

 

Well, that's enough for now. Time to get something done before my day is gone!!

[Guest]

So even allowing the student to pursue his own vision has its limits, because the student has only his own self-perception of his strengths and abilities. You may see otherwise. I think we all know people who have followed rabbit trails and put time into areas or college majors that WEREN'T their strengths and WEREN'T going to work out.

 

It is true that I gave an example of a child who went on to build a career from a long-term obsessive interest.

 

But it's a mistake to see kids' passions ONLY in terms of future career possibilities. It wasn't the career I was getting at so much as the fact that an education can work "backwards," or in the opposite way that we typically present the breadth-to-depth pattern to kids.

 

I also think -- this is a contentious point of view, I know -- that things that don't "work out" or even things that obsess a person for years but that are not a strength for that person according to traditional measures are enormously valuable in their own right. The process of following a passion has worth in and of itself, regardless of where it takes you. The process of running up against your own failure (according to conventional definitions) has enormous worth. The years spent going very deeply into one topic are not somehow wasted or worthless if you then move on to something else, or decide that particular path is not for you.

 

Just as we sometimes assume that the best career path is one that is efficient and straightforward, we also can assume that people go into a specific career for a lifetime. This is one pattern, yes; but as with breadth before depth, there is MORE THAN ONE PATTERN. Some people skip and hop over multiple career paths. Some switch tracks quite spectacularly in mid-life, while others plug along and discover other paths not taken after they retire. Same thing with learning patterns.

 

Both Corraleno and I have been talking all along about kids whose pattern of thought, whose learning styles, were clearly different from the start.

 

--have to go, electric guys are turning off power to change our meters.

[Corraleno]

There's also the sense in which being able to follow your interests doesn't necessarily help you find yourself or what you're good at. Like your friend, I studied russian in high school, reading russian history and poetry in my spare time. But I also pursued quite a bit of math, science, and english, so that it was really unclear to me (at the time) what my strengths were. In retrospect I wished a wise mentor had come along and helped me see myself in a way different than I could at the time. So even allowing the student to pursue his own vision has its limits, because the student has only his own self-perception of his strengths and abilities.

But then wouldn't the solution be to provide our children with mentors as well as suggestions and direction, rather than not allowing kids to explore and pursue their interests? My kids are not limited by "only [their] own self-perception of [their] strengths and abilities;" they have two very supportive and involved parents, as well as mentors (several paleontologists and scientists in DS's case, and a music teacher for DD) who are capable of objectively assessing their talents, strengths, and weaknesses.

 

I think we all know people who have followed rabbit trails and put time into areas or college majors that WEREN'T their strengths and WEREN'T going to work out.

Actually I don't know anyone who regretted following their passion — although I know several people who regret not doing so. Just because I chose not to pursue a career in academia, doesn't mean the years I spent in grad school were a waste, or that I regret getting a degree in anthropology. I've still "used" what I learned, both in other jobs and in everyday life, and it's remained a life-long interest for me. My other interests, in art and literature and writing, led to jobs as a book designer and as an editor. In DH's case it was actually the tinkering and "rabbit trails" that resulted in a career, not his academic background (he was pushed into an area his parents considered more "practical.")

 

One of my brothers was obsessed with cars and motorcyles from the time he was really young; he barely graduated from HS because he did the absolute minumum required so he could spend all his spare time working on mechanical things. He ended up traveling all over the world (and I mean ALL over, spending 3 years covering every continent including a year working at a research station in Antarctica). He supported himself while traveling by fixing whatever anyone needed fixed, from a Russian tractor to a biplane engine. He always loved music, although it was definitely NOT an "area of strength" (he couldn't carry a tune), but through his travels he developed an encyclopedic knowledge of world music, which he parlayed into a job as a disc jockey with a world music show. He built his own business from scratch and was successful enough that he could work 6 months of the year and travel the world the rest of the time. He passed away last year and the comments on his blog and his Caring Bridge page almost universally expressed admiration, and even envy, that he had lived the kind of life most people are afraid to even dream of, let alone live out.

 

My other brother was also passionate about music, and he was actually quite talented. There are a number of professional musicians on my father's side of the family, and this brother wanted to follow in their footsteps. He even released a single that made Billboard's "New & Notable" list. But my parents and his then-girlfriend pressured him to give it up, settle down, and get a "real" job. He gave it up, and it's been the biggest regret of his life.

 

My cousin always wanted to be a teacher, but after HS she got a job with an IT company, who offered to pay for her to get a degree in IT, which she did. She made a lot of money, and was very unhappy. Now, in her late 40s, she's taken a job as a teacher's aid, for minimum wage, and really regrets taking the "practical" route instead of following her passion.

 

I could go on and on, listing cases of people I know who fit this same pattern, but you get the point. I read an article recently that said studies show people are far more likely to regret the things they didn't do than the things they did, and IME not following one's passion is often one of the biggest regrets of all.

 

Jackie

[Guest]

I think I'm more likely to do breath but dip into the depth whenever possible. I mean, while my kids are younger than 16years or so, I probably will not have them take a semester or year to study just the strategy of war (like my 14 yo ds would like).

 

Just curious -- not trying to challenge your thoughts or anything but to understand the reasoning behind this -- why not? What in your opinion is important about making him wait?