How is MFW more classical than HOD?

[ALB]

I have read that My Father's World claims to be a combination of CM philosophy and classical education, and that Heart of Dakota is mostly influenced by CM (and does not claim to be classical). However, after reading through the samples and looking at all the years' programs of each, I can't figure out what about MFW is more classical than HOD. Both tackle history in a similar way (IMO) and the grammar books for HOD (R&S) seem to be more rigorous than MFW (PLL), which to me sounds more classical than CM. Anyways, not that it really matters, I'm just interested and curious since I am drawn to both CM methods and classical, and both companies appeal to me. I am trying to nail down the main differences in their philosophies and methods.

[Momofeat]

I'm sure you will get more responses from those who are more knowlegeable than me, but maybe this will help keep your question on the front page. ;)

 

I have never used HOD, so I cannot really compare them. However, MFW begins with a more CM approach in the early years, and then becomes more classical as the children get older. Beginning with CtG, it follows the 4 yr history cycle.

[birchbark]

 

This thread from the HoD boards may help you out.

[Donna A.]

Yes, MFW is more CM in the early years than "classical", and also leans more toward CM in the language arts. However, MFW is flexible enough that you can use R&S or whatever WTM-recommended resources you prefer for math and LA. But if you've ever read Charlotte Mason's own writings and see how SHE actually did school, you'll see that she was much more rigorous than what many modern writers describe about her. As always, the closer you get to original sources, the more accurate your information is likely to be. ;) Here's a link to where you can read Miss Mason's own writings online: http://www.amblesideonline.org/CM/toc.html

 

I would start there... discerning just what the differences are between "classical" and CM. I'm putting the term "classical" in quotes because there are several different definitions of that method of schooling. TWTM isn't the only way. :) The Bluedorn's, who wrote Teaching the Trivium, give a little different (more biblical) perspective. I would say MFW lines up with this POV a little closer than TWTM. You can do some poking around on their website for more info: http://www.triviumpursuit.com/

 

I would also recommend getting a copy of David Hazell's conference talk titled "What Should 21st Century Christians be Teaching Their Children?" to get the MFW big picture. Here's another titled "21st Century Classical Education". You can find links to these and other Hazell conference talks at the MFW "Choosing Curriculum" forum: http://board.mfwbooks.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3234 (MFW does sell some of these CDs directly from their website for a little less money, btw, so check there first before ordering elsewhere.)

 

MFW actually begins the chronological study of history at Kindergarten. Their K-2 cycle is more Bible-focused than WTM for that age, but it IS chronological in the sense that it begins with the beginning, goes all the way through history via Creation and Bible studies, then hits American in 2nd grade. Then you have one year of geography, world cultures, and missions, learning about other religions and people around the world, where they are, how they live, what their prayer needs might be, before beginning what WTM describes as "history". The teaching of false gods and lifestyles of the ancient Greeks and Romans is taught gradually as the child grows and matures, rather than mixing up the ancient myths and legends with the stories from the Word of God while they're still very young.

 

Consequently, MFW gets more in-depth each year and really builds upon itself. So while it may look "light" in the beginning (some would call it "age appropriate"), it definitely doesn't stay that way. Additionally, with the "Book Basket" booklist in the back of the TMs, you have about 400 (give or take) titles to choose from which are optional, in addition to what's scheduled in the lesson plans and what you see included in the packages. That booklist is very extensive, with titles in every genre and age/reading level, as well as many topic-related video titles. It's very easy to adapt for whatever ages you have.

 

MFW lesson plans are also flexible enough to MAKE it more "classical" if you wanted to. I know that Cadam from this board added Latin and other WTM elements when she was doing MFW, and others do, too. One year she turned the TM sideways in order to rearrange the lessons and use it LCC-style. (This is one thing I love about the week-at-a-glance grid.... makes it easier to look ahead and change things around if I need to, or add other subjects to the blank boxes on the grid.)

 

Here are links to some posts in the MFW archives that might be helpful in answering your question, too:

 

"Comparing MFW to other curriculums"

http://board.mfwbooks.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4098

 

"Why isn't MFW as "rigorous" as other curriculums?"

http://board.mfwbooks.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2927

 

"Academics - Will MFW be challenging?"

http://board.mfwbooks.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=475

 

"Academics - Whoever said MFW was light has never done it!"

http://board.mfwbooks.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3770

 

"Classical Education and MFW"

http://board.mfwbooks.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=428

 

Btw, we've used MFW since early 2005 and have used all of the elementary programs, as well as one year of high school so far. While I have investigated and even tried some other curriculums (including HOD), we always come back to MFW. It just seems to be the most "balanced" curriculum out there for our family, and we love how it "grows with the child" while still being adaptable for everyone. (Though high schoolers work independently.)

 

HTH with understanding how MFW works over the long haul. :001_smile:

[Donna A.]

One more thing I want to point out... in that HOD thread that a pp linked, someone in that discussion said: "I think one of the differences you'll see between MFW and HoD is that HoD really makes an effort to use living books as spines, and uses reference books as reference books."

 

Actually, MFW uses reference books as reference books, too. :D The spines in MFW are:

 

Kindergarten -- the Bible

1st grade -- the student's own Bible reader

Adventures -- The History of the U.S. and American Pioneers & Patriots

 

ECC -- missionary bios, the Bible, and various atlases since it IS geography, after all. ;) (More living books in the booklist at the back of the TM.)

 

CTG -- the Bible

RTR -- Augustus Caesar's World and SOTW 2

**EX1850 -- SOTW 3, Exploring American History, Geo. Washington's World, and Building a City on a Hill for advanced students

**1850MOD -- SOTW 4 and Exploring American History

 

Both EX1850 and 1850MOD include a 2nd/3rd supplement for younger children because of the heavier content that you find in those years vs. the 2nd grade Adventures program.

 

Streams volume 1, which is used in both CTG and RTR, is for advanced students and/or Mom to read and summarize certain excerpts... not the whole thing. It's a reference source, not a main spine.

 

The Bible is always THE main spine, however, as you read through the majority of the Old Testament in CTG, the majority of the New Testament in RTR, memorize the book of James in EX1850, and use it for more in-depth Bible study/discipleship in 1850MOD. Then the high school student reads through the *entire* Bible cover to cover.

 

Science is CM'ish in the early years, with nature walks and nature study scheduled frequently, as well as simple experiments done to introduce the child to the various fields of science in a fun way. (Again, more living books that are topic-related are found in the Book Basket list. Lots of people tend to forget about this very valuable resource!) Then beginning with RTR, there are two full science studies done every year, which is very WTM'ish. MFW recommends Apologia beginning in 7th grade for junior highers (which is pretty much considered the "cream of the crop" for many classical educators :lol: ).

 

Just wanted to clarify that about spines in MFW. :)

[ALB]

Thank you all who have replied so far! Both look like such great programs. It seems to me that one huge difference is in how the age spans are approached (combining kids). Looks like MFW is more WTMish in how younger kids are folded into the same period of history as the older dc, after first grade at least. HOD seems like it would be possible to do it that way, but maybe not ideal. That's not really a big deal to me right now since I just have 2 dc, but I can see how it would be nice.

I read that HOD really emphasizes the idea of "savoring" a book- CM style, and MFW seems more like you read an abundance about each topic (via book basket). Maybe that would be one difference...?

[Donna A.]

Thank you all who have replied so far! Both look like such great programs. It seems to me that one huge difference is in how the age spans are approached (combining kids). Looks like MFW is more WTMish in how younger kids are folded into the same period of history as the older dc, after first grade at least.

 

Yes, this is accurate.

 

I read that HOD really emphasizes the idea of "savoring" a book- CM style, and MFW seems more like you read an abundance about each topic (via book basket). Maybe that would be one difference...?

 

Not exactly. MFW only has one read-aloud scheduled at a time in addition to the main spine. There are extra resources included for reading differing perspectives about a particular topic, exploring a topic more in-depth if interested, and that sort of thing. (I call these "research resources".) But typically you have one main spine (or perhaps two in some years, in order to accommodate both older and younger students), and then you have a read-aloud chapter book that adds to the topic being studied in an enjoyable way. Both the main spine and the read-aloud are scheduled CM style.... the "savoring" that you speak of.

 

Book Basket, OTOH, is meant to be like a buffet. There's a spread laid out for you to choose from, but obviously you don't eat everything on the buffet. You choose what you like. There may be some of your old favorites, and you may try some new foods. After you sit down at the table, you may pick at some of what's on your plate and decide you don't like it, or you may decide to go back for seconds. Your choice. Book Basket is completely optional, and very flexible in how you use it. It's meant to be enjoyable while enhancing your studies, but not be burdensome or obligatory. (Some people don't have a very good library or just don't like to use the library, so they may choose to buy some of the titles on the booklist instead. Marie has asterisked some of the titles that she recommends for purchase if you choose to do it that way.)

 

Does that help?

[blessedmom3]

This thread really helped me decide .

 

http://www.heartofdakota.com/board3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1446&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=mfw+hod

[Donna A.]

This thread really helped me decide .

 

http://www.heartofdakota.com/board3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1446&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=mfw+hod

 

But to be fair, the OP of that thread is the HOD author's sister (which she does state in her post). While she gave a somewhat good comparison, she hasn't actually used MFW, and therefore isn't completely accurate in some of her statements about the program.

 

For example, the following statement seems to imply that MFW doesn't teach kids to read with discernment and use the Bible as their moral compass in day-to-day living. Huh? :001_huh: That just simply isn't true.

 

"HOD is about teaching kids to read with discernment and use the Bible as their moral compass in living their day-to-day life, while MFW seems to have more of a missions focus"

[fenni]

I have used MFW K, 1, ADV, and ECC. This year we are using HOD for the first time. I love that HOD is age-appropriate already and I don't have to tweak it. I hated tossing so much of ECC out last year for my 8 yr. old. I don't want to read and summarize for the younger kids. I used to think having the children on the same history cycle was the only way to do it with a large family, but we are so much happier with age-specific materials instead. I also really love the new individual time I get with my kids to read and discuss. I, however, am not caught up in which is more classical. Just wanted to share that although "combining" kids can sometimes seem to be the only way, it is just one way. :001_smile:

[OregonNative]

But to be fair, the OP of that thread is the HOD author's sister (which she does state in her post). While she gave a somewhat good comparison, she hasn't actually used MFW, and therefore isn't completely accurate in some of her statements about the program.

 

For example, the following statement seems to imply that MFW doesn't teach kids to read with discernment and use the Bible as their moral compass in day-to-day living. Huh? :001_huh: That just simply isn't true.

 

"HOD is about teaching kids to read with discernment and use the Bible as their moral compass in living their day-to-day life, while MFW seems to have more of a missions focus"

 

:iagree: Don't let this thread influence your decision. I spoke with MFW regarding the statements in the HOD thread (I didn't say where I found the statements) as I was having a very hard time choosing between the 2 programs.

I recommend you call both companies and ask questions or email them. Def. talk to HOD about where to place your kids if you decide to go with their program. I don't recommend using the placement chart as your final decision maker.

Edited October 6, 2010 by OregonNative

[ALB]

As the op, I just want to clarify that I'm not asking which is the "better" of the two companies! I think both seem equally biblical in their focus and thorough in what they cover/ expect from the student. I just wondered if there are significant differences in their philosophies, especially related to the labels "classical" and "cm".

[cbollin]

I just wondered if there are significant differences in their philosophies, especially related to the labels "classical" and "cm".

 

Since that HOD board thread was brought up, I'd encourage you to also read the rebuttal about that thread. That might help with some of the differences in philosophies in the programs. Here's a link to that rebuttal

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173817

 

Agreeing with Donna that you might like to hear a MFW workshop about Combining the methods. and the 21st Century teaching.

 

It helps to remember that Miss Mason was a classical educator, so in some ways it's really a fine line to define the differences in it all.

 

In some ways, MFW is more CM in approach on some things, and in others HOD is more Classical. MFW goes more CM on grammar/language arts. HOD goes more toward "classical" on grammar/language arts.

 

There is no one and only definition of classical education.

 

And here is a thread with descriptions of the CM influence in MFW.

http://board.mfwbooks.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4004&p=22883&hilit=influence#p22883

 

It's fine line differences. So it's hard to say how one is more "classical" or "CM" than the other. Instead, I think the better approach to figuring it out is to listen to the authors themselves and ask "what are the goals you have in the program and where do the Classical and CM road cross, and where do they split off from each other"

 

The other aspect comes in how you as a classical or CM or blend teacher will use either program to accomplish your style. If there are parts of a classical education that you want to include that a program doesn't -- can you easily add or tweak it to fit you?

 

-crystal

[birchbark]

It helps to remember that Miss Mason was a classical educator, so in some ways it's really a fine line to define the differences in it all.

 

In some ways, MFW is more CM in approach on some things, and in others HOD is more Classical. MFW goes more CM on grammar/language arts. HOD goes more toward "classical" on grammar/language arts.

 

Excellent points.

 

Sometimes the best way to discover which curriculum suits you is just to road-test. Print out samples and try them out. Take advantage of satisfaction guarantees, if offered. I've been surprised with what I've learned this way.

 

I'd like to clarify the "reference vs. living books" point brought up earlier. MFW uses encyclopedic, fact books (often Usborne) in their programs (as well as living books). HoD purposely stays away from these, opting instead to use living books for content areas, including science. This is not a better vs. worse issue, just one that shows the classical vs. CM style. Classical tends to utilize more encyclopedic-type books, and this may be one way in which MFW has a more classical flavor than HoD.

Edited October 7, 2010 by birchbark

[Donna A.]

I'd like to clarify the "reference vs. living books" point brought up earilier. MFW uses encyclopedic, fact books (often Usborne) in their programs (as well as living books). HoD purposely stays away from these, opting instead to use living books for content areas, including science. This is not a better vs. worse issue, just one that shows the classical vs. CM style. Classical tends to utilize more encyclopedic-type books.

 

Right, but if I wanted an exclusively CM curriculum, I wouldn't buy a prepared curriculum package for that, anyway. ;) I think CM "pure" is best done without a packaged curriculum, because I don't know of a one that claims to be CM that really does *everything* the same way she would've. (She wouldn't have included any hands-on activities, for example, nor would she have done notebooking or taught formal grammar until later. I think Ambleside is the curriculum that comes closest to CM "pure" that I've seen.) Besides, my point in an earlier post about the reference books used in MFW was that they don't use them as *spines*, which is what was implied by someone's comment. (I don't remember who made the comment, whether it was in this thread or one of the threads that was linked.) Thus, earlier, I was just clarifying what the spines are in MFW. (I'm not even sure if your comment was directed at me... I'm just elaborating on it a bit more. :) )

 

And just to share a personal observation I've made over the years... With living books, it's hard to find many good ones that contain colorful pictures once a child gets past the picture book stage. So reference books definitely have their place... and I doubt there were many reference books available at the time Miss Mason lived. They also just didn't have as many pictures, period! It's nice that nowadays we have resources like this available to us to enhance the people and things and places that we're studying, since we obviously can't go to all of them to see in person. :001_smile: It's also nice (IMO) that MFW offers resources with internet links for the learner who'd rather do their research on the internet, or maybe just occasionally wants to enhance their notebooking or written summary from the internet links (which often contain more pictures, detailed drawings, puzzles, summaries already written up for them, and other options).