In contrast Art Robinsons says (quoting his website):
"Dr. Robinson has spent less than 15 minutes per day teaching all six children ages 6 through 18."
That is 2.5 minutes per child per day. The lack of involvement is the "selling point" of this re-packaged assortment of public domain materials. Again, quoting his website:
"This teaching program requires almost no teacher interaction."
2.5 minutes a day is what I would call not a lot of teaching. Robinson thinks this this is a good idea, and one he can SELL to parents. I'd say, "buyer beware."
Believe it or not, the educational establishment has brainwashed most people in this country to believe that one can not learn without a teacher. The truth is once you put in the time to teach a child intermediate reading (the level most children need to be at to start the Robinson curriculum as their early readers are way above the norm) and basic math, there is no reason to "teach" the child. "teach" him study habits, how to outline a book, how to take notes, how to get the most out of his reading but to "teach" the concepts - Not necessary. Teach the child when he is ready to developmentally learn the concepts and the time required is minimal.
My oldest scored 650 on the SAT Math at age 12. Since teaching math facts and basic math at 3 and 4, I've probably spent no more than 1 hour a week "teaching" math to him. Most of that time is spent correcting his work ( I still do that as my way to keep up with what he is doing) His brother who is not a mathy child has the same record but hasn't taken the SAT yet. IN fact he is right now, following RC's philosophy by reading the SINGAPORE 5a Chapter 4, doing the oral problems - written so I can check the answers- and then moving on to the exercises. His typical rate of misses for Primary, CPW, and IP (yes he does all three every day along with KEYS to books) is roughly 3 problems. Out of all the books, 3 wrong with absolute no input from me. I follow RC's advise by not explaining the wrong problems but by asking him to review the problems. His mistake on most days jump out and he self corrects without any explanation from me.
The oldest at 13 and 8th grade is reading Jacob's geometry Chapter 12( I think) - a book he has nearly finished in a little over 4 months. HE did struggle with Geometry. I "taught" him by handing him my College Geometry book, Keys to geometry, Khan academy videos, and guiding him to the chapters that he didn't understand and the concepts that he needed to review. We've spent more time on that book learning how to duplicate the proofs than anything else. ( I make him do the proofs like the answer key - Then he dissects his proof and makes sure that the way he wrote it out is mathematically correct and logical) But did I spend an hour or two everyday holding his hand and reading the text to him and going through long drawn out lectures? NOPE!
I did listen to the naysayers and change my approach by using TWTM. I regret that as their skills in everything but math have slipped. The oldest now considers most books to be "hard" because the reading is not as rigorous as RC. The middle's writing is weak because I didn't require copywork but instead used R&S only. And he has lost his independence in learning. Their history and science nose dived as I used SOTW instead of just reading history as we had done before. We are going back to Rc book list and philosophy. We are going back to go the libray and pick out something from history, science, art, lit, non fiction, crafts, and adult section and read them.
I do see holes in RC. But every curriculum has holes. That's why I'm hanging onto R&s, latin, and logic and the great book study. And I love her notebooks as I need that for "proof" in my state. But we are changing this week back to Rc. I'll keep the good from TWTM but Rc will run the show. I given each enough years to see the benefits of both and the weakness of both and RC's "less is more" wins. It produces better writers and far more independent students who are confident and comfortable in their ability to tackle any subject and master it IMHO. TWTM does a good job but seems to create way more "busy " work for mom than RC in the younger years (middle and down) without producing a better student. On the older level (high school) they are pretty similar in technique.