What is the purpose of curricula?

[Kfamily]

I'm curious to know what is most important to homeschool teachers with regard to curricula. If you have a minute and could share with me a couple of thoughts, I'd really appreciate it.

 

 

Do you look for curricula to transfer a body of knowledge in the most effective and thoughtful a way as possible to your student? (short term tool)

 

Or

 

Are you looking for curricula to build up your student into a specific type of learner? (long term tool)

 

What I'm wondering is whether you see curricula as a tool to master a body of knowledge or as a path on which to travel towards a goal further away. I'm thinking that the former is one with a short term goal in mind and the latter is one that is part of a longer goal.

 

Does one have to come at the expense of the other?

 

How important would it be to be careful if we lean too far one way over the other?

 

For example, if we use it for short term goals, should be sure that we have a framework in which to fit it? IOW, should we be careful not to stay too focused on checking boxes but instead are working towards our own specific path for the student?

 

Or if we use it for long term goals, should we be careful not to forget flexibility in meeting our student's needs? IOW, should we be careful not to let the goals of the designer of the curriculum take over our student's needs?

 

Just curious and love reading the experiences and thoughts of others as I'm sorting through my own thoughts. :) I'm guessing that for some curricula is used for short term goals, because they fold it into their own personal homeschooling approach. This would be the beauty of this purpose because you can use it to fit inside your own specific way of teaching. And for others the curricula serves as a framework for creating a specific type of student, which, of course, if also a meaningful purpose.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by Kfamily

[Arcadia]

What I'm wondering is whether you see curricula as a tool to master a body of knowledge or as a path on which to travel towards a goal further away. I'm thinking that the former is one with a short term goal in mind and the latter is one that is part of a longer goal.

 

Both.

For math and science, textbooks or curricula in general provide a spine to make sure "boring" topics are also covered. However they also spark off rabbit trails on whatever topics my kids find interesting. Also sometimes I am too lazy or too tired to explain, having a curriculum that my kids can partially self study from is great. I don't think my kids learning should be impacted by my energy level for that day.

For grammar regardless of language, my kids need the practice during the foundation stage. I have one child that intuit grammar and another that needs explicit instruction and practice. Since my German grammar is rusty, it is useful to have a German grammar handbook as a guide. My kids Saturday German school class use textbook and workbook so it is easier for parents to help with revision since they can self study alongside.

For literature and history, using different materials add different viewpoints if you include things like The Great Courses and MOOC under curriculum.

[73349]

First, let me admit that I think my student is already, in many ways, a specific type of learner. (And not the type I am, which would make things so much easier!) I'd say that what I do is about making the most of his abilities and inclinations, rather than forming them.

 

Second, I pick curricula subject by subject, year by year, rather than finding one all-in-one resource that seeks or claims to shape students in a certain way over the long run. So for me, any given curriculum is a relatively narrow, short-term commitment. In fact, I really like for my student to have access to a lot of different perspectives or approaches, so I often supplement things that don't necessarily need it (math, science, history) with resources that look at the same or related material in another way.

 

I try to help my student acquire knowledge, develop the skills he lacks, and when things are going well, enjoy it. Charlotte Mason's idea of a feast is appealing to me. A feast is not an imposed diet, nor a pile of convenience foods, nor a solitary dessert, nor twenty dishes made from the same basic ingredient. It's planned, but it's broad; it's prepared by a hostess, but the meal is meant to appeal to everyone; it's nutrient-rich, but it also ought to be delicious.

Edited February 19, 2017 by whitehawk

[Momto6inIN]

I guess I think of each individual curricula as a tool for accomplishing a short term task, and that many different types of tools (curricula just being one of them) might be necessary over the long term in order to try to produce the kind of student I'm hoping for. As I type this I'm picturing a sculptor using various types of tools, some broad and conceptual and long term, like sketches and idea boards, and other more nuts and bolts and short term, like chisels and hammers and feather-light brushes, in order to create their works of art.

 

Aaaaaand ... always recognizing that the kind of student I'm hoping for and the one they turn out being might not be the same thing ... as my "raw material" is alive and just might have ideas of their own. :lol:

[Crimson Wife]

I want my children to have the skills needed for success in college (or vocational training but at least my older two are aiming for a bachelor's or higher) and familiarity with mankind's greatest achievements.

 

TWTM provides a good general framework for both, even if I pick-and-choose the materials that best meet my children's needs rather than strictly following the recommendations in the book.

[Critterfixer]

The main thing I look for in a curriculum is whether or not it is flexible enough to let me adjust things when I need to.

[Bluegoat]

Both, I think.  I look for certain kinds of programs that fall within what I think are appropriate models for learning, but they also need to contain worthwhile content.  So - I am never going to be inclined to get an LA program focused on filling out worksheets and comprehension questions.  THat isn't what I think LA is about, and it doesn't matter what the book-list is. 

 

But I also would not likely use a program where I liked the approach, but the books were trash.

 

THat being said, there are some subjects where I am really looking for results without spending too much time on it, and methodology is less important.  We approached spelling that way, for example. 

[lllll]

nm

Edited March 2, 2017 by --Kathy--

[Farrar]

I think of it as a short term tool. I have my own framework, ideals, and goals and I choose curricula that can fit into those goals. While obviously some curricula have big picture lofty goals, for the most part, I find that most programs are tools meant to teach one topic, one set of skills, etc. In other words, they're meant to be short term. I'm not especially drawn to using all-in-one programs and those are the ones that sometimes have a bigger picture goal.

 

When I was teaching in b&m schools, I found curricula to be pretty negative for the most part. Most of them were so poorly written and constructed. And they were very limiting. And I found I taught better when I had ownership of the planning process. When you're teaching every subject, it's harder to do that level of planning and I learned that there are homeschool geared curricula that are simply much better.

 

I do think a lot of people don't do the big picture thinking at all. Like, people on this board tend to. In general, this forum is filled with people who like to think about what they're doing. I do think that makes for a fuller education overall. But... I've come to realize that sometimes people let the curricula do the thinking for them and that in practical terms it's usually fine. 

[Ellie]

I'm curious to know what is most important to homeschool teachers with regard to curricula. If you have a minute and could share with me a couple of thoughts, I'd really appreciate it.

 

 

Do you look for curricula to transfer a body of knowledge in the most effective and thoughtful a way as possible to your student? (short term tool)

 

Or

 

Are you looking for curricula to build up your student into a specific type of learner? (long term tool)

 

What I'm wondering is whether you see curricula as a tool to master a body of knowledge or as a path on which to travel towards a goal further away. I'm thinking that the former is one with a short term goal in mind and the latter is one that is part of a longer goal.

 

Does one have to come at the expense of the other?

 

How important would it be to be careful if we lean too far one way over the other?

 

For example, if we use it for short term goals, should be sure that we have a framework in which to fit it? IOW, should we be careful not to stay too focused on checking boxes but instead are working towards our own specific path for the student?

 

Or if we use it for long term goals, should we be careful not to forget flexibility in meeting our student's needs? IOW, should we be careful not to let the goals of the designer of the curriculum take over our student's needs?

 

Just curious and love reading the experiences and thoughts of others as I'm sorting through my own thoughts. :) I'm guessing that for some curricula is used for short term goals, because they fold it into their own personal homeschooling approach. This would be the beauty of this purpose because you can use it to fit inside your own specific way of teaching. And for others the curricula serves as a framework for creating a specific type of student, which, of course, if also a meaningful purpose.

 

Actually, it goes the other way:

 

Curriculum is not that stack of textbooks there. Saxon math is not curriculum. Total Language Plus is not curriculum. Story of the World is not curriculum. Rod and Staff, ABeka, Bob Jones University Press, do not publish curriculum.

 

"Curriculum" is the course of study offered by an institution of education. IOW, curriculum is the content, what is going to be taught, the long-term goal. You can use textbooks to cover the curriculum, or trade books, or discussion or lectures, or hands-on labs, or real-life work, or any combination that works for you to cover the curriculum. So, the curriculum would be grammar, composition, and literature; you would use [insert favorite method or instructional material] to cover the curriculum.

 

Here's a page from Harker Academy, a very prestigious private school in San Jose, California, discussing its curriculum. Notice that the names of publishers, textbooks, or other instructional materials is not mentioned.

 

Many of us homeschoolers are not professionally trained educators; we tend to choose the instructional materials and just follow those, thinking they are the curriculum...but they are not. American history, from the indigenous peoples, to the early European explorers, to the early settlers, through the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution...that would be curriculum. KONOS might be the instructional materials we use to teach the curriculum; or we might use trade books, field trips, and living history days; or we might use a textbook from BJUP or ABeka.

[LMD]

My #1 reason for choosing particular curricula is how it builds me up as a teacher. Yes, I want the information - they all more or less have that. If I am excited to use it then that's half the battle won.

 

I guess that defines individual resources as short term items within my larger vision of our home school.

[Kfamily]

Actually, it goes the other way:

 

Curriculum is not that stack of textbooks there. Saxon math is not curriculum. Total Language Plus is not curriculum. Story of the World is not curriculum. Rod and Staff, ABeka, Bob Jones University Press, do not publish curriculum.

 

"Curriculum" is the course of study offered by an institution of education. IOW, curriculum is the content, what is going to be taught, the long-term goal. You can use textbooks to cover the curriculum, or trade books, or discussion or lectures, or hands-on labs, or real-life work, or any combination that works for you to cover the curriculum. So, the curriculum would be grammar, composition, and literature; you would use [insert favorite method or instructional material] to cover the curriculum.

 

Here's a page from Harker Academy, a very prestigious private school in San Jose, California, discussing its curriculum. Notice that the names of publishers, textbooks, or other instructional materials is not mentioned.

 

Many of us homeschoolers are not professionally trained educators; we tend to choose the instructional materials and just follow those, thinking they are the curriculum...but they are not. American history, from the indigenous peoples, to the early European explorers, to the early settlers, through the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution...that would be curriculum. KONOS might be the instructional materials we use to teach the curriculum; or we might use trade books, field trips, and living history days; or we might use a textbook from BJUP or ABeka.

 

Yes, I agree, this distinction can be a bit blurry, especially for new homeschool teachers. It doesn't help when these providers include the word curriculum in their title or main descriptions. For example, I just looked up many of those providers you've listed above and they identify themselves as being a curriculum. Or at the very least, many are resources which make up a curriculum, while not necessarily being the entirety of the curriculum itself. So, I think many providers might want to work on their preciseness of words, otherwise we might tend to be a bit more loose with the word. :)

[Saddlemomma]

I totally jumped off the curricula bandwagon about 2 years ago.  I can't tell you how many thousands of dollars I spent on all-in-one programs and specific, highly recommended curricula for specific courses, curricula targeted to what I thought was my DD's learning style, etc...ad nausea.  I found that most homeschool curricula was a lot like regular school curricula.  It never went quite deep enough for us.

 

For example -- my biggest pet peeve -- Bible curricula. I hated all of it; everything out there just wasn't answering the real "why" questions.  It was all fluff and out of context. I mean, really, the contents of the Bible were written between the 2nd millennial BC up to around 90 AD. Do we really pretend to understand the mentality, customs and culture of those ancient people who wrote it -- which leads to the real why? No, not really, because every Bible curricula out there is missing the proper context and is instead applying scripture to 20th and 21st century understanding.  This is so backwards in my opinion.  No wonder about 85% of Christian kids lose their faith when they hit college! It infuriates me because our eldest DD abandoned her faith in her 3rd yr. of college, because we spouted the same, tired, misinformed religiosity as everyone else. I can absolutely understand and see why we're losing our kids! Apologetics doesn't cut it either. 

 

Ask yourself, what did Jesus really meant by, "on this rock I'll establish my church..." It has absolutely nothing to do with Peter! It has nothing to do with establishing a papacy. It has nothing to do with a specific person at all. It has everything to do with ANE understanding of cosmic geography and exactly where Jesus was standing when He made that statement. (I'll give you a hint: the base of Mt. Hermon.) The question of why is answered when you understand the meaning of cosmic geography and the reality that Jesus is declaring war upon those in the spiritual realm who have rebelled against God.  Another instance of the importance of cosmic geography is within the story of Naaman.  Why did he want to take all that dirt from Israel back to his homeland of Syria where a false god was worshipped? (2 Kings 5:15-19)  Cosmic geography answers that why too. The Bible makes so much more sense and is absolutely defensible when understood through the eyes of the ancient people who lived within the culture when it was written.  This is the kind of deep understanding we are seeking and none of the Bible curricula out there addresses any of this.  This is why our kids are shell-shocked when they reach college, because the college professors ARE aware of this type of scholarship and lambaste our kids who are totally unprepared because all they've ever heard was the same fluff they were brought up with.  "No, it wasn't a talking snake who deceived Eve, Johnny.  It was a nachash (ancient biblical Hebrew: n-ch-sh). The word has three functions: noun, verb, adjective. In Genesis, nachash has a triple entendre meaning: Divine Shining Being." Our kids need to be armed with facts; not the fluff of 20-21st century tradition and denomination.

 

Regarding learning styles, come to find out, my DD doesn't have a specific learning style.  She's an eclectic mix of styles.  In other words, she's a round peg that doesn't fit into a neat square hole.  I've come to the conclusion that we try too hard to pigeon-hole our kids into a specific style and then buy the curricula that fits that pigeon hole according to the hype of curricula companies.  I'm so done with all that.

 

DD is in 8th grade now, and we are having our best year yet.  We're doing our own thing, at our own pace, and supplementing with a mix-mash of different books, lectures, and documentaries across the spectrum.  We don't worry about whether or not we finish a book ; we just read selections that go with our targeted interests and skip the boring stuff or, if a specific book I chose as an overview is really enjoyed by DD, I'll tell her to go for it and read the whole thing. I guess you could say we just make our own curricula and adjust on the fly.  

 

DD told me she's learning more about science this year than she has in all the other years combined.  She has found that she loves Physics and Chemistry whereas she hated it before.  She is enjoying history like never before.  English is fun; imagine that! The only thing she still consistently hates is math...lol...We can live and work with that. I'm so, so done with the crazy and needing the latest, greatest curricula. If she's enjoying the learning part, that's all I care about at this point, because, if she's loving the learning; she'll retain it.

 

Sorry if I sound like I'm on a rant, but just thinking about all the unnecessary angst, money, and time I wasted for the first part of DD's education and how erroneously we led our eldest DD in Bible scholarship sometimes makes me sick.  I almost wish I could start over again...almost...lol.  However, as I said, we're in a great place now to the point where I can't even work up enough nervousness to bother worrying about high school next year. We'll just keep doing what we're doing now, but keep better records. And that, as they say, is it in a nutshell!

[birchbark]

I think I agree with Momto5inIN and Farrar that curriculum (defined as the materials we use) serve shorter term goals. The person who selects is the one who may (or may not :) ) have a long-term goal.

 

For example, if we use it for short term goals, should be sure that we have a framework in which to fit it? IOW, should we be careful not to stay too focused on checking boxes but instead are working towards our own specific path for the student?

 

Exactly. This is what that famous old Circe thread showed me. 

 

 

[Tohru]

My #1 reason for choosing particular curricula is how it builds me up as a teacher. Yes, I want the information - they all more or less have that. If I am excited to use it then that's half the battle won.

 

I guess that defines individual resources as short term items within my larger vision of our home school.

 

Totally OT, but THANK YOU! I needed to hear the bolded.

[Tohru]

I think I agree with Momto5inIN and Farrar that curriculum (defined as the materials we use) serve shorter term goals. The person who selects is the one who may (or may not :) ) have a long-term goal.

 

 

Exactly. This is what that famous old Circe thread showed me. 

 

What is that?

[Hunter]

My mind races. I get disorganized. I try to squeeze too much in.

 

Creating a spreadsheet of what I have and like, lets my brain stop racing, and is doable. When I see everything I have all lined up in grids, I have less desire to buy more. When I see things scheduled for later, I don't try and squeeze it in now.

[birchbark]

What is that?

 

The thread? Here it is. 

[eternalsummer]

the individual curricula, largely short term (except for skill subjects, like writing and math and latin, which are always long term)

[HS Mom in NC]

Curricula is used differently by different people. No one owns the term, so you just have to clarify what you mean by it and ask others to clarify what they mean by it.  Plenty of people use its meaning both ways, depending on context. That's the thing about languages-they change over time whether we approve or not.

I'm one of those personality types who figures out is big picture (long term) in each subject in pencil before I start planning out the details (short and mid term goals, materials, content, teaching techniques.) Since there are so many different homeschooling approaches (roughly 8 depending on how you count them)  I think it's useful to figure out which 1-3 best align with your long term goals (what skills you want mastered and content you want covered with teaching techniques you prefer by high school graduation.) Once you do that it makes selecting curriculum (plans, materials and content) easier because you have a clearer sense of what you're looking for.  It can also build your confidence in bulking up curriculum worth having but doesn't quite get the job done. 

I don't believe you can create a specific type of student.  I think specific types are inborn.

[Targhee]

I believe the aim of education is both a way of learning (skills/process) and foundational knowledge. Curricula may vary in their effectiveness of furthering either or both of these aims. I look for, in a curriculum, what is needed for my student at the time.

 

Yes, I dare say you can go too far either way, but on the balance we tilt towards skills/process. Knowledge, specific knowledge in particular, is both so readily available and incredibly profuse it serves little purpose to attempt to absorb it all. Skills, process, discernment, on the other hand, is generally lacking in education (in the world?), and so we do give it more attention in our home education.