Jump to content

Menu

Focusing education or well-rounded?


Recommended Posts

I've been pondering the concept of when it's appropriate to focus studies and when it's beneficial to ensure a "well-rounded" education. Ebunny's post in the Ideal Humanities thread  made me wonder when/how it would be possible to truly focus studies in an area of interest, rather than piece-meal subjects that touch all the "appropriate" areas of instruction. 

 

I feel like having a list of largely unrelated subjects (math, literature, science, history, language, music, art, etc.) provides some benefit, by broadening the learning base and allowing our children to have an experience in a bunch of different areas (I am still thankful for my college philosophy class even though it about killed me to pass it and it made no impact on anything in my life), but I wonder how much that concept is actually beneficial to our children when we do it year after year. One of the benefits of homeschooling is that I don't have to pattern my kids education on the public school system, but I don't really know how to break out of that broad base of studies and allow for a more in-depth focus of study.

 

I recently saw a thing on my facebook feed that one of the downfalls of the modern education system is the lack of passion and focus of most graduates. And that those kids who do have passion and focus and become the world shakers and changers, averaged something like a 2.9GPA in highschool because they had trouble conforming to the broad education base required.

 

My DD and I have recently finished reading the 2-ebook series on the Gifted Potentials and the way they set up the course of study is two courses focused on aspects of interest/potential, a third course focusing on a weakness, but tying assignments to the other two courses, and then "intensives" once a week, focusing on something random of interest. The idea is intriguing - allowing for in-depth study in areas of strong interest/potential, focus on a relative weakness to tie it into those areas of interest, and then provide little mini-courses on a variety of "extra" areas. My problem is that I am too stuck in the box and feel like I'm going to mess my kid up by not providing the typical course of study. 

 

I've been kicking this around in my brain for about a month now and am still foggy about the concept, and it's probably not helped by curricula available on the market, which doesn't seem to cater to this concept, at least none that I have found. Anyone else have any thoughts?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a K-12 student, I do not consider it desirable to specialize to such a degree that it requires the exclusion, or severe weakening, of other subject areas.

 

If my child has a strong interest in math and science and wants to study those in college, I see it even more as my responsibilty to ensure a strog humanities and language education precisely because he will not get a deep exposure in college. And if my student were passionate about literature, it would be even more important to provide a strong math and science education at home because there would be even fewer requirements for those in college.

 

Also, interest usually comes from exposure. A student who is not introduced to math or physics or history is unlikely to discover that he is actually interested in these areas.

 

There is enough time to provide strong basics across the board and specialize on top of that -  it does not have to be instead.

 

 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a K-12 student, I do not consider it desirable to specialize to such a degree that it requires the exclusion, or severe weakening, of other subject areas.

 

If my child has a strong interest in math and science and wants to study those in college, I see it even more as my responsibilty to ensure a strog humanities and language education precisely because he will not get a deep exposure in college. And if my student were passionate about literature, it would be even more important to provide a strong math and science education at home because there would be even fewer requirements for those in college.

 

Also, interest usually comes from exposure. A student who is not introduced to math or physics or history is unlikely to discover that he is actually interested in these areas.

 

There is enough time to provide strong basics across the board and specialize on top of that -  it does not have to be instead.

 

I think you and I have been drinking the same Kool-Aid  :D What you've written here was the defining philosophy of my homeschool.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I recently saw a thing on my facebook feed that one of the downfalls of the modern education system is the lack of passion and focus of most graduates. And that those kids who do have passion and focus and become the world shakers and changers, averaged something like a 2.9GPA in highschool because they had trouble conforming to the broad education base required.

 

 

Ok, so based on that average, some of the "shakers and changers" totally rocked high school, and others not so much.  Not too surprising. Doesn't tell you much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a K-12 student, I do not consider it desirable to specialize to such a degree that it requires the exclusion, or severe weakening, of other subject areas.

 

If my child has a strong interest in math and science and wants to study those in college, I see it even more as my responsibilty to ensure a strog humanities and language education precisely because he will not get a deep exposure in college. And if my student were passionate about literature, it would be even more important to provide a strong math and science education at home because there would be even fewer requirements for those in college.

 

Also, interest usually comes from exposure. A student who is not introduced to math or physics or history is unlikely to discover that he is actually interested in these areas.

 

There is enough time to provide strong basics across the board and specialize on top of that -  it does not have to be instead.

 

So your opinion is that we need to provide a well-rounded base, then allow depth of study on top of that?

 

For the record, I agree that interest does typically come from exposure and that we need to expose our kids to all kinds of things, I guess I just wonder about requiring year-long focuses on everything from a separate course, rather than combining some things together. 

 

Like the concept of copywork - you can teach spelling, handwriting, grammar, editing skills, etc. through copywork. So instead of having a book for handwriting practice, a book for spelling lessons, a book for grammar lessons and work on editing skills separately, you combine them all together. And then you can focus the copywork on an area of current study so that it's completely integrated into the day. So why does that concept for young children morph into science, writing, and math as separate subjects, for example? Obviously to some degree the basic foundations need to be taught before things can be combined like that, but where that separation ends and the possibility of blending subjects begins seems fuzzy to me and the typical course of study doesn't blend them much at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a K-12 student, I do not consider it desirable to specialize to such a degree that it requires the exclusion, or severe weakening, of other subject areas.

 

If my child has a strong interest in math and science and wants to study those in college, I see it even more as my responsibilty to ensure a strog humanities and language education precisely because he will not get a deep exposure in college. And if my student were passionate about literature, it would be even more important to provide a strong math and science education at home because there would be even fewer requirements for those in college.

 

Also, interest usually comes from exposure. A student who is not introduced to math or physics or history is unlikely to discover that he is actually interested in these areas.

 

There is enough time to provide strong basics across the board and specialize on top of that -  it does not have to be instead.

I agree with this philosophy and believe that a well rounded education is beneficial for a child. Even for one who is passionate about one area and will specialize or super-specialize in it in college and career. This has been the driving philosophy in education for me because, I super-specialized in certain areas in adult life and if it were not for the well-rounded education that I had, I would be an one-dimensional adult, which is not a good thing because I do know many of that kind. Student interest comes from exposure, as regentrude says. Student interest also changes from exposure. A student who loves Writing might suddenly find themselves loving Physics if they do many hands on experiments tied to their study of physics.

 

But, there are certainly many disadvantages to this method of education: the top most amongst them is that the child is "behind" compared to where he could be if he were super focused on his main area of interest to the exclusion of most other things. Another disadvantage is that you can spend a lot of time on many areas, and it might feel that there is no focus, that there is a high level of disorganization, that there is no measurable progress etc. And there simply is not enough time to get it all done if you are tempted to broaden your focus too much.

 

If you don't plan to graduate your child early, then, there is always time to strengthen their areas of special interest while still getting a well-rounded education. These days they call it something like "Well Rounded but Angular in one area" or some such thing :) Of course, if your child is applying to Juilliard for a music major, they better be completely focused on that starting at an early age.

 

There are "specialist" kids out there. But, they are the ones who knew earlier in life what their future was going to be. Most kids don't know what they want to do even in high school years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your opinion is that we need to provide a well-rounded base, then allow depth of study on top of that?

 

For the record, I agree that interest does typically come from exposure and that we need to expose our kids to all kinds of things, I guess I just wonder about requiring year-long focuses on everything from a separate course, rather than combining some things together. 

 

Like the concept of copywork - you can teach spelling, handwriting, grammar, editing skills, etc. through copywork. So instead of having a book for handwriting practice, a book for spelling lessons, a book for grammar lessons and work on editing skills separately, you combine them all together. And then you can focus the copywork on an area of current study so that it's completely integrated into the day. So why does that concept for young children morph into science, writing, and math as separate subjects, for example? Obviously to some degree the basic foundations need to be taught before things can be combined like that, but where that separation ends and the possibility of blending subjects begins seems fuzzy to me and the typical course of study doesn't blend them much at all. 

 

There is no need to separate subjects - of course you can combine things, and it is often more efficient to acquire a skill in context than through isolation. I much prefer to let my children learn proper use of English language through reading and writing across the curriculum, rather than through spelling worksheets, grammar worksheets, handwriting worksheets. The important thing is the skill - how that is acquired will depend on the individual student.

 

For example, we taught English and history in an integrated way, and it would have been impossible to separate which activity belonged to one or the other. Especially with young children, much of learning will happen organically, without strict subject boundaries. You can read and write about science, too :)

 

Math is separate because most applications of mathematics in content subjects do not come until much later. They will use math in physics and chemistry, and a lot of higher math can be taught through science applications - but not arithmetic. That just needs to be there before you can do much in sciences. But you can integrate a lot of elementary math education into everyday life, through baking, cooking, sewing, arts and crafts. 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about a broad and solid base.

 

One thing that I do think many people mistakenly try to do, though, is ensure that levels of attainment are equal across subjects, and THAT I think is a mistake. I don't think there's anything wrong with a mathematically talented child doing a solid and rigorous on-level curriculum and not working very hard because they are just not very interested and are passionate about something else and putting all their free time and energy into that instead. Just because they're tremendously far ahead of average in, say, music and languages doesn't mean that they need to be also working four grades ahead in math and science and/or "shoring up those areas". 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to separate subjects - of course you can combine things, and it is often more efficient to acquire a skill in context than through isolation. I much prefer to let my children learn proper use of English language through reading and writing across the curriculum, rather than through spelling worksheets, grammar worksheets, handwriting worksheets. The important thing is the skill - how that is acquired will depend on the individual student.

 

For example, we taught English and history in an integrated way, and it would have been impossible to separate which activity belonged to one or the other. Especially with young children, much of learning will happen organically, without strict subject boundaries. You can read and write about science, too :)

 

Math is separate because most applications of mathematics in content subjects do not come until much later. They will use math in physics and chemistry, and a lot of higher math can be taught through science applications - but not arithmetic. That just needs to be there before you can do much in sciences. But you can integrate a lot of elementary math education into everyday life, through baking, cooking, sewing, arts and crafts. 

 

A math lover could create an entire curriculum around math.  :laugh:  There is the potential for so much information: history, geography, finance, culture, symbols, foreign language, art, music, science. Everything, really. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to separate subjects - of course you can combine things, and it is often more efficient to acquire a skill in context than through isolation. I much prefer to let my children learn proper use of English language through reading and writing across the curriculum, rather than through spelling worksheets, grammar worksheets, handwriting worksheets. The important thing is the skill - how that is acquired will depend on the individual student.

 

For example, we taught English and history in an integrated way, and it would have been impossible to separate which activity belonged to one or the other. Especially with young children, much of learning will happen organically, without strict subject boundaries. You can read and write about science, too :)

 

Math is separate because most applications of mathematics in content subjects do not come until much later. They will use math in physics and chemistry, and a lot of higher math can be taught through science applications - but not arithmetic. That just needs to be there before you can do much in sciences. But you can integrate a lot of elementary math education into everyday life, through baking, cooking, sewing, arts and crafts. 

 

So where is that line between arithmetic and higher math? Algebra? My DD9 is good at math. She is quick at picking up concepts but dislikes math as a subject. She's finished Beast 3, and finished in less time than I anticipated for the school year including many math free days for a lot of hands-on learning opportunities. But, she doesn't thrive on math like she does on science. She's been begging to study astronomy in depth ever since she did an elementary level intro to astronomy. So I bought a used copy of the Great Courses Intro to Astronomy for next year (and she's begging to start NOW when she saw me open the package). That plus a bunch of projects that I've found that are related include on first glance a lot of math.  The thing is, I feel oddly unsure of myself when I consider not doing Beast 4 next year, instead teaching her the math that comes up in Astronomy. But at the same time, I feel like she would both enjoy the math more and learn more (and fight less) if she could see a direct reason for learning any random math concept that comes up. By taking away "math" as a subject, it feels like I'm breaking some unwritten rule (or rather, it's written in the state's homeschool laws, but through creative portfolio editing I can get around that).

 

 

I agree about a broad and solid base.

 

One thing that I do think many people mistakenly try to do, though, is ensure that levels of attainment are equal across subjects, and THAT I think is a mistake. I don't think there's anything wrong with a mathematically talented child doing a solid and rigorous on-level curriculum and not working very hard because they are just not very interested and are passionate about something else and putting all their free time and energy into that instead. Just because they're tremendously far ahead of average in, say, music and languages doesn't mean that they need to be also working four grades ahead in math and science and/or "shoring up those areas". 

 

This is something I need to ponder more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where is that line between arithmetic and higher math? Algebra? My DD9 is good at math. She is quick at picking up concepts but dislikes math as a subject. She's finished Beast 3, and finished in less time than I anticipated for the school year including many math free days for a lot of hands-on learning opportunities. But, she doesn't thrive on math like she does on science. She's been begging to study astronomy in depth ever since she did an elementary level intro to astronomy. So I bought a used copy of the Great Courses Intro to Astronomy for next year (and she's begging to start NOW when she saw me open the package). That plus a bunch of projects that I've found that are related include on first glance a lot of math.  The thing is, I feel oddly unsure of myself when I consider not doing Beast 4 next year, instead teaching her the math that comes up in Astronomy. But at the same time, I feel like she would both enjoy the math more and learn more (and fight less) if she could see a direct reason for learning any random math concept that comes up. By taking away "math" as a subject, it feels like I'm breaking some unwritten rule (or rather, it's written in the state's homeschool laws, but through creative portfolio editing I can get around that)

 

You can study astronomy, but using math in astronomy requires quite a bit more than 3rd grade arithmetic. It is certainly possible to create some math problems around astronomy, but I do not think it is possible to teach elementary math skills using this college level GC course. 

 

Also, math must be taught in a systematic manner, because skills build on each other. You cannot, in isoation, learn "any random math concept that comes up".

 

Lastly, it requires a tremendous amount of expertise and time to create a math curriculum that teaches math through science and provides a sufficient amount of well designed practice problems to achieve mastery. I have a PhD in theoretical physics and tried to teach prealgebra without a curriculum when I had to pull DD out of school on short notice. I quickly realized that this was foolish of me, because it takes such a lot of time to create pratice problems that illustrate precisely the skill the student needs to learn next. I would strongly recommend against this course of action.

 

There is no reason you cannot have her study astronomy and work through Beast 4 simultaneously.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, I feel oddly unsure of myself when I consider not doing Beast 4 next year, instead teaching her the math that comes up in Astronomy. But at the same time, I feel like she would both enjoy the math more and learn more (and fight less) if she could see a direct reason for learning any random math concept that comes up. By taking away "math" as a subject, it feels like I'm breaking some unwritten rule (or rather, it's written in the state's homeschool laws, but through creative portfolio editing I can get around that).

NASA space math. You can start with the grade 3-5 level and if that is too easy go to the next level.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/grade.html

 

I agree with Kiana though that there is no need to have equal acceleration across all subjects. Besides brick and mortar K-12th schools have to be more rigid because they are catering to big class and cohort sizes.

 

My kids aren't interested in sports or playing a musical instrument or in fine art. They still fulfil the minimum in the state standards even though no one check homeschoolers here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we've done is to have the interest based track and the regular one, so DD did Statistics in a plug and chug, understand what various tests mean for biology purpose while also doing AoPS algebra, and did high school bio and Chem and physics while also doing Herpetology. Lots of writing about snakes, fiction and non-fiction. Lots of reading about snakes (fiction and non-fiction). This is where having an accelerated kid comes in handy-when they're already ahead, it is a little easier to feel justified in dividing that time and letting them pursue their interests. What I found was that often she had learned so much from her interests that the core moved really fast and with big leaps. (And it still does-after a tiny amount of probability and statistics in her math ed class, the professor suggested she take the second prob and stat class and skip the first one-because DD already had the understanding and skills they focused on developing that first semester, even though all of her statistics was "gee, what did they do here, let's look it up and figure it out" and learning how to run her own tests and models.) That time wasn't wasted.

 

Now that she's solidly into high school and college content, her program of study looks more traditional and has more box checking involved, and herpetology is going into the extracurricular and cool stuff to write on an application, but I would say we had a solid 5 years of 2-3hours of acdemics with some snakes involved in the morning, and the rest of the day was snakes and playing outside and a tumbling class or cheer practice. Now it's more like 5-6 hours of class and study/day, 7 days a week, plus everything else. And summers are solidly Snake and frog time. (Plus Pokemon...especially snake Pokemon). The big thing I have to remember is that following her interests isn't work for her-it's fun. It's OK for her to do an age appropriate amount of study on the core stuff and do her interests on top, because it really isn't any different from some other kid spending hours studying baseball cards or playing video games.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently saw a thing on my facebook feed that one of the downfalls of the modern education system is the lack of passion and focus of most graduates. And that those kids who do have passion and focus and become the world shakers and changers, averaged something like a 2.9GPA in highschool because they had trouble conforming to the broad education base required.

Not sure if this is the article you saw. Wondering What Happened to Your Class Valedictorian? Not Much, Research Shows http://time.com/money/4779223/valedictorian-success-research-barking-up-wrong/

 

"So why are the number ones in high school so rarely the number ones in real life? There are two reasons. First, schools reward students who consistently do what they are told. Academic grades correlate only loosely with intelligence (standardized tests are better at measuring IQ). Grades are, however, an excellent predictor of self-discipline, conscientiousness, and the ability to comply with rules.

In an interview, Arnold said, “Essentially, we are rewarding conformity and the willingness to go along with the system.†Many of the valedictorians admitted to not being the smartest kid in class, just the hardest worker. Others said that it was more an issue of giving teachers what they wanted than actually knowing the material better. Most of the subjects in the study were classified as “careeristsâ€: they saw their job as getting good grades, not really as learning.

The second reason is that schools reward being a generalist. There is little recognition of student passion or expertise. The real world, however, does the reverse. Arnold, talking about the valedictorians, said, “They’re extremely well rounded and successful, personally and professionally, but they’ve never been devoted to a single area in which they put all their passion. That is not usually a recipe for eminence.â€"

 

Referring to the below quoted paragraph, as a slacker who went to public school for 1st-12th grade, it is possible to be pragmatic and game the system to get valedictorian status but still be doing your own studies/work under the table or when the teacher is busy writing on the board. I did my music theory homework during Chemistry tutorials, knitting/cross stitch/crocheting during English class, Chinese homework at history class, sleeping during math (including calculus) class. I also managed to get A for history and literature exams when it matters without sacrificing time from physics and chemistry which I enjoy.

 

Also my schools did reward me for being a quirky generalist with "subject expertise". I represented my public schools for math, science and geography competitions. The principals excused me from school for competition days and paid for all competition expenses. I get to skip school during 11th grade for a week with my principal and teachers' blessings to represent the school for a science fair competition.

 

"Ironically, Arnold found that intellectual students who enjoy learning struggle in high school. They have passions they want to focus on, are more interested in achieving mastery, and find the structure of school stifling. Meanwhile, the valedictorians are intensely pragmatic. They follow the rules and prize A’s over skills and deep understanding."

 

 

Ok, so based on that average, some of the "shakers and changers" totally rocked high school, and others not so much.  Not too surprising. Doesn't tell you much.

 

I agree average college GPA of over seven hundred American millionaires doesn't give any info. A scatter plot chart of the data would be more interesting.

 

"School has clear rules. Life often doesn’t. When there’s no clear path to follow, academic high achievers break down. Shawn Achor’s research at Harvard shows that college grades aren’t any more predictive of subsequent life success than rolling dice. A study of over seven hundred American millionaires showed their average college GPA was 2.9."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if your child is applying to Juilliard for a music major, they better be completely focused on that starting at an early age.

 

Since you brought up Juilliard, I will share some info for those who may be considering choosing between a focused education and a well-rounded one. I know a bunch of Juilliard students. I know *many* who have and who will apply (audition for) Juilliard as music performance majors.

 

Facts: most kids who get into Juilliard and similarly "impossible" conservatories also took AP classes in high school and maintained wicked-high GPAs. Many of them also applied to Ivy League schools. Many of those who did got into both the Ivy League schools based on their grades/coursework/SAT scores *and* Juilliard based on their audition.

 

Now returning to your regularly scheduled programming...

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been pondering the concept of when it's appropriate to focus studies and when it's beneficial to ensure a "well-rounded" education. Ebunny's post in the Ideal Humanities thread  made me wonder when/how it would be possible to truly focus studies in an area of interest, rather than piece-meal subjects that touch all the "appropriate" areas of instruction. 

 

I feel like having a list of largely unrelated subjects (math, literature, science, history, language, music, art, etc.) provides some benefit, by broadening the learning base and allowing our children to have an experience in a bunch of different areas (I am still thankful for my college philosophy class even though it about killed me to pass it and it made no impact on anything in my life), but I wonder how much that concept is actually beneficial to our children when we do it year after year. One of the benefits of homeschooling is that I don't have to pattern my kids education on the public school system, but I don't really know how to break out of that broad base of studies and allow for a more in-depth focus of study.

 

I recently saw a thing on my facebook feed that one of the downfalls of the modern education system is the lack of passion and focus of most graduates. And that those kids who do have passion and focus and become the world shakers and changers, averaged something like a 2.9GPA in highschool because they had trouble conforming to the broad education base required.

 

My DD and I have recently finished reading the 2-ebook series on the Gifted Potentials and the way they set up the course of study is two courses focused on aspects of interest/potential, a third course focusing on a weakness, but tying assignments to the other two courses, and then "intensives" once a week, focusing on something random of interest. The idea is intriguing - allowing for in-depth study in areas of strong interest/potential, focus on a relative weakness to tie it into those areas of interest, and then provide little mini-courses on a variety of "extra" areas. My problem is that I am too stuck in the box and feel like I'm going to mess my kid up by not providing the typical course of study. 

 

I've been kicking this around in my brain for about a month now and am still foggy about the concept, and it's probably not helped by curricula available on the market, which doesn't seem to cater to this concept, at least none that I have found. Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

fwiw, my post on that thread was a very high level look at what I considered to be an ideal humanities education. I don't know how it would look on a day-to-day basis in elementary school because I've not yet had an opportunity or necessity to chalk a plan out. Maybe I should at some point..

 

Having said that, and to give some background on that post; I'm a product of a relatively well rounded 'school' education system. I had history, geography, physics, chem, bio, algebra/pre-cal/cal, geometry/trig, 1st language, 2nd language, 3rd language from 1st- 10th grade.

  My generation was also expected to achieve equally across all subjects. All of us were streamlined post 10th grade (sciences/humanities/fine arts). Those 10 years of formally studying 3 languages? didn't need them in formal education post 10th grade. :rolleyes:

Of course each subject stretched us a little bit, and of course all of them gave us a holistic view of academics; but there are only so many hours in a day/week/month/year, iykwim; and the price we paid for a holistic academic education was sports, performing and fine arts. Can you tell I'm still resentful after all these years? :001_smile: 

 

For my DD:

My DD who's inclined towards the sciences and accelerated only in math/science.

out of a 30 hr 5 day week= (approximations)

3 hours language per week at grade level,

3 hours  History/geography per week at grade level.

24 hours per week split between Math (algebra/geom) and sciences (phys, chem, bio) accelerated.

She has the exposure to all subjects like a mainstream schooled child in India plus the flexibility to not perform at the same level across all. She has the luxury of time.

Time to play a sport and an instrument. Time to read, dream, slack off, brood, chat and do nothing too.

So far no regrets.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up being told I was "weak," and even "bad at," subjects I was "only" a couple years accelerated in, and discouraged from pursuing them.  This negatively affected both my career prospects and my self-esteem.  The dynamic in that situation of insecure adults needing the weird, unidentified Aspie kid to be bad at *something* is unlikely to be an issue for parents on this board but the experience left me with a strong sense that children should be pushed and encouraged in their "weak" areas. Especially since I improved in those areas, and my interests shifted accordingly, as a young adult (too late to change my academic plans). Only once I was out of the gifted education bubble for a few years did I see how twisted it was to think you should only concentrate on the things you are best at. This is closely related to the perfectionism that plagues many gifted students. My own child is relatively weak in math and I am responding with a bunch of the "conceptual" stuff that's only supposed to be for "mathy" kids, at an appropriate level of course, with good results so far. Part of this is political too; I think it was highly uncoincidental that I was a girl and it was my math skills that were brushed off as not good enough to pursue. I don't want to repeat that with my daughter. Again, unlikely to be an issue for most parents here but I think the broader lesson is don't typecast a kid. Don't risk them thinking "I'd better stick to areas where I know I can do well" or "that other subject is best left to the kids who are really strong at it." I had interests in career areas that I didn't pursue because I was comparing myself to kids in my gifted school who, I now understand, were prodigies in math and science. But the whole time, my own skills were above average for people who succeed in those careers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My oldest is a music and computers guy, so in a way, that makes it easier for us, because we can kind of separate it out from the rest of academics. I think that is how I would handle a passion in a traditionally academic subject, much like dmmetler is doing with her DD. We are lucky that we can do the "non" passion subjects in a quicker time than most.

 

My DS is definitely more verbally gifted than spatially, so naturally he flies through language arts, and math is a sticky spot for him. He's still accelerated, but it's not the same as his LA abilities. He doesn't see himself as a Humanities guy even though I do, so the way we work is that I up the Lit and History a little and don't push so hard with math and science. We do those subjects, still beyond grade level, but they aren't equal in time with the others. If he were to start to fall behind, we would of course make adjustments.

 

All that to say, I think an accelerated or GT kid can specialize and still receive a quality education, at least through middle school.

 

(I'm just starting to look at high school, as DS has recently changed his mind about going to public school,)

Edited by Runningmom80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up being told I was "weak," and even "bad at," subjects I was "only" a couple years accelerated in, and discouraged from pursuing them. This negatively affected both my career prospects and my self-esteem. The dynamic in that situation of insecure adults needing the weird, unidentified Aspie kid to be bad at *something* is unlikely to be an issue for parents on this board but the experience left me with a strong sense that children should be pushed and encouraged in their "weak" areas. Especially since I improved in those areas, and my interests shifted accordingly, as a young adult (too late to change my academic plans). Only once I was out of the gifted education bubble for a few years did I see how twisted it was to think you should only concentrate on the things you are best at. This is closely related to the perfectionism that plagues many gifted students. My own child is relatively weak in math and I am responding with a bunch of the "conceptual" stuff that's only supposed to be for "mathy" kids, at an appropriate level of course, with good results so far. Part of this is political too; I think it was highly uncoincidental that I was a girl and it was my math skills that were brushed off as not good enough to pursue. I don't want to repeat that with my daughter. Again, unlikely to be an issue for most parents here but I think the broader lesson is don't typecast a kid. Don't risk them thinking "I'd better stick to areas where I know I can do well" or "that other subject is best left to the kids who are really strong at it." I had interests in career areas that I didn't pursue because I was comparing myself to kids in my gifted school who, I now understand, were prodigies in math and science. But the whole time, my own skills were above average for people who succeed in those careers.

 

Excellent point.( I had a similar experience, and was actually told by a teacher "girls aren't good at math.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is absolutely possible to provide a well-rounded education that is equally interest-driven. There is a diistinct difference amg different approaches:

1-boxing in subjects so that history is this history text, science is this science test, writing is assignments from this writing test

2- cross-curriculum teaching where subjects are integrated and the line between history, literature, and writing is blurred bc they are all intertwined and

3- a student only doing math and never writing bc they are math-centered and don't want to learn about history or literature, etc. (I don't think this what you meant by seeking a passion?? Definitely not an approach I would take.)

 

Schools tend to teach like #1. Students have a stack of textbooks covering a list of subjects and the stack of textbooks changes from yr to yr, and the course title typically corresponds to the textbook cover.

 

That fine line distinction between subjects is absolutely not how our homeschool functions. When Inlook at thread where people list exactly what they are using for every subject, it is next to impossible for me to post a concise list bc our subjects often weave in and out and across areas. My kids have to opportunity to help design their own courses and sel cr the books they read. Writing assignments are not generated from a writing text but are assigned across various subjects week to week.

 

The response I gave in the other thread is just one example of how my kids become passionate in different areas and run with those passions. I have another child who loved physics in high school. He took a some sort of physics course every yr. He took astronomy courses, self-designed a dark matter and black hole study, etc. In order to feed his passion, he took multiple sciences every yr. He also had a stron interest in philosophy and theology. His literature and history reading selections reflected those interests. He also had a course devoted to major philosophers since the 1500s. His literature selections absolutely did not reflect a typical high school reading list. But his list incorporated works like Chesterton's Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy, Walter Percy's Lost in the Cosmos, etc. He read lots of standard classics as well, but our selections were not dictated by "American Lit," "British Lit," "World Lit," etc type categories.

 

My kids receive a very well-rounded education, but the lines are blurred.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been very helpful and interesting - I feel like a lot of my fuzzy thoughts make more sense now! I think the thing that resonates most is the fact that ensuring a well-rounded education does not come at the exclusion of allowing a lot of academic time/focus on an area of talent/interest. Part of those "rounded" bits that may not fit neatly into the main interest will often provide depth and color to those other areas. Like how music trains your brain in various ways that is beneficial for all other subjects. 

 

Thanks for helping me think it through :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you brought up Juilliard, I will share some info for those who may be considering choosing between a focused education and a well-rounded one. I know a bunch of Juilliard students. I know *many* who have and who will apply (audition for) Juilliard as music performance majors.

 

Facts: most kids who get into Juilliard and similarly "impossible" conservatories also took AP classes in high school and maintained wicked-high GPAs. Many of them also applied to Ivy League schools. Many of those who did got into both the Ivy League schools based on their grades/coursework/SAT scores *and* Juilliard based on their audition.

 

Now returning to your regularly scheduled programming...

My double reeds professor once said that he never knew a double reeds student without a high GPA. His theory was that the level of persistence and focus needed to succeed on such a persnickety instrument meant that only those who also were unwilling to settle for a 98 if a 100 was at all possible would pick it and stick with it and love it enough to study at the University level.

 

On the other side, my father teaches Chemistry at a state U known for their music program. He made the comment that he'd pretty much decided that they could give a scholarship, sight unseen, to any kid who qualified for the exam day in Chem who was also doing a scholarship audition at the music school. Because every year they had a handful between Chem, physics, and astronomy, and every year those kids ended up scoring high. What's more, they were often the kids who turned down the public ivy and big name schools and actually enrolled, because there, they could do both.

 

The same thing, I think, is true for most music majors, and for a conservatory, probably close to 100% (state U's do get kids where the only thing they felt successful at was high school marching band and who decide to list music as their major. Some do make it through music ed, but most end up dropping after the first year to do something easier.) The level of focus and persistence needed to succeed in music at such a high level is such that, honestly, academics are the EASY, brain relaxing part. I went to a state U on a full tuition/fees scholarship-for academics. When I went to scholarship day for the music school, I actually could tell them that I had that scholarship, and after playing the committee told me that "since you don't need tuition, we'll cover your room, board, and books".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I dislike is the fact that smart students are expected to be great at everything - classes are set up so that an A is usually attainable. I would love to see a system where its OK to get a C in AP English (ie you are average at advanced English) or an A in regular English, which frees up time to take 3 science classes, or focus on art, or whatever. In a homeschool environment you can sort of do this - check the boxes for some subjects while really digging into others.

 

I still want students exposed to lots of subjects, though - even if they are just 'checking boxes', I want them to know that all of those boxes exist. Sometimes they find that they love a subject that they never would have thought was interesting if they hadn't been forced to try it. 'What they are good at' can change over time, too, either due to mental development or hard work. At some point when I was in elementary school they did testing (maybe for the gifted program?) and told my parents that I was smart and would do great as long as I didn't go into science or math. My parents told me this...the night before I defended my doctoral dissertation in genetics (molecular biology). To be fair, I still didn't particularly like math or physics, although the fact that I had to struggle with them as a student tends to help me do a better job of teaching them - if there's a pitfall, I know where it is.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My double reeds professor once said that he never knew a double reeds student without a high GPA. 

One of the graduating seniors at my dd's pre-college music school, a bassoonist, decided not to audition for conservatories. Instead, she will be attending Yale and double majoring in astrophysics and biology.

 

The choice to attend an academic university (and a competitive one, at that) instead of pursuing music performance is a common one among the most advanced young musicians, interestingly.  Some of the most impressive young classical musicians of this age also have other interests and talents. Almost seems unfair for so much skill and talent, in several very different areas, to reside in one person... heh. And it's common (in that subset)!  lol

 

(Actually, as a pp mentioned, it makes sense: if a young child is a quick learner, capable of intense focus and has a willingness to work hard, they would likely excel in various areas over time.)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short of burning our books and shutting the internet down, I couldn't keep my elementary gifted kid from pursuing his areas of interest if I wanted to. +1 for dmmetler's comment about remembering it's not work for him in the same way that assigned school from me is work.

 

I do not attempt in any way to integrate what he loves with what he must do to satisfy my requirements. I tried that when he was around first grade and it did not go well. I assume he will probably integrate it a bit more as he gets older... Choosing his own essay topics and things of that nature... But you never know, maybe he will not.

 

I make it a point to know exactly what the bare minimum requirements are in other subjects, and that is what I require him to do. I love the comment up thread about allowing it to be ok to be average in an advanced class. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but that's where we are. Some kids are Universally gifted, but mine is not. Still, because he gathers in so many pieces of information on his own to be able to concentrate deeply on what he loves, he sort of hauls himself up to a higher (but not gifted) level in other subjects. I aim to meet him dead-center where he is. He doesn't love it all the time, but of course he doesn't realize what itd be like if he were in ps. So he thinks it's painful to do arithmetic when he's already started wading through algebra, not understanding really that the thirty minutes he'd be spending on something fundamental but boring is nothing compared to a kid in ps who is, on the one hand, slightly above average universally but then knowledgeable on an adult-working-in-the-field level in subjects most elementary kids don't even see for years.

 

Not a lot of third graders studying genetics, son. So yes you still need to know what 4*7 is 😄

Edited by OKBud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is absolutely possible to provide a well-rounded education that is equally interest-driven. There is a diistinct difference amg different approaches:

1-boxing in subjects so that history is this history text, science is this science test, writing is assignments from this writing test

2- cross-curriculum teaching where subjects are integrated and the line between history, literature, and writing is blurred bc they are all intertwined and

3- a student only doing math and never writing bc they are math-centered and don't want to learn about history or literature, etc. (I don't think this what you meant by seeking a passion?? Definitely not an approach I would take.)

 

Schools tend to teach like #1. Students have a stack of textbooks covering a list of subjects and the stack of textbooks changes from yr to yr, and the course title typically corresponds to the textbook cover.

 

That fine line distinction between subjects is absolutely not how our homeschool functions. When Inlook at thread where people list exactly what they are using for every subject, it is next to impossible for me to post a concise list bc our subjects often weave in and out and across areas. My kids have to opportunity to help design their own courses and sel cr the books they read. Writing assignments are not generated from a writing text but are assigned across various subjects week to week.

 

The response I gave in the other thread is just one example of how my kids become passionate in different areas and run with those passions. I have another child who loved physics in high school. He took a some sort of physics course every yr. He took astronomy courses, self-designed a dark matter and black hole study, etc. In order to feed his passion, he took multiple sciences every yr. He also had a stron interest in philosophy and theology. His literature and history reading selections reflected those interests. He also had a course devoted to major philosophers since the 1500s. His literature selections absolutely did not reflect a typical high school reading list. But his list incorporated works like Chesterton's Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy, Walter Percy's Lost in the Cosmos, etc. He read lots of standard classics as well, but our selections were not dictated by "American Lit," "British Lit," "World Lit," etc type categories.

 

My kids receive a very well-rounded education, but the lines are blurred.

 

I started to type something along these lines last night but the words didn't sound right.

 

Blurring the lines is easily accomplished while homeschooling. Dd is doing every subject but we combine history with the literature, music, and art of the time period being studied.

 

Until high school, dd had a broad education covering each subject with some line blurring and some input into classes but I definitely wanted her to have a base of knowledge in the appropriate subjects. In high school, she is able to follow her own interests more and chose courses while still covering the "basics" but now she has an idea of where her interests lie because she had exposure to many different areas when young. If we had focused entirely on music when she was young, she might not have found her love of writing or drawing or literature. Now she is choosing some dual enrollment college classes to "try out" other areas she has not been previously exposed to but thinks might be interesting.

 

There is a lot of time in a day and a child who is passionate and motivated will use every minute of that time. Their "free" time will be taken up following their passion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I believe in a "well-rounded" education.  I think there are some very basic things that everyone must learn--reading, writing, and arithmetic, manners and social conventions, and how our government works and the mechanisms we (and others) have for influencing it because it affects your life very directly.  Beyond that, I think there is way too much valuable information for anyone to learn in their entire life, let alone 13 years of school.  

 

For me, the most important thing would be to have kids learn what they're most passionate about learning, because they will be dedicated in their pursuit about it and will retain much of the information if they're passionate about it.  One of my kids is thoroughly bored at school in certain subjects, so good luck with that well-rounded education, because I have little hope he'll retain much of the stuff he deems boring and spent class doodling during. (But OH! the artist he is becoming :)

 

 

I also believe that people change their interests later in life.  I hated history in school--and frankly dates and facts are pretty boring--but at some point I started realizing that unlike history books, the Bible was interesting to me as a historical text because most of it (geneologies aside) isn't dates and facts but it is a history about people and how their personalities and failures created wars or peace, built alliances, or destroyed families.  I came to see that religion is steeped in history, and that understanding the Bible requires a deep understanding of historical customs, texts, language, and peoples.   I have many questions--kind of a scientific curiosity--about how we translate books, how we know what ancient cultures were like, how texts are discovered and pieced together, how they are copied and errors introduced, etc.  And while I don't go around reading history texts right now (no time), I probably would really get into history and especially archeology if I had time and I had the right texts--mostly original ones like the works of Flavius Josephus, not textbooks. 

 

I know no one wants to show up to a party and not know what the war of 1812 is or when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and the like, but I have to ask how many of us retained much of what we were taught when it wasn't of deep interest to us.

 

Perhaps this is why unschooling is intriqueing to me.  But i don't quite have the guts to do it, because I think my kids would only play minecraft all day.

 

Edited by tiuzzol2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is absolutely possible to provide a well-rounded education that is equally interest-driven. There is a diistinct difference amg different approaches:

1-boxing in subjects so that history is this history text, science is this science test, writing is assignments from this writing test

2- cross-curriculum teaching where subjects are integrated and the line between history, literature, and writing is blurred bc they are all intertwined and

3- a student only doing math and never writing bc they are math-centered and don't want to learn about history or literature, etc. (I don't think this what you meant by seeking a passion?? Definitely not an approach I would take.)

 

Schools tend to teach like #1. Students have a stack of textbooks covering a list of subjects and the stack of textbooks changes from yr to yr, and the course title typically corresponds to the textbook cover.

 

That fine line distinction between subjects is absolutely not how our homeschool functions. When Inlook at thread where people list exactly what they are using for every subject, it is next to impossible for me to post a concise list bc our subjects often weave in and out and across areas. My kids have to opportunity to help design their own courses and sel cr the books they read. Writing assignments are not generated from a writing text but are assigned across various subjects week to week.

 

The response I gave in the other thread is just one example of how my kids become passionate in different areas and run with those passions. I have another child who loved physics in high school. He took a some sort of physics course every yr. He took astronomy courses, self-designed a dark matter and black hole study, etc. In order to feed his passion, he took multiple sciences every yr. He also had a stron interest in philosophy and theology. His literature and history reading selections reflected those interests. He also had a course devoted to major philosophers since the 1500s. His literature selections absolutely did not reflect a typical high school reading list. But his list incorporated works like Chesterton's Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy, Walter Percy's Lost in the Cosmos, etc. He read lots of standard classics as well, but our selections were not dictated by "American Lit," "British Lit," "World Lit," etc type categories.

 

My kids receive a very well-rounded education, but the lines are blurred.

 

I totally missed this comment until this morning! But yes, option 1 is what is annoying me at the moment, option 2 is what I want and I feel like option 3 is not what I'm going for here at all. I need to allow her to have more of a hand in designing her courses and selection of books like this. And the Nasa Space math mentioned upthread is an amazing resource, I'm excited to see everything available there!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's lots of math to occupy kids before algebra. Add in more challenging things like Zaccaro, Borac, Hard Math or MOEMS. You can do Michael Serra's math books as well. Jacob's Mathematics a Human Endeavor is filled with topics outside of the traditional math sequence. There are some interesting math offerings on Gifted Homeschoolers Forum this summer and fall.

I love what regentrude said as well. This is pretty much what I am aiming for.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I believe in a "well-rounded" education.  I think there are some very basic things that everyone must learn--reading, writing, and arithmetic, manners and social conventions, and how our government works and the mechanisms we (and others) have for influencing it because it affects your life very directly.  Beyond that, I think there is way too much valuable information for anyone to learn in their entire life, let alone 13 years of school.  

 

I also believe that people change their interests later in life. 

 

Perhaps this is why unschooling is intriqueing to me.  But i don't quite have the guts to do it, because I think my kids would only play minecraft all day.

 

You said it better than I did. 

 

To add, does a well rounded education mean an education without a strong focus? i.e if one concentrates on all academic and non-academic disciplines equally...

 

I suspect a well rounded education helps the students who have strong interests early in life- the specialists.

The teens who are, by temperament and abilities, generalists will by default gravitate towards a well rounded education.

What the latter might need is something different from the former. something more focused to help them choose their discipline/field.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...