What is the history like in "What your __ grader needs to know"?

[4KookieKids]

Someone gave us a few of these (1st - 6th), and my 8 yo has been reading through them. I know there are definitely times when kids are taught inaccurate history (e.g., Thanksgiving, Colombus Day) and I'm just curious how history is presented in these books (accuracy, level of violence, etc.)

[HomeAgain]

I haven't noticed much history in them.  Usually it's social studies.

 

ETA: Why not just read them yourself?  You have copies, lol.  And none of the books are long reads.

Edited November 18, 2017 by HomeAgain

[mom2bee]

Personally I really dislike that series and would not trust that series for anything for content.

 

I don't really like the way that they cover the skills either, but the coverage of "content" subjects was just utterly unfounded and inaccurate.

 

[4KookieKids]

As for why I don't just read them myself - I have four kids and just don't have the time to pre-read as much as I'd like to. I thought this forum might just be a quick way for me to get a feel for what's in these books. :)

 

Personally I really dislike that series and would not trust that series for anything for content.

 

I don't really like the way that they cover the skills either, but the coverage of "content" subjects was just utterly unfounded and inaccurate.

Good to know. That's exactly what I was wondering. Thank you! :)

 

[macmacmoo]

Depends on the editions. The really really old ones that are hard covered with a tree aren’t that bad. I’d pass on the newer ones.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The social studies sections are only a portion of the books.  All you have to do is to skim those sections.  Even looking at the titles of the stories etc. will give you a feeling for what they cover.  In my opinion, they cover what was commonly taught in the 50's for social studies with some modifications. 

[Sherry in OH]

For leisure reading, they are okay.  I would not use them as a history spine, IMO they lack depth and continuity. They have a conservative slant and are too US-centric for my tastes.  But, if one of my children wanted to read the history section on his own, I'd let him.

 

I did like the visual arts section of the series and used it as the core of our art studies for a few years. 

 

I would be careful that the child not get the impression that what this author thinks a x-grader should know is what you expect him to know.  

[4KookieKids]

For leisure reading, they are okay. I would not use them as a history spine, IMO they lack depth and continuity. They have a conservative slant and are too US-centric for my tastes. But, if one of my children wanted to read the history section on his own, I'd let him.

 

I did like the visual arts section of the series and used it as the core of our art studies for a few years.

 

I would be careful that the child not get the impression that what this author thinks a x-grader should know is what you expect him to know.

Great point, thanks. They are just leisure reading. I've generally been cautious about their reading, but I just find myself deluged recently with things they want to read, but still want to beware of things to look out for.

[2_girls_mommy]

They generally cover two strands of history a year. They do American History every year for part of the year and then they will have Ancient history or some medieval or whatever for part of the year. 

I have used them as a spine before as to what to cover. I remember specifically in 1st grade, using it as a jumping off point for American History peoples to cover. But it was a jumping off point, not the full curric by any means. I would google for lesson plans and pick up library books and movies on each topic.  

[fralala]

I think you could do a lot worse than having your kids read these books for pleasure! I think it's wonderful that your 8 year old is enjoying them. (And I know what you mean about leisure reading. I picked up a library book my 8 year old had been reading yesterday, and it was a wonderful history book-- for middle schoolers. For her? It was downright disturbing. At this age, it can be hard because of that age 8-12 middle grade range covers ages that have very different maturity levels!)

 

Anyway, back to your question: these books have no glaring historical inaccuracies that I've seen and nothing that's not age-appropriate. I picked up the second grader version from my shelf and glanced through it because I was intrigued by the critical post above that didn't (unfortunately!) give any examples or details. The purpose of these being "cultural literacy", I think there are plenty of valid arguments swirling around about that and I wouldn't even mind getting into them, but that's not what you were asking about! Some details and events are omitted for age-appropriateness, but that is different from being taught inaccurate history.

 

My bias is that I use a lot of the Core Knowledge materials available online as read-alouds to my kids, and like those-- so the books you're talking about are basically very brief summaries of what's covered in those domains. The other history I use is SOTW. I find these to be quite compatible with one another and neither approach will hinder a child who wants to go on to study history further or become a historian. History can be violent and cruel, and I find both to be fine even for my most sensitive kid (at recommended age level).

 

As to your specific concerns about Columbus and Thanksgiving, I would say that these books attempt to provide an understanding of American Indian culture  and of the voyage of Columbus and the trials of the Pilgrims. Viewed in such a light, some people who are very passionate about ensuring that little kids feel a certain way about Columbus or the Pilgrims or American Indians may be concerned it remains too neutral and either does too much or not enough to propagate certain ideas about this time period. This is the history I learned in school back in the 80s (right down to Columbus sailing the ocean blue in 1492)-- G-rated with plenty of gaps but an attempt to show multiple perspectives. I was fine filling in the gaps and went on to get an undergraduate degree in history, but if you are critical of this approach, maybe you would feel like the books are undermining what you teach. HTH!

[eternalsummer]

I like them; I have DS read a bit that relates to his historical fiction reading for the week (he is working his way through the Childhood of Famous Americans series, after accidentally finding the Daniel Boone one and rereading it 30x for pleasure).  

[Farrar]

I'd describe them as decent information, but very scattershot. There's a reason that it makes sense to do history chronologically.

 

The older editions were much more Western-centric (which makes sense, given CK's origins). From what little I've seen, they got better at the diversity element on subsequent editions, but they also maybe got more scattered in the organization.

[shawthorne44]

The social studies sections are only a portion of the books.  All you have to do is to skim those sections.  Even looking at the titles of the stories etc. will give you a feeling for what they cover.  In my opinion, they cover what was commonly taught in the 50's for social studies with some modifications. 

 

This would be a plus for me.   

Only for leisure reading though.