The breadth vs. depth question

[Corraleno]

And I've found that when constructing a framework, simplicity is unbeatable. So, the core skills work is streamlined and unembellished... and the available resources for following rabbit trails are overflowing off the shelves.

Yes, this is a realization that I've only recently come to: DS shouldn't have to read every book we have, just because I bought them. :tongue_smilie: I'm trying to think of my overflowing bookshelves as more of a research library that's here if he wants to go into more depth, instead of an all-encompassing curriculum that we have to cram in.

 

Also, I believe that overplanning - and overscheduling - leach the joy out of learning... and make our learning *my* project - which I control and for which I am responsible.

I've been so guilty of this — I love the research and planning and finding great resources and correlating them and putting together a beautiful, color-coded mega plan each year, with books and DVDs and projects and field trips all neatly coordinated and scheduled. But after putting in all that work, the schedule seems to become more important than the learning. We started off last year "behind schedule" because of a death in the family and extended visits from family members, and then instead of spending 2 months on Egypt, DS spent 6. We finished the 12-lecture TC course on Egypt and he begged me to get the 48-lecture version. We read every single book on Egypt in our library, in addition to the 2 dozen or so that we own. He studied Egyptian art, did wonderful drawings, and worked on his Book of the Dead computer game. And yet I found myself stressing out about falling even farther "behind schedule" and even annoyed at having to redo and reschedule all my wonderful plans. :blush: When the light bulb finally went on — this is his education, not mine — I felt really guilty that I'd been making this more about me than him.

 

Jackie

[PeterPan]

Well I think I've at least sorted out one thing. I need the breadth (big picture) and then can go into details. Dd is the total opposite, plugging into one aspect and using that to expand her understanding of the whole. Just was taking me a while to figure this out. And it sort of explains why I'm perpetually trying to do big picture surveys of stuff while dd is trying to hone in on individual topics or people. :)

[vonfirmath]

When we do US History in 9th, instead of doing a typical course focusing on military and political facts and events, I'd like to focus on the key people and events and the ideas that drove them. Instead of combining it with a typical survey of American literature, I'm thinking of doing a study of Utopian/Dystopian literature and philosophy. Read Republic and Utopia and New Atlantis and Island and 1984 and The Communist Manifesto and lots of other fiction and nonfiction (I have a list of about 20 books DS can choose from). Relate utopian ideals and philosophy to the revolutions in the US and Europe. How do presuppositions about the "nature of man" influence one's conception of the "ideal" form of government and society? Etc.

 

We did 6 weeks similar to this in "Reading" in 7th grade, growing up. 6 weeks of reading Utopian/Dystopian literature and comparing them to each other. I don't remember all the discussions, etc. But I still remember many of the works (though I seem to remember Jonathan Livingston Seagull being part of it and I wouldn't say that fits the bill!)

[Krystan]

What a wonderful thread. It's nice to hear from those with older children. It seems that the older they get, the more input they should have on what to focus on. Mine are still pretty young and have yet to show an extraordinary interest in any specific thing for more than a few months, but I'm hoping they will help guide decisions more as they age. I agree with those who thought it best to favor breadth for the younger ones, and depth for the older ones. And honestly, reading this thread all together in once sitting, it seems that most people are doing that naturally anyway. Thanks for all the food for thought!

[swimmermom3]

I struggle with this issue in my own education - and in my book purchasing choices (though there I want breadth *and* depth!)... but not for my kids... at least not anymore.

 

'Cause I realized that it isn't my job, it, honestly, isn't my place, to try educate my kids. It is my job to give them the framework, the tools, and the resources to take on the lifetime project of educating themselves.

 

And I've found that when constructing a framework, simplicity is unbeatable. So, the core skills work is streamlined and unembellished... and the available resources for following rabbit trails are overflowing off the shelves.

 

I try to make a list for each kid each year of what core skills work I would like to see happen and some ideas for how that could be done (with a strong preference towards simplicity of implementation). Then I sit down with my older kids and we share goals and ideas and come up with a rough draft for the year - one which will often be revised several times throughout the year.

 

Some of my attitude is shaped by my belief that real learning and education isn't the classroom 'stuff' - the texts, the assignments, the subject lists... those are *a* means to the real end... and there are a lot of potentially fabulous routes...and more than one ideal destination.

 

Also, I believe that overplanning - and overscheduling - leach the joy out of learning... and make our learning *my* project - which I control and for which I am responsible.

 

For myself, I work best doing a broad survey of a topic - going for extensive breadth, and then circling back and delving deeper and deeper once I've grasped the context.

 

My kids are all over the map in their learning styles, but they too have tended to prefer to begin with breadth.

 

My wrist is almost as tired as my brain - and I think the baby I'm rocking might be ready for us to lie down... I'm sorry this is so scattershot at missing all its connective tissue...

 

Eliana, :grouphug: to you and your beautiful baby. I hope you were both able to have a restful night. Your post speaks straight to my heart and some new, basic plans are taking shape. I feel a strong need to take some of the words written in this thread and a few pages of my favorite inspirational threads and find a quite place to regroup...after the long, hot, intense swim meet weekend.

[happygrrl]

Brilliant thread- just what I needed - thank you!!!

[swimmermom3]

 

I've been so guilty of this — I love the research and planning and finding great resources and correlating them and putting together a beautiful, color-coded mega plan each year, with books and DVDs and projects and field trips all neatly coordinated and scheduled. But after putting in all that work, the schedule seems to become more important than the learning...<snip> ... And yet I found myself stressing out about falling even farther "behind schedule" and even annoyed at having to redo and reschedule all my wonderful plans. :blush: When the light bulb finally went on — this is his education, not mine — I felt really guilty that I'd been making this more about me than him.

 

Jackie

 

:lol: You know that I'm right there with you, Jackie! You don't by any chance occasionally forget to breath, do you? :D

 

Well I think I've at least sorted out one thing. I need the breadth (big picture) and then can go into details. Dd is the total opposite, plugging into one aspect and using that to expand her understanding of the whole. Just was taking me a while to figure this out. And it sort of explains why I'm perpetually trying to do big picture surveys of stuff while dd is trying to hone in on individual topics or people. :)

 

Elizabeth, maybe the breadth vs. depth is a chicken or the egg question. We've talked about the survey before depth but I am wondering if sometimes kids, especially younger ones, feel overwhelmed by the wealth of information offered in a survey. Perhaps that is why so many of our children do choose one or two areas to obsess with. Just to be difficult, for history, I find that I need a really quick survey to know where I am going, then I need the -in-depth study, and then finally, I need to go back and look at breadth in order to connect all the individual pieces that I studied.

[PeterPan]

Well that was my initial question, about whether there was an age-appropriateness to this. Then it occurred to me that the differences we're seeing here may be more thought process than anything. Some people are global, big-picture learners, and some people are the opposite.

[Corraleno]

:Elizabeth, maybe the breadth vs. depth is a chicken or the egg question. We've talked about the survey before depth but I am wondering if sometimes kids, especially younger ones, feel overwhelmed by the wealth of information offered in a survey. Perhaps that is why so many of our children do choose one or two areas to obsess with.

I'm thinking maybe there's more than one way to do "breadth." If you think of education as being like an excavation, you can survey the entire surface, covering a very wide area at a shallow level, or you can dig a series of exploratory pits, going deeper in fewer places but still exploring the whole area, KWIM?

 

I don't think anyone (on this board anyway) would really advocate letting a child do nothing but one subject from 1st grade on just because they were especially passionate about it, but I agree with Lisa that some kids just get overwhelmed (and bored) by processing a large volume of facts/names/dates on dozens of topics, so none of it "sticks" in the end anyway. I'm sure this is self-evident to a lot of people (I'm a slow learner :tongue_smilie: ) but it's taken me a while to figure out that approaching ancient history or biology or any other subject with the goal of covering every subtopic, making sure I don't "miss" anything important, has been counter-productive. I think taking the second approach — digging some deeper exploratory holes in specific interest-driven areas (like the Trojan war, Greek mythology, Greek inventions/scientists), may be much more productive for DS, because he's engaged in the subject and invested in the learning process, instead of just memorizing a bunch of boring facts because I told him they were important. And then he forgets even the parts he was interested in, because those bits are buried in the giant pile-o'-facts I crammed into his head — like when Lisa's little guy said he kept "losing the lions" at the circus because there was just too much going on.

 

The struggle for me — what's held me back from embracing the idea of just choosing a few core subjects and allowing DS to approach other areas much more on his own terms — has been the nagging fear that he would just have lots of separate little "pockets" of information, with nothing to connect them together. The concept of using a "history of ideas" as the framework to integrate all these "pockets" of knowledge in history, literature, philosophy, political science, history of science, art history, etc., has been the big "aha!" moment for me, because it not only solves that problem, it also provides the perfect framework for teaching the sort of analytical and critical thinking skills I want him to have. And I think this new, streamlined, more flexible approach to homeschooling will actually be a lot more enjoyable and less stressful for me, as well as being much more enjoyable, productive, and rewarding for DS.

 

Now I just have to plan it all out. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

Well that was my initial question, about whether there was an age-appropriateness to this. Then it occurred to me that the differences we're seeing here may be more thought process than anything. Some people are global, big-picture learners, and some people are the opposite.

I do think it's more a function of how someone thinks, rather than how old they are. I think some people are primarily interested in what/when/who, and others really need to know the how and the why for things to make sense. My DD is a what/when/who person, so for her a survey of American history, focusing on all the names and dates and places, would be fine. She has an excellent memory for those sorts of things, and takes pride in knowing "stuff." For DS, it would make more sense to focus on a few areas in depth, e.g. the Revolution and how it related to Enlightenment ideas about the nature and rights of man, how it influenced the French revolution and other movements in Europe and the rest of the world, who the key people were and what motivated them, etc. He always looks beyond the facts for an explanation of why and how something happened, so I think studying a few areas in depth, and just quickly skimming the bits in between, would result in a much better understanding of American history (and much better retention) than a survey course would. Ditto for ancient history, English literature, etc.

 

I'm even thinking that in the core subjects, like science, letting him explore specific areas in depth in each science each year may be more effective in the long run than exhaustively covering a single subject for a year at a time: a year of biology, then a year of chemistry, a year of physics, etc.

 

Jackie

[swimmermom3]

I'm thinking maybe there's more than one way to do "breadth." If you think of education as being like an excavation, you can survey the entire surface, covering a very wide area at a shallow level, or you can dig a series of exploratory pits, going deeper in fewer places but still exploring the whole area, KWIM?

 

Great analogy! The way I see that playing out here is to have ds read something like SOTW for history or Story of Science as an initial survey. I am planning in 6 week increments, so he would spend a week or two reading, discussing and putting figures on the timeline. While he is doing that, he can pick out an area or two of interest to go with whatever I feel needs deeper study (more idea-oriented) and we'll spend the next couple of weeks digging those exploratory pits. Perhaps I can alternate the breadth and depth sequence with the science and history. Do you think this could work?

 

I don't think anyone (on this board anyway) would really advocate letting a child do nothing but one subject from 1st grade on just because they were especially passionate about it, but I agree with Lisa that some kids just get overwhelmed (and bored) by processing a large volume of facts/names/dates on dozens of topics, so none of it "sticks" in the end anyway. I'm sure this is self-evident to a lot of people (I'm a slow learner :tongue_smilie: ) but it's taken me a while to figure out that approaching ancient history or biology or any other subject with the goal of covering every subtopic, making sure I don't "miss" anything important, has been counter-productive.

 

Not only is it counter-productive and crazy-making, it's not even a achievable goal but it sure is a seductive theory that has me checking out every new curriculum. The part about "missing anything important" is where fear comes in. I have a whole extended family and several friends who think I am nuts; that I am wasting the Swimmer Dude's potential. So, of course I don't want to miss anything. I want to show them that they are all wrong...I think. :tongue_smilie: <snip>

 

The struggle for me — what's held me back from embracing the idea of just choosing a few core subjects and allowing DS to approach other areas much more on his own terms — has been the nagging fear that he would just have lots of separate little "pockets" of information, with nothing to connect them together. The concept of using a "history of ideas" as the framework to integrate all these "pockets" of knowledge in history, literature, philosophy, political science, history of science, art history, etc., has been the big "aha!" moment for me, because it not only solves that problem, it also provides the perfect framework for teaching the sort of analytical and critical thinking skills I want him to have. And I think this new, streamlined, more flexible approach to homeschooling will actually be a lot more enjoyable and less stressful for me, as well as being much more enjoyable, productive, and rewarding for DS.

 

Intuitively, I think this is a solid approach; it will take me a while to wrap my head around it.

 

Now I just have to plan it all out. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Jackie

 

Jackie, starting MCT this year precipitated my crisis. The curriculum is neat, clean, effective, and deceptively simple. I want it all to be like that and I want time to swim, garden, and hike with the Dude. It's just not happening.

[elegantlion]

Great analogy! The way I see that playing out here is to have ds read something like SOTW for history or Story of Science as an initial survey. I am planning in 6 week increments, so he would spend a week or two reading, discussing and putting figures on the timeline. While he is doing that, he can pick out an area or two of interest to go with whatever I feel needs deeper study (more idea-oriented) and we'll spend the next couple of weeks digging those exploratory pits. Perhaps I can alternate the breadth and depth sequence with the science and history. Do you think this could work?

 

How would you work this (the bolded part)? I like this idea, but I'm also fighting my personality, my budget, and a bad library system. My weakness is that if it isn't planned, it doesn't get done. I probably have enough resources at home to explore any major topic ds would be interested in. Would you use what you have on hand or frantically research to find the "best" while they were ending their survey period?

 

I've meticulously planned our Asian Studies for this fall and I need to remind myself to be flexible if we don't stick to the schedule. I'm already feeling a tad anxious about it.

[swimmermom3]

Great analogy! The way I see that playing out here is to have ds read something like SOTW for history or Story of Science as an initial survey. I am planning in 6 week increments, so he would spend a week or two reading, discussing and putting figures on the timeline. While he is doing that, he can pick out an area or two of interest to go with whatever I feel needs deeper study (more idea-oriented) and we'll spend the next couple of weeks digging those exploratory pits. Perhaps I can alternate the breadth and depth sequence with the science and history. Do you think this could work?

 

How would you work this (the bolded part)? I like this idea, but I'm also fighting my personality, my budget, and a bad library system. My weakness is that if it isn't planned, it doesn't get done. I probably have enough resources at home to explore any major topic ds would be interested in. Would you use what you have on hand or frantically research to find the "best" while they were ending their survey period?

 

I've meticulously planned our Asian Studies for this fall and I need to remind myself to be flexible if we don't stick to the schedule. I'm already feeling a tad anxious about it.

 

Paula, as you can tell, it's a relativity new idea for me. So theoretically this is how it would work:

 

1. Divide SOTW Vol 2 into roughly 6 portions for the 6 week segments that I will use.

 

2. The first week, the Dude can read chapters 1-7 and put figures and events on his timeline. We color-code by continent or region so he can see simultaneous events.

 

3. For the next couple of weeks, he can pick from the topics surveyed and focus on maybe two that are of great interest. My guess would be Islam and maybe Justinian. I would have him do the rise of Christianity. The focus would be more on skills as well.

 

4. I have more than enough resources here and we can use the internet.

 

Shoot Paula. I really don't know. It's rolling around in my head. I just know realistically there is not enough time for the depth I had planned for this year, but I don't want just a survey. Am I living in fairy land?

Edited July 9, 2010 by swimmermom3

[elegantlion]

Paula, as you can tell, it's a relativity new idea for me. So theoretically this is how it would work:

 

1. Dived SOTW Vol 2 into roughly 6 portions for the 6 week segments that I will use.

 

2. The first week, the Dude can read chapters 1-7 and put figures and events on his timeline. We color-code by continent or region so he can see simultaneous events.

 

3. For the next couple of weeks, he can pick from the topics surveyed and focus on maybe two that are of great interest. My guess would be Islam and maybe Justinian. I would have him do the rise of Christianity. The focus would be more on skills as well.

 

4. I have more than enough resources here and we can use the internet.

 

Shoot Paula. I really don't know. It's rolling around in my head. I just know realistically there is not enough time for the depth I had planned for this year, but I don't want just a survey. Am I living in fairy land?

 

Thank you! I'm already thinking ahead to my history for next year (2011-2012). Because of the way I've planned our history I'd like to get through early modern and modern in one year. I was considering using SOTW 3 & 4 and then adding from there.

 

Because of when we started classical ed, we've never used SOTW, so do you (or anyone else) think SOTW would be a enough of a spine for middle school if we took the time to explore depth periodically? My ds is a delayed reader, so the reading level would be perfect.

[Ester Maria]

I'm very dogmatic about this issue, actually. :D I firmly believe in starting with breadth and ending in depth - but full depth belonging to the university formation in a chosen field. In the pre-university stages of education, I would always emphasize breadth, and as children are maturing and becoming more specific about their interests, allow an area or two where you go deep. Most of the depth, however, I leave to the sphere of free time for now.

 

So by us, it's something like this. I have a very scientific-minded kid, who accompanies dad to the lab from time to time and has private lessons in Biochemistry. I'll do whatever I can within my financial limits to help her out with her interests - to connect her with people from the field, equip her with all the resources I possibly can, and make sure she has TIME to work on her interests. And when she whines about lacking time for doing high-level sciences because I require of her to write a composition on a book she read, I tell her something along these lines:

"But, honey, that's not school. That's your interest belonging to the sphere of free time, and it only happens to be an academic one. You can deal with college-level chemistry at 12 years old, that's amazing and I'm very proud of you (just please, dear, don't leave any more ecstasy formulae on the kitchen table when we expect guests who know what those mean, will you? :lol:), but it WON'T "free" you from getting all the components of the "standard package" of education that you should get. You have your fair share of Latin, Hebrew, History, Art and the rest before you graduate. I am NOT willing to reduce your world on one aspect only, even if it's the aspect you chose. 12-13 is way too early to make such a drastic choice, you can make such a choice when you begin your academic formation at the university. Until then, I think it's very important that you're exposed not only to organic complexity of the world, but also to a symbolic and cultural one. It's all pieces of the puzzle, you don't have to love it all or even appreciate all, and you can slack a bit in some areas - nobody has ever required perfection of you - but you have to be exposed to it, because if you're not now, the chances are, once you do specialize, you won't be any more, not in such a structured way and in such a context as you are now."

 

We combine it by making sure they get exposure, but they don't study everything with equal intensity. Some units I allow them to "breeze" through, slack and get away with the minimal knowledge - in those cases, exposure is that which I seek more than to equip them with a concrete knowledge on something. Sometimes I think it's enough to just "taste" something and return to it possibly later, without getting to all the complexity of it NOW. I try to take into account that the world won't tear apart if they miss out on something now, and we definitely don't do everything by the book.

 

But the world - their world - WILL tear apart if the structure is lost, and if education becomes a randomized, circumstantial event and a subject to the most recent interest fads they have. That's why I'm so adamant about "little bit of everything" rather than "a lot from a few fields" at the moment. In agreement with me, they both get to explore things they wish in-depth and get to "breeze" through something else from that area due to that, but I'm not going to rule out the entire academic disciplines and areas of study only to suit their fads, if they're able (cognitively and emotionally) to follow through the "standard package". Education is for me a process more than an interest-led ride. I'm incredibly grateful for the process I went through, even though I hated it at times, as all kids do at times. Long-term effects though seem to speak in favor of such a structured process.

 

I think that with most kids interested in learning with time some fixed interests crystallize so they get both the depth in those (which often get studied in the free time as well) and the breadth in general education. I don't think there is a single model of breadth to "prescribe", since every education is inherently ideological, and culturally-based, so "our structure" might not even be a good match for somebody else. I do find, however, that there is certain richness in having "tasted" a lot of things and learned things in a broader context. Even if you later set up to be a great specialist in one narrow field, I find that you appreciate the world more by having seen more shades of it - which is why I constantly repeat to my younger daughter, organic reality is not all there is to explore, there are also symbols, and cultures, and art... And you don't need to become a specialist for every single field - just taste a little bit of each, don't narrow your world too young, when you get into science professionally all you'll do will be narrowing, so enjoy the breadth now. :D

[Capt_Uhura]

I do think it's more a function of how someone thinks, rather than how old they are. I think some people are primarily interested in what/when/who, and others really need to know the how and the why for things to make sense. My DD is a what/when/who person, so for her a survey of American history, focusing on all the names and dates and places, would be fine. She has an excellent memory for those sorts of things, and takes pride in knowing "stuff." For DS, it would make more sense to focus on a few areas in depth, e.g. the Revolution and how it related to Enlightenment ideas about the nature and rights of man, how it influenced the French revolution and other movements in Europe and the rest of the world, who the key people were and what motivated them, etc. He always looks beyond the facts for an explanation of why and how something happened, so I think studying a few areas in depth, and just quickly skimming the bits in between, would result in a much better understanding of American history (and much better retention) than a survey course would. Ditto for ancient history, English literature, etc.

 

I'm even thinking that in the core subjects, like science, letting him explore specific areas in depth in each science each year may be more effective in the long run than exhaustively covering a single subject for a year at a time: a year of biology, then a year of chemistry, a year of physics, etc.

 

Jackie

 

I erroneously inferred from one of your earlier post that you DS didn't like history etc but it sounds like he just wants to do it differently? What you described sounds absolutely wonderful! I'm sending my son to your house! Seriously. It's the kind of challenge he needs but adding my 1st grader to HSing along w/ a toddler and selling our house, keeping it immaculate for showings, and now packing and moving really derailed us for the entire quarter and a half.

 

I've had a difficult time w/ biology one year, chemistry the next, then physics. We were doing biology but kept running into road blocks w/ not having enough chemistry so this year we did a periodic table survey which was ok, the kids enjoyed it enough but we really should have hyper-focused on it and then moved on. I've been viewing the 2 Million Minutes DVD set which goes into detail, including course schedules for students in India and China. There they do bio, chem, phys every year, concurrently. What I've tried to ascertain and have so far failed, is what is the scope and sequence. Do they get to the same end point as the US system of focusing on one science per year or are they also going much further. I would think it would be easier to see the inter-relatedness of those disciplines by doing them concurrently. That's what drew me to Dr. Nebel's Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding b/c it's all done concurrently. We did astronomy, nature study, some biology, and chemistry all at the same time. BUt then I struggle w/ those doubts of not fully doing one discipline but I think at my kids ages that's OK. But I'm settling into doing a quick survey, as you and Swimmermom have suggested, and then picking a topic each quarter to go deeper.

 

I really think it's the process we need to focus on rather than the content.

 

I know I don't recall anything from history b/c it was a series of boring dates and facts. Nothing about the real people that lived during those times. No primary sources documents, letters, etc to get into their heads. I am not a bunch of random info, no connection person.

 

This has been a wonderful discussion! Very timely since I'm now in planning mode.

 

Capt_Uhura

[swimmermom3]

Thank you! I'm already thinking ahead to my history for next year (2011-2012). Because of the way I've planned our history I'd like to get through early modern and modern in one year. I was considering using SOTW 3 & 4 and then adding from there.

 

Because of when we started classical ed, we've never used SOTW, so do you (or anyone else) think SOTW would be a enough of a spine for middle school if we took the time to explore depth periodically? My ds is a delayed reader, so the reading level would be perfect.

 

I used SOTW in 7th grade with Dude's older brother. He came home unexpectedly in November and I didn't know how long I would have him home. It was our one shot to do world history. We used SL' s Alt. 7 but substituted in all four volumes of SOTW. In looking back it was a great year; not traditional but great. He read, we talked, and then he read a ton of historical fiction. It wasn't "academic" or deep but he loved it and I am amazed at how much he remembers. He doesn't know the dates of things but he knows the overall flow and ideas. SOTW is not nearly as challenging of a spine for middle school as the Oxford series but I think it can serve the purpose you are talking about very well. And you know, it was a relaxing, fun year for both of us. Hmmm. I think I am a slow learner.

 

Off to the pool. I hear it's 105 degrees in the crow's nest where I'll be working. Whoooohoooo...not!

[Corraleno]

.

[robsiew]

I haven't read the 7 pages, so forgive me if I'm stating something already stated....

 

just remember we aren't all deep thinkers on all subjects... neither are our kids. I think of education like a funnel....

 

In the elementary years the funnel is wide... lots of things, but little depth. A little bit all across the board to create "learning pegs" as we like to say.

 

We can also find out where our children's likes and dislikes/strengths and weaknesses are. As they move up in the levels of their education, things will start to settle in and the funnel narrows. Go more indepth into their interest places, less in others.

 

IMO the goal of "education" is to teach someone "how" to learn. The rest will come as he/she matures. Someone who is teachable and knows how to find information for himself will be much better off than someone who has had all kinds of knowledge stuffed into them, but in the end can't remember any of it and has no idea how to find it out for himself. Nor, does he likely have any desire to! :001_smile:

[Corraleno]

I've had a difficult time w/ biology one year, chemistry the next, then physics. We were doing biology but kept running into road blocks w/ not having enough chemistry so this year we did a periodic table survey which was ok, the kids enjoyed it enough but we really should have hyper-focused on it and then moved on.

We ran into some of the same issues here, plus the fact that DS was getting really bored with doing the same science subject every single day, so we're starting to combine biology and chemistry, and adding in some astronomy because the kids are tired of waiting to build their Galileoscopes. :tongue_smilie:

 

I've been viewing the 2 Million Minutes DVD set which goes into detail, including course schedules for students in India and China. There they do bio, chem, phys every year, concurrently. What I've tried to ascertain and have so far failed, is what is the scope and sequence. Do they get to the same end point as the US system of focusing on one science per year or are they also going much further.

I don't know how it works in India or China, but (according to DH) in the UK students take all three sciences concurrently until the equivalent of 10th grade, when they take GCSE exams in 6-8 subjects. At that point they would probably have a level of knowledge similar to a 12th grade US student. Then at 17 & 18, U.K. students specialize in a few subjects (usually 3) to study for "A-level" exams. DH did physics, chemistry, and art for his A-levels, and says he covered the equivalent of roughly 1st & 2nd year university courses. University in the UK is very specialized from the get-go — you apply for a specific major and are expected to already have done the pre-reqs at A-level. So, whereas US students are generalists throughout HS and then often spend the first 2 yrs of college taking core/breadth courses, students in the UK jump right into upper level majors courses and that's all they generally take. A bachelor's in the U.K. is basically equivalent to a master's in the US (and in fact DH was granted Research Fellowships at 2 large scientific/cultural institutions in the US where a master's degree was a requirement, because his BS from the UK was considered equivalent).

 

Jackie

[elegantlion]

Thank you, Lisa and Jackie. I'm such a book nut that I sometimes forget to research other forms of media.

[Corraleno]

Thank you, Lisa and Jackie. I'm such a book nut that I sometimes forget to research other forms of media.

It's a necessity here — DS is very visual/spatial and very dyslexic, and it often seems like he remembers about 90% of what he sees but only about 10% of what he reads. Also, we just added DH's 80-yo autistic uncle to our homeschool (he wants to get his HS diploma :)), and his reading level is very low (around 3rd grade level I think), so I'm having to find a LOT of the subject content for him on video. I'm in the process of putting together an entire American history course based on DVDs from PBS, History Channel, Ken Burns, etc, and I'm starting to compile a video list for Ancients to Renaissance as well, so I can include him in our world history studies. It's been a really useful exercise, because I think all these video resources will be just as useful for DS.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

Education is for me a process more than an interest-led ride. I'm incredibly grateful for the process I went through, even though I hated it at times, as all kids do at times. Long-term effects though seem to speak in favor of such a structured process.

I think this is true for some kids, and not at all true for others. Many successful people have managed without a highly structured education, and many others have actually been successful *in spite of* such an education. The world is full of people — especially visual/spatial learners and those with LDs like dyslexia — for whom a rigorous education focused on literature and history and languages was torture. My DH had a rigorous English boarding school education, including years of French, German, and Latin. He hated every minute of it, and remembers almost nothing. On the other hand, all those hours he spent building rockets and messing with electronics in his garage (before he was sent away to school) ended up being quite useful; he's a computer scientist with patents pending or granted in seven countries. He absolutely does not want DS to go through what he went through, and in fact DH is the one who vetoed Latin in our homeschool, saying it's tantamount to torture for a dyslexic, visual/spatial kid.

 

I do find, however, that there is certain richness in having "tasted" a lot of things and learned things in a broader context. Even if you later set up to be a great specialist in one narrow field, I find that you appreciate the world more by having seen more shades of it - which is why I constantly repeat to my younger daughter, organic reality is not all there is to explore, there are also symbols, and cultures, and art... And you don't need to become a specialist for every single field - just taste a little bit of each, don't narrow your world too young, when you get into science professionally all you'll do will be narrowing, so enjoy the breadth now. :D

I certainly agree with the idea of "tasting" lots of different subjects and learning things in a broader context, but I think this can take a variety of forms, not only in terms of the subjects themselves but the way they're explored. For some, "breadth" may involve extensive reading lists in every subject, and for other kids it may mean a lot more hands-on and experiential learning in subsets of different subjects. Some families may focus on developing a broad base of knowledge in all content areas, and others may focus on developing skill sets (problem-solving, critical thinking, the ability to organize ideas and express them well, etc.) that can be applied to any subject. Many families probably fall somewhere in between, and some may even manage both.

 

I've learned that I can't do both — at least not with this particular highly gifted, visual/spatial, dyslexic, ADD child. And not only do I not want him to hate school, I know that he doesn't learn anything when he's disengaged — just like DH doesn't remember a word of Latin even though he suffered four years of it. DS thinks visually, he thinks in terms of systems and connections, and I think I'd be doing him a disservice by not teaching to his strengths and gifts and interests. I still feel that he'll get plenty of "tastes" of history and literature and philosophy (in fact I think he'll end up with a much deeper and broader knowledge of philosophy and the history of science and ideas than the vast majority of HS students, regardless of how they're schooled), while allowing him plenty of time to explore his passions in deep, meaningful, and creative ways.

 

Jackie

[Capt_Uhura]

 

DS thinks visually, he thinks in terms of systems and connections, and I think I'd be doing him a disservice by not teaching to his strengths and gifts and interests. I still feel that he'll get plenty of "tastes" of history and literature and philosophy (in fact I think he'll end up with a much deeper and broader knowledge of philosophy and the history of science and ideas than the vast majority of HS students, regardless of how they're schooled), while allowing him plenty of time to explore his passions in deep, meaningful, and creative ways.

 

Jackie

 

:iagree:

We definitely need more people who think like your DS....to make those connections.

[PeterPan]

My dh always likes to point out that "hard cases make bad law." In other words, we understand there's a difference between what special needs kids (highly gifted, dyslexic, ADD, aspie, etc.) need vs. the regular population. And it doesn't make sense to extrapolate that what works for them WILL work for the rest of the population. There is that mode of thought in education, with people suggesting for instance that MCT (great for the gifted) can trickle down and be great for all kids (which it's not).

 

So in that sense I see truth in BOTH lines of reasoning here. The way Corralano and KarenAnne have opened themselves up to doing what their particular dc need is amazing, brave, and inspiring. That works. But Ester Maria is right on with her balancing comments that, FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION, this might not work out as well as you think. And I think if we saw it in context, the way Ester Maria is implementing it, it has a lot more time for exploration and focus than we are thinking. In fact, it might even turn out that Ester Maria and Corralano are setting up similar days for their kids. Sometimes we are closer than we think in implementation and are just using different words or focuses to get us there.

 

So anyways, I really appreciated Ester Maria's post. I think it's about where I'd like to be in terms of balance, since my dd isn't quite as strongly bent as Karen's or Jackie's dc. But I guess if you consider how much I'm bending out academics this year to do lots of handicrafts, I'm allowing my own extreme. :)

[Guest]

I think there are a lot more visual-spatial thinkers out there than most of us standard, left-brained neurotypicals imagine. There have been a number of books written about how the typical curriculum and the approaches used in implementing it do these kids an enormous disservice, undermining their learning processes and killing their enthusiasm for their own education.

 

The problem, as most of the authors I've read see it, is that the people who have been in charge of education departments, curriculum departments, and most classrooms full of kids are themselves the very opposite of the visual-spatial; they are verbal, sequential, step-by-step thinkers who naturally enough believe everyone thinks like they do. Therefore the curriculum vision they promote is based on the ways their own minds work and does not take into account the myriads of children who think differently. I am NOT talking about "special needs" kids here, but a huge segment of the population. It's only fairly recently than brain study and research has become accessible to the general public, alternative programs have begun to pop up, and adults who grew up under a system that did not work for them have begun to articulate why, and offer suggestions for working differently.

 

On top of that, we have our national obsession with "covering" every topic in the universe. This is not merely breadth, but breadth taken to absurdity. And on top of THAT, as a culture we're test-happy and obsessed with measurement. And there's one more: the obsession with "rigor" as defined in what strikes me as a strangely narrow and ultimately impoverished way. (I should note, before everyone jumps on this, that I am NOT saying I'm against rigor!!!!! I'm saying it is defined and thought about in ways that seem restricted.)

 

All these issues so permeate cultural thinking about how education "should" be that it is very difficult to learn to think in alternative ways, outside the assumptions and ingrained patterns we've grown up with. Sometimes it's easier for parents of kids who are "outliers" -- very clearly different from the norm -- to see that the box doesn't fit the child. But it's not as though the rest of the population of kids is all pretty much the same, and the standard package will fit them all quite tidily.

[Corraleno]

But Ester Maria is right on with her balancing comments that, FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION, this might not work out as well as you think.

As I've been thinking about this over the past couple of months, I've been trying to reconcile DS's needs and interests with my own idea of what a "great education" would entail. What makes me excited about the plan I'm developing is that not only will it suit DS really well, it will also provide my ideal of a great education. Not a great "special needs education," just a great education. An education focused on math, science, and thinking skills (including logic and composition) that will also include lots of history and literature and political science and philosophy, all tied together with the theme of a history of ideas. Does that sound like something that would only work with "special needs" kids? :confused:

 

Jackie

[Katja]

Wow has this been interesting! I'm going to need to re-read the whole thing a few times to take it all in.

 

I do think it's more a function of how someone thinks, rather than how old they are. I think some people are primarily interested in what/when/who, and others really need to know the how and the why for things to make sense.

 

 

I think there are a lot more visual-spatial thinkers out there than most of us standard, left-brained neurotypicals imagine. There have been a number of books written about how the typical curriculum and the approaches used in implementing it do these kids an enormous disservice, undermining their learning processes and killing their enthusiasm for their own education.

 

The problem, as most of the authors I've read see it, is that the people who have been in charge of education departments, curriculum departments, and most classrooms full of kids are themselves the very opposite of the visual-spatial; they are verbal, sequential, step-by-step thinkers who naturally enough believe everyone thinks like they do. Therefore the curriculum vision they promote is based on the ways their own minds work and does not take into account the myriads of children who think differently. I am NOT talking about "special needs" kids here, but a huge segment of the population. It's only fairly recently than brain study and research has become accessible to the general public, alternative programs have begun to pop up, and adults who grew up under a system that did not work for them have begun to articulate why, and offer suggestions for working differently.

 

 

This are has been particularly fascinating to me--I was recently mulling over some of the responses to recent threads about what is and isn't suitable for which stage/age kids. Especially the ones with some people feeling very strongly that SOTW does not belong in a logic stage history lesson (for the record: I'm planing on using it as part of ours :blushing: ), but ones about other story-related things along those lines (FIAR, etc.), too.

 

My dd learns (and retains) best when topics are tied to lives and personalities--just raw facts don't really stick but if there's a narrative involved, the facts will stay pretty much forever.

 

This thread has really thrown a lot of light on what I've been finding hard to understand. I'm thinking now it's really a lot more about learning styles and it's much less befuddling when I look at it that way.

 

Nice to homeschool and have the luxury to choose what works for the individual person I'm teaching.

[Capt_Uhura]

Jackie,

 

You must write up your plans. I'll pay you for them! Sounds exactly what I envisioned a good education to be.

 

I agree w/ Ohelizabeth, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly, is that Ester Maria's post and the alternative methods that have been proposed are not that very much different.

 

:iagree: w/ KarenAnne's thoughts on education.

 

This whole thread really has me thinking about next year. I think my son has a lot in common w/ Corrlano's. He's not big on workbooks at all (quite an understatement) but thrives on discussion, making connections...I think that is why MCT is such a huge HIT in this house. Something like GWG just doesn't do it for him. Whereas he used to watch tons of science shows, history shows, I see that dwindling so I need to really think about what I can do differently to reignite that spark.

[Capt_Uhura]

Especially the ones with some people feeling very strongly that SOTW does not belong in a logic stage history lesson (for the record: I'm planing on using it as part of ours :blushing: ), but ones about other story-related things along those lines (FIAR, etc.), too.

 

Nice to homeschool and have the luxury to choose what works for the individual person I'm teaching.

 

I recently saw a post that SOTW was meant only for grades 1-4. I didn't think that was true, actually. I thought SWB recommended it for Logic stage as well but you'd be adding in more challenging reading in history and literature, and including outlining, writing, analytical skills. I don't see why you couldn't use SOTW w/ a logic stage kid to get that breathe but then dig deeper on topics of interest using other sources such as Oxford U. Press's Ancient Times series, primary documents, etc.

[Corraleno]

On top of that, we have our national obsession with "covering" every topic in the universe. This is not merely breadth, but breadth taken to absurdity. And on top of THAT, as a culture we're test-happy and obsessed with measurement. And there's one more: the obsession with "rigor" as defined in what strikes me as a strangely narrow and ultimately impoverished way. (I should note, before everyone jumps on this, that I am NOT saying I'm against rigor!!!!! I'm saying it is defined and thought about in ways that seem restricted.)

 

All these issues so permeate cultural thinking about how education "should" be that it is very difficult to learn to think in alternative ways, outside the assumptions and ingrained patterns we've grown up with. Sometimes it's easier for parents of kids who are "outliers" -- very clearly different from the norm -- to see that the box doesn't fit the child. But it's not as though the rest of the population of kids is all pretty much the same, and the standard package will fit them all quite tidily.

:iagree: with all of this.

 

I think as education has drifted more and more towards memorization and regurgitation of huge volumes of facts (which come pre-packaged with the "correct" interpretation and response highlighted in the textbook, so everyone will know exactly which box to tick on the standardized test), we've lost sight of the importance of critical thinking skills. There are different ways to add that in to a child's education; one way is to buy a Critical Thinking Skills workbook and add it as one more subject, and another way is to teach it as part of the process of teaching other subjects. In the latter case, IMHO, you have to go deeper in those subjects in order to have things to think critically about.

 

Other issues which I think are relevant to the discussion include the article Capt Uhura linked, about there being so much information out there that it's impossible to know it all so it's more important to know how to access and filter all the information rather than already know it, and KarenAnne's post about how some of the top private schools are moving away from the huge survey courses and towards more focused seminars. These apply to all kids not just "special needs" kids.

 

Jackie

[ChiMomNP]

When I see those curriculum lists in signatures I see 31 flavors, but I don't want a scoop of each one on my cone. :D

 

Really, though, I'm such a curriculum junkie -- I *like* to read those lists and learn about all the different possibilitiies out there!

 

My own list includes things we plan to nibble but not devour.

 

This is exactly how I feel, it gives me things to consider and look more closely at. We may add a few here or there. I try not to feel pressured to make him do too much. I don't want him to hate learning, it is finding the right balance for your individual children that matters.

Edited July 10, 2010 by ChiMomNP

[Capt_Uhura]

KarenAnne - can you tell me more about Bring History Alive?

 

thanks,

Capt_Uhura

[zaichiki]

I recently saw a post that SOTW was meant only for grades 1-4. I didn't think that was true, actually. I thought SWB recommended it for Logic stage as well but you'd be adding in more challenging reading in history and literature, and including outlining, writing, analytical skills. I don't see why you couldn't use SOTW w/ a logic stage kid to get that breathe but then dig deeper on topics of interest using other sources such as Oxford U. Press's Ancient Times series, primary documents, etc.

 

WTM gives me the distinct impression that Susan Wise Bauer wrote SOTW specifically for the grammar stage. In the logic stage section of her book she does not recommend using SOTW for history, but instead suggests the reader choose from 4 encyclopedia-type spines and have the child outline, adding in addtional reading and primary sources.

 

Of course, for the sake of being simple, SWB assumes that logic stage is 5-8th grades. We know that logic stage can be reached at different ages/grades for different kids. Quite a few people use SOTW for 5-8th graders. Sonlight, in fact, schedules SOTW 1&2 for Core 6 and SOTW 3&4 for Core 7. When older children use SOTW, it is frequently used differently than when used with a younger child.

 

Currently my own logic-stage child is using SOTW 1 for outlining practice b/c I haven't yet purchased the history spine he'll be using in the fall.

 

Anyway, it boils down to the fact that SWB did indeed write the SOTW series for 1st-4th graders, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful/used some way for others as well.

 

Cheers!

Edited July 10, 2010 by zaichiki

[zaichiki]

This is exactly how I feel, it gives me things to consider and look more closely at. We made add a few here or there. I try not to feel pressured to make him do too much. I don't want him to hate learning, it is finding the right balance for your individual children that matters.

 

Back to the ice cream analogy --

Just b/c some other people have 10 scoops on their cone doesn't mean *I* need 10 scoops for mine. And if they all include vanilla, well, I might just go for black raspberry instead. And that's fine.

[PeterPan]

Corraleno, just for clarity, do you have other dc as well? I curious if you were formulating your approach to fit one ds (for whom it sounds like a GREAT fit), or if this is going to be trickled down and applied to more. As Katja said, I have a dd who is highly engaged in people, personalities, their stories, how they lived, who married whom and how their kids turned out, etc., but she could care less about the major themes and philosophical movements, lol. She's a girl. I suppose some girls care about philosophy, so I don't know if it's gender or personality or both. In any case, where that line of reasoning takes us is right back to a thread I started on the high school board months ago asking it if was reasonable to have a woman-centered study of the GB, complete with famous women, women's themes, etc. :)

 

Karen, you bring up an interesting point with the v/s kids. Again though, are they general population or a unique subset? I have no clue, no statistics. And is there a genetic/inherited component there, making it less likely to spread as an even percentage across the population? For instance, would my SIL, who has a ton of kids, be likely to have a certain percentage of them be v/s and need alternate methods? Or is it more likely that one family, with one or both parents v/s themselves, would then have multiple dc out of their bunch be v/s? Does that make sense? Just curious. See the mind could wander around in this all day.

[zaichiki]

I have a dd who is highly engaged in people, personalities, their stories, how they lived, who married whom and how their kids turned out, etc., but she could care less about the major themes and philosophical movements, lol. She's a girl.

 

I always thought dd just wasn't interested in history. But she LOVES historical fiction that's written from a girl's point of view (like those "diaries" and American Girl books).

 

Looks like I have to re-learn how to teach history. :D

[PeterPan]

I always thought dd just wasn't interested in history. But she LOVES historical fiction that's written from a girl's point of view (like those "diaries" and American Girl books).

 

Looks like I have to re-learn how to teach history. :D

 

Yup, my point exactly. I have 3+ bookshelves full of historical fiction, and she loves it. But you could get a boy or someone with a different approach method toward their history, and the way you would teach would be totally different. I first clued into this reading CajunClassical's posts (Angelina). She has an amazing blog btw. In any case, I started gabbing with her about gender differences, because I thought I was doing something wrong or shortchanging my dd not discussing themes, political movements, etc. the way she does with her ds. Then I realized it was a gender difference. Now I just embrace it, much like Karen embraces the one-track method her dd needs. The only thing I haven't figured out is how far I should go in letting it color our GB study. Ie. whether there's a set list of what should be studied (the musts) and then everything else fills in the cracks, or whether it's really reasonable to be themed. In reality, probably something kind of in the middle will be what we do. But I can see fights, serious fights, looming over the "ought to" stuff on the list that really has no relevance in the brain process of a girl. Ok, say it's necessary for broad exposure. I totally agree with the liberal arts approach Ester Maria was espousing, and it was the stated philosophy where I went to college. But they used that to broaden you in CATEGORIES (some language, some math, some science, some this or that, no matter what your degree) and didn't necessarily turn that into a set checklist of knowledge for everyone.

 

In other words, I think there could be different kinds of breadth (category exposure vs. specific knowledge exposure).

[Corraleno]

.

[Guest]

In other words, I think there could be different kinds of breadth (category exposure vs. specific knowledge exposure).

 

I think this is it exactly. We tend to obsess as a culture about specific knowledge exposure/memorization across an impossibly enormous range of subject material.

 

Uhura: Bring History Alive was written by the people at the National Center for History in the Schools at ULCA. Some years back, they were the ones who made up a more world-history-oriented list of standards and curriculum suggestions for US schools, but they were attacked (with a lot of vitriol) by the very conservative right. The standards were modified in an attempt to mollify these people and have not been implemented widely, which is a shame.

 

At any rate, the book is a "sourcebook," but this is not so much a source for materials, texts, etc. as it is a source for ways to engage students, questions to pose for them to investigate, ways to get them to look for patterns and themes. One caveat: in my opinion the book suffers from the same impossibly huge "coverage" problem we've been discussing in this thread. I cannot imagine how any classroom full of 30 very different kids, some ESL and some with disabilities, would be able to make it through all this thematic material -- particularly since even in the best case, public schools offer two years of world history total. However, I think that the same kind of pulling out of a few powerful themes to investigate (in the way that we've been also discussing here) makes this approach deeply enriching.

 

The book opens with an introductory section on why history is important, what skills are needed for historical thinking, how to engage students in higher-level thinking rather than rote memorization.

 

Then there is the bulk of the book: a breakdown of history into "eras" (there are 9 of them). For each era there are essays on current research and pedagogical thought; a list of possible textual resources; a list of selected major themes which characterize the era -- this is what I found really, really helpful -- and then a breakdown of what types of activities, essays, etc. kids might do to investigate, analyze, and understand each theme; these are broken down into grade levels from 5 through 12.

 

At the end of the book are more sections on resources for readings and such, including literature, videos, and art. The book runs over 300 oversized pages. It's written by professors at major universities, not people in the more general education field, so it reflects the types of thinking and concerns of people who work in the field and the kinds of skills and thinking about global issues professors would like incoming college students to have acquired -- or at least been exposed to. It is not focused on the memorization of vast amounts of specific knowledge, but on larger trends and developments and on kinds of historical thinking.

 

I wish I'd found this when my daughter was younger, because I think it is truly an eye-opening book plus just full of very helpful specific questions and activities.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Guest

[TerriMI]

I'm thinking on our next pass through Ancients, instead of doing a broad survey of Greek literature, maybe we'll just focus on the Odyssey: read and compare a few different translations, read Alberto Manguel's "biography" of the Odyssey and it's interpretations throughout history, read Kazantzakis's Odyssey: A Modern Sequel, tackle at least parts of Ulysses, watch O Brother Where Art Thou, and look at other books and movies that relate to the Odyssey, etc. Instead of looking at a series of individual "great books" as separate entities, I like the idea of taking one book and going really deep in a way that combines history and literary analysis and cultural analysis.

 

 

Just a couple of good resource suggestions that you might consider for deepening the study of The Odyssey: 1) The Greenleaf Guide to Ancient Literature http://tinyurl.com/2fmwr7jhas a six week study of The Odyssey. Of course, you could schedule it as you like. We ( with my then-young highschoolers) used this a few years ago to deepen our Ancients study. We used it to schedule their reading and to answer comprehension questions and vocabulary and for some discussion. 2) The Teaching Company has a lecture course by Professor Vandiver http://tinyurl.com/2bnqmjl that is wonderful. We used this too that year to practice taking notes. She develops a study of cultural ideas held dear by the Greeks that create main themes in the work, that you might investigate in the other works you are thinking of using. 3) Veritas Omnibus I has a section that covers The Odyssey too. We used it for discussion using its unique analysis questions, contextual, cultural and biblical, and for a writing project or two. 4) I think the only other thing we did with this was to make a couple of story plot diagrams that showed basic plot development of a couple of the books. We probably could have incorporated other literary element studies like character development, but we had other things to do that year. We could have spent longer with just what we had, but I think our study ended up being about 8 weeks. I think my kids loved what we did with this study.

Edited July 10, 2010 by TerriKY

[Wildiris]

First, I want to say this is an amazing thread.

 

Breadth vs. Depth

 

How one approaches this dilemma depend in large part on the age and level of development of the student. Herein lays the beauty of home school; a parent can tailor to their child's specific needs. So, for one family breadth in learning across all subjects works and for other families going in depth in a few subjects works. I think it all depends on the the homeschooling objective of each family, and of course that objective is always under revision.

 

Clearly there is a difference between comprehension questions asked at the end of a chapter or passage of reading and critical thinking questions that require a thoughtful response, perhaps drawing on other resources before a final answer is given. To pursue deeper responses and greater critical analysis takes time, a lot of time. Time I forget to budget in when making plans. I think there is place for both breadth and depth in learning, but one needs to choose where and how to achieve both.

 

I wonder about always allowing the child to choose which topics or subject they'd like to go deeper into. Allowing the student to choose usually results in their choosing to stay within their comfort zone of learning, particularly when they get older. I believe people learn more when they move out of their comfort zone of learning and into something challenging and new.

 

The question of breadth or depth is one I am thinking about this summer as my oldest DD heads into 8th grade. Before I sit down to plan out our next school year, I am going to write a mission statement or a statement of objectives to clarify to myself what I think is important, not just what is important to learn as a subject, but what skills are important beyond just writing a brief research paper. For example, do I want my DD to learn the journalist skill of interview, delve into writing online, take the AMA math challenge exam, master making a youtube video, take on the challenge of writing a long short story, an oral history project etc. One thing I know for certain is that I want to incorporate art or the creative process into our education experience.

[Corraleno]

Corraleno, just for clarity, do you have other dc as well? I curious if you were formulating your approach to fit one ds (for whom it sounds like a GREAT fit), or if this is going to be trickled down and applied to more.

Yes, I have a DD who is perfectly "normal," lol (not particularly gifted, no LDs), and I plan to use the same basic approach with her that I'm using with DS. The focus and theme may be different, depending on her interests, but in some ways I think it's even more important to challenge her to think deeply and critically about things and to look for connections, because she's not naturally a very deep thinker. She tends to just accept whatever she's told at face value; I think she's the kind of kid who would excell in a standard PS program, because she's good at memorizing facts and spitting them back in exactly the format she learned them in. However, just because that system would work for her, doesn't mean I think it's the best way to educate her. I still believe that what Capt Uhura and KarenAnne posted earlier, about thinking skills being more important than memorizing lots of facts, applies to everyone, not just kids who are naturally inclined that way.

 

As Katja said, I have a dd who is highly engaged in people, personalities, their stories, how they lived, who married whom and how their kids turned out, etc., but she could care less about the major themes and philosophical movements, lol. She's a girl. I suppose some girls care about philosophy, so I don't know if it's gender or personality or both. In any case, where that line of reasoning takes us is right back to a thread I started on the high school board months ago asking it if was reasonable to have a woman-centered study of the GB, complete with famous women, women's themes, etc.

Well, I've known plenty of girls (including me) who were interested in philosophy — in fact I'd say more than half of the philosophy majors at my college were women — so I think it's more of a personality thing than a gender thing. To answer your second question, I think it's absolutely reasonable to tailor a study of great books (and history) to your DD's interest in women's issues and themes. Using that sort of theme as the "core" to build a curriculum around is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

The only thing I haven't figured out is how far I should go in letting it color our GB study. Ie. whether there's a set list of what should be studied (the musts) and then everything else fills in the cracks, or whether it's really reasonable to be themed. In reality, probably something kind of in the middle will be what we do. But I can see fights, serious fights, looming over the "ought to" stuff on the list that really has no relevance in the brain process of a girl.

I don't think there's a set list of literature that "must" be studied — all "great books" lists are just another's person's idea of what the "best" or "most important" books are. There's no reason you can't compile your own list of "great books" that will be meaningful for your child. Trying to read every book on every "great books" list would leave little or no time for other subjects, so since you have to pare down the list anyway, why not choose things that will really resonate with your daughter? Why force her to read things she might hate, just because someone else thinks it's an important book?

 

I totally agree with the liberal arts approach Ester Maria was espousing, and it was the stated philosophy where I went to college. But they used that to broaden you in CATEGORIES (some language, some math, some science, some this or that, no matter what your degree) and didn't necessarily turn that into a set checklist of knowledge for everyone.

Yes, this is what I'm talking about. Breadth doesn't have to mean doing a broad survey course in every subject, memorizing some standardized checklist of names/dates/facts/events/etc. It's also possible to provide "breadth" by going deeper into fewer topics within a broad spectrum of subjects. And, IMO, having some sort of interest-based theme to tie those explorations together — whether it's the history of ideas or women's issues or technology or political science or whatever — can make education relevant to kids in a way that not only feeds their love of learning, but can lead to better critical thinking skills and better retention of information in the long run.

 

Jackie

Edited July 10, 2010 by Corraleno
typo

[Corraleno]

So, for one family breadth in learning across all subjects works and for other families going in depth in a few subjects works.

I think there are two words here — "breadth" and "subjects" — that, depending on how people define them, will greatly influence how they see the issues we're discussing here. One family might define "breadth" as checking off a list of must-read books and must-know facts in many different subjects, while another may define it as exploring specific topics in depth within a broad variety of subjects. And if someone sees math and biology and physics and chemistry and logic and grammar and literature and writing and history and geography and anthropology and philosophy all as separate subjects, then they will look at a schedule that only has 5 "subjects" as not being broad enough, even though all of the areas in the longer list will actually be addressed.

 

And this brings up another interesting issue, I think: Has the compartmentalization of topics of study into discrete, separately-taught "subjects" contributed to a decline in the ability of students to think critically and make connections between disciplines? Is it really more effective to treat history and literature and philosophy and comparative religion, etc. as separate, unconnected subjects, each with it's own checklist of names and dates and facts to memorize? Or could we combine these subjects around a theme or core that's especially relevant to each student, in a way that will foster deeper thinking and the ability to see the connections?

 

I wonder about always allowing the child to choose which topics or subject they'd like to go deeper into. Allowing the student to choose usually results in their choosing to stay within their comfort zone of learning, particularly when they get older. I believe people learn more when they move out of their comfort zone of learning and into something challenging and new.

I think that allowing kids to choose topics of focus, within the parameters provided by a parent, can actually help them stretch their thinking and knowledge into areas outside their comfort zone, by providing a "hook" that makes it relevant to them. For instance, DS would certainly not choose to read a standard names/dates/facts textbook on the Middle Ages, but he'd be excited about researching the history of weapons and warfare, because that relates to his interests in science and technology. In the process, he'll also learn a lot of names/dates/battles, but in a way that will be relevant to him. And that's only one of what will be many topics he'll research. I'll still be providing an overview, based on the TC course The Medieval World, but by focusing our study on stories he'll enjoy (The Once and Future King) and letting him choose specific topics to explore in depth, the details will be things he connects with — and will therefore remember.

 

Similarly, he would not choose to sit down with a set of philosophy textbooks, but by making the history of ideas relevant to his interests in the history of science, and showing him how these "threads of thought" run throughout history, science, literature, philosophy, etc., I'll be able to take him on a journey into territories he would probably never choose to explore on his own. Or, if he were forced to study them in a memorize-&-test way, he would just go through the motions and forget it all the minute the test was done. My hope is that over time he'll be building a database of interconnected ideas and events and people, and each new topic he tackles will contribute new threads and connections to that base.

 

Jackie

[Guest]

I have a dd who is highly engaged in people, personalities, their stories, how they lived, who married whom and how their kids turned out, etc., but she could care less about the major themes and philosophical movements, lol. She's a girl. I suppose some girls care about philosophy, so I don't know if it's gender or personality or both. In any case, where that line of reasoning takes us is right back to a thread I started on the high school board months ago asking it if was reasonable to have a woman-centered study of the GB, complete with famous women, women's themes, etc.

 

I think this is a great question. I've been spending a lot of time this morning trying to draft a response, but it's turning out way, way too long! So, the short answer is yes, absolutely. You an tailor a classical education to your daughter's interest in these things. You can read books about and by women, families, and domestic history -- which inevitably will touch on politics, wars, economics, class struggles, education, legal history... all the rest of what is considered traditional political history. But you will approach it through stories about people, particularly girls and women.

 

One way to do this is to read a very male-focused classic and investigate the women's role(s), including limitations and restrictions -- Penelope in The Odyssey, for instance. Another is to study how writers have re-imagined classics through the eyes of a female narrator. I know you are about the start The Hobbit and LOTR with your daughter; one possible spin-off is to look at how other writers have been inspired by Tolkien to re-imagine fantasy worlds in which women play much bigger parts. For instance, Tamora Pierce isn't a particularly wonderful writer, but she has written a series for girls featuring a female knight in response to her own feelings of what was missing in LOTR. You can talk about what other women writers felt was missing in Tolkien and different ways they found to comment on that in their books. You can talk about how Tolkien's book might have looked with female wizards or hobbits, or even with more on Sam's domestic life: he's the only one of the major characters to yearn for, and find, domestic happiness (well, presumably Aragorn and Arwen do too, but we never get a real look at this). Why? What is the relationship of family life to heroic myth and epic? (This ties back in with Penelope, however indirectly.)

 

In history, your daughter can read about everyday life, which is likely to include lots more information about women, domestic lives, and relationships than does the typical history which is centered on rulers and battles. There are a number of different fields within general history, of which political history is only one. My daughter spent a year when she was much younger doing history through the American Girls books and dolls. These focus on the concerns and relationships of young girls, but they are connected with larger political themes. You still get information about wars, civil struggles, class divisions, and the rest, but they are embedded in stories about girls. There's great stuff for older girls, including studies of the witch trials, women workers, female scientists, education, the medical industry and women... on and on. All of it will weave in and out of political history in a more classical sense.

 

Even in political and military history you can focus on female rulers -- Elizabeth I and Catherine of Russia are two of the first that pop into mind -- and the way they used their culture's thinking about women to shape their rule. You can read about the home front during wartime instead of having your daughter wade through an endless account of battles. Or you can read about women's military roles. My daughter has been reading Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment, which has led to much discussion and now some research about women who disguised themselves as male soldiers during the Civil War (including one whose female identity was not discovered until nearly half a century later when she was hospitalized for a broken hip). We read about this and then my daughter always asks, "Why isn't this in my history book?" This could be a whole course of study in itself!

 

Another thing to do is sit down with your daughter and look at a conventional list of Great Books (SWB's for instance) -- talk about the idea of a canon, who makes it, how it has changed over time (looking at the table of contents in a series of editions of the Norton Anthology is a good way to do this; there are also some minor but telling changes between editions in SWB's books as well). Talk about what kinds of writing are represented and how women don't enjoy a prominent presence on the list.

 

Then ask why. This is not a one-time project; it can accompany you through your child's high school years, and the answer will change and deepen as she grows. What forms of writing are under-represented? Why are certain forms apparently valued more highly than others? Who gets left out? (Not only women.) What things might women be writing instead of these canonical forms? These are complicated questions, something to be mulled on over time.

 

Oh, dear, I've done it again... sorry for the huge length here. But I love your question; it's one dear to my heart.

[Guest]

 

I wonder about always allowing the child to choose which topics or subject they'd like to go deeper into. Allowing the student to choose usually results in their choosing to stay within their comfort zone of learning, particularly when they get older. I believe people learn more when they move out of their comfort zone of learning and into something challenging and new.

[/size][/font]

 

I have only a small group of kids that I taught in a co-op to judge by, plus my own daughter; but my experience has been the opposite. Where kids are interested and engaged they challenge themselves and are eager to find out about things that are new to them. This might not be true in every single subject or all of the time. But I certainly found it to be the case when I worked with them. Even my daughter, who has Asperger's Syndrome and thus has a real problem with leaving what is familiar and safe, will be inspired to branch out from a topic of passionate, obsessional interest into connected areas that are completely unknown territory to her. In her case, it's only when it's her own choice, her own engagement, that she is willing to do this -- not when I try to nudge her or coax her there.

[Corraleno]

Oh, dear, I've done it again... sorry for the huge length here.

No need to apologize! I think your post was an awesome illustration of how any parent can provide a really rich, deep, and even broad education that is still tailored to their child's particular interests and passions — and that this isn't an approach that only applies only to "special" kids, but can work well for many kids with a variety of learning styles and a wide variety of interests.

 

Jackie

[PeterPan]

Karen, what, in a nutshell, were the criticisms of the conservative, vitriolic right against the History Alive materials? Since that's me, I'd like to know, lol. No seriously, I know in general there's always concern with the way history is taught in schools, because it shapes the thinking of a generation. So if they were changing a focus from a very patriotic, Founder-following, US-centered approach (ha, as if our schools currently teach that), to a one-world focused, world history approach bringing in the concerns of minorities and telling us all how bad we are, then obviously that would be a concern, lol. I say that all tongue in cheek just to say that I know there could be concerns as a whole, but that doesn't mean I can't derive some benefit from using the good in it, my way, in my setting. But I'd like to know, going into it, what the criticisms are. :)

 

And for the benefit of the others, I already ordered the US History Alive off amazon, should be here in a few days. :)

[prairiegirl]

Oh, dear, I've done it again... sorry for the huge length here. But I love your question; it's one dear to my heart.

 

Karen Anne, thank you so much for that post! So many wonderful ideas! This invites me to brainstorm on how to educate my oldest for next year.

 

One thing, though, that keeps ringing in my head as I read this thread is that in order to give my kids this kind of education I need to be well-read, which I am not. Yes, I have read a few of the Great Books and classics but not enough to be able to pull off anything of what has been suggested.

When I read Karen Anne's ideas for Elizabeth, I am reading all new things. I didn't know half (okay, more than half) of the information that she wrote about. This is so intimidating. But it is exciting to think of all of the possibilties. My children love to do unit study-like learning. They thrive on learning this way. So I think this would work so well for us. I just now have to figure out how to do it. I also need to get at the reading. ;)

[PeterPan]

Jackie, your days are very much like ours. :)

 

I think maybe this is a process we grow and evolve in. We hit on something, try it, get a little braver, go a little farther. One enlightenment is not enough, lol. I've been looking at this whole wall of Omnibus in 7th gr (a year from now) and have never felt very brave about crossing over that into the land of Mom-guiding. And yet, it seems like the people who are most happy are the ones where Mom is customizing quite a bit. I had one voice tell me Omnibus wouldn't work so well if you did that, and I've been chicken ever since, much to my chagrin. But you're right, it's probably ok for me to define my own classics list for my particular student, and it would leave us a lot happier. And I really do have a surprising little collection of things to do that. I even think the "classics" booklists are too narrow in genre. The BJU lit for instance brings in humor, 1st person narratives, nature stories, biographies, all sorts of things that are excellent, truly truly excellent, that I can't imagine being without. Seems to me you'd get too heavy, like a pan pizza with too many toppings, if all you read were the "classics". At some point can't we read the not-so-classic but excellent stuff and call it equally worthwhile? Otherwise we get into this peverse equation where a little classics being good means a LOT are a LOT better, groan. That's not necessarily true, lol. When do we have ENOUGH classics? Now there's a question...

 

Now I'm going to go giggle with my very girly girl who has her cat dressed in a princess hat she made. I tell you, the girl power in this house is crazy. It's why the whole classics side of a classical education just doesn't make sense to me. I'm all for exposure, breadth, use down the road, opening doors, but there seems to be an inherent refusal to ignore gender differences, etc. in this. The GB are the GB, no matter who you are, blah blah, drone drone.