The breadth vs. depth question

[Kathie in VA]

Just curious -- not trying to challenge your thoughts or anything but to understand the reasoning behind this -- why not? What in your opinion is important about making him wait?

 

Good question, thanks for asking. My dh and I did talk about this some. Basically we think it would be better for him to finnish getting a handle on all of history, not just the Roman timeframe that he is focused on at the moment. I think that once he has at least gotten an overview of all of history (we haven't yet done much with middle ages, Ren/Ref or modern history) then he will actually be in a better place to really study this one topic. He will also be able to expand it beyond just the Romans and Greeks. Besides, it's actually not stopping him from furthing his interests as he reads books like, "The Roots of Strategy" on his own time. :001_huh:

 

My dd (age 15) saw that at the community college they offer a whole course in Mythology and was very excited to consider that as a possibility. Again, such a deep, extended focus is a great idea ... but I think a better idea after competing an overall framework of history.

 

Now when she was younger, in elementary grades, we paused in our studies of Ancient history so she could read the entire book on Greek Myths and then later we compare them to the Roman myths. She had fun but then we moved on. My son also paused back then to read more on the Roman armor and weapons (much more than my dd did!).

[peacefully]

.

[Capt_Uhura]

I spent time today listening to SWB's The Joy of Classical Education MP3. She spoke on this topic. While I sometimes get the impression here that Classical Education is more structured, this is how you do it, she said the exact opposite in her talk. She used the analogy of a house. You need a foundation and supporting structure but after that, there are numerous ways to construct a house. She also talked about how important it is for DC to follow their passions. That by high school, it's OK to drop subjects such as grammar, history, math (yes, she said history) to free up time for DC to follow his interest!

 

Some other points made you often see logic/rhetoric stage skills pushed down to elementary "Why did the character do that? What would you have done in that situation?" and grammar stage skills in upper middle school/high school (lots of fill in the blank, choose the one correct answer).

 

From listening to this MP3, and I got interrupted so I need to listen again and take notes as I was in the car, but it seems to me she was espousing exactly what Correlano is proposing. She said at the University where she teaches, they get tons of students who are very well rounded but boring (my paraphrasing). They love to see a kid who has a passion that they've followed. She said you can't do it all. Classical education is all about the process and not the content.

 

I also listened to Andrew Pudewa's MP3 "How to teach boys who'd rather be building forts all day." He said one of the problems with our current education system is that we want creativity and interest-driven learning in the elementary years and much less so in the high school years when in fact it should be the reverse. The elementary years should be about acquiring a information and the later years spent on creativity, following one's passion.

 

I can certainly see how this plays out w/ a Classical Eduction. Grammar years are spent in the 4yr history rotation, giving that breathe, that foundation from which DC can them branch off and pursue a passion area.

 

Off to listen to more of SWB's discussion....

 

Capt_Uhura

[Corraleno]

I spent time today listening to SWB's The Joy of Classical Education MP3. She spoke on this topic. While I sometimes get the impression here that Classical Education is more structured, this is how you do it, she said the exact opposite in her talk. She used the analogy of a house. You need a foundation and supporting structure but after that, there are numerous ways to construct a house. She also talked about how important it is for DC to follow their passions. That by high school, it's OK to drop subjects such as grammar, history, math (yes, she said history) to free up time for DC to follow his interest!

...

From listening to this MP3, and I got interrupted so I need to listen again and take notes as I was in the car, but it seems to me she was espousing exactly what Correlano is proposing. She said at the University where she teaches, they get tons of students who are very well rounded but boring (my paraphrasing). They love to see a kid who has a passion that they've followed. She said you can't do it all. Classical education is all about the process and not the content.

Thank you so much for posting this — I just downloaded the lecture and I look forward to listening to it! :001_smile:

 

Jackie

[Guest]

I like this very much about SWB, the flexibility at the upper high school level; however, I also believe this sort of flexibility can work well at younger ages -- not necessarily including dropping entire subject areas, but certainly moving away from the survey orientation and long list of things to be "covered" -- with children and with parents who are comfortable with it and who seem to thrive on this approach to learning. In the WTM model, a child's passion only acquires legitimate academic status at that upper level, the last couple of years of high school, along the lines of the British system. Before that time, it's expected to play second fiddle, be relegated to special project status, or happen outside of work on the "real" curriculum. When you have kids who are truly driven from an early age toward particular areas or types of study, or when older (but not junior or senior level) children have a genuine thirst to dig into a topic in depth, it seems counterproductive on a number of levels to make them put their inner drive on hold, to learn to consider that the subjects of their own fascination are unimportant or must necessarily rank beneath coverage of a broader program. I don't say they're more important, just that in some cases individual passion/drive/wiring deserves in every way to be equal in terms of academic legitimacy and to be accorded respect and validity within the boundaries of school.

[swimmermom3]

I like this very much about SWB, the flexibility at the upper high school level; however, I also believe this sort of flexibility can work well at younger ages -- not necessarily including dropping entire subject areas, but certainly moving away from the survey orientation and long list of things to be "covered" -- with children and with parents who are comfortable with it and who seem to thrive on this approach to learning. In the WTM model, a child's passion only acquires legitimate academic status at that upper level, the last couple of years of high school, along the lines of the British system. Before that time, it's expected to play second fiddle, be relegated to special project status, or happen outside of work on the "real" curriculum. When you have kids who are truly driven from an early age toward particular areas or types of study, or when older (but not junior or senior level) children have a genuine thirst to dig into a topic in depth, it seems counterproductive on a number of levels to make them put their inner drive on hold, to learn to consider that the subjects of their own fascination are unimportant or must necessarily rank beneath coverage of a broader program. I don't say they're more important, just that in some cases individual passion/drive/wiring deserves in every way to be equal in terms of academic legitimacy and to be accorded respect and validity within the boundaries of school.

 

There are children and my youngest would be one of them that if you did not include their passion/drive/wiring at an early age, I believe that you would lose them academically altogether. They'll go through the motions and not much more.

 

KarenAnne, I struggle fiercely with this whole issue because you can also have the child who does not have a particular passion nor do they fit within the standard academic environment. This would be my oldest, my lovely, bright, charming daughter for whom traditional school has been the major contributing factor to severe depression. I think she would thrive from the type of education you have described that you are pursuing with your daughter. And yet, I think some of my dd's issues with school are a result of teachers, coaches, and us making exceptions for her. I don't know. It's all so confusing.

[PeterPan]

Oh Swimmer, you just said the thing I fear the most, that we could pursue their bents, do what seems right, and unexpectedly create MORE problems for them in the long-run.

 

Well my mind at the moment has drifted to what a Karen-style time of King Arthur pursuits would look like. :)

[Capt_Uhura]

I like this very much about SWB, the flexibility at the upper high school level; however, I also believe this sort of flexibility can work well at younger ages -- not necessarily including dropping entire subject areas, but certainly moving away from the survey orientation and long list of things to be "covered" -- with children and with parents who are comfortable with it and who seem to thrive on this approach to learning. In the WTM model, a child's passion only acquires legitimate academic status at that upper level, the last couple of years of high school, along the lines of the British system. Before that time, it's expected to play second fiddle, be relegated to special project status, or happen outside of work on the "real" curriculum.

 

I wonder if SWB would agree with that. I don't know. When I read books like the WTM, I try to remind myself that the author is speaking about a typical kid.....and if your kid is atypical, it may not apply....doesn't mean you way wouldn't work for your kid. It seems elementary is the time when the kid really has TIME to pursue those passions very deeply. For most here, "school" takes a couple of hours a day with the whole rest of the day free for exploring those passions. My kid can drag anything out to twice the time it should take him but that's a whole other thread. I had thought SWB was a big proponent of following DC's interest but the 3Rs still need to get done. So are you saying that even from a very young age, for certain kids, you would not do a survey of history or science for example, but rather let DC's passion area drive it? Let's say, DD is interested in dresses. She could study fashion and how it changes over time, that would lead into history, into her making her own clothes or designing her own clothes which would involve math, you could bring in science w/ the various fibers used for clothing but not do SOTW Vol1-4 w/ that child.

[Capt_Uhura]

senior level) children have a genuine thirst to dig into a topic in depth, it seems counterproductive on a number of levels to make them put their inner drive on hold, to learn to consider that the subjects of their own fascination are unimportant or must necessarily rank beneath coverage of a broader program. I don't say they're more important, just that in some cases individual passion/drive/wiring deserves in every way to be equal in terms of academic legitimacy and to be accorded respect and validity within the boundaries of school.

 

:iagree:

 

Here is where the WTM flexibility comes in which I often get from her talks but not necessarily from the book.

[TKDmom]

So...

Do y'all want to relocate and form a nice little WTM co-op where we can sit around collecting books and discussing educational philosophies?

 

My bff and I have grand plans to start our own town (we're thinking in Western North Carolina), and we will only invite people that we like to live there. :D Everyone on this thread is invited to come. ;)

 

The trick is getting our dh's to found a company where they can all have 6-figure incomes....

[Guest]

I wonder if SWB would agree with that. I don't know. When I read books like the WTM, I try to remind myself that the author is speaking about a typical kid.....and if your kid is atypical, it may not apply....doesn't mean you way wouldn't work for your kid. It seems elementary is the time when the kid really has TIME to pursue those passions very deeply. For most here, "school" takes a couple of hours a day with the whole rest of the day free for exploring those passions. My kid can drag anything out to twice the time it should take him but that's a whole other thread. I had thought SWB was a big proponent of following DC's interest but the 3Rs still need to get done. So are you saying that even from a very young age, for certain kids, you would not do a survey of history or science for example, but rather let DC's passion area drive it? Let's say, DD is interested in dresses. She could study fashion and how it changes over time, that would lead into history, into her making her own clothes or designing her own clothes which would involve math, you could bring in science w/ the various fibers used for clothing but not do SOTW Vol1-4 w/ that child.

 

Yes. What I'm saying, and laying myself wide open to all types of response in consequence, is that you approach the basics through those interests rather than through a commercial or pre-made program that separates the interests out and insists that the child learn -- grammar, say, or narration -- from books whose content or style does not suit or engage them.

 

I furthermore think that a narrow or focused passion can be a tool through which to get the bigger picture; it does not have to always be presented the other way around, although this is standard. I'm not saying kids shouldn't have a broad knowledge of history, not at all. What I'm saying is there are a variety of ways to get there depending on how the child loves to learn.

 

You may start out with a relatively narrow interest in the historical fashion of one era, but it's a door to the bigger sweep of things. Such a child might not find it important to make a list or enter on a timeline or memorize every battle, every king, every technological invention (although again, they might); but neither would a child going through The Story of the World have the knowledge of social and cultural history the other would gain. I simply don't think there's a magic order or hierarchy regarding depth vs. breadth, and I don't think you have to separate a child's interests or the angle through which she becomes engaged, on one hand, from the basics on the other.

 

I'll step out to the end of the plank ready for drowning here: my daughter HATES ancient history. Loathes it. The issue for me has been whether there is some minimal standard of survey-type exposure she must necessarily have, or whether, through her interest in technology, how things were invented and how they work, I can focus on selected aspects of selected eras of selected countries with the goal of keeping her engagement and not killing off her interest entirely. For me, the answer was yes, for this child, the latter choice was the way to go. We add to that knowledge in very strange ways. For instance, during one Star Trek episode (I forget which one, not being quite the Trekkie my daughter is) I yelled, "Oh my gosh, it's Thermopylae!" We then discussed that battle and its iconic status throughout history, and we talked about other representations of battles against great odds: Lord of the Rings!

 

So, Thermopylae is not in a tidy chronological narrative of all ancient history; but she is never going to forget it or its meaning because she discovered it through and in connection to something that is meaningful to her, and that she is eager to discover and trace cultural references alongside (another thing she's done is read or see all the Shakespeare plays quoted in Star Trek, at least that we've kept track of so far).

 

And where did I learn about Thermopylae, enough at least to pick up on it when I saw the movie, and tell my daughter the story? Not in in any classroom all the way through grad school. Does this mean that it's okay for it not to be "required" in school? Not at all. But I think that again the way you get there can be very idiosyncratic. I feel entirely certain that if I had read The Story of the World to my daughter three times over, colored outline drawings of the pivotal moment, given her a test, anything and everything to try to make that stick, she would not have remembered Thermopylae and made the connection with science fiction. Now it's on our radar, and on our timeline game.

 

So for me, this is a legitimate although thoroughly non-conventional academic approach to an era of history that would otherwise be difficult for me to feed to an unwilling child, even through fiction. I actually expect we'll get a lot of ancient history in this bizarre and somewhat backwards way. That's not how we do all of history. But this is what we do when I come up against my child's massive resistance in some areas compared to her sort of fearsome drive in others. I just don't think an evened-handed, orderly model is going to do it for her.

[swimmermom3]

KarenAnne, you are not stepping out to the end of the plank. What you are doing is showing us that there are yet more ways to meet the educational and soulful needs of our children. I would suspect that there will be more than one person for whom your post provides an "Ah ha" moment for and genuine relief that someone has given them permission to get off the hamster wheel and take a path that is far more authentic and appropriate for their child.

[Capt_Uhura]

OK, KarenAnne - your mission today is to find that Star Trek episode! And then I'll research Thermopylae. I. must. know. :001_smile:

 

It certainly sounds like your approach works beautifully for your DD. As I was re-listening to SWB this AM, she said, while all houses need foundations, floors etc how you build the house differs and how each family conducts the business of living ie learning in the house also differs. I see your approach totally in line what I think I'm hearing from her. Not that you need validation lol but for me, hearing SWB speak of how flexible the WTM method is, is not something I had really thought about before. She said classical education does not equal rigidity. Interesting.....

 

You are certainly not out on a plank. I've learned so much from this thread and wish I was as eloquent as you all in formulating my thoughts.

 

Capt_Uhura

[JennW in SoCal]

A long time homeschool friend and I have summed up this approach to learning with one tidy word: Context!

 

You can have all of world history and scientific knowledge presented in a linear and exhaustive fashion and expect the child to memorize it all or you can provide that knowledge through the context of movies, literature, travel and the news. With some kids the latter is the only course such as with my oldest and Karen's daughter. It isn't the only way, it isn't the better way, but it is a useful tool to keep in mind.

 

Moby Dick and Tale of Two Cities are forever tied in my mind to Star Trek movies, for better or worse. (Moby Dick even more so after Patrick Stewart played Captain Ahab...)

[JennW in SoCal]

I wish Nan in Mass would chime in here with her explanation of the WTM as the ultimate tool for unschooling!!

 

The WTM for me provides a picture of what I'm striving for -- a well rounded young adult who can think for himself and articulate clearly, persuasively and logically his thoughts through writing or speaking. How I got there and am getting there has never been outlined in any homeschool book!

 

As I said somewhere in one of these threads -- we are all intelligent moms with loads of common sense. Our kids are getting excellent educations although no two experiences will look alike.

[JennW in SoCal]

I don't know if anyone will find this on this very long thread, but Lisa (Swimmermom#) has asked me to link to a blog post I wrote a few months ago about gaps. I'm the kind of person that is simultaneously going for breadth and depth in everything -- I start in the middle of a book to see if I like it, and sometimes will have read several chapters before I go back to the beginning. In a sense I approach homeschooling like that -- not that I'd start a kid with high school algebra and then head back to basic addition, but I was never worried about linear and formalized structure until we reached high school.

 

Before I get on a roll and write too much, here is my blog entry on Dreaded Gaps

[Guest]

There are children and my youngest would be one of them that if you did not include their passion/drive/wiring at an early age, I believe that you would lose them academically altogether. They'll go through the motions and not much more.

 

KarenAnne, I struggle fiercely with this whole issue because you can also have the child who does not have a particular passion nor do they fit within the standard academic environment. This would be my oldest, my lovely, bright, charming daughter for whom traditional school has been the major contributing factor to severe depression. I think she would thrive from the type of education you have described that you are pursuing with your daughter. And yet, I think some of my dd's issues with school are a result of teachers, coaches, and us making exceptions for her. I don't know. It's all so confusing.

 

It is really confusing. I think myself in circles all the time. It's only when I'm responding to my daughter's real, specific needs that I find some clarity.

 

Your oldest daughter reminds me so much of some of the kids in the co-op at which I taught for two years. Desk-bound, workbook-focused, textbook-based learning was just not the way into these children's minds -- except for one, who was this amazing child who would have thrived in absolutely any educational environment pretty much. But one thing I learned from working with those kids is that education does not have to be centered around a desk or table. Yes, there is some minimal amount of written work, spelling practice, math, etc. that has to get accomplished. But even that doesn't have to take place desk-bound. There are math games, even for older kids; there is math tied into science as they get older, or math and woodworking, math and economics out at the mall, all kinds of ways, not to replace, but to vary and broaden how math work occurs. Field trips, internships, and volunteer work are vastly underutilized forms of education for younger as well as older kids (although it can take a lot of time and ingenuity to find people willing to introduce kids to their field of study).

 

In the co-op science was almost entirely hands-on (this is where my enthusiasm for the GEMS series comes from). The kids were wildly enthusiastic and the classes would simply run themselves while I sat back, commented, watched, and occasionally suggested. They kept science notebooks, collected data, wrote up various forms of thought about what they did, but the majority of their time was spent doing.

 

From these kids I learned how physical learning still is for even older kids. It was a revelation for me, who by the end of grad school had pretty much come to think of my body as a container for transporting around a body of knowledge I had to try to keep from leaking out. Traditional methods of teaching work against this natural tendency of most children to learn through movement and doing. There's a wonderful but dated book by John Goodlad titled A Place Called School, in which he cites a middle school survey that found kids rated what they would like to do, how they would like to learn. Their top choices included making, building, doing, talking, drawing, going places. The overwhelming part of their time was spent sitting at their desks listening to the teacher and filling out workbook pages or taking tests or doing homework.

 

The natural motivators most kids come wired with are overridden and repressed by most teaching pedagogy, when they could be so useful in directing and guiding that energy toward learning. This would be very difficult to do in a classroom full of kids, but as homeschoolers we're in a wonderful place to try it out.

 

And one other aspect of the issue is that kids can have passions we dismiss as non-academic or irrelevant to "school," when actually even such interests as cake baking and decorating, or sailing, or horses, or movies, can be explored in ways that incorporate conventionally academic skills -- and others equally as important. This doesn't mean you have to base your child's schoolwork around such a topic if they like it. It does mean that you don't necessarily have to relegate it to the status of a hobby or as necessarily having no connection to academic skills.

 

I have to go take my own daughter to her job at the riding stables. But I would love to hear more about your daughter, swimmermom.

[Capt_Uhura]

I'm the kind of person that is simultaneously going for breadth and depth in everything -- I start in the middle of a book to see if I like it, and sometimes will have read several chapters before I go back to the beginning.

 

Before I get on a roll and write too much, here is my blog entry on Dreaded Gaps

 

OH MY! You just described my DS10!!! HE starts every book in the middle and then goes back to the beginning! I just don't get it. Can you explain that to me?

 

Capt_Uhura

[PeterPan]

I totally agree about the ability to unschool WTM. I have an unschooler friend a few years ahead of me who has done many of the same things we do. In fact, I regularly go and buy tons of stuff off her. She's just smarter and can do it without as much guide as I need. :)

 

I mentioned my dd's need for context to a friend of mine with a PhD in curriculum development, and she stared at me jokingly and pointed out that ALL people learn better with context. Duh. Some kids just point it out more to us. But I also think there are different kinds of context. For instance we were discussing the BJU science this morning and pondered that their strength was having a hands-on for each and every lesson, some kind of demonstration to give a context. So you remembered the term while you were DOING something, in a context. And of course history gives you context through a narrative. For big picture learners, the context is seeing where it FITS in something, an outline. The struggle becomes if our kids can only learn with one type of context.

[Nan in Mass]

We've approached things this way. I remember almost nothing at all from school. I suspect there is a lot I wasn't taught, also, and that might be why I don't remember it. Either way, it doesn't matter - my point is that because I am managing just fine as an adult without all that knowledge GRIN, it frees me up to not worry particularly if my child remembers, or even ever has studied in the first place, Thermopolai (or however you spell it). There, KarenAnne- I've jumped first LOL. The water is fine, except when the sharks circle round and make you panic. : ( I am familiar with the European survey sort of education, and every time I have a conversation with a well-educated European, I feel abismally uneducated. But the rest of the time, I am fairly happy with my ability to learn whatever I want unhampered by the need to do the bits I would rather not have stuck in my head, like The Plague or dissecting cats or the depressing details of the fall of Rome (which sounds uncannily like our current state). I feel like my creativity is more unimpared compared to some of the other, better educated people I know. I can use logical reasoning when I want to, and ignore it and rely on my intuition when I don't. In some sense, my husband and I are homeschooling to spare our children from some of the drudgery and uselessnes of a normal American public school education, not spare them from the discipline and hard work involved in learning something difficult or from being forced to aquire the academic skills, mind you, but from some of the useless drudgery. TWTM (as I keep saying) gives us a way of learning the academic skills and allows us to choose the content for ourselves. Since I'm not (usually anyway) worried about aquiring all the regular content, that frees us up considerably. Yes, I think you need enough background information in the traditional subjects that you are aware of the possiblilities and can say to yourself when presented with a novel new problem or solution by somebody, "Hmmm... Haven't I heard of this before?" and go off and make inquiries, but it doesn't take all that much to aquire that level of knowledge. Cartoon or Idiot's guides come to mind... Now the academic skills - those take work. Much as I would have loved to use my children's passions as a medium for learning academic skills, I could never get it to work. I tried over and over again, but never managed to figure out how to do it. Mine have gratefully received books to read on their passions, or a listening ear, or even (carefully) suggestions of where to find more information or what other uses their knowledge can be put to. They have been grateful to be allowed to choose their own projects and paper topics and have often incorporated their passions into that. But when it comes to learning academic skills, they would rather I forced them to sit down and learn it straight, in the most efficient and direct way possible, and then give them content that they are not interested in with which to practise the skills. They don't want me spoiling the things they are interested in, not by telling them the answers, and not by making them do something unpalatable with their fascinating new ideas. They have been most hurtfully blunt about telling me so. Sigh. And I have to admit, I feel the same way about the things I am discovering. My father had to push me to take painting lessons this past winter because much as I wanted help, I was afraid lessons were going to spoil painting for me. (We picked the teacher very carefully and she turned out to be very used to being careful not to spoil things for her students. Art is better at acknowledging the fragility of joy and creativity and things like that.) I have generally chosen one subject to use to teach my children to learn to think, and then opted to do the others as efficiently as possible so as to free up as much time as possible for their own projects.

 

I force plenty of content on my children, but it tends to be knowledge that is necessary to keep them safe. They need to know how storms work. They need to know how cultures work. They need to be able to identify plants. They need a basic understanding of electricity. Either that, or it is knowledge that I consider essential to their emotional stability, like the ability to make music or art. I have forced a certain amount of natural history down their throats, too, because it will enrich their lives to know the constellations and their stories, and to know that there are was an otter under the dock this winter, and to know that ants keep herds of aphids like we keep herds of cows. I guess that is an area where I go for breadth LOL.

 

As interesting as it is to argue depth versus breadth, for us, it isn't a particularly useful division. I find it more useful to think in terms of content versus skill, or challengingly versus lightly, or likely to self-educate later versus not ever likely to look at again, or using to learn how to think versus not requiring much thinking, or input level versus output level, or definately useful versus possibly useful, or trying to get someplace years from now versus not trying to get very far, or they must learn this list versus they can choose for themselves as long as they spend x amount of time on it, or going to put lots of time into this year versus just try not to forget it so we can continue on later. Those are some of the divisions that I struggle with as I choose curriculum. Some of them may equate the depth versus breadth division? I don't know. I think the concepts of depth and breadth are too general to be useful to me.

 

-Nan

Edited July 13, 2010 by Nan in Mass

[PeterPan]

Oh Karen, but what about the kids for whom no hands-on is ever ENOUGH??? She snorted at the hands-on in the BJU science because they were simplistic. No craft books I ever got her were enough for history. She didn't want to build a paper model of a canoe; no she wanted to build a real canoe from a tree!!! I mean man, there comes a point where there is just this intensity that you can't satisfy. I've been eaten up by it for years. With the BJU science we had a lesson with some cars and ramps. Well that was great and good, but she wasn't satisfied till she had dh engineer at the kitchen table EXPLAINING all the whys and going into the math. Then she finally hit her saturation point. Even when curricula try to have hands-on, try to give context, they're never quite right. If you accelerate to a higher text (to give mom the structure she needs to figure out what to cover), then you end up with small print, controversial viewpoints, and other baggage. So the real reason we can't get what we want is because curriculum writers don't have a vision to give real things to real kids. They always still teach to the middle, trimming it short conceptually, not asking all the questions, etc.

 

And don't shoot me, but I still think the thoroughness of a spine, the efficiency of a spine, is really helpful in actually covering the topics. My dd sat bored through a lego robotics class using basic physics and mechanics principles because she had done all those things in her BJU science. Sure we had to work hard and bring it to life, but at least the curriculum gave me an efficient way to cover the topics or see what to explore. That's why I have such a love/hate relationship with curriculum, because I KNOW it can get me there but I don't always have the energy to bring it to life. But if all we did was try to bring things to life, I'm not convinced we would cover as much. I see both sides of the coin.

[JennW in SoCal]

Can I explain it? No, lol! It drives my dh crazy. I will happily start watching a movie in the middle where he refuses to even miss the first 5 mintues.

 

I think with a book, I want to see what it is going to be like past the exposition, so I read some of the middle to get a feel for the author.

[swimmermom3]

I don't know if anyone will find this on this very long thread, but Lisa (Swimmermom#) has asked me to link to a blog post I wrote a few months ago about gaps. I'm the kind of person that is simultaneously going for breadth and depth in everything -- I start in the middle of a book to see if I like it, and sometimes will have read several chapters before I go back to the beginning. In a sense I approach homeschooling like that -- not that I'd start a kid with high school algebra and then head back to basic addition, but I was never worried about linear and formalized structure until we reached high school.

 

Before I get on a roll and write too much, here is my blog entry on Dreaded Gaps

 

:hurray:Thank you! This is one of my favorite inspirational pieces for home schooling. I know that during the middle school years there has been more than one occasion when I have sacrificed going deeper on a topic because of the dreaded "gap-fear." Or I have pushed the schedule to a frantic pace in order to "cover it all" and consequently drained the joy of learning right out of the day or week. I appreciate JennW in SoCal's post on this because it's a reminder that education and home life aren't two separate compartments; that learning is an all-encompassing activity.

[JennW in SoCal]

TWTM (as I keep saying) gives us a way of learning the academic skills and allows us to choose the content for ourselves.

 

As interesting as it is to argue depth versus breadth, for us, it isn't a particularly useful division. I find it more useful to think in terms of content versus skill, or challengingly versus lightly, or likely to self-educate later versus not ever likely to look at again, or using to learn how to think versus not requiring much thinking, or input level versus output level, or definately useful versus possibly useful....

 

 

:iagree: What she said.

 

To me it is skills and content. Skills must be learned and practiced, though most can be learned and practiced while exploring interests. Content is everything else, and while I have sought to expose my kids to the scope of world history, art, music and science, they have a lifetime yet to fill in those gaps.

[Guest]

:hurray:Thank you! This is one of my favorite inspirational pieces for home schooling. I know that during the middle school years there has been more than one occasion when I have sacrificed going deeper on a topic because of the dreaded "gap-fear." Or I have pushed the schedule to a frantic pace in order to "cover it all" and consequently drained the joy of learning right out of the day or week. I appreciate JennW in SoCal's post on this because it's a reminder that education and home life aren't two separate compartments; that learning is an all-encompassing activity.

 

Yay, Jenn finally made a public link to that entry!!! This is a huge issue for most of us and it needs to be discussed in open daylight.

[Capt_Uhura]

 

And don't shoot me, but I still think the thoroughness of a spine, the efficiency of a spine, is really helpful in actually covering the topics. My dd sat bored through a lego robotics class using basic physics and mechanics principles because she had done all those things in her BJU science. Sure we had to work hard and bring it to life, but at least the curriculum gave me an efficient way to cover the topics or see what to explore. That's why I have such a love/hate relationship with curriculum, because I KNOW it can get me there but I don't always have the energy to bring it to life. But if all we did was try to bring things to life, I'm not convinced we would cover as much. I see both sides of the coin.

 

I get it. I have the same issue. I'd love to cover physics and mechanics through LEGO Mindstorms but the truth of the matter is, if I use a physics spine, it will get done.

[Guest]

Oh Karen, but what about the kids for whom no hands-on is ever ENOUGH??? She snorted at the hands-on in the BJU science because they were simplistic. No craft books I ever got her were enough for history. She didn't want to build a paper model of a canoe; no she wanted to build a real canoe from a tree!!! I mean man, there comes a point where there is just this intensity that you can't satisfy. I've been eaten up by it for years. With the BJU science we had a lesson with some cars and ramps. Well that was great and good, but she wasn't satisfied till she had dh engineer at the kitchen table EXPLAINING all the whys and going into the math. Then she finally hit her saturation point. Even when curricula try to have hands-on, try to give context, they're never quite right. If you accelerate to a higher text (to give mom the structure she needs to figure out what to cover), then you end up with small print, controversial viewpoints, and other baggage. So the real reason we can't get what we want is because curriculum writers don't have a vision to give real things to real kids. They always still teach to the middle, trimming it short conceptually, not asking all the questions, etc.

 

 

 

This is a wonderfully vivid and amazing picture of your daughter. I think you're right: curricula give us a series of canned, manageable, little hands-on activities that are made to fit tidily into the time period set aside for one or two lessons, to not make too much mess, and to illustrate one minute little aspect of history or science. This is not the same as true hands-on exploration or experimentation. Your daughter might enjoy it more -- or might not -- if she were to have one encompassing project for a long period of time. I'm thinking that since she likes sewing a lot, she could research and make a historically accurate outfit from an era you're reading about. There are patterns readily available for kids. She could research materials, where different kinds of cloth came from, who was allowed to wear what (sumptuary laws), look at portraits and exhibits on-line from the Victorian and Albert Museum in England or the Metropolitan Museum of Art, put together a booklet of possible costumes with descriptions or narrations about them. She could sew herself an outfit which she could actually wear to some kind of historical re-enactment or creative anachronism festival. Home Education Magazine once had an article about a group of kids in a history co-op who made themselves Civil War-era outfits -- it took hours upon hours of work and research, but they loved it (they had help from parents, of course). She might like taking a class in costume design for theater (some local theater programs for kids offer classes like this).

 

Or, since I know she is also an accomplished cook, she could research and make up a menu for a historically detailed dinner, then cook it. This wouldn't take the place of your textbook reading, but it would replace all the little fiddly crafty things with one larger activity that has purpose for your child and that she might approach with eagerness and get more satisfaction from.

 

Same with science. Rather than do many short hands-on activities, maybe you could let her go for a more involved making of something more complicated and satisfying in that respect. This is an intimidating prospect. But you can get a look at how it might work out in As The Skylark Sings, where David Albert describes his oldest daughter becoming involved with astronomy and making (with parents' help) a telescope -- a really involved project requiring lessons, contacts with mentors, etc. You can't do this sort of huge project entirely on your own, but you can seek out people with whom to make it become possible -- as Corraleno has done with her son's interest in paleontology. If your daughter is yearning for a complex, detailed project, maybe you can research possibilities together and pick one that she can focus on for a good length of time.

[Capt_Uhura]

We've approached things this way. I remember almost nothing at all from school. I suspect there is a lot I wasn't taught, also, and that might be why I don't remember it. TWTM (as I keep saying) gives us a way of learning the academic skills and allows us to choose the content for ourselves. Since I'm not (usually anyway) worried about aquiring all the regular content, that frees us up considerably. Yes, I think you need enough background information in the traditional subjects that you are aware of the possiblilities and can say to yourself when presented with a novel new problem or solution by somebody, "Hmmm... Haven't I heard of this before?" and go off and make inquiries, but it doesn't take all that much to aquire that level of knowledge.

 

 

As interesting as it is to argue depth versus breadth, for us, it isn't a particularly useful division. I find it more useful to think in terms of content versus skill, or challengingly versus lightly, or likely to self-educate later versus not ever likely to look at again, or using to learn how to think versus not requiring much thinking, or input level versus output level, or definately useful versus possibly useful, or trying to get someplace years from now versus not trying to get very far, or they must learn this list versus they can choose for themselves as long as they spend x amount of time on it, or going to put lots of time into this year versus just try not to forget it so we can continue on later. Those are some of the divisions that I struggle with as I choose curriculum. Some of them may equate the depth versus breadth division? I don't know. I think the concepts of depth and breadth are too general to be useful to me.

 

-Nan

 

Ah thank you for that wonderful post. The first bolded part describes me exactly. It's actually quite frightening how little I retained from school. I remember snippets but not much history, geography, or literature. I'm not if this is due to how it was taught or something else. I made straight As and it was never difficult. I think history really is a blank slate for me. So I need a quick survey to see the big picture. That's what I hope to do w/ my kids. Give them a quick survey and then let them lose on whatever time period they are fascinated by...which so far is anything WWII or Ancients.

 

I like the divisions you put forth in that final paragraph. Until now I've not done any fill in the blank, let's check comprehension for science and history. It's the process I'm more concerned w/ and not the content. So I have little in the way of output b/c most of it is reading and discussing.

 

At the point I stopped SWB's The Joy of Classical Education, she was discussing that it's the process and not the content. Off to continue with her talk.

 

Capt_Uhura

[Corraleno]

Before I get on a roll and write too much, here is my blog entry on Dreaded Gaps

Brilliant blog post, Jenn!

 

The whole issue of "gaps" became a big stumbling block for me — which is odd because I didn't start out that way. I started out intending to be much more interest led, because of my own miserable school experiences. But as I started accumulating all these resources (because, let's face it, that's the best part of homeschooling :tongue_smilie:), I felt like I didn't want to leave anything out, because it all looked so interesting (to me, of course — that's been a big part of the problem). Then I read WTM and started thinking oh, I really NEED to cram all this stuff into my kids, it's not even optional — plus I need to add Latin and logic and much more grammar blah blah blah.

 

I think I was also seduced by the idea that by following the WTM plan, I could produce brilliant, erudite little Renaissance people. Which is a lovely fantasy, but which (I have now learned the hard way) has nothing to do with my kids. And even if I *could* do it, do I really want to? Would I willingly sacrifice all their running and jumping and drawing and building and exploring time for the ability to recite long passages of Dante and impress people with Latin aphorisms at dinner parties? Do I even have the right to make that decision for them? They can always choose to learn Latin, or study Medieval history in greater depth, or read Dante, when they're adults. They can never go back and redo the hours of building castles and catching tadpoles and whole afternoons spent watching ants.

 

The problem, for me, has been that there's no book or manual out here (that I've found) that describes the kind of education I want for my kids and says "Here, do this, and you will get that." So I just want to say how incredibly grateful I am for this board, and this thread, and that blog post, and all of you who have contributed to it, because this is the first discussion I've seen that describes exactly the kind of education I want for my kids, confirmation that it's OK to want this, and proof that it's doable, all of which has been enormously helpful to me.

 

:grouphug:

Jackie

[Corraleno]

As interesting as it is to argue depth versus breadth, for us, it isn't a particularly useful division. I find it more useful to think in terms of content versus skill, or challengingly versus lightly, or likely to self-educate later versus not ever likely to look at again, or using to learn how to think versus not requiring much thinking, or input level versus output level, or definately useful versus possibly useful, or trying to get someplace years from now versus not trying to get very far, or they must learn this list versus they can choose for themselves as long as they spend x amount of time on it, or going to put lots of time into this year versus just try not to forget it so we can continue on later. Those are some of the divisions that I struggle with as I choose curriculum. Some of them may equate the depth versus breadth division? I don't know. I think the concepts of depth and breadth are too general to be useful to me.

Thank you for so much for joining the conversation, and thank you for articulating this so beautifully!

 

Jackie

[PeterPan]

Oh Karen, I've just got to snort, because you know I woke up today to her googling for "fancifal medieval princess costume pictures. This is so TOTALLY what she wants to do. And yes, she mispelled fanciful, hehe. Google figured it out. She has an old poly/silkish dress she wants to refab into a princess costume to go with the cap she made. She is totally, totally engaged in this right now. She has been sculpting a dragon, which she needs to have painted and finished by next Monday to take to camp. (They're doing a medieval theme, and she's taking decorations!)

 

So yes, I think you've finally gotten into the psychology of this in a way I didn't see. She needs one consuming theme and project she can really get into. I can't handle going that deeply constantly on lots of little teeny topics to satisfy her. I'll have to think about how that could translate into science. I really don't know. I think maybe the GEMS modules I showed her were too young. The idea would certainly be right on with that, and the idea of having a significant project plus quality reading to go alongside, that would work. But how to find the significant projects, that is the question. But even as I say that, some ideas mull through my head... :)

 

Significant projects, there's an interesting thing to work toward. Oh, and I think you may have opened up a whole new realm of thought for me with regard to her sewing. She would be CRAZY about sewing historical costumes. I don't know why I never pursued it!!! I mean that would be a whole club in and of itself, mercy. The mind runs wild with this. I know some people who do re-enacting, and I've never pursued it for lack of my own energy. I'll have to think on this. Anyways, thanks for the ideas! :)

[Capt_Uhura]

Interesting nugget from The Joy of Classical Education. SWB is contrasting classical education with the Core KNowledge Curriculum which is information centered in contrast to Classical being process centered.

 

"Classical education is process centered. When you learn how to find information, evaluate it, and express an opinion about it, then you're educated."

[swimmermom3]

Oh Karen, I've just got to snort, because you know I woke up today to her googling for "fancifal medieval princess costume pictures. This is so TOTALLY what she wants to do. And yes, she mispelled fanciful, hehe. Google figured it out. She has an old poly/silkish dress she wants to refab into a princess costume to go with the cap she made. She is totally, totally engaged in this right now. She has been sculpting a dragon, which she needs to have painted and finished by next Monday to take to camp. (They're doing a medieval theme, and she's taking decorations!)

 

So yes, I think you've finally gotten into the psychology of this in a way I didn't see. She needs one consuming theme and project she can really get into. I can't handle going that deeply constantly on lots of little teeny topics to satisfy her. I'll have to think about how that could translate into science. I really don't know. I think maybe the GEMS modules I showed her were too young. The idea would certainly be right on with that, and the idea of having a significant project plus quality reading to go alongside, that would work. But how to find the significant projects, that is the question. But even as I say that, some ideas mull through my head... :)

 

Significant projects, there's an interesting thing to work toward. Oh, and I think you may have opened up a whole new realm of thought for me with regard to her sewing. She would be CRAZY about sewing historical costumes. I don't k now why I never pursued it!!! I mean that would be a whole club in and of itself, mercy. The mind runs wild with this. I know some people who do re-enacting, and I've never pursued it for lack of my own energy. I'll have to think on this. Anyways, thanks for the ideas! :)

 

Incoming project, Oh Elizabeth! Check your box.:D

[Nan in Mass]

I do this, or start at the back. And I can explain it. My youngest just explained it to me when I wondered out loud to him why I do it. He said (and it feels right to me) that our brains are wired to work that way. In real life, we are presented with a situation and then have to go back and figure out the why's and the details. Books work the other way around. He explained it better than I am explaining it. I'll have to ask him to explain again.

-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

Coming back to reread this after a looonnnggg wait at the orthodontist (about three hours!!! POOR baby!), I want to add that "choosing curriculum" is somewhat misleading. It is more a matter of choosing how we are going to do something. It is a matter of picking books to read (just read), or deciding what sort of academic componant I am going to add to a non-academic learning opportunity, or where exactly we are as far as academic skills go, what we should work on next, and how exactly I am going to accomplish that, what I think we need to concentrate on this year, when oh when are we going to do each thing, and some sort of hierarchy so that when things get skipped, as they inevitably do, it isn't the most important things. And I want to emphasize how much I panic sometimes, but also how much my children themselves have insisted that we keep on doing what we always have, even in high school. I also want to add that I have some community classes at the end as a safety net. That provides (well, it did with one and hopefully it will with the next) colleges with something concrete, since the transcript I provide is an ungraded, undated list of courses. I try to give them descriptive names, so they have some idea of what we did and did not do. There is no way I would call our natural history class "biology", even though we do manage to cover quite a lot of what is in the Miller and Levine Bio book that I found at the swop shop at the dump; that would be misleading. I think you have to accept that if you give your children something other than the standard education, they may wind up doing something other than the standard university education. A standard university might prefer a standard secondary education. In other words, you will narrow your choices. I think it is a small price to pay, though. The trick is to jump through just enough hoops to show colleges that your children can handle college-level academics, without compromising your children's education. At least, that is what I am trying to do. It worked with one. We'll see what happens with the next one.

 

Sorry - this is a complete muddle. I just found a tiny tiny mouse on the doorstep, completely unafraid of me. I think it must be the one the cat found last night in the bathroom, the one my darling darling husband rescued when he heard me scolding the cat and put outside. Now what do I do with it? The dog will get it if I leave it there.

-Nan

[Corraleno]

I was reorganizing my iPhoto albums this afternoon and came across this picture:

 

 

He has a lifetime ahead of him for reading history and literature, and years and years of science textbooks in his near future. But he only has this one brief time to be a 12 yo boy hunting for crawdads.

 

Jackie

[Rosie_0801]

This is a wonderfully vivid and amazing picture of your daughter. I'm thinking that since she likes sewing a lot, she could research and make a historically accurate outfit from an era you're reading about. There are patterns readily available for kids.

 

No need to predigest that much, though The Medieval Tailors Assistant is a very nice resource to begin with. Let her learn the way others do, by looking at paintings, training her eye to notice the details and interpret what they mean (like seam lines, for example) and discussing it with others. If medieval princesses are the go, try this group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCA-Garb/ They will be happy to engage. They know just about all there is to know about Western European medieval and Renaissance clothes.

 

Or, since I know she is also an accomplished cook, she could research and make up a menu for a historically detailed dinner, then cook it.

 

And if that takes her fancy, she could look into the SCA's local chapter for their cook's guild. The more of the criteria she completes, the higher the ranking in the guild she can achieve. I don't know where OhElizabeth lives, but this is our local charter and I assume they are similar over the "Knowne Worlde" http://www.sca.org.au/cooks/ Oh, click on "Charter" and it'll come up.

 

Rosie

[Guest]

I was reorganizing my iPhoto albums this afternoon and came across this picture:

 

 

He has a lifetime ahead of him for reading history and literature, and years and years of science textbooks in his near future. But he only has this one brief time to be a 12 yo boy hunting for crawdads.

 

Jackie

 

I love, love this picture. He looks so happy and so involved.

 

My husband decided on his career as a marine chemist one afternoon watching some grad students sitting on a bridge over a small river in England, occasionally lowering a bucket in the river and sticking instruments in the water. I think he was seeing one way to extend boarding school afternoons spent making dams in creeks and playing around outside.

 

(Sadly, once he got to a certain point other people are out there doing the ocean work while he now works mostly from computers and artificial sea water.)

[swimmermom3]

We've approached things this way. I remember almost nothing at all from school. I suspect there is a lot I wasn't taught, also, and that might be why I don't remember it. Either way, it doesn't matter - my point is that because I am managing just fine as an adult without all that knowledge GRIN, it frees me up to not worry particularly if my child remembers, or even ever has studied in the first place, Thermopolai (or however you spell it). There, KarenAnne- I've jumped first LOL. The water is fine, except when the sharks circle round and make you panic. : ( I am familiar with the European survey sort of education, and every time I have a conversation with a well-educated European, I feel abismally uneducated. But the rest of the time, I am fairly happy with my ability to learn whatever I want unhampered by the need to do the bits I would rather not have stuck in my head, like The Plague or dissecting cats or the depressing details of the fall of Rome (which sounds uncannily like our current state).What a completely freeing idea, Nan.:lol: My life involves so much minutia, it would be delightful to not feel obligated to pick any more. "Unhampered?" Hmmm, I like that concept. I feel like my creativity is more unimpared compared to some of the other, better educated people I know. I can use logical reasoning when I want to, and ignore it and rely on my intuition when I don't. In some sense, my husband and I are homeschooling to spare our children from some of the drudgery and uselessnes of a normal American public school education, not spare them from the discipline and hard work involved in learning something difficult or from being forced to aquire the academic skills, mind you, but from some of the useless drudgery. Yes! This is part of why our school year was in a state of flux constantly. This year Swimmer Dude became quite vocal about the types of work he did. I've used the example before that he loathes fill in the blank reading guides because "they're mindless." He'd rather write a paragraph explaining what he has learned. It took so much time to negotiate. I found that I needed to have a clear idea of the purpose the assignment served. That way he could come back to me with a proposal to do something different that met both of our needs. I was plagued by a nagging feeling that I was coddling him or "giving in." Yet so many times I felt his assessment was spot on. The process gave me more than a few headaches but I learned a lot about the way my son processes information. TWTM (as I keep saying) gives us a way of learning the academic skills and allows us to choose the content for ourselves. Since I'm not (usually anyway) worried about aquiring all the regular content, that frees us up considerably. Yes, I think you need enough background information in the traditional subjects that you are aware of the possiblilities and can say to yourself when presented with a novel new problem or solution by somebody, "Hmmm... Haven't I heard of this before?" and go off and make inquiries, but it doesn't take all that much to aquire that level of knowledge. Cartoon or Idiot's guides come to mind... Now the academic skills - those take work. They do and maybe that's why it's easier for many of us in the long run to focus or obsess on content rather than skills. Much as I would have loved to use my children's passions as a medium for learning academic skills, I could never get it to work. I tried over and over again, but never managed to figure out how to do it. Mine have gratefully received books to read on their passions, or a listening ear, or even (carefully) suggestions of where to find more information or what other uses their knowledge can be put to. They have been grateful to be allowed to choose their own projects and paper topics and have often incorporated their passions into that. But when it comes to learning academic skills, they would rather I forced them to sit down and learn it straight, in the most efficient and direct way possible, and then give them content that they are not interested in with which to practise the skills. They don't want me spoiling the things they are interested in, not by telling them the answers, and not by making them do something unpalatable with their fascinating new ideas. Seriously working to process this concept. I'll have to be on the lookout for this since our kids seem to have similar tendencies and preferences. So in other words, if they have to practice outlining, they want to work on any subject they don't have a special interest in. Dry and dull is preferable to tarnishing a good subject with a dull skill. Get in, get it done, get out.They have been most hurtfully blunt about telling me so. Sigh. And I have to admit, I feel the same way about the things I am discovering. My father had to push me to take painting lessons this past winter because much as I wanted help, I was afraid lessons were going to spoil painting for me. (We picked the teacher very carefully and she turned out to be very used to being careful not to spoil things for her students. Art is better at acknowledging the fragility of joy and creativity and things like that.) I have generally chosen one subject to use to teach my children to learn to think, and then opted to do the others as efficiently as possible so as to free up as much time as possible for their own projects.

 

I force plenty of content on my children, but it tends to be knowledge that is necessary to keep them safe. They need to know how storms work. They need to know how cultures work. They need to be able to identify plants. They need a basic understanding of electricity. Either that, or it is knowledge that I consider essential to their emotional stability, like the ability to make music or art. I have forced a certain amount of natural history down their throats, too, because it will enrich their lives to know the constellations and their stories, and to know that there are was an otter under the dock this winter, and to know that ants keep herds of aphids like we keep herds of cows. I guess that is an area where I go for breadth LOL.

 

As interesting as it is to argue depth versus breadth, for us, it isn't a particularly useful division. I agree that overall content and skill have priority. However, if you have ten subjects scheduled and are overwhelmed in trying to cover "everything" then it stills needs to be addressed. I find it more useful to think in terms of content versus skill, or challengingly versus lightly, or likely to self-educate later versus not ever likely to look at again, or using to learn how to think versus not requiring much thinking, or input level versus output level, or definately useful versus possibly useful, or trying to get someplace years from now versus not trying to get very far, or they must learn this list versus they can choose for themselves as long as they spend x amount of time on it, or going to put lots of time into this year versus just try not to forget it so we can continue on later. Those are some of the divisions that I struggle with as I choose curriculum. Some of them may equate the depth versus breadth division? I don't know. I think the concepts of depth and breadth are too general to be useful to me.

 

-Nan

 

I thought it was this post but it must be another one where you suggest doing your thinking in one subject while doing the rest of the classes in the most efficient way possible. We talked about this a while back and it seemed like such a unique yet practical idea. We are adopting it this year to focus on our language arts. This is the area where I do my best thinking and the curricula this year lends itself well to practicing several skills at the same time. Thanks,Nan!:grouphug:

[leann_in_tx]

While reading this very enjoyable thread, I was reminded of an article on the Welltrainedmind.com site I read once about the joy of classical education - if you don't have the MP3 to listen to:)

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/the-joy-of-classical-education/

 

Thank you for everyone's ideas. Our future homeschool will probably benefit from some of your thoughts.

[swimmermom3]

I was reorganizing my iPhoto albums this afternoon and came across this picture:

 

 

He has a lifetime ahead of him for reading history and literature, and years and years of science textbooks in his near future. But he only has this one brief time to be a 12 yo boy hunting for crawdads.

 

Jackie

 

That kind of says it all doesn't it, Jackie? Sniff, sniff.:crying: Do you think our boys have any idea what's in store for them this fall? It's good to have company on this course correction.

[Guest]

I think I was also seduced by the idea that by following the WTM plan, I could produce brilliant, erudite little Renaissance people. Which is a lovely fantasy...

Jackie

 

You hit it on the button: it's a fantasy to think that at the end we would get these gap-free, utterly and completely knowledged-up kids. There is always, always something you don't do, for everything you choose TO do. There is always more to learn, which is actually a wonderful thing.

 

Maybe it's because I just took a long time to get to a certain mental point, but I also think it's a chimera to think that at the end of high school, following the most classical and rigorous model of education, you're going to be somehow achieving an adult, finished level of expression, articulation, and thought with a complete grasp of all the foundational knowledge you'll ever need.

 

There's a kind of double message in the classical model (or maybe more of simply a disconnect between the book and the talks): on one hand, it's about the process, no one can do it all, etc. On the other, you're aiming for a specific end point that marks a peak of achievement and a difficult-to-define "doneness." You have now achieved "educated" status. It's hard not to get caught up in the second and forget the first.

[Guest]

The problem, for me, has been that there's no book or manual out here (that I've found) that describes the kind of education I want for my kids and says "Here, do this, and you will get that."

 

Jackie

 

That's the problem, I think, if it is a problem, with starting from the particular child and not with an overarching philosophy or curriculum you are going to "input." The consequence of taking each child as a starting point is that the resulting plan of action is not something that can be codified and set up in detail for a large audience. So everyone's manual would have to be an individual one.

 

But I get so much from hearing shared stories, how each of us responds to our unique situation and kids.

[Corraleno]

That's the problem, I think, if it is a problem, with starting from the particular child and not with an overarching philosophy or curriculum you are going to "input." The consequence of taking each child as a starting point is that the resulting plan of action is not something that can be codified and set up in detail for a large audience. So everyone's manual would have to be an individual one.

 

But I get so much from hearing shared stories, how each of us responds to our unique situation and kids.

Yes, this board is much better than a book, because it has a fluidity and "life" to it that you can't get in a book. This conversation has really helped me to clarify and articulate a sort of philosophy/mission statement that I really needed in order to focus my planning for next year, instead of just throwing a huge pile of resources at my kids and hoping that some of it sticks!

 

It's also given me some great ideas that I would not have thought of on my own. Reading the discussions you and Elizabeth have had about focusing a study of history around women's issues and fashion/handicrafts made me realize that DD7 would love an approach like this — the only two things she remembers about ancient Egypt are that Hatshepsut was a powerful queen who made herself king, and that the cure for a baby's cold was for the nursing mother to eat mice! You guys have given me some great ideas that will allow me to plan a really fun and engaging medieval history program specifically for her, instead of her just tagging along with DS.

 

Jackie

[swimmermom3]

The problem, for me, has been that there's no book or manual out here (that I've found) that describes the kind of education I want for my kids and says "Here, do this, and you will get that."

Jackie

 

Sigh. It's probably a good thing there isn't a manual. I'm afraid mine for Swimmer Dude would probably read more like a Simpson's episode than a guide to educating a Renaissance guy.:tongue_smilie:

[Capt_Uhura]

I thought it was this post but it must be another one where you suggest doing your thinking in one subject while doing the rest of the classes in the most efficient way possible. We talked about this a while back and it seemed like such a unique yet practical idea. We are adopting it this year to focus on our language arts. This is the area where I do my best thinking and the curricula this year lends itself well to practicing several skills at the same time. Thanks,Nan!:grouphug:

 

I think I mentioned this in a post or perhaps a different thread. My boys participate in an archaeology camp 2x per year. The professor talks about his objectives. His goal is to teach thinking skills, analytical skills, questioning skills (Ok that sounds odd lol but it is parallel) and his venue of choice is archaeology but you can do it through any discipline. Initially, I was doing this w/ science. I'm a scientist and it comes naturally to me. THen my science loving boy fell in love with history, and I said before, I remember nothing from history. So in the interest of trying to do both well, I think I"m doing a mediocre job of both. So my current thinking is to keep science as that dig deep, think, discuss and use history to practice those skills (summarizing, outlining, writing).

 

You all have certainly giving me a lot to think about.

 

Corelano - I absolutely adored that photo. My friend and I take out boys out at least 3 times/week to just run along the trails. We also go to a pond 2-4x/week depending on the season to watch the frogs/toad call, mate, lay eggs, eggs hatch, tadpoles grow, and finally emerge from the pond like popcorn. It's probably what our boys will remember most fondly about these years of HSing!

[Jane in NC]

 

The problem, for me, has been that there's no book or manual out here (that I've found) that describes the kind of education I want for my kids and says "Here, do this, and you will get that." So I just want to say how incredibly grateful I am for this board, and this thread, and that blog post, and all of you who have contributed to it, because this is the first discussion I've seen that describes exactly the kind of education I want for my kids, confirmation that it's OK to want this, and proof that it's doable, all of which has been enormously helpful to me.

 

 

Sigh. It's probably a good thing there isn't a manual. I'm afraid mine for Swimmer Dude would probably read more like a Simpson's episode than a guide to educating a Renaissance guy.:tongue_smilie:

 

Our goal was a Monty Python education. Think of the literary and philosophical references. There's French as well as historical and scientific tidbits. And much laughter.

 

We were only pretending to follow The Well Trained Mind. ;)

 

Jane

[Corraleno]

Our goal was a Monty Python education. Think of the literary and philosophical references. There's French as well as historical and scientific tidbits. And much laughter.

 

We were only pretending to follow The Well Trained Mind. ;)

 

Jane

Brilliant! :lol:

 

Jackie

[TKDmom]

I remember almost nothing at all from school. I suspect there is a lot I wasn't taught, also, and that might be why I don't remember it.

<snip>

In some sense, my husband and I are homeschooling to spare our children from some of the drudgery and uselessnes of a normal American public school education, not spare them from the discipline and hard work involved in learning something difficult or from being forced to aquire the academic skills, mind you, but from some of the useless drudgery. <snip>

 

This is exactly how I feel. I am just now realizing that I turned my brain off from about 3rd grade to 11th grade. I failed 8th grade Algebra, because I refused to do the busy work once I understood the math.

 

But you know, I find myself trying to force my 8yo to finish her math workbook pages, over her objections that she understands the material and it's boring to just work problems over and over. :001_huh: On the one hand I want to make sure she really does understand it, and has the skill to progress. On the other hand, I know I will kill her love of learning if I force "drudgery" on her. Can I trust her to know that she really has mastered the skills?

 

But my real fear in homeschooling is teaching those subjects that I have no experience with. I don't remember learning history, and I certainly never learned to analyze literature. How can I trust myself to teach these subjects well? Up to this point, I have relied on others' ideas of a "complete" history rotation, but I am starting to chafe at the restrictions that places upon me, and I want to do something that is better for our family.

 

Thanks for the reminder, that no matter what "gaps" I leave in my children's education, they will likely learn more than I did. Especially since they are more engaged in their learning than I ever was.

[Corraleno]

This is exactly how I feel. I am just now realizing that I turned my brain off from about 3rd grade to 11th grade. I failed 8th grade Algebra, because I refused to do the busy work once I understood the math.

I was exactly the same way; once I got the concept I hated having to do 30 identical problems. But I was lucky — there was a boy in my class who hated English but loved math, so I used to trade my English homework for his math homework. :tongue_smilie: We both still got As on the tests, despite the lack of "necessary" drill.

 

Jackie