Does anyone not follow WTM's history format?

[kristinannie]

I am not loving the 4 year rotation. I do love that you hit the same area a few times to let the kids have a greater understanding of that time period. I just think that to cover such a large period of time in one year doesn't sound feasible to me. It seems more like the overview approach I was dreading in the PS system. It sounds like most people follow this trend (or the 6 year plan under CM).

 

I am definitely doing early American (on my own with living books inspired by beautiful feet) for kindergarten. After that, I am undecided. I was thinking that it would be really nice to spend a year on South America and Central America (mayans, incans, aztecs, etc), spend a year on Asia, spend a year on Africa (including Egypt), etc.

 

I didn't know if any of you follow a different plan for history. I would absolutely love to hear about it if you do! Or you can try to convince me to use the WTM or CM plan. Have at it. I am looking for info one way or the other!

[Guest]

I am not loving the 4 year rotation. I do love that you hit the same area a few times to let the kids have a greater understanding of that time period. I just think that to cover such a large period of time in one year doesn't sound feasible to me. It seems more like the overview approach I was dreading in the PS system. It sounds like most people follow this trend (or the 6 year plan under CM).

 

 

 

Have you been able to see SOTW in person? Between that (I've read them all) and the Activity Guide, plus all the blogs I've read of people doing SOTW, I would say that the amount the kids learn is WAY more than I ever got, even in high school.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Guest

[kristinannie]

Have you been able to see SOTW in person? Between that (I've read them all) and the Activity Guide, plus all the blogs I've read of people doing SOTW, I would say that the amount the kids learn is WAY more than I ever got, even in high school.

 

I am excited to look this over at the HSing convention we are going to in March. Maybe I will be convinced! It seems like it works really well for a lot of people. How much in depth does it go or are there just short blurbs on most civilizations?

[justamouse]

Although we're not using right now for other reasons, I did use it for the first 7 years homeschooling and I found it amazing as to what they retained. I DID use the CDs, the activity book and the actual books. The added reading enriches the whole curriculum.

 

The younger kids just cannot handle the subtleties of a lot of history-that depth comes in later, but the SOTW lays a beautiful foundation for it.

[justamouse]

I am excited to look this over at the HSing convention we are going to in March. Maybe I will be convinced! It seems like it works really well for a lot of people. How much in depth does it go or are there just short blurbs on most civilizations?

 

 

Have you read the first few chapters on the Amazon preview? You might want to so you can get a better idea of how it reads.

[Farrar]

I would say that in some ways you're right and SOTW or any WTM 4 year history cycle approach is indeed a bit of a survey and you cannot get in depth with it as much as one might want. However, I would not in any way compare it to the level of depth (by which I mean shallows) that public schools tend to expose kids to (and I say this as a former public school history teacher). It has a LOT more depth. And the scope and sequence of what's being presented is much, much clearer than the muddled up social studies non-progression that kids get in public schools, which is usually a hodgepodge at best.

 

That said, we aren't following the WTM history sequence fully. We did the ancients for K, medieval this year for 1st, and next year we plan to take a break and do a year of American history for 2nd. I assume we'll pick back up with SOTW or something similar for 3rd and 4th, making it a 5 year rotation. We'll probably repeat it at least partially, but I suspect that we'll also take more detours for in depth topics in the upper grades.

[MissKNG]

I am definitely doing early American (on my own with living books inspired by beautiful feet) for kindergarten. !

 

That's what we are doing right now but using Sonlight as our inspiration. The WTM doesn't follow my state regulations but I guess that doesn't really matter because I don't follow the WTM! :tongue_smilie:

[kristinannie]

I would say that in some ways you're right and SOTW or any WTM 4 year history cycle approach is indeed a bit of a survey and you cannot get in depth with it as much as one might want. However, I would not in any way compare it to the level of depth (by which I mean shallows) that public schools tend to expose kids to (and I say this as a former public school history teacher). It has a LOT more depth. And the scope and sequence of what's being presented is much, much clearer than the muddled up social studies non-progression that kids get in public schools, which is usually a hodgepodge at best.

 

That said, we aren't following the WTM history sequence fully. We did the ancients for K, medieval this year for 1st, and next year we plan to take a break and do a year of American history for 2nd. I assume we'll pick back up with SOTW or something similar for 3rd and 4th, making it a 5 year rotation. We'll probably repeat it at least partially, but I suspect that we'll also take more detours for in depth topics in the upper grades.

 

 

I completely agree that it is better than PS and the "survey" that they do! I know that my social studies (especially in the early grades) were just ridiculous!!!! I just want my kids to be able to delve into things they find interesting and I am worried about not having time to do it all. I guess we could do each level of SOTW over a year and half or something and do the second half of the second year on whatever we want. I don't know. I definitely want to cover all periods of history and I am fully aware that we can't cover everything!

[Guest]

I completely agree that it is better than PS and the "survey" that they do! I know that my social studies (especially in the early grades) were just ridiculous!!!! I just want my kids to be able to delve into things they find interesting and I am worried about not having time to do it all. I guess we could do each level of SOTW over a year and half or something and do the second half of the second year on whatever we want. I don't know. I definitely want to cover all periods of history and I am fully aware that we can't cover everything!

 

I love the approach that SWB has, though. If you want to delve into a subject, you do! If you get to Ur, and can't find any extra books on it, move on! I have had to have the talk with myself - many times, in fact - that this is only their first time around. If my son doesn't become a world-class historian, it is okay. (I am still repeating this to myself, mostly in the area of Biblical history, though...)

[5LittleMonkeys]

I completely agree that it is better than PS and the "survey" that they do! I know that my social studies (especially in the early grades) were just ridiculous!!!! I just want my kids to be able to delve into things they find interesting and I am worried about not having time to do it all. I guess we could do each level of SOTW over a year and half or something and do the second half of the second year on whatever we want. I don't know. I definitely want to cover all periods of history and I am fully aware that we can't cover everything!

 

I think you have the right idea here. You could do Ancients for a year and a half which would give you plenty of time to dig deeper into any specific topics you wanted. Then as soon as you are done with it move onto Medieval...I wouldn't see the need in waiting for 1/2 a year in order to start the next. There are many chapters in SOTW that we just read and moved on; spending only one day on.

 

Of coarse take what I say with a grain of salt...I fell in love with a different program. I'm switching to a 3 year Am. History program next year and then will do a 3 year World History for middle school. (Trail Guide to Learning with Time Travelers CDs) BUT, if I were to stick with SOTW I would do it the way I said above.

[littlebug42]

I am not certain I am completely committed to the four year cycle. I had my doubts about SOTW but decided to go ahead with it since my sister gave me all four years of stuff for free. I have to say my kids are loving it. We have been doing the maps and activity pages and my kids are having a good time. It is not super in depth but I don't know many ps kids the age of my girls (or even older) that can tell you that Ancient Persia is modern day Iran and the can actually pick it out on a globe.

[Sahamamama]

We do not. I don't buy into the idea that the study of history has to be the same as telling a story -- and that therefore you must begin at the beginning, always, under every circumstance, for every audience. I think that history is many stories, actually an infinite number of them, and when you are a child you can collect them like so many pretty beads. Only later, when you need to make something of the stories do you need to put them in order on a string (chronology/timeline). Until that point, one story may be better for a particular audience, another story for another. Little kids do like good stories, but they also need stories that are understandable to them. I have found that Peter Rabbit or Curious George appeal to the six year olds that I know far more than Shamshi-Adad or Ashurbanipal.

 

WTM insists that six year olds begin in the beginning of the whole story. Why? I've never really bought into this method. It just doesn't line up with what I've experienced in teaching little kids over the years, nor does it take into account that the purpose of studying a certain period of history might vary, depending on the audience and the period under study. IMO, WTM places too much emphasis on the chronological method, and does not give enough consideration to the purpose of studying an era of history. To me, the purpose precedes -- and can determine -- the method.

 

Here's what I mean: Suppose you have a little kid, say a first grader, who has traveled on vacation a bit, but is only six years old. Does that young child truly have a way to grasp the distances of time, place, and culture that he will surely encounter in studying ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome? No. I think that a young student is better served by learning about PLACE first -- one full school year of Geography, during which the child becomes familiar with maps, globes, an atlas, the continents and oceans, mountains, rivers, deserts, forests, famous landmarks, the concept of cultures, the awareness of other languages and people groups, the idea of nations, cities, flags, currencies, political systems, religions, and family structures. The young child "travels" to other places through books, photographs, music, food, costumes, dance, crafts, pen-pals, basic map work, and so on. "Traveling" vicariously through places as they currently are -- without bringing much history into it -- could in itself be broadening. This year would not be a typical social studies approach -- me, my family, my community, jobs in my community, my fire station, my Walmart. Blech. :ack2: I agree with WTM on that count, at least.

 

The next two years -- 2nd & 3rd grades -- are devoted to the history of the student's native country, in our case the US. These years allow the student to "travel" back in TIME, while still remaining in the same familiar place. Same country map, same flag, same currency, same language(s), same national songs, symbols, and landmarks -- only now, things change through time, instead of place. Here's where the student's basic concept of chronology can develop using more familiar events. For example, most second graders in the US have seen George Washington and Abraham Lincoln on coins, bills, and advertisements. Does a second grader have as much experience with seeing Shamshi-Adad on coins, bills, and advertisements?

 

Finally, when the student has studied Geography for one year and the history of his homeland for two years, he is ready to begin really studying world history from the beginning of the whole story. He will then study Ancients (4th & 5th -- stretch it out for two years), Middle Ages (6th), Exploration & Discovery (7th), and the Modern Era (8th), and have all of high school to do it again one more time. We often do this with younger children -- we give them the shortest, easiest stories first, then work up to the harder stuff. Why not do this with history?

 

And yes, I know that many of us do tell Bible stories to first graders, and yes, these stories are set in the context of the ancient world. Because of this, some people say, "If they can understand Bible stories at six, they can understand Ashurbanipal. What's the difference?" I disagree with this reasoning. First and foremost, I tell Bible narratives as a matter of faith -- redemption history, if you will -- so at first, the main emphasis is on what a loving, holy God did to create, deliver, judge, redeem, heal, or save. I'm not telling these stories (at first) as "pure history," but as faith stories -- and I do mean to stir up something in my students' spirits, not just their minds. HTH.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Sahamamama

[KeriJ]

We do not. I don't buy into the idea that the study of history has to be the same as telling a story -- and that therefore you must begin at the beginning, always, under every circumstance, for every audience. I think that history is many stories, actually an infinite number of them, and when you are a child you can collect them like so many pretty beads. Only later, when you need to make something of the stories do you need to put them in order on a string (chronology/timeline). Until that point, one story may be better for a particular audience, another story for another. Little kids do like good stories, but they also need stories that are understandable to them. I have found that Peter Rabbit or Curious George appeal to the six year olds that I know far more than Shamshi-Adad or Ashurbanipal.

 

WTM insists that six year olds begin in the beginning of the whole story. Why? I've never really bought into this method. It just doesn't line up with what I've experienced in teaching little kids over the years, nor does it take into account that the purpose of studying a certain period of history might vary, depending on the audience and the period under study. IMO, WTM places too much emphasis on the chronological method, and does not give enough consideration to the purpose of studying an era of history. To me, the purpose precedes -- and can determine -- the method.

 

Here's what I mean: Suppose you have a little kid, say a first grader, who has traveled on vacation a bit, but is only six years old. Does that young child truly have a way to grasp the distances of time, place, and culture that he will surely encounter in studying ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome? No. I think that a young student is better served by learning about PLACE first -- one full school year of Geography, during which the child becomes familiar with maps, globes, an atlas, the continents and oceans, mountains, rivers, deserts, forests, famous landmarks, the concept of cultures, the awareness of other languages and people groups, the idea of nations, cities, flags, currencies, political systems, religions, and family structures. The young child "travels" to other places through books, photographs, music, food, costumes, dance, crafts, pen-pals, basic map work, and so on. "Traveling" vicariously through places as they currently are -- without bringing much history into it -- could in itself be broadening. This year would not be a typical social studies approach -- me, my family, my community, jobs in my community, my fire station, my Walmart. Blech. :ack2: I agree with WTM on that count, at least.

 

The next two years -- 2nd & 3rd grades -- are devoted to the history of the student's native country, in our case the US. These years allow the student to "travel" back in TIME, while still remaining in the same familiar place. Same country map, same flag, same currency, same language(s), same national songs, symbols, and landmarks -- only now, things change through time, instead of place. Here's where the student's basic concept of chronology can develop using more familiar events. For example, most second graders in the US have seen George Washington and Abraham Lincoln on coins, bills, and advertisements. Does a second grader have as much experience with seeing Shamshi-Adad on coins, bills, and advertisements?

 

Finally, when the student has studied Geography for one year and the history of his homeland for two years, he is ready to begin really studying world history from the beginning of the whole story. He will then study Ancients (4th & 5th -- stretch it out for two years), Middle Ages (6th), Exploration & Discovery (7th), and the Modern Era (8th), and have all of high school to do it again one more time. We often do this with younger children -- we give them the shortest, easiest stories first, then work up to the harder stuff. Why not do this with history?

 

And yes, I know that many of us do tell Bible stories to first graders, and yes, these stories are set in the context of the ancient world. Because of this, some people say, "If they can understand Bible stories at six, they can understand Ashurbanipal. What's the difference?" I disagree with this reasoning. First and foremost, I tell Bible narratives as a matter of faith -- redemption history, if you will -- so at first, the main emphasis is on what a loving, holy God did to create, deliver, judge, redeem, heal, or save. I'm not telling these stories (at first) as "pure history," but as faith stories -- and I do mean to stir up something in my students' spirits, not just their minds. HTH.

 

This has been on my mind lately. You put it so perfectly into words for me. Thank you. I agree completely. I had it in my head to do something like this but couldn't work out what it would look like long-term. You're definitely onto something here. :)

[kristinannie]

We do not. I don't buy into the idea that the study of history has to be the same as telling a story -- and that therefore you must begin at the beginning, always, under every circumstance, for every audience. I think that history is many stories, actually an infinite number of them, and when you are a child you can collect them like so many pretty beads. Only later, when you need to make something of the stories do you need to put them in order on a string (chronology/timeline). Until that point, one story may be better for a particular audience, another story for another. Little kids do like good stories, but they also need stories that are understandable to them. I have found that Peter Rabbit or Curious George appeal to the six year olds that I know far more than Shamshi-Adad or Ashurbanipal.

 

WTM insists that six year olds begin in the beginning of the whole story. Why? I've never really bought into this method. It just doesn't line up with what I've experienced in teaching little kids over the years, nor does it take into account that the purpose of studying a certain period of history might vary, depending on the audience and the period under study. IMO, WTM places too much emphasis on the chronological method, and does not give enough consideration to the purpose of studying an era of history. To me, the purpose precedes -- and can determine -- the method.

 

Here's what I mean: Suppose you have a little kid, say a first grader, who has traveled on vacation a bit, but is only six years old. Does that young child truly have a way to grasp the distances of time, place, and culture that he will surely encounter in studying ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome? No. I think that a young student is better served by learning about PLACE first -- one full school year of Geography, during which the child becomes familiar with maps, globes, an atlas, the continents and oceans, mountains, rivers, deserts, forests, famous landmarks, the concept of cultures, the awareness of other languages and people groups, the idea of nations, cities, flags, currencies, political systems, religions, and family structures. The young child "travels" to other places through books, photographs, music, food, costumes, dance, crafts, pen-pals, basic map work, and so on. "Traveling" vicariously through places as they currently are -- without bringing much history into it -- could in itself be broadening. This year would not be a typical social studies approach -- me, my family, my community, jobs in my community, my fire station, my Walmart. Blech. :ack2: I agree with WTM on that count, at least.

 

The next two years -- 2nd & 3rd grades -- are devoted to the history of the student's native country, in our case the US. These years allow the student to "travel" back in TIME, while still remaining in the same familiar place. Same country map, same flag, same currency, same language(s), same national songs, symbols, and landmarks -- only now, things change through time, instead of place. Here's where the student's basic concept of chronology can develop using more familiar events. For example, most second graders in the US have seen George Washington and Abraham Lincoln on coins, bills, and advertisements. Does a second grader have as much experience with seeing Shamshi-Adad on coins, bills, and advertisements?

 

Finally, when the student has studied Geography for one year and the history of his homeland for two years, he is ready to begin really studying world history from the beginning of the whole story. He will then study Ancients (4th & 5th -- stretch it out for two years), Middle Ages (6th), Exploration & Discovery (7th), and the Modern Era (8th), and have all of high school to do it again one more time. We often do this with younger children -- we give them the shortest, easiest stories first, then work up to the harder stuff. Why not do this with history?

 

And yes, I know that many of us do tell Bible stories to first graders, and yes, these stories are set in the context of the ancient world. Because of this, some people say, "If they can understand Bible stories at six, they can understand Ashurbanipal. What's the difference?" I disagree with this reasoning. First and foremost, I tell Bible narratives as a matter of faith -- redemption history, if you will -- so at first, the main emphasis is on what a loving, holy God did to create, deliver, judge, redeem, heal, or save. I'm not telling these stories (at first) as "pure history," but as faith stories -- and I do mean to stir up something in my students' spirits, not just their minds. HTH.

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

I love this! I really think this might be more along the lines of what I am looking at doing. I also think two years for ancient history is more reasonable. There is a lot of ancient history. Thanks for weighing in!

[Sahamamama]

:iagree:

 

 

I love this! I really think this might be more along the lines of what I am looking at doing. I also think two years for ancient history is more reasonable. There is a lot of ancient history. Thanks for weighing in!

 

Thanks. Here's another viewpoint, one that I respect (don't necessarily agree with all the details).

 

And here's another perspective. And this (click on "here").

[iona]

We do not. I don't buy into the idea that the study of history has to be the same as telling a story -- and that therefore you must begin at the beginning, always, under every circumstance, for every audience. I think that history is many stories, actually an infinite number of them, and when you are a child you can collect them like so many pretty beads. Only later, when you need to make something of the stories do you need to put them in order on a string (chronology/timeline). Until that point, one story may be better for a particular audience, another story for another. Little kids do like good stories, but they also need stories that are understandable to them. I have found that Peter Rabbit or Curious George appeal to the six year olds that I know far more than Shamshi-Adad or Ashurbanipal.

 

WTM insists that six year olds begin in the beginning of the whole story. Why? I've never really bought into this method. It just doesn't line up with what I've experienced in teaching little kids over the years, nor does it take into account that the purpose of studying a certain period of history might vary, depending on the audience and the period under study. IMO, WTM places too much emphasis on the chronological method, and does not give enough consideration to the purpose of studying an era of history. To me, the purpose precedes -- and can determine -- the method.

 

Here's what I mean: Suppose you have a little kid, say a first grader, who has traveled on vacation a bit, but is only six years old. Does that young child truly have a way to grasp the distances of time, place, and culture that he will surely encounter in studying ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome? No. I think that a young student is better served by learning about PLACE first -- one full school year of Geography, during which the child becomes familiar with maps, globes, an atlas, the continents and oceans, mountains, rivers, deserts, forests, famous landmarks, the concept of cultures, the awareness of other languages and people groups, the idea of nations, cities, flags, currencies, political systems, religions, and family structures. The young child "travels" to other places through books, photographs, music, food, costumes, dance, crafts, pen-pals, basic map work, and so on. "Traveling" vicariously through places as they currently are -- without bringing much history into it -- could in itself be broadening. This year would not be a typical social studies approach -- me, my family, my community, jobs in my community, my fire station, my Walmart. Blech. :ack2: I agree with WTM on that count, at least.

 

The next two years -- 2nd & 3rd grades -- are devoted to the history of the student's native country, in our case the US. These years allow the student to "travel" back in TIME, while still remaining in the same familiar place. Same country map, same flag, same currency, same language(s), same national songs, symbols, and landmarks -- only now, things change through time, instead of place. Here's where the student's basic concept of chronology can develop using more familiar events. For example, most second graders in the US have seen George Washington and Abraham Lincoln on coins, bills, and advertisements. Does a second grader have as much experience with seeing Shamshi-Adad on coins, bills, and advertisements?

 

Finally, when the student has studied Geography for one year and the history of his homeland for two years, he is ready to begin really studying world history from the beginning of the whole story. He will then study Ancients (4th & 5th -- stretch it out for two years), Middle Ages (6th), Exploration & Discovery (7th), and the Modern Era (8th), and have all of high school to do it again one more time. We often do this with younger children -- we give them the shortest, easiest stories first, then work up to the harder stuff. Why not do this with history?

 

And yes, I know that many of us do tell Bible stories to first graders, and yes, these stories are set in the context of the ancient world. Because of this, some people say, "If they can understand Bible stories at six, they can understand Ashurbanipal. What's the difference?" I disagree with this reasoning. First and foremost, I tell Bible narratives as a matter of faith -- redemption history, if you will -- so at first, the main emphasis is on what a loving, holy God did to create, deliver, judge, redeem, heal, or save. I'm not telling these stories (at first) as "pure history," but as faith stories -- and I do mean to stir up something in my students' spirits, not just their minds. HTH.

 

i like these ideas. does this mean that you'd have to have your children progress through these separately? to have everyone start with a gentle intro to geography followed by u.s. history to finish up 8th grade with modern times. combining everyone in history wouldn't work.

[BBG580]

Here's what I mean: Suppose you have a little kid, say a first grader, who has traveled on vacation a bit, but is only six years old. Does that young child truly have a way to grasp the distances of time, place, and culture that he will surely encounter in studying ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome? No. I think that a young student is better served by learning about PLACE first -- one full school year of Geography, during which the child becomes familiar with maps, globes, an atlas, the continents and oceans, mountains, rivers, deserts, forests, famous landmarks, the concept of cultures, the awareness of other languages and people groups, the idea of nations, cities, flags, currencies, political systems, religions, and family structures. The young child "travels" to other places through books, photographs, music, food, costumes, dance, crafts, pen-pals, basic map work, and so on. "Traveling" vicariously through places as they currently are -- without bringing much history into it -- could in itself be broadening. This year would not be a typical social studies approach -- me, my family, my community, jobs in my community, my fire station, my Walmart. Blech. :ack2: I agree with WTM on that count, at least.

 

 

 

I came to this exact conclusion myself and have already planned first grade to reflect my opinion on the matter.

 

I am choosing to do a very slow, relaxed pace of Early American history via ToG Year 2/Units 3 and 4 with focusing on reading aloud, field trips and hands on crafts coupled with a more comprehensive year long world geography study. And I'm only choosing to start with American and Virginia history because it basically follows our state standards (VA) and because we live right here and can go and see, touch, taste and smell it in person. Walking Jamestown and Williamsburg, seeing Dolly Madison's dress in the Smithsonian, walking through Mount Vernon and Monticello are going to make that period more concrete and alive for her and are going to make it clear what is past and what is present, what is true and what is fiction. That is really my big goal for first grade, and using the colonial period and ToG as my guide is really just my vehicle to help solidify those ideas in her mind.

 

I think geography, mapping skills and understanding past versus present are going to make sliding into the ancients much easier. We must have that foundation firmly built first, though!

 

My child is so young that she totally believes that Mary Poppins is real, real, real. That there is a possibility that she can fly into the clouds with an umbrella too. Trying to determine fiction vs. non-fiction, past vs. present, and the enormity of the distance around the world are what we are going to be focusing on next year all while trying to not screw up her glorious imagination. It is going to be tough!

 

After we get the foundation in place we'll see where we can go from there. I'm not sure if we'll get into the classical cycle or if we will study by continent, themed units or what.

Edited January 25, 2011 by BBG580
spelling!

[anabelneri]

I think geography, mapping skills and understanding past versus present are going to make sliding into the ancients much easier. We must have that foundation firmly built first, though!

 

My child is so young that she totally believes that Mary Poppins is real, real, real. That there is a possibility that she can fly into the clouds with an umbrella too. Trying to determine fiction vs. non-fiction, past vs. present, and the enormity of the distance around the world are what we are going to be focusing on next year all while trying to not screw up her glorious imagination. It is going to be tough!

 

After we get the foundation in place we'll see where we can go from there. I'm not sure if we'll get into the classical cycle or if we will study by continent, themed units or what.

 

Some of this will pass with age... in our religious ed program we have a lesson about the vastness of time, and before a child can come do the lesson they need to be able to answer two questions accurately: "How old are you?" and "How long did it take you to get that old?" It's funny to watch the kids... the ones who already have time-sense look at us like we're nuts. With the others, it goes something like this:

 

adult - "How old are you?"

child - "I'm 6!"

adult - "How long did it take you to get that old?"

child - "Ten years." (and they look at you with all seriousness)

 

The switch seems to happen in 1st grade sometime. But it's clearly a mental development that just happens. Once the switch happens, it's a whole lot easier to teach ancient history, because they have the capacity to understand that something was a long time ago.

 

Magical thinking -- I remember when I first started BFSU with Sweetie that there is this less where we're supposed to cover that magic isn't real: brooms can't fly, ladies don't just lift off the ground on clear days, frogs don't turn into princes, and all that sort of thing. I thought this was going to be a major upset, that it would take a long time for Sweetie to admit all of that. To my surprise, she readily answered correctly about all of the questions about reality vs. magic. I was in shock! So when it gets down to business she knows it. Meanwhile, she's still counting down the days until she gets her Hogwarts letter and has declared she wants to become a feyologist (to study fairies; her word, not mine).

 

FWIW we're doing a 6-year cycle based on AO's plan, but with a more serious study of the ancients in 1st grade. There's nothing like Egyptian and Greek mythology for an imaginative child! We're doing SOTW and English/American history mostly chronologically, and we're also focusing in on certain groups each term. So far our special focal areas have been myths, religious texts, or folktales from ancient Egypt, Greece, China, India, and now we're doing a section on Islamic folktales. We'll be looking at a Mayan text in the spring, which will coincide with a deeper exploration of the native peoples of the Americas just in time for us to look at the European explorers' arrival next year. Mmmm, fun.

[jina]

Sahamamama-

 

Thanks for your post! We arrived at a similar conclusion at our house, but didn't plan it that way! What curriculum do you use for those early grades of geography, then American history?

 

I would also like your thoughts on what another poster asked about regarding combining history for all kids or doing it separately.

 

Thanks for your well thought out, detailed post!

[Hunter]

I believe in skills first, knowledge second, so it never worked for me to center my plans around a history curriculum.

 

My boys did fine, just pasting in a topic here or there with whatever I found at the library, or came up in discussion at morning worship time. If I saw an area of history that was being terribly short changed, I would make sure to spend a few days on it.

 

I happily grabbed A Street Through Time when it came out and we talked alot about what came before what. We watched the BBC documentary series Connections.

 

History just kinda happened effortlessly while we focused on skills and Bible :-0

 

As I plan my own self-studies and assist my best friend in hers, I'm following the same approach. Her understanding of history is almost nonexistent, but she is still responding well to a disorganized introduction to different periods of history, by just talking about the connections.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Hunter

[boscopup]

The switch seems to happen in 1st grade sometime. But it's clearly a mental development that just happens. Once the switch happens, it's a whole lot easier to teach ancient history, because they have the capacity to understand that something was a long time ago.

 

My son made that switch sometime in K, and he's shown a pretty good understanding of time. Though I do remember him bringing home a worksheet from his K class with "real or fiction" and he had to circle the things that were real. He had circled all the things that were fiction. My DH and I said he had issues with reality. :lol: But when I questioned him on them again, he got them all right. He just didn't follow the directions. He knew exactly that his cartoon TV shows weren't real. And now at 6, he understands that Mythbusters is real, but some of the other shows he watches aren't real.

 

We're doing Ancients now. I could have gone either way, but he was interested in knowing what happened after the end of the Bible time period, so we're going through Ancient history, making the connections with the Bible stories he's known for a long time, and we'll just continue chronogically so that his "what happened after this?" question can be easily answered.

 

I don't think it *has* to be done this way though. I don't think history matters all that much in these early grades. I do like that we're setting up some pegs to hang facts on, and later when he's exposed to it again, he'll at least have seen it before, so we can go a little more in depth.

 

I too wonder how you deal with multiple children if you do the geography->American history->World history route. That's one of the things that made me decide not to do that. I'll have 3 children 2-3 grades apart at some point, and I don't want to be doing 3 different history time periods. That's too much for me. I'd rather combine them, or at least have them combined during the elementary years. I'm ok with a high schooler doing his own thing, as he'll be more independent.

[Haiku]

When my kids did Ancients, I used Mosiac history at bringinguplearners.com. It's a free curriculum that schedules SOTW as well as other books and supplementary readers. The main thing I loved about it was that it rearranged the chapters in SOTW so that all the chapters from each culture were grouped together and studied as units. My kids LOVED it and learned HUGE amounts. Two years later they still talk about the things they learned in their K/1st grade history.

 

I did the same thing, on my own, for Medieval. It also worked well, although I admit that the kids were not as fascinated with medieval history.

 

This year we are doing early modern. I also re-arranged the chapters somewhat, but SOTW 3 doesn't lend itself to that very well. I don't feel like we're having as much fun with history this year, but the kids still seem to enjoy it and ask whether today is "history day" (we do history twice a week).

 

I feel like my kids have retained a lot of history over 3 years, and when we talk with kids who are in public school, they frequently have no idea what my kids are talking about because they are having "social studies" classes and learning about their communities and other watered-down drivel.

 

Anyway, all that to say that I don't think you need to worry about not being able to go "in-depth" enough. I feel like we have had a lot of depth on any subject the kids get interested in. You don't have to cover every chapter in SOTW. You don't have to give every topic equal weight. You can breeze past some things and slow way down for others. It's up to you.

 

That said, your plan to spend a year each on various parts of the world sounds fine, too. I believe that with the grammar-aged kids, the "what" of what they are learning in history takes a back seat to the enjoyment factor and the cementing of the notion that history is fun and interesting and the development of a body of history-based memory work.

 

I wrote a "First Grade History Song" when my dd was in first grade that the kids still sing today (it has some obnoxious number of stanzas but the kids remember most of them). I gave it up in 2nd grade because it was too much work to develop, and I have to say that giving it up is my biggest regret, and I am trying to decide whether I should play catch-up and develop a 2nd and 3rd Grade History song, as well.

 

Ok, now I am just babbling. Forgive me. :D

 

Tara

[Laura Corin]

Our four years stretched and stretched. We did SOTW 1 and 2, then took a year out for Chinese history, before doing SOTW 3 and 4 (the latter rather sketchily, as I knew Calvin would be repeating a lot of it in school). In total it took about seven years. We added in a lot of US and UK history.

 

Laura

[kristinannie]

Our four years stretched and stretched. We did SOTW 1 and 2, then took a year out for Chinese history, before doing SOTW 3 and 4 (the latter rather sketchily, as I knew Calvin would be repeating a lot of it in school). In total it took about seven years. We added in a lot of US and UK history.

 

Laura

 

What did you use for Chinese history? I am very interested in spending a fair amount of time on that. I went to China in 2003 for three weeks and fell in love with the history (of course I had already been reading about it for years). I think it is such an important country for us to study, especially since they keep buying up our bonds!!! ;)

[~Kirsten~]

<snip>

Here's what I mean: Suppose you have a little kid, say a first grader, who has traveled on vacation a bit, but is only six years old. Does that young child truly have a way to grasp the distances of time, place, and culture that he will surely encounter in studying ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome? No. I think that a young student is better served by learning about PLACE first -- one full school year of Geography, during which the child becomes familiar with maps, globes, an atlas, the continents and oceans, mountains, rivers, deserts, forests, famous landmarks, the concept of cultures, the awareness of other languages and people groups, the idea of nations, cities, flags, currencies, political systems, religions, and family structures. The young child "travels" to other places through books, photographs, music, food, costumes, dance, crafts, pen-pals, basic map work, and so on. "Traveling" vicariously through places as they currently are -- without bringing much history into it -- could in itself be broadening. This year would not be a typical social studies approach -- me, my family, my community, jobs in my community, my fire station, my Walmart. Blech. :ack2: I agree with WTM on that count, at least.

 

The next two years -- 2nd & 3rd grades -- are devoted to the history of the student's native country, in our case the US. These years allow the student to "travel" back in TIME, while still remaining in the same familiar place. Same country map, same flag, same currency, same language(s), same national songs, symbols, and landmarks -- only now, things change through time, instead of place. Here's where the student's basic concept of chronology can develop using more familiar events. For example, most second graders in the US have seen George Washington and Abraham Lincoln on coins, bills, and advertisements. Does a second grader have as much experience with seeing Shamshi-Adad on coins, bills, and advertisements?

 

Finally, when the student has studied Geography for one year and the history of his homeland for two years, he is ready to begin really studying world history from the beginning of the whole story. He will then study Ancients (4th & 5th -- stretch it out for two years), Middle Ages (6th), Exploration & Discovery (7th), and the Modern Era (8th), and have all of high school to do it again one more time. We often do this with younger children -- we give them the shortest, easiest stories first, then work up to the harder stuff. Why not do this with history?

 

And yes, I know that many of us do tell Bible stories to first graders, and yes, these stories are set in the context of the ancient world. Because of this, some people say, "If they can understand Bible stories at six, they can understand Ashurbanipal. What's the difference?" I disagree with this reasoning. First and foremost, I tell Bible narratives as a matter of faith -- redemption history, if you will -- so at first, the main emphasis is on what a loving, holy God did to create, deliver, judge, redeem, heal, or save. I'm not telling these stories (at first) as "pure history," but as faith stories -- and I do mean to stir up something in my students' spirits, not just their minds. HTH.

Hmmm, thank you for your thoughts! I will definitely spend some time pondering.

 

As it is, I agree completely with you on how to start. We actually did (and will do) an around-the-world geography for K because I just couldn't imagine delving into ancient history without some concept of maps and locations. It was tons of fun, and I'm excited to do it again next year. Now, as it turns out, my daughter has really loved ancients (and Ashurbanipal made a huge impact, for whatever reason). I suspect she'll feel the same about medieval history, too. But I have a sneaky feeling that we're going to derail a bit when we hit 3rd grade as far as following SotW goes. Additionally, I'll have a new 1st grader at that point, and the pattern will certainly be different for her anyway. There's no way I'm doing two history periods at once! :lol: So she'll get to "begin" with American history, and that's why I'm so thankful for your post. It illustrates what history will probably look like for my second and gives me a way to rethink the cycle.

 

To the original poster, I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with stretching out Story of the World. There's no rule that says it has to fit neatly into one calendar year, and honestly, with 42 chapters, it's pretty tough to fit in a traditional school year. I agree with the others who say it's nowhere near as shallow as what is happening in schools, but there are definitely spots where you can sit a lot longer (Egypt, Greece, and Rome leap to mind) and spots where you may want to sit longer (for us, stories from ancient Africa).

[Laura Corin]

What did you use for Chinese history? I am very interested in spending a fair amount of time on that. I went to China in 2003 for three weeks and fell in love with the history (of course I had already been reading about it for years). I think it is such an important country for us to study, especially since they keep buying up our bonds!!! ;)

 

It's quite rough, but it's in the sidebar of my blog. Many of the books are in my Amazon list.

 

Laura

[Haiku]

Does that young child truly have a way to grasp the distances of time, place, and culture that he will surely encounter in studying ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome?

 

Probably not, but to me that is not the point of grammar-stage history. To me the point is to get kids to love the stories and have a general grasp of the fact that history is an ongoing story of the people who came before us. My kids, over 2 1/2 years of studying history the WTM way, have figured out for themselves that empires form, grow bigger, and fall apart ... again and again and again. They have also grasped the idea that people in the here and now are building on the things that came before. They understand these ideas, if at a rudimentary level, and that (along with the history memory work I mentioned previously) is enough for me.

 

It wasn't until I was studying pre-historic man with my kids, 2 years ago, that I really *got* the idea of hundreds of thousands of years. All that time my dad spent trying to impress me with information about early man when I was growing up was a bit of a yawner to me because I didn't really grasp the significance of the time span. I was in my 30s when it struck me as particularly remarkable. But I don't think that means I shouldn't have learned about prehistory until my 30s. ;) (And I know you don't think so either, I'm just using hyperbole to illustrate my point.)

 

Tara

[momto2Cs]

Here's what we've done...

 

Ds K - unit studies on various topics

 

Ds 1st, Dd PreK: Ancients, up to early Greece

 

Ds 2nd, Dd K: World cultures

 

Ds 3rd, Dd 1st: Ancient Greece and Rome, local history

 

Currently:

 

Ds 4th, Dd 2nd: American history through colonialism

 

Coming up:

 

Ds 5th, Dd 3rd: Continue American history

 

Ds 6th - 8th, Dd 4th - 6th: World history with science tied in, using Gombrich's Little History of the World as a spine text

 

Ds 9th - 12th: Use SWB's history series (not SOTW, the other one)

 

Dd 7th - 8th: Maybe a year of world cultures and a year of women in history, or two years of women in history, or a year of American hist review and one of cultures... then same as ds for 9th-12th

 

So, as you can see, we have deviated a bit. Just how it happened, but I think we're fine where we are!