Child's History of the World

[Celia]

Anyone care to share your thoughts on this book? Perhaps comparing it to SOTW?

[Mert]

:bigear:

[AngelBee]

I use CHOW more for my 1-3 graders and SOTW for my 4-6 graders. I like them both. :) CHOW has somethings that are written "old school" as in some of the ways he discusses skin tones of different cultures, but I edit or discuss as we go through.

 

Not racist. Just phrased funny to me.

[silliness7]

CHOW covers world history in 1/4 the amount of pages as SOTW. So obviously SOTW is going to cover more and go more in depth.

 

I like them both and have used them both. It depends what you're looking for.

[Devotional Soul]

I checked it out at the library and chose to not use it because it includes the Aryan Invasion of India theory, which I consider to be untrue. From what I've been told, SOTW doesn't include it. HTH!

[Celia]

Thank you!

[AngelBee]

I checked it out at the library and chose to not use it because it includes the Aryan Invasion of India theory, which I consider to be untrue. From what I've been told, SOTW doesn't include it. HTH!

This is what I kind of meant. I skipped that part. There is a LOT more covered though that I think was covered well. :)

[Dmmetler]

My 6 yr old LOVES CHOW and disliked SOTW. I think SOTW was a little much detail and long for her to handle at 5 when we started it. I'm planning to focus on American history next year, then go back and try an SOTW sequence when she's 7 1/2.

 

We have the revised version.

[mbosh237]

My 6 yr old LOVES CHOW and disliked SOTW. I think SOTW was a little much detail and long for her to handle at 5 when we started it. I'm planning to focus on American history next year, then go back and try an SOTW sequence when she's 7 1/2.

 

:iagree:

[ChandlerMom]

Have to keep in mind it was written/published in 1924. Most of the copies used now were slightly updated in 1951 and 1994. A lot has changed in terms of world view, especially ethnocentricity and origin of different peoples/ethnicities/colors and biblical literacy/interpretation. The 20s and 30s were a time of a lot of speculation about migration of early man and a topic, for example, the Nazis were really interested it (to show aryan superiority, master race stuff), so from today's perspective, some of Hillyer's comments might make you cringe (not saying he shared Nazi worldview, just that certain ignorances were held in common by most folk at the time because we just didn't know better).

 

You can find the 1924 version online for free or check out a copy from your library and see how much tweaking you would feel necessary. If you yourself are knowledgeable about the current info on those topics, not a big deal. If you don't know a lot about the new discoveries and understandings since that time, you might want to stick with a more current text.

 

ETA: I fall into the "too busy/lazy to tweak" camp, although when dc's are high school age it might be a good text to use to discuss how times have changed (even the 1951 revision was written in a time of segregation).

Edited January 29, 2011 by ChandlerMom

[mom2boys030507]

We have the newer version of CHOW. My boys did not care for SOTW, so we read CHOW. I do add alot in. We read lots of other books on the topics that we want to dig into and other times we just read the chapter in CHOW and move on. I am finding it to be more flexible with the type of planning I do.

[my2boysteacher]

You can find the 1924 version online for free

 

Where would one find this? :D

[laughing lioness]

Like others have said, SOTW is much more in depth and detailed.

I love CHOW, however, and we've read it out loud (and will again).

 

Hillyer is not a Christian (I don't think) but still lived and wrote at a time when his culture was still Christian. It's an interesting look at a world view that is no longer and lead to many, many interesting discussions with my older dc's when they were much younger. We still refer to it. I did not use it as a definitive history spine. I used it as a historical perspective, written in a time and place by a man who was an educational maven. I believe that there is value in understanding his perspective. It reminds me of Greystoke (the 84 remake of Tarzan). The world's perspective was changing. Hillyer captures a bit of that in CHOW.

 

Well worth the time and money. I do them both, but I take the "onion approach" to teaching. Layer upon layer upon layer. Which is why we also listen to Diana Waring tapes, read the SL history book lists, memorize VP timelime cards and CC memory verses, etc. ;)

[Staceyshoe]

My 5 year old likes both SOTW and CHOW. I decided to use CHOW this year because I'd like him to get an overview of history quickly. We add in some living books too so that he really gets a feel for different time periods and different places. CHOW is a nice gentle approach to history. One thing I've noticed is that the style of writing is a little annoying for me. There are often long sentences with clauses in strange places that make it more difficult for ds to understand if he's not REALLY paying attention. I often re-phrase things as I read aloud to make it more simple and clear.

[kalphs]

Anyone care to share your thoughts on this book? Perhaps comparing it to SOTW?

Our family LOVES Hillyer's books!

You can check out my review of the book at www.rainbowresource.com or www.amazon.com

[birchbark]

We like CHOW better here too.

[jewel7123]

I plan on using the edited 1997 verson by Calvert (used by Sonlight) this coming school year along with TOG Year 1. I think CHOW is better suited for younger ages than SOTW, but that's just my personal opinion.

[SEGway]

We've been using a 1951 ed. of CHOW as our history read-aloud for K-5. Every so often, I come across a phrase that seems really obnoxious to me, but I usually just substitute. If I read it out loud before I realize it, I explain why it is considered inappropriate now, and we go on. I can see how his style might be really annoying. For kindergarten for us, it's working really well. I just got access to SOTW, and I think we will progress to that when we do school more formally.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I tried both. DS much preferred SOTW.

[grace'smom]

Where would one find this? :D

 

:lurk5::lurk5:

[MomsintheGarden]

I like both for different reasons that are listed in other posts, but if I had to pick one, I'd chose SOTW. We have both, however (why not?:)), and use SOTW in grades 1-4 as our main history spine and CHOW as a supplemental reader spread out over grades 5-8. In grades 5-8 we use the white Kingfisher as our history spine, along with many other biographies and historical fiction books.

 

GardenMom

[jewel7123]

We've been using a 1951 ed. of CHOW as our history read-aloud for K-5. Every so often, I come across a phrase that seems really obnoxious to me, but I usually just substitute.

 

If I'm not mistaken the 1997 Calvert edition has edited all the obnoxious stuff out.

[jewel7123]

This is the edition you want http://www.sonlight.com/2H22.html There are a couple auctions for it on ebay right now, plus you can put a want ad here as well as on Homeschool Classifieds.