Does it matter to you if a curriculum developer doesn't have a college degree?

[TravelingChris]

I don't need a textbook or program that has been succesful in schools if I am teaching one person. I look at various models of success but I do notice that all of the high school material I use have experts. So I use an economist for my economics book, a Mathematician for math, scientists for science, a person with English degrees for literature, and SWB with a literature degree for history- it doesn't bother me at all that she isn't a historian full time. It sort of is like that I can teach economics (BA in economics), government (no formal degree but related degrees in Economics and Criminal Justice), and with review, I could teach statistics (I did very well in several graduate level statistics courses and passed the exam needed for a doctoral degree). I could also teach psychology and sociology. WHy? Because for high school the level is so low and I did graduate level work in both fields while I was getting my one degreein criminal justice and pursuing my doctorate.

 

I can also tell you that my PhD physicist husband could very easily teach all high school sciences (though biology is more because he has self studied and has experience with running bio labs)and also all high school level math classes included advanced ones.

 

My daughters took literature classes with writing taught by a homeschool Mom who had no degree. She was fantastic- well organized, creative, a great editor, and very well read. So looking back, I choose classes and books on a case by case basis. Usually it turns out that people have degrees. BUt sometimes it is like the case of the mother I just referenced who had been an excellent student in high school but lived in an extremely chaotic and disruptive household and married at 18 to escape. She regretted not having pursued her education but with young children to raise, she decided on a course of self education. It worked very well.

[tearose]

...Think of what I'd have missed if I seen that lack of a Master's and passed him over.

 

I fail to see how a lack of an advanced degree is going to significantly hobble an intelligent, diligent text-writer for 10 year olds, and in fact, the "distance" between the heavily-degreed and little old mum here trying to implement might just be great enough to cause misunderstanding. Call me a Liping Ma-drone, who sees the benefit of "profound understanding" of the basics over the advanced degree. :)

 

For basic math and science, I can see your point. However, I am often quite unhappy at the material that is emphasized in the humanities and find many curricula lacking; knowing my field from a scholarly perspective, I would not use any curricula that I've seen so far. I would argue that in some fields (and, granted, my experience is more in the humanities), one gains this "profound understanding" in advanced study. Also, as a pp poster mentioned, WHERE the degree is obtained matters quite a bit.

[Ester Maria]

I contend that getting an advanced college degree, while admirable (and absolutely necessary for certain fields), does not have any real bearing on a person's skill, expertise, or knowledge in a certain area.

(Bold emphasis mine.)

 

This is, in a way, what some of us stumble upon. Would you allow a self-taught doctor to cure you? 'cause after all, with all the available medical knowledge out there in books and on the internet, somebody who just "dealt with it" knows something more than you and might be able to help, right? Theoretically, the option exists. Yet, I think most of us would not think twice about this issue - we would like to be diagnosed and treated by people who not only "read", but also passed some pretty rigorous and detailed exams on what they read, had some pretty challenging practical experience under the supervision of people from the field, were required to take a highly systematic approach to that learning rather than be self-directed (i.e. they had to build a system of interdependent knowledge, even if it meant going through a lot of areas of not particular interest to them before they got to specialize), and there is somebody out there who guarantees for them - both for their theory and for their practice.

 

Would you allow a self-taught lawyer to take care of your case? 'cause you know, in theory, they could have learned all that is required from a good lawyer to learn, only on their own. But did they really master the principles of law, a particular way of thinking that the law requires, did they get to practice their skills under the supervision of experts and get a real experience in it, are you really willing to lose a lot, if that is a possibility, with a lawyer that nobody can formally guarantee for? I doubt.

 

You see, what is going on here is often not simply "questioning the academia". I have a love/hate relationship with "the institution" and I believe that it certainly should be questioned as an ultimate be-all end-all of knowledge in a particular area. I also disagree, professionally, with a lot of equally qualified people from my field.

However, what those discussions turn into is often a complete ditching of expertise and a sort of "I know it and can assess it just as well enough as somebody who dedicated their life to it" type of... of arrogance, frankly. Quite often it is NOT common sense talking... but a profound ignorance talking. Quite often people do not even dream of how far, far "off" they are. I bite my tongue a lot when it comes to areas where I do know something about and where these discussions occur (though I do not know many homeschoolers IRL, particularly after having moved), because in one hand, you do not wish to discourage something so noble as a quest for knowledge and people doing the best they can on it :), but on the other hand... you are so aware of the fact that, if they write an Italian curriculum, it might not end up very well. They may even hire somebody to proofread their text for the most obvious factual errors, but organization-wise, I am going to do MUCH better job. Even if they, too, "speak Italian". Sort of. Maybe.

 

A lot of times, people like that just. don't. get. how "off" they are, because they do not see the whole picture, cannot even spot some things which are technically errors, and frankly, in spite of all their good intentions, they will do a considerably worse job than if they cooperated with those hated "experts" a bit. Seriously. And I am often aware of the fact that with my very basic coverage of some areas, I might not be the best person to assess whether my kid needs this or that curriculum, this or that approach, because even though "I know my kid the best", people who know the material and are from the field, and have studied how to transfer that knowledge and which connections are essential and which not, and which saw hundreds upon hundreds of kids in practice, might actually having something worthwhile to say... and their materials, or suggestions for materials, might, in start, be better than those by non-experts. In fact, the chances are they will be better, more thorough, better organized, because in order to pass a BASIC level in something, you yourself have to be ADVANCED. In order to teach BASIC Latin well, your Latin has to be VERY good. You have to know considerably more than just that which you attempt to carry on.

 

I get that you guys, particularly Americans, cherish the idea of freedom from rigid institutions, rigid "right" ways of doing things, educational freedom, that you have almost inherent suspect towards formal expertise as the ultimate "arbiter" of anything... in a way, there is a lot of healthy, common sense in that skepticism. In most of Europe the approach is still somewhat too "servile" in front of grand credentials and titles, often without enough skepticism. But sometimes, this skepticism and relativizing simply goes too far. There are lousy "experts", institutions with lousy programs (and ever lowering standards), cheating in academia, right people not being on right positions due to political incompatibility or other "interest groups", there is nepotism, there are terribly incompetent people both teaching and graduating, there are instances of real academic dishonesty in what is happening and sometimes it seems that the whole system is falling down. But as bad as a system is, more often than not, it still guarantees something, something more than amateur experience, some forced systematic study, some level of knowledge, especially if we go to MAs and PhDs. Putting those people on the same level as an amateur is still deeply wrong in my opinion.

 

I do not discourage amateurs. They have their place in every discipline too, are a valuable addition and often have much great insights to add.

But we are talking about our children's educations, and we get only one shot at it (yes, sure, they can always learn later blabla, I get it, but you know what I mean... one shot at providing systematic fundamentals in a time when they have nothing else to do in life, with enough time and calm pace). Personally, I take it all rather seriously from that point of view. Even if I withdrew them from the institution, with a reason, I fully believe that there is also time and place for formal expertise, formal oversight and evaluation by people who are from the field, and that the basis of education must follow works that are equally "approved" on those high instances too, not only among other homeschoolers or according to my own personal feelings, which might not be academically justified at all, if we talk about areas I know nothing about.

 

It is not the lack of trust in my own capacities. It is, rather, a sort of respect for high-level learning which is also "accredited", recognized, overseen by other experts and guaranteed for. Of course that people continue to learn even after PhD, and of course that the institution is not the be-all end-all of all learning. But to put it on the same level as amateurs? I am not sure. Especially if the person teaching / evaluating is also an amateur (and you cannot really be an expert in all subjects you teach) - one more reason to rely on more formal expertise behind the materials you use.

 

So, while there is always a theoretical possibility that somebody from the outside will do a remarkable job, and while indeed it might happen now and then, I am still giving my trust to "approved" options (and, among those, those I personally find better, or people from the field advise in accordance with my DC's educational needs, etc.), partially from experience that they usually are better.

[Mejane]

Not even a little bit.

[TravelingChris]

At least two posters on this thread talked about curriculum developers who are at a minimum confusing in their descriptions of their accomplishments if not downright deceitful. I would be unhappy to be using such curriculum. Can you PM me who these are?

[scrapbookbuzz]

I would be very surprised to find high quality materials developed by someone who had no college degree in any field.

 

 

I have to dissent here. My husband has a very adept, analytical mind and would no problem writing a very valid and thorough curriculum. He does not have a degree.

 

I have a degree but, really, all my piece of paper tells you is that I'm good at guessing, as I guessed my way through most tests in college and still wound up with a 2.9 out of a 4.0 grade average.

 

A piece of paper that tells the world you (or whomever) survived four years of college is not something that should be the final deciding factor on whether or not you're going to use a particular curriculum.

[Mejane]

I have to dissent here. My husband has a very adept, analytical mind and would no problem writing a very valid and thorough curriculum. He does not have a degree.

 

I have a degree but, really, all my piece of paper tells you is that I'm good at guessing, as I guessed my way through most tests in college and still wound up with a 2.9 out of a 4.0 grade average.

 

A piece of paper that tells the world you (or whomever) survived four years of college is not something that should be the final deciding factor on whether or not you're going to use a particular curriculum.

 

:iagree:with all the above. I find many of those who are so passionate about college degrees are those who did not themselves attend. There seems to be an awful lot of idealizing about what actually goes on on-campus.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Mejane

[Ester Maria]

I have a degree but, really, all my piece of paper tells you is that I'm good at guessing, as I guessed my way through most tests in college and still wound up with a 2.9 out of a 4.0 grade average.

Maybe, but had you gone to a university where you had such written exams as a prerequisite for detailed oral exams, on which professors totally "drained" you on the whole bibliography list, and scrutinized your papers into incredible minutiae, and actively tried to fail their students because they defended the dignity of their subject and their position as a professor in university, you might reason differently. It can all be an elaborate and expensive joke, but it does not have to be.

 

A lot of us, even in humanities, did not guess our way out and we got out with an education which produced a tangible difference from the vast majority of amateurs. Not in 100% cases, maybe, and not from 100% amateurs, maybe, but the odds are, as a general rule of the thumb, the formal credentials might still stand for something in a lot of cases.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm curious, Ester Maria - do you look for an advanced degree for curricula of all levels or just from middle school or high school on?

[Spy Car]

It bothers the heck out of me when people mislead. When they claim to be "graduates" of programs that are not what they appear to be, or have "certificates" in something that appears impressive, but isn't.

 

Or claim to be the "Director of an Institute" when there is no "Institute." This kind of behavior strikes me as less than straight-forward.

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

I'm curious, Ester Maria - do you look for an advanced degree for curricula of all levels or just from middle school or high school on?

The higher you go, the more important it is. For littles, sometimes general pedagogy is more important than advanced expertise, as content is not problematic. But after elementary it becomes increasingly important.

 

I mix and match a lot of stuff, but in the early years I can estimate the quality myself. When it comes to the upper years, I do need an oversight of somebody else and I will even go by their suggestions for non-specialist additions, but the basic texts are expert ones. Even their school texts, I think all of them are written, reviewed and tested on kids their age by experts and teachers.

[DawnM]

I do agree that there are some great minds out there without the piece of paper, but I would never say that my college degree tells you I am good at guessing.

 

I worked too dang hard for that piece of paper to owe it all to good guess work on my part.

 

Dawn

 

I have to dissent here. My husband has a very adept, analytical mind and would no problem writing a very valid and thorough curriculum. He does not have a degree.

 

I have a degree but, really, all my piece of paper tells you is that I'm good at guessing, as I guessed my way through most tests in college and still wound up with a 2.9 out of a 4.0 grade average.

 

A piece of paper that tells the world you (or whomever) survived four years of college is not something that should be the final deciding factor on whether or not you're going to use a particular curriculum.

[DawnM]

:iagree:

 

It bothers the heck out of me when people mislead. When they claim to be "graduates" of programs that are not what they appear to be, or have "certificates" in something that appears impressive, but isn't.

 

Or claim to be the "Director of an Institute" when there is no "Institute." This kind of behavior strikes me as less than straight-forward.

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

It bothers the heck out of me when people mislead. When they claim to be "graduates" of programs that are not what they appear to be, or have "certificates" in something that appears impressive, but isn't.

 

Or claim to be the "Director of an Institute" when there is no "Institute." This kind of behavior strikes me as less than straight-forward.

 

Bill

Oh yes. That is a whole 'nother boat. One needs to be careful, especially when it is not about their field (where they can tell "fakes").

[Mynyel]

Nope.

 

I have a very bad view on degrees in general.

 

Most of the time they are highly overrated. Not saying that one shouldn't get one just saying it isn't important.

 

I have taken many a college class and most of the instructors (they all had Masters degrees and up, had to to work for this college) left a lot to be desired.

 

So nope. Experience, to me, is better than any degree. (When one is talking school things, not medical and such.)

[Sevilla]

:iagree:with all the above. I find many of those who are so passionate about college degrees are those who did not themselves attend. There seems to be an awful lot of idealizing about what actually goes on on-campus.

I disagree. And frankly, I think it's ludicrous to imply that a college degree meant just having good test taking skills and guessing on exams. Do people really believe that colleges are little more than diploma mills and a vehicle for massive amounts of debt while producing nothing of value? My college experience and those of my friends/family members certainly did not fall into that category (small, private liberal arts colleges - nothing ivy league or difficult to enroll at).

 

I did work hard to receive a 3.9/4.0 GPA by the time I graduated. I didn't find my classes to be a cakewalk where I learned nothing - the lectures and discussions in class were full of insight and data that required critical thinking to master. My professors were knowledgable in their fields of study and the university politics (at least as it related to the students) was minimal. I had a few classes I blew off and scored well in, and that was mostly because I had previously taken the same subject matter at my college-prep high school and was able to skim by on that prior knowledge (which I had worked very hard to master), and was a good essay writer (again, a lot of training in middle and high school to master). My exams were mostly in 'blue books' (i.e., handwritten essays). There's no way to guess your way when you have to provide paragraphs of material explaining complex questions. I also wrote many papers on different topics - especially in philosophy and other humanities.

 

Honestly, I didn't find college to be particularly difficult (but I graduated from a challenging high school and was very well prepared - many of my fellow undergraduates were overwhelmed by the work and complained). But it was most certainly intellectually stimulating, enriching, and grew my critical thinking skills, knowledge of various subjects, and understanding of education in ways I had not known before I attended. I had a solid foundation and college built upon it.

 

To answer the OP, I would not purchase a curriculum for upper elementary and beyond from someone without a Bachelor's degree (and preferably a Masters or above for High school level - I know for myself with just a Bachelor's how much I have left to learn to be a true expert in a field. And I have excellent amateur knowledge on a variety of topics, I'm a great amateur reader/amateur researcher/self-directed learner. But I also know enough about actual in-depth study in a field that I could attain so much more if I were in a focused academic program that was rigorous in nature and focused on specific academic goals vs. my piecemeal approach via message boards and library books).

Edited April 30, 2011 by Sevilla

[tearose]

I have to dissent here. My husband has a very adept, analytical mind and would no problem writing a very valid and thorough curriculum. He does not have a degree.

 

I have a degree but, really, all my piece of paper tells you is that I'm good at guessing, as I guessed my way through most tests in college and still wound up with a 2.9 out of a 4.0 grade average.

 

A piece of paper that tells the world you (or whomever) survived four years of college is not something that should be the final deciding factor on whether or not you're going to use a particular curriculum.

 

My undergrad background is a bit different because I went to a small LAC and double-majored in the humanities, but my grades were often not test-based (outside of classes like calculus, intro physics).

 

But I really doubt that someone could guess his or her way through the comprehensive exams I had to take to advance to candidacy. Basically, we had two separate eight-hour sessions to answer questions that could basically be on anything in the field. I did my doctoral work in musicology, so the first day was identifying and discussion seven of ten mystery score exerpts (given a random page or two of each, and you need to identify composer, year, and historical significance). You have to know everything cold in order to pass this because you go into the exam with no idea of what might show up until you open it the day of. Same with the second day of essay questions--I knew that I would have to answer four questions in different historical periods and ethnomusicology, but there's no way of knowing whether you'll be asked to write an analysis of the history of the symphony or sacred music in the eighteenth century--you just have to be prepared for everything. Then you follow up with an oral exam where you defend what you wrote to a committee of professors (my program also required us to do an analytical presentation of a piece that we were given a few days earlier). This was basically a do-or-die exam that everyone had to take 1.5 years in, and the department used it to weed out those it deemed unprepared.

 

Certainly, there are people with PhDs who are not terribly bright (and I know some of them), but an advanced degree can also mean a lot.

 

ETA: I have friends in (or who have finished) doctoral programs in a wide range of subjects, so I know that this type of comprehensive exam was not unique to my department.

Edited April 30, 2011 by tearose

[Mejane]

I had a solid foundation and college built upon it.

 

 

 

Good for you, and so did I. However, having been there, can you deny that many students did not try as hard, and that some cheated their way through? They still got their diplomas just like you and I. Point being: having that piece of paper doesn't make one a scholar or any sort of expert.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Mejane

[Mejane]

It bothers the heck out of me when people mislead. When they claim to be "graduates" of programs that are not what they appear to be, or have "certificates" in something that appears impressive, but isn't.

 

Or claim to be the "Director of an Institute" when there is no "Institute." This kind of behavior strikes me as less than straight-forward.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:I wonder, though, if the intellectual bias that exists leads people to feel they need to exaggerate their credentials in order to be taken seriously. It doesn't make it right, but neither is educational elitism, imo.

[Sevilla]

Good for you, and so did I. However, having been there, can you deny that many students did not try as hard, and that some cheated their way through? They still got their diploma just like you and I. Point being: having that piece of paper doesn't make one a scholar or any sort of expert.

People who did that were generally not getting humanities majors, they were not graduating with 3.5+ GPA's, they were not pursuing knowledge and academic growth. That is why it also matters to me WHAT a bachelor's degree is in as well. If you got a 'physical fitness and nutrition' major then I would want to see a solid reason why you're qualified and have put the effort into writing a high quality writing program for college-bound high schoolers (for example). If you majored in English and Education - High School then I am going to take your work more seriously b/c you spent time getting training in it.

[Spy Car]

:iagree:I wonder, though, if the intellectual bias that exists leads people to feel they need to exaggerate their credentials in order to be taken seriously. It doesn't make it right, but neither is educational elitism, imo.

 

I don't know what drives people to inflate their credentials, or their businesses.

 

I would be more inclined to use a product where an author admitted up front that they lacked formal academic"credentials" (if that was the case) but had developed a passion for a subject (perhaps as a result of being a home educator) and had put their mind and energies into developing a program they felt works to teach whatever subject for which they may have developed a program. I really would not have a problem with this. To the contrary, there are many ways to learn and become educated on a subject, University programs are one (potential means) but they are not an exclusive means.

 

But the "inflation" of credentials and misleading characterizations of business operations bothers me greatly.

 

Bill

[Mejane]

I would be more inclined to use a product where an author admitted up front that they lacked formal academic "credentials" (if that was the case) but had developed a passion for a subject (perhaps as a result of being a home educator) and had put their mind and energies into developing a program they felt works to teach whatever subject for which they may have developed a program.

 

Me too, Bill, but obviously not everyone agrees, as is their prerogative. :)

[radiobrain]

Ester Maria specifically, and anyone else who cares to read....;)

 

When I typed the section you bolded, I was thinking EXACTLY about medical doctor and a lawyer. Also, any other field where you must have such and such degree to practice. Those fields tend not to have the same weird relationship between the dean/professor/whomever and the lowly student. But would I listen to advice from a friend who is not an MD, but has gone through a particular illness? Yes, I would consider them to be a "lay practitioner" of that specific illness. I would take their opinions and experiences over an MD who had never treated that specific problem. And haven't we all met doctors who you think are totally wrong, and you seek out second and third opinions? It is more than the piece of paper, it's what you do with it.

 

All that being said, I think one issue between what I think a few of us are disagreeing about is that the educational system in Europe, Italy specifically, is quite different than here in the states. My husband's cousins both teach at the University of Pisa, and when we were explaining the idea of homeschooling to them, their general opinion was... "Well, it is America, of course you wouldn't put them in those schools!" They all look down upon the US educational system. I can't tell you if it is better, or worse, it is a completely different set-up. I also feel that there is a far more obvious line between the academics and the "working class".

 

Blah blah blah. :D

 

I have so many personal stories and examples to explain my position, that I could fill a book. But we are all still talking about the same thing here... giving our children the best education that each of us sees fit and are capable of facilitating.

 

 

 

BTW, EM, you know I :001_wub: you, right?

Edited May 1, 2011 by radiobrain

[kalanamak]

I disagree. And frankly, I think it's ludicrous to imply that a college degree meant just having good test taking skills and guessing on exams. Do people really believe that colleges are little more than diploma mills and a vehicle for massive amounts of debt while producing nothing of value?

 

Some are, and some people who go to them seek this. I was dismayed when I hit the world of "it is who you know", that is, if you are "in" the group that keeps all old tests and have a regular method of getting through Prof X's class. I certainly recall a test I and one of the brightest students failed completely. The department head asked us in and asked what this meant. The guy, a man used to getting by on his brains, calmly said "my roommate said everyone had a copy of the test, that it is the same every year. I didn't look at it." I, being older and off campus, hadn't even heard there was a test. The test was thrown out. I can't believe they hadn't figured out that this had been going on for YEARS, particularly since so much of the test had not been covered!

 

College, like the rest of life, can be done sincerely, decently, in good faith, or the opposite.

[Mergath]

Maybe, but had you gone to a university where you had such written exams as a prerequisite for detailed oral exams, on which professors totally "drained" you on the whole bibliography list, and scrutinized your papers into incredible minutiae, and actively tried to fail their students because they defended the dignity of their subject and their position as a professor in university, you might reason differently. It can all be an elaborate and expensive joke, but it does not have to be.

 

A lot of us, even in humanities, did not guess our way out and we got out with an education which produced a tangible difference from the vast majority of amateurs. Not in 100% cases, maybe, and not from 100% amateurs, maybe, but the odds are, as a general rule of the thumb, the formal credentials might still stand for something in a lot of cases.

 

Of course, the difference between those who treat college as a joke and those who come out with extensive knowledge in a subject is that the latter tend to love what they're studying, as well as the act of learning itself. And a person who loves what they're studying that much is going to learn a great deal whether they do it at a desk or their kitchen table.

 

I studied literature for five years at the U of M, and had to leave a semester before I was done because we needed to relocate so my dh could find work. Many of the people I attended with hadn't even read Shakespeare and Milton until their final year. I didn't get my fancy piece of paper, but I love literature to pieces, and learned an incredible amount while I was in school. I'd rather have a curriculum written by someone like me (I know that sounds conceited, but you understand what I'm saying) than one of my peers who graduated having only skimmed excerpts of Paradise Lost or any of Shakespeare's works.

 

Also, one has to take into account that people tend to forget a great deal with time. Yes, someone may have a graduate degree in any given field, but if that degree was earned forty years ago, and the person hasn't worked in their field since, the degree is going to mean nothing.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Mergath

[kalanamak]

People who did that were generally not getting humanities majors, they were not graduating with 3.5+ GPA's, they were not pursuing knowledge and academic growth. That is why it also matters to me WHAT a bachelor's degree is in as well.

 

I grew up in a Land Grant college town, big on sports. Some new superstar would be brought in, and my father, a prof, would say "early child development". Yup, that was the gladiator's major over and over.

[Dmmetler]

Well, I AM a curriculum developer, albeit for classroom, not for homeschool, and I have to say that my college degrees haven't been all that helpful. To be blunt, very little about university music study tells you how to teach the topic to preschoolers or Kindergartners-who are the intended audience for the materials I write. And child psychology and development isn't much better. It's a lot of time spent studying theories of idealized children, most of which are trumped after you've spent a few hours with the real thing.

 

However, the 20 years I've spent teaching young children music, including a wide range of settings, populations, group sizes, and so on does. As does all the reading and research I've done over the last 20 years when faced with the "What the XXXX do I do now" situations that come up regularly when dealing with real people in the real world. And since I never would have been hired to teach group classes without the college degrees, I probably wouldn't be nearly as competent of a curriculum developer without the degrees. At least,I HOPE I'm competent...sometimes I wonder :tongue_smilie:.

[smilesonly]

and my father, a prof, would say "early child development". Yup, that was the gladiator's major over and over.

 

That's not nice.;)

[4wildberrys]

I know plenty of boneheads with lots of degrees, and I know many brilliant people who have always been autodidacts, and for whom a typical ("college") education would have killed their souls.

 

As a general group who values education, yet goes about attaining it for our children in unconventional ways, I would think most of us should say no, it doesn't matter. Each piece of curriculum should be judged by its own particular merit.

 

I don't mind it though, especially in the quirky things I seem to choose, but it is by no means something I think I have ever consciously thought about. I will say this, it makes a BIG difference to me if someone has a PhD in the particular field (ie Quantum Mechanics), but if it is in Education, I think it might make me run away after throwing the book into a storm drain.:D

 

But really, NO.

 

If the writing and ideas are bad, it doesn't matter who wrote it. If they are great, the same goes in the opposite direction.

:iagree::iagree:

[Kim in Appalachia]

Well, I AM a curriculum developer, albeit for classroom, not for homeschool, and I have to say that my college degrees haven't been all that helpful. To be blunt, very little about university music study tells you how to teach the topic to preschoolers or Kindergartners-who are the intended audience for the materials I write. And child psychology and development isn't much better. It's a lot of time spent studying theories of idealized children, most of which are trumped after you've spent a few hours with the real thing.

 

However, the 20 years I've spent teaching young children music, including a wide range of settings, populations, group sizes, and so on does. As does all the reading and research I've done over the last 20 years when faced with the "What the XXXX do I do now" situations that come up regularly when dealing with real people in the real world. And since I never would have been hired to teach group classes without the college degrees, I probably wouldn't be nearly as competent of a curriculum developer without the degrees. At least,I HOPE I'm competent...sometimes I wonder :tongue_smilie:.

 

 

I think, for the most part, you need both the degree and the experience. To many curriculums are written by people with degrees but no experience. I think the experience to probably even more important than the degree.

[4wildberrys]

 

I think about all the threads where people get their panties in a bunch over a "real/certified/official" High school diploma being the only acceptable form of diploma for XYZ. How is this different? Just curious.

 

Again, I contend that getting an advanced college degree, while admirable (and absolutely necessary for certain fields), does not have any real bearing on a person's skill, expertise, or knowledge in a certain area. Academia is filled with petty dictators who rule their departments with an iron fist. If you don't agree with the teacher, you don't get a good grade. If you don't kiss the bottom, and stroke the ego, you don't get the support you need to get the thesis/defense finished. You don't get the good spots in programs.

 

I keep thinking of all the people in history whose interests fueled their work, not their height of academic success.

 

We are, as homeschoolers, by very definition saying to the educational establishment.... we do not agree with the way you do things. We feel that as parents, we can make better educational choices for our specific children than the "system" can make for general children. We think we can teach our kids in a better way than a person with a degree in teaching, who has jumped through whatever hoops....etc. Why does that thinking stop at a book?

 

The point I am trying to make is that while we are able to choose our materials individually, by whatever standards we adhere to, I don't understand how someone can dismiss products simply based on the completion of the ultimate "academic establishment" title, by its author.

 

I don't know why, but this is really rubbing me the wrong way. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

:iagree: 100% But it does seem that the attitude that a "Professional" is MUCH better for your high school homeschool students has become very pervasive in the last 5 years or so----leading many, many homeschool moms into serious doubting not only that they CAN do it, but should they? So hence we have the whole CC rage, dual enrollment at high schools, umbrella schools that in their advertising feed these fears and insecurities making perfectly capable moms outsource at considerable $$ or family time. Homeschooling is changing tremendously.

Edited April 30, 2011 by 4wildberrys

[Lovedtodeath]

(Bold emphasis mine.)

 

This is, in a way, what some of us stumble upon. Would you allow a self-taught doctor to cure you?

Absolutely. If a self-taught doctor has cured others that have the same affliction as I have I would prefer them to a doctor who is not as specialized and/or is tied up with bureaucracy.

[elizabeth]

(Bold emphasis mine.)

 

This is, in a way, what some of us stumble upon. Would you allow a self-taught doctor to cure you? 'cause after all, with all the available medical knowledge out there in books and on the internet, somebody who just "dealt with it" knows something more than you and might be able to help, right? Theoretically, the option exists. Yet, I think most of us would not think twice about this issue - we would like to be diagnosed and treated by people who not only "read", but also passed some pretty rigorous and detailed exams on what they read, had some pretty challenging practical experience under the supervision of people from the field, were required to take a highly systematic approach to that learning rather than be self-directed (i.e. they had to build a system of interdependent knowledge, even if it meant going through a lot of areas of not particular interest to them before they got to specialize), and there is somebody out there who guarantees for them - both for their theory and for their practice.

 

Would you allow a self-taught lawyer to take care of your case? 'cause you know, in theory, they could have learned all that is required from a good lawyer to learn, only on their own. But did they really master the principles of law, a particular way of thinking that the law requires, did they get to practice their skills under the supervision of experts and get a real experience in it, are you really willing to lose a lot, if that is a possibility, with a lawyer that nobody can formally guarantee for? I doubt.

 

You see, what is going on here is often not simply "questioning the academia". I have a love/hate relationship with "the institution" and I believe that it certainly should be questioned as an ultimate be-all end-all of knowledge in a particular area. I also disagree, professionally, with a lot of equally qualified people from my field.

However, what those discussions turn into is often a complete ditching of expertise and a sort of "I know it and can assess it just as well enough as somebody who dedicated their life to it" type of... of arrogance, frankly. Quite often it is NOT common sense talking... but a profound ignorance talking. Quite often people do not even dream of how far, far "off" they are. I bite my tongue a lot when it comes to areas where I do know something about and where these discussions occur (though I do not know many homeschoolers IRL, particularly after having moved), because in one hand, you do not wish to discourage something so noble as a quest for knowledge and people doing the best they can on it :), but on the other hand... you are so aware of the fact that, if they write an Italian curriculum, it might not end up very well. They may even hire somebody to proofread their text for the most obvious factual errors, but organization-wise, I am going to do MUCH better job. Even if they, too, "speak Italian". Sort of. Maybe.

 

A lot of times, people like that just. don't. get. how "off" they are, because they do not see the whole picture, cannot even spot some things which are technically errors, and frankly, in spite of all their good intentions, they will do a considerably worse job than if they cooperated with those hated "experts" a bit. Seriously. And I am often aware of the fact that with my very basic coverage of some areas, I might not be the best person to assess whether my kid needs this or that curriculum, this or that approach, because even though "I know my kid the best", people who know the material and are from the field, and have studied how to transfer that knowledge and which connections are essential and which not, and which saw hundreds upon hundreds of kids in practice, might actually having something worthwhile to say... and their materials, or suggestions for materials, might, in start, be better than those by non-experts. In fact, the chances are they will be better, more thorough, better organized, because in order to pass a BASIC level in something, you yourself have to be ADVANCED. In order to teach BASIC Latin well, your Latin has to be VERY good. You have to know considerably more than just that which you attempt to carry on.

 

I get that you guys, particularly Americans, cherish the idea of freedom from rigid institutions, rigid "right" ways of doing things, educational freedom, that you have almost inherent suspect towards formal expertise as the ultimate "arbiter" of anything... in a way, there is a lot of healthy, common sense in that skepticism. In most of Europe the approach is still somewhat too "servile" in front of grand credentials and titles, often without enough skepticism. But sometimes, this skepticism and relativizing simply goes too far. There are lousy "experts", institutions with lousy programs (and ever lowering standards), cheating in academia, right people not being on right positions due to political incompatibility or other "interest groups", there is nepotism, there are terribly incompetent people both teaching and graduating, there are instances of real academic dishonesty in what is happening and sometimes it seems that the whole system is falling down. But as bad as a system is, more often than not, it still guarantees something, something more than amateur experience, some forced systematic study, some level of knowledge, especially if we go to MAs and PhDs. Putting those people on the same level as an amateur is still deeply wrong in my opinion.

 

I do not discourage amateurs. They have their place in every discipline too, are a valuable addition and often have much great insights to add.

But we are talking about our children's educations, and we get only one shot at it (yes, sure, they can always learn later blabla, I get it, but you know what I mean... one shot at providing systematic fundamentals in a time when they have nothing else to do in life, with enough time and calm pace). Personally, I take it all rather seriously from that point of view. Even if I withdrew them from the institution, with a reason, I fully believe that there is also time and place for formal expertise, formal oversight and evaluation by people who are from the field, and that the basis of education must follow works that are equally "approved" on those high instances too, not only among other homeschoolers or according to my own personal feelings, which might not be academically justified at all, if we talk about areas I know nothing about.

 

It is not the lack of trust in my own capacities. It is, rather, a sort of respect for high-level learning which is also "accredited", recognized, overseen by other experts and guaranteed for. Of course that people continue to learn even after PhD, and of course that the institution is not the be-all end-all of all learning. But to put it on the same level as amateurs? I am not sure. Especially if the person teaching / evaluating is also an amateur (and you cannot really be an expert in all subjects you teach) - one more reason to rely on more formal expertise behind the materials you use.

 

So, while there is always a theoretical possibility that somebody from the outside will do a remarkable job, and while indeed it might happen now and then, I am still giving my trust to "approved" options (and, among those, those I personally find better, or people from the field advise in accordance with my DC's educational needs, etc.), partially from experience that they usually are better.

 

I am in agreement.

[Penelope]

I grew up in a Land Grant college town, big on sports. Some new superstar would be brought in, and my father, a prof, would say "early child development". Yup, that was the gladiator's major over and over.

 

LOL! Where I grew up it was "kinesiology".

 

BTW I do know a few early childhood majors who really love young children and are quite bright. ;)

Edited April 30, 2011 by Penelope

[DianeW88]

I don't know that I've ever looked for that specifically when buying a curriculum, but over the years, the curriculums that I've felt were the best and worked the best for me.....were written by people with degrees. So I guess my short answer would be yes.

[regentrude]

I can not imagine a rigorous math, science or history curriculum developed by anybody who is not an expert in that very field. Which means, different people to develop the different materials I am going to use.

A person without a college degree and a graduate degree in mathematics or physics or biology will not be able to develop materials for teaching higher math or physics or biology etc.

[regentrude]

I have to dissent here. My husband has a very adept, analytical mind and would no problem writing a very valid and thorough curriculum. He does not have a degree.

 

 

Curriculum for which grade? Through high school for a student aiming to get into a selective university? Including calculus, biochemistry, physics, foreign language, literary criticism?

Excuse me if I doubt that claim.

[kalanamak]

LOL! Where I grew up it was "kinesiology".

 

BTW I do know a few early childhood majors who really love young children and are quite bright. ;)

 

The other type famous for this major were just there looking for their "em. are. ess" degree.

[Farrar]

I'm really surprised at the number of people who just said "no" out of hand. It would not be the only factor I would consider and I'm totally open to the idea that someone without a college degree could write a decent elementary age curriculum in particular. Like others, I don't go around checking the credentials of my curriculum writers - I go on reputations of the curriculum and reviews. However, if I heard that a curriculum writer did not have a degree then that would make me pause - just like if I read a bad review or if I heard that the writer had no experience in the field.

[cathmom]

Oh yes. That is a whole 'nother boat. One needs to be careful, especially when it is not about their field (where they can tell "fakes").

 

I found this to be true when I stupidly bought Power-Glide Junior German for my children. I have an MA in German and as we got into it, I was appalled at the number of errors! I am not just talking spelling typos here, but numerous major errors (wrong gender, etc). They also tried to pass off an American as a native German speaker in the storyline (I could tell by her accent). We finally stopped using it when the program began testing on things that had never even appeared in the curriculum! However, I never investigated who had written it or what their level of education in German was. I kept thinking about the poor parents who didn't know any German, trying to learn using PG along with their children!

 

Also, one has to take into account that people tend to forget a great deal with time. Yes, someone may have a graduate degree in any given field, but if that degree was earned forty years ago, and the person hasn't worked in their field since, the degree is going to mean nothing.

 

I just read a book called Why Don't Students Like School? and it addressed this issue. Both A-students and C-students forget at the same rate. However, when they gave people algebra tests (some not having had it for 55 years), the ones who remembered the most (it was a flat line across the graph, not dropping off like the others), no matter how far back they had studied algebra, were the ones who had gotten into calculus and beyond. The author speculated that people who had studied math that much had practiced algebra enough that they effectively never forgot it. I know that my father, who graduated in the early 60s with an master's in engineering, can sit and explain mathematical concepts without even thinking about it.

 

I hope that made sense LOL!

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

I take it into consideration along with experience, both teaching either in school or the home. It's not *the* deciding factor but I'd have to say it doesn't fail to cross my mind.

[tex-mex]

I think, for the most part, you need both the degree and the experience. To many curriculums are written by people with degrees but no experience. I think the experience to probably even more important than the degree.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[cat]

I check out multiple sites for reviews on curriculum.... having a college degree doesn't necessarily mean one can write good curriculum either.

[Mergath]

I check out multiple sites for reviews on curriculum.... having a college degree doesn't necessarily mean one can write good curriculum either.

 

With the poor quality of universities in the US, it often doesn't mean that one can even write a coherent sentence. :glare:

[Joker]

With the poor quality of universities in the US, it often doesn't mean that one can even write a coherent sentence. :glare:

 

:iagree: I've recently gone back to school and this is, sadly, too true. Professors also feel a need to pass or give everyone a good grade. I should have received a B in my economics class but surprisingly was given an A. I know I didn't earn it but the professor said I was one of the "top" students". There was so much extra credit given it was ridiculous. I'm working for that piece of paper but it doesn't mean as much as I first believed.

[texasmama]

:iagree: I've recently gone back to school and this is, sadly, too true. Professors also feel a need to pass or give everyone a good grade. I should have received a B in my economics class but surprisingly was given an A. I know I didn't earn it but the professor said I was one of the "top" students". There was so much extra credit given it was ridiculous. I'm working for that piece of paper but it doesn't mean as much as I first believed.

 

This is not universally true, though I don't doubt your experience.

 

Last semester I assigned three grades of "C" in a graduate class of 14 people. One was removed from the program as a result, as he was on academic probation. He needed to be removed really. I didn't delight in this by any means, but I wasn't afraid to give the students the grade they earned. The same goes for my undergraduates this semester. I don't offer extra credit. I also take my editor's pen to their papers. ;)

[Murphy101]

I will be bold and say yes. Not only it matters to me that the materials are written by somebody with a degree, but usually by somebody with a degree in that (or at least related) field. That is that fine point between an amateur - even a good one! - and an expert... and while there are, sadly, many lousy experts with fancy credentials, most of the time I still prefer somebody "backed up" with a formal background in what they write about, reviews from people in the field, recommendations by people I know who are tied to the field, etc.

 

Same thing when it comes to my children's tutors, I want them to be taught their outsourced areas by people with academic degrees in what they teach, usually with positive recommendations from other people too.

 

I wouldn't say no out of turn, but neither do I think it a hard and fast requirement either,

 

I have to dissent here. My husband has a very adept, analytical mind and would no problem writing a very valid and thorough curriculum. He does not have a degree.

 

 

My dh too. In fact, that is EXACTLY what he has done for a living for the past 10 years. And has won numerous awards, earned certifications and so forth for it. It is one thing to know a subject. It is an entirely different thing to know how to teach it in such a way that it engages and sticks with students.

 

Personally, my dh HATES almost all the curriculum I use. He says almost none of it is written to industry standards of what a curriculum should contain. Most of it is dry, lacks solid objectives and learning goals and the nuts and bolts for the instructor.

 

Well, I AM a curriculum developer, albeit for classroom, not for homeschool, and I have to say that my college degrees haven't been all that helpful. To be blunt, very little about university music study tells you how to teach the topic to preschoolers or Kindergartners-who are the intended audience for the materials I write. And child psychology and development isn't much better. It's a lot of time spent studying theories of idealized children, most of which are trumped after you've spent a few hours with the real thing.

 

However, the 20 years I've spent teaching young children music, including a wide range of settings, populations, group sizes, and so on does. As does all the reading and research I've done over the last 20 years when faced with the "What the XXXX do I do now" situations that come up regularly when dealing with real people in the real world. And since I never would have been hired to teach group classes without the college degrees, I probably wouldn't be nearly as competent of a curriculum developer without the degrees. At least,I HOPE I'm competent...sometimes I wonder :tongue_smilie:.

 

:iagree: This is my dh's experience. He sits with experts in their field to ask questions, create objectives and learning criteria, so his information is ALWAYS very well researched. In fact, sometimes it is more up to date than what the expert consultant has learned. (rules, laws, technology, dynamics, and such can change and sometimes an expert doesn't change as vast as the industry)

 

But if those same experts had to teach what they know? They either flat out couldn't do it or couldn't do it effectively. And most of them get a deer in the headlights look if you ask them where to even start on creating a curriculum that allows someone else to teach it.

 

Curriculum for which grade? Through high school for a student aiming to get into a selective university? Including calculus, biochemistry, physics, foreign language, literary criticism?

Excuse me if I doubt that claim.

 

My dh creates curriculum for high school up through as old as an employee can be. He has developed it to be used by people without a college degree or with a masters. He has taught people with the same variation.

 

So. In our house, it is less about whether the writer of the curriculum is a expert in the field than whether they wrote a quality program based on expert knowledge they made an effort to research.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Martha

[regentrude]

My dh creates curriculum for high school up through as old as an employee can be. He has developed it to be used by people without a college degree or with a masters. He has taught people with the same variation.

 

 

 

I am curious, Martha: how does one DO that???

For instance (to stay with the subject I know something about): to understand the physics I am teaching to the undergraduates well enough that I could write a textbook with well chosen examples that illustrate precisely the point I want them to illustrate, to correctly derive all theory and equations, I need to have way more physics under my belt than what I am teaching.

To write a good calculus 1 text, I would need to be well versed in math through differential equations.

How does a person who did not major in math write a math text? And how doe s a person write multiple texts is all subjects??? I am very puzzled.

[dirty ethel rackham]

No. I am more interested in the quality of the materials than the credentials of the person creating them. I know some homeschooling moms without a college education who have created excellent, creative materials for their children. If they marketed them, I would buy them in a second. I have seen materials created by college educated homeschoolers that leave me cold. I have seen materials by college educated homeschoolers that are completely outside of their credentialed area (like an art major creating history materials) that are TOP notch.

[Mejane]

I didn't delight in this by any means, but I wasn't afraid to give the students the grade they earned. The same goes for my undergraduates this semester. I don't offer extra credit. I also take my editor's pen to their papers. ;)

 

If my dd's college classes are any indication, I think you may be an exception to the rule.