Rigor - by Circe Institute

[Capt_Uhura]

We've had several discussions about rigor on this board, this forum, and there was a recent one started by AuntPol on the General board. David Kern gave me permission to post this from the Circe Institute Newsletter.

 

"In classical schools much is made of academic rigor, and no wonder given the sloth and lack of interest in what we would call education in so much of the wider culture. Rigor, however, must be purposeful. If we don’t know what we are equipping students for, then we are like Soviet concentration camps that would have people dig up and then fill in holes to keep them busy.

 

Sometimes rigor takes less time than sloth. In fact, it always does. The difference is that right rigor gets things done and sloth doesn’t.

 

Rigor doesn’t mean, in other words, more time. It means more focus. It means imitating great works instead of silly ones. It means translating difficult challenges instead of tedious ones. It means jumping into that gap between what we know and what we don’t know, between what is easy and what is impossible, between what we understand and what is incomprehensible, and swimming for our lives. There is no other way to become a good thinker, student, writer, decision-maker, or communicator.

 

You must fail. It is the only way you can succeed.

 

What skills are being cultivated? What do you want your students to get good at? Can you help them get good at it? Are you? Are you getting the training needed to become good and to help them improve?

 

These are accountability questions that can guide us toward excellence."

[Colleen in NS]

Rigor, however, must be purposeful. If we don’t know what we are equipping students for, then we are like Soviet concentration camps that would have people dig up and then fill in holes to keep them busy.

 

Sometimes rigor takes less time than sloth. In fact, it always does. The difference is that right rigor gets things done and sloth doesn’t.

 

Rigor doesn’t mean, in other words, more time. It means more focus....

 

What skills are being cultivated? What do you want your students to get good at? Can you help them get good at it?

 

:iagree: This puts into words what I have suspected for a few years now. And what is proving to be true with my kids.

[Gratia271]

This succinctly states what I am endeavoring to provide in my home. I have never equated rigor with time investment. I also believe you must fail in order to succeed, particularly high ability students who MUST experience failure in order to grow as individuals. People who naturally have to persevere to do well are in a better position in some ways than gifted students who can sail through difficult material with minimal effort... not good preparation for life. Learning from failure is essential.

[Capt_Uhura]

This succinctly states what I am endeavoring to provide in my home. I have never equated rigor with time investment. I also believe you must fail in order to succeed, particularly high ability students who MUST experience failure in order to grow as individuals. People who naturally have to persevere to do well are in a better position in some ways than gifted students who can sail through difficult material with minimal effort... not good preparation for life. Learning from failure is essential.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[elegantlion]

Thanks for sharing. I was working on our schedule today. If ds would truly apply himself we'd do well with schedule A, if he takes more time to finish we'd to better with schedule B. The potential is there, but the choice to focus ultimately resides with him.

[Gratia271]

Thanks for sharing. I was working on our schedule today. If ds would truly apply himself we'd do well with schedule A, if he takes more time to finish we'd to better with schedule B. The potential is there, but the choice to focus ultimately resides with him.

 

I deal with this with two of my children too. My oldest is learning that daydreaming has a price tag, often meaning she does work on weekends. I will say she has improved dramatically this year. Now to work on my son. :glare:

[Colleen in NS]

Rigor, however, must be purposeful. If we don’t know what we are equipping students for, then we are like Soviet concentration camps that would have people dig up and then fill in holes to keep them busy.

 

Sometimes rigor takes less time than sloth. In fact, it always does. The difference is that right rigor gets things done and sloth doesn’t.

 

Rigor doesn’t mean, in other words, more time. It means more focus.

 

What skills are being cultivated? What do you want your students to get good at?

 

I'm just going to elaborate on my previous answer a bit, so people don't think (from my previous answer) that I have this massive, awesome program going on in my home. :lol:

 

"Rigor, however, must be purposeful." I figure out the purpose of each subject we do, and then set out to do it as efficiently as possible. Math - to equip for higher level study; to learn yet another way of seeing the world; to exercise the brain with mathematical language. Grammar - to study our language (English) and how it works; to have a way of discussing writing and improving English communication. Spelling - to have a tool in writing. Writing - to have a method of communication. Latin - to incorporate another type of brain exercise; to help us see how another culture views the world; to reinforce English. Logic - to exercise yet another part of the brain; to assist in English communication. These are each studied separately, then brought together as needed. I always keep the purposes in mind, so I can tweak and "efficientize" the lessons as needed.

 

"Sometimes rigor takes less time than sloth. In fact, it always does. " Even though in these grammar stage (my last baby is coming to the end, sniff sniff!!) and logic stage years I have taken much time to teach my kids the separate skills listed above, I am seeing now how doing that is helping them to take less time to do something. Things like writing a narration - my dd is finally at the point of being able to write a grammatically correct 3-4 sentence narration on her own (she's practicing the last section in WWE 4). I didn't spend time giving her "prompts" and then agonizing over whether or not she could write from them, or giving her suggestions about what to write, or coaxing her through writing from a prompt; I just taught her how to narrate and how to take dictation, bit by bit. And now she knows how to come up with a paragraph about what she read.

 

"Rigor doesn’t mean, in other words, more time. It means more focus." Here's one practical way I've worked that out: I let my kids do orally whatever they can - whatever I can't see a good reason to have them write out a lesson. They do their grammar lessons orally with me (except diagrams - I see good reason for them to write those out); ds does his Latin to English translations orally; they do parts of their math lessons orally; ds does some of his logic orally with me. Yes, it means more of my time, but it's no more of my time than it was a few years ago. And because it takes my time, I constantly reconsider if I should give over some of that work to them. But so far, I can't see great reasons for it. Things like grammar study will be overwith in a few more years - it's not like my kids will need practice writing out answers to grammar questions for university. Formal logic study will only take two years. They still have times when they have to write things out (English to Latin translations, some math problems, new Latin grammar forms or vocabulary, marking syllogisms in the logic book to figure out if they are valid or not, spelling and narrations - dd, typing compositions - ds, etc.), but only if I see a good reason to do so, and if they are things that they might have to write out in adult life, anyway. Like compositions of all sorts. These do get written by them. But I think they are sort of the culmination of a lot of the other stuff anyway - spelling/grammar/reading/logic/narrations/dictation/outlining all support being able to compose thoughts. So anyway. I don't think rigor means more time (unless more time means time spent reading, then sure, it takes more time - but reading through the lists in WTM, as well as the history/science library supplements is mostly a pleasure, not a burden); I agree that it means more focus.

 

"What skills are being cultivated? What do you want your students to get good at?" See above, lol. Oh, and science experimenting and discussing. And because of that, that is why I zero in on just a few skills to work on, but work on well. I don't spend three hours a week on "history," two hours a week on "science," one or two hours a week on "literature." My goal is not to have my kids process every bit of these content subjects - my goal is to have my kids learn academic skills, and to grab their interest, I get them to practice on interesting reading that they are already doing within those three content subjects.

 

OK, now I'm thinking about "time".....the time spent on what I "make" them do - what I call "required schoolwork" - is about 4ish, occasionally 5 hours (for the older if there is daydreaming while doing compositions, less for the younger) a day. I don't think my kids consider their after-lunch reading time to be "school," though it's that reading that we use for writing material. I'm quite sure, though, that if I had them writing out everything (and I could - neither has any problems with handwriting) from what we study, and if I assigned particular books for them to "process" via writing, a LOT more time would be spent schooling (and crying, and pulling out my hair, and rebelling). It might look rigourous from the outside, but on the inside it would be insanity. :lol: And unnecessary for us.

 

Alright, so I elaborated more than just "a bit." :lol:

[Luckymama]

:iagree: with Colleen. We do so much more orally than I had anticipated while planning last summer.

 

Dd thrives on discussion (guess I should have figured this out earlier, knowing how her father and siblings are lol). She wasn't getting enough discussion in school previously------as she spent all her time waiting for the rest of the class :rolleyes: Since she now is the class, we can spend however much time discussing a point as she wishes.

 

The only consistently written work she does is during math, vocabulary, science labs, one or two French translations per week, and history/literature reading. Everything else is done orally.

 

Good friends who know what dd is studying assume we are spending untold hours on school each day (their version of "rigor"). Not so. Our time is used efficiently.

[Chez J]

Yes, I agree. I consider rigor to be quality challenging, not quantity challenging. Another good thread for helping one stay focused on the right goals!

 

My personal "rigor" challenge right now is choosing our literature and history programs. For example, I love CLE Reading because it teaches literary analysis in a non-painful way. :001_smile: But, I am wanting to move to greater discussion and writing. I have Teaching the Classics and Grammar of Poetry, both of which will cover the same material as CLE. I'm thinking about getting IEW Am. History Vol 2 as that teaches the essay. But, "I don't want to drop" CLE because it has been so good to us. And, dd LOVES it! Keeping it, I think, will put us in the quantity camp. It is high quality to be sure. But, I need to let go of something, or I'll have too much quantity. I tell myself "there are only 5 LUs, so that's only one semester. But, am I choosing repetitive materials that ultimately are redundant?" That's my current internal debate.

 

His quote about jumping into the gap between what we know and don't know is exactly where I am. I KNOW CLE. The other is unknown to me. But, I think it's time to step it up a bit and jump into the gap.

 

Thanks for this post. It is helping me think and focus on my goals.

[elegantlion]

Great conversation!

 

My ds had some writing delays, we're still playing catch-up. We've always done much of our work orally. He has great critical thinking skills, but didn't know how to transfer those thoughts to paper.

 

A few years ago, without realizing the implications, I decided to not let his weaknesses overtake his strengths. In a typical school environment he would have probably been in remedial classes for writing and reading. Most of the focus would be on correcting those deficits and not building his thinking skills.

 

We approached it by plugging away at the writing and reading, but moving ahead orally where the skills allowed. We did informal logic mostly orally. We discuss literature and philosophy with little written work.

 

This year and next we will focus on adding the writing component to some of this. I'm still working on the balance so we move at his pace.

 

I feel fortunate that we live in a state where the oversight doesn't require a lot of written work. That would add more pressure.

 

I don't know if I consider ourselves rigorous in ALL subjects, but I can see the benefits of doing a little each day. I think the logic stage/middle school is a great time to get ahead or catch up.

[amtmcm]

Yes, I agree. I consider rigor to be quality challenging, not quantity challenging. Another good thread for helping one stay focused on the right goals!

 

My personal "rigor" challenge right now is choosing our literature and history programs. For example, I love CLE Reading because it teaches literary analysis in a non-painful way. :001_smile: But, I am wanting to move to greater discussion and writing. I have Teaching the Classics and Grammar of Poetry, both of which will cover the same material as CLE. I'm thinking about getting IEW Am. History Vol 2 as that teaches the essay. But, "I don't want to drop" CLE because it has been so good to us. And, dd LOVES it! Keeping it, I think, will put us in the quantity camp. It is high quality to be sure. But, I need to let go of something, or I'll have too much quantity. I tell myself "there are only 5 LUs, so that's only one semester. But, am I choosing repetitive materials that ultimately are redundant?" That's my current internal debate.

 

His quote about jumping into the gap between what we know and don't know is exactly where I am. I KNOW CLE. The other is unknown to me. But, I think it's time to step it up a bit and jump into the gap.

 

Thanks for this post. It is helping me think and focus on my goals.

 

I don't necessarily think CLE Reading will be redundant to Teaching the Classics and Grammar of Poetry. TTC and GOP will encourage discussion and take your DD deeper in analysis and poetry while allowing her the opportunity to apply what she's learning in CLE. . And CLE Reading also covers Vocabulary and Critical Thinking. I wouldn't use CLE Reading on top of another vocabulary program - that would be redundant, IMO.

 

If you use CLE 2-3 days per week all year, and use TTC 2-3 days per week for one semester and GOP 2-3 days per week for one semester, I think they would all complement each other nicely. Or use TTC one year and GOP the next year. I just wanted to make the suggestion since you like CLE Reading and it's a great program! We use it, and my DD still reads whole books and we discuss them - but I don't consider that redundant. CLE Reading is much more than just Lit Analysis. :)

 

My 2 cents.

[Chez J]

I don't necessarily think CLE Reading will be redundant to Teaching the Classics and Grammar of Poetry. TTC and GOP will encourage discussion and take your DD deeper in analysis and poetry while allowing her the opportunity to apply what she's learning in CLE. . And CLE Reading also covers Vocabulary and Critical Thinking. I wouldn't use CLE Reading on top of another vocabulary program - that would be redundant, IMO.

 

If you use CLE 2-3 days per week all year, and use TTC 2-3 days per week for one semester and GOP 2-3 days per week for one semester, I think they would all complement each other nicely. Or use TTC one year and GOP the next year. I just wanted to make the suggestion since you like CLE Reading and it's a great program! We use it, and my DD still reads whole books and we discuss them - but I don't consider that redundant. CLE Reading is much more than just Lit Analysis. :)

 

My 2 cents.

 

OH THANK YOU! Yes, CLE reading is much more than just lit analysis. That's another reason why we love it.

 

Now to look at your planning schedule. You make it look like it will work!

[Beth in SW WA]

We've had several discussions about rigor on this board, this forum, and there was a recent one started by AuntPol on the General board. David Kern gave me permission to post this from the Circe Institute Newsletter.

 

Thanks for sharing! :)

[Ester Maria]

I do not know anyone who would describe their education as rigorous while at the same time meaning a lot of busywork that is not particularly meaningful. Whenever that argument is brought up (IRL), people always stress proceeding to more advanced content, covering more in terms of breadth and context for what is done, mental self-discipline, the lack of fit-oriented schooling, using "real" materials rather than significantly dumbed down ones as are many today, etc.

 

I always marvel here at negative associations people even might have with the word rigor, at the fact that somebody finds it important to even specifically write about that. Busywork for its own sake is not rigor by any stretch of imagination - it is a waste of time, and a cognitively dangerous one (since in working too much "by the scheme" there is a danger in becoming too dependent on that scheme in terms of thinking).

[angela in ohio]

I do not know anyone who would describe their education as rigorous while at the same time meaning a lot of busywork that is not particularly meaningful. Whenever that argument is brought up (IRL), people always stress proceeding to more advanced content, covering more in terms of breadth and context for what is done, mental self-discipline, the lack of fit-oriented schooling, using "real" materials rather than significantly dumbed down ones as are many today, etc.

 

I do know several people like this IRL. Their poor dc are struggling through all sorts of advanced work beyond their abilities, giant impressive busywork projects, etc., all so that mom may say that her dc are smart and her homeschool is rigorous. (Everyone knows exacly what they are doing, because mom shows it off at every opportunity.) And as I said in another thread, it seems they were often trained and worked as classroom teachers.

 

As to the original article... I try to tell people that rigorous parenting actually takes less time, too, but they often don't get it. I watch my db or dbil struggle trying to get their dc to listen to them, arguing and fussing, and I wonder how they think it can be harder to just be an active, purposeful parent up front instead. :confused: It's the same concept.

 

And I think this is key: "Are you getting the training needed to become good and to help them improve?" It was understanding that my dc would be what I was, have what I had, learn what I knew, that helped me start working to be a better homeschooling parent.

[Ester Maria]

I do know several people like this IRL. Their poor dc are struggling through all sorts of advanced work beyond their abilities, giant impressive busywork projects, etc., all so that mom may say that her dc are smart and her homeschool is rigorous. (Everyone knows exacly what they are doing, because mom shows it off at every opportunity.) And as I said in another thread, it seems they were often trained and worked as classroom teachers.

I don't think that struggling is necessarily bad, especially with advanced children. Nobody will consider you a bad parent if your children struggle with reading at 7, but if they struggle with Latin, they will - but it might be essentially the same situation. Maybe the second child is simply there already and growing through challenges that are more on his own level of cognitive sophistication, which is higher than that of typical children. It is not necessarily indicative of a mental abuse, bad education or anything of the kind - not everything has to come smoothly and with zero struggle to children and many parents prefer to up the challenges if their children are there already regarding "grade level" or "age appropriate" skills and content. I see nothing wrong about that.

 

I do see, on the other hand, MUCH wrong in forcing "higher order thinking skills" before students are ready for that, disregarding the child's cognitive development, making the school the ultimate be-all end-all of all learning and allowing it to occupy so much time that it allows no time for any meaningful acitivites outside of it, etc. And there are people, IMO, who cross that line... whether they home educate their children or have their children attend schools that are beyond their actual capacities and then have them struggle there and give up on non-academic life just to keep up with the Joneses.

[angela in ohio]

I don't think that struggling is necessarily bad, especially with advanced children. Nobody will consider you a bad parent if your children struggle with reading at 7, but if they struggle with Latin, they will - but it might be essentially the same situation. Maybe the second child is simply there already and growing through challenges that are more on his own level of cognitive sophistication, which is higher than that of typical children. It is not necessarily indicative of a mental abuse, bad education or anything of the kind - not everything has to come smoothly and with zero struggle to children and many parents prefer to up the challenges if their children are there already regarding "grade level" or "age appropriate" skills and content. I see nothing wrong about that.

 

I do see, on the other hand, MUCH wrong in forcing "higher order thinking skills" before students are ready for that, disregarding the child's cognitive development, making the school the ultimate be-all end-all of all learning and allowing it to occupy so much time that it allows no time for any meaningful acitivites outside of it, etc. And there are people, IMO, who cross that line... whether they home educate their children or have their children attend schools that are beyond their actual capacities and then have them struggle there and give up on non-academic life just to keep up with the Joneses.

 

I make my kiddos (and myself) work at the point of stretching/struggling often, but in an effort for them to learn.

 

I am talking (in my pp) more about children who are completing workbooks that are grade levels ahead. They figure out the pattern, or mom helps them, and they fill in all the blanks. When it comes time to actually produce a thought or compute something, though, they can't. There is a big thing here for some reason with putting dc a few grades ahead in A Beka workbooks... all day, everyday, nothing but too-hard A Beka workbooks. :001_huh: And you can try to talk them out of it, try to save the poor dc, but then "you don't understand how advanced their dc are."

 

Anyway, you said you don't know anyone, and I was just trying to say that there really are people who think that (and who could use the article.)

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Angela, I know a lady who does that very thing. Her son just did two complete years of Abeka curriculum in 9 months. He is so burnt out and fried, but he (and she) wanted him to gain two grade levels so it was nose to the grindstone.

 

I think that sounds absolutely dreadful.

 

If the boy is capable enough and motivated enough to study for six to eight hours a day, for pity's sake, give him something worth studying.

 

(But even the Abeka thing is better than shoving kids through Lifepacs or Ace Paces or whatever they're called, or Gothard's wisdom booklets.)

[Mommyfaithe]

Yes, I agree. I consider rigor to be quality challenging, not quantity challenging. Another good thread for helping one stay focused on the right goals!

 

My personal "rigor" challenge right now is choosing our literature and history programs. For example, I love CLE Reading because it teaches literary analysis in a non-painful way. :001_smile: But, I am wanting to move to greater discussion and writing. I have Teaching the Classics and Grammar of Poetry, both of which will cover the same material as CLE. I'm thinking about getting IEW Am. History Vol 2 as that teaches the essay. But, "I don't want to drop" CLE because it has been so good to us. And, dd LOVES it! Keeping it, I think, will put us in the quantity camp. It is high quality to be sure. But, I need to let go of something, or I'll have too much quantity. I tell myself "there are only 5 LUs, so that's only one semester. But, am I choosing repetitive materials that ultimately are redundant?" That's my current internal debate.

 

His quote about jumping into the gap between what we know and don't know is exactly where I am. I KNOW CLE. The other is unknown to me. But, I think it's time to step it up a bit and jump into the gap.

 

Thanks for this post. It is helping me think and focus on my goals.

 

Must a little idea. I also love CLE, but see no reason why it needs to be done in writing....I do have the light units, but we tend to do almost all of the Reading orally. I may have dd write a narration of the story, or dictate the memory verse, But we use CLE as a jump off point for our discussions, no crying, no hair pulling...and I get to keep the light units for the next kid. :D

 

Faithe

[Chez J]

Must a little idea. I also love CLE, but see no reason why it needs to be done in writing....I do have the light units, but we tend to do almost all of the Reading orally. I may have dd write a narration of the story, or dictate the memory verse, But we use CLE as a jump off point for our discussions, no crying, no hair pulling...and I get to keep the light units for the next kid. :D

 

Faithe

 

Oh, no crying or hair pulling here. My dd LOVES CLE, which is why I don't want to let go! LOL!

[1Togo]

I wrote a post, and then I deleted it. Now, I am going to ask a question. What does Mr. Kern mean when he says that rigor always takes less time than sloth? In our home, rigorous work seems to take lots of time.

Edited May 23, 2011 by 1Togo

[Chez J]

In housekeeping, I see an example of sloth/rigor. If I don't put things away (am slothful), then I end up needing an entire afternoon to clean up the house. If I'd just take 1 minute to put away the darned things after I use them (rigor in cleanliness), then I'd have that afternoon free.

[elegantlion]

I wrote a post, and then I deleted it. Now, I am going to ask a question. What does Mr. Kern mean when he says that rigor always takes less time than sloth? In our home, rigorous work seems to take lots of time.

 

I read it as rigor takes focus. If you are focused, know what you need to do and do, it will take less time. IMO, it's a skill that needs to be finessed. Some kids are naturally focused, my ds is more distractable. He'll take an hour to complete an assignment that should take forty minutes.

 

Another component I see is my knowledge of the subject matter. For myself, I need to know what the purpose of a particular assignment. Again, I feel like I HAVE to understand the progression of skill or content to help him apply focus. Hopefully he'll pick up some of this on his own in the next year. I'm not stating this as clearly as it is in my head. :glare:

[Ester Maria]

I wrote a post, and then I deleted it. Now, I am going to ask a question. What does Mr. Kern mean when he says that rigor always takes less time than sloth? In our home, rigorous work seems to take lots of time.

A proper education certainly takes a lot of time investment and it is not good to do "shortcuts" to get there. However, it ultimately boils up to a certain number of hours of productive work... and then the rest is dawdling, taking breaks, kindnapping the baby from mom, FB, sneaking your own interests into school time, drawing, etc. What is supposed to be, for example, 5 hours of focused effort easily turns into 8 and 10 and even more, if one spreads one's energy and just sloths through the day. Even if you work 7-8 as a norm, if you sloth through it, it will take literally all day. Focus is always more efficient than dawdling, multitasking, etc.

[Ester Maria]

They figure out the pattern, or mom helps them, and they fill in all the blanks. When it comes time to actually produce a thought or compute something, though, they can't. There is a big thing here for some reason with putting dc a few grades ahead in A Beka workbooks... all day, everyday, nothing but too-hard A Beka workbooks. :001_huh:

What is the point of it if the child cannot perform on that level? Nonsense. :001_huh:

[LNC]

Are we equating workbook curriculums with time filling sloth? Exactly how does a student "figure out a pattern" to fill in his mind-numbing Abeka workbooks accurately anyway? Workbooks, particularly CLE in the grammar and logic stages, have been a tremendous blessing to our homeschool.

Edited May 24, 2011 by LNC

[coffeefreak]

:bigear:

[justamouse]

Great topic and thank you for taking the time to ask permission and post it here.

 

This succinctly states what I am endeavoring to provide in my home. I have never equated rigor with time investment. I also believe you must fail in order to succeed, particularly high ability students who MUST experience failure in order to grow as individuals. People who naturally have to persevere to do well are in a better position in some ways than gifted students who can sail through difficult material with minimal effort... not good preparation for life. Learning from failure is essential.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I do not know anyone who would describe their education as rigorous while at the same time meaning a lot of busywork that is not particularly meaningful. Whenever that argument is brought up (IRL), people always stress proceeding to more advanced content, covering more in terms of breadth and context for what is done, mental self-discipline, the lack of fit-oriented schooling, using "real" materials rather than significantly dumbed down ones as are many today, etc.

 

I always marvel here at negative associations people even might have with the word rigor, at the fact that somebody finds it important to even specifically write about that. Busywork for its own sake is not rigor by any stretch of imagination - it is a waste of time, and a cognitively dangerous one (since in working too much "by the scheme" there is a danger in becoming too dependent on that scheme in terms of thinking).

 

Sometimes I think that people equate rigor with a lot of time. Quantity = Quality which is a pervasive American disease.

[coffeefreak]

So then, what is rigor for one child may or may not be rigor for another. A Beka was busy work and a struggle for my oldest, but for my youngest, it is rigor. She is challenged, she learns, she retains, but she does not take hours to do it. Spelling was busywork for my oldest (always knew how to spell every word on day one)so we abandoned it to focus on other things. DD did not lose anything by not doing it for 2 years, and then, it became rigor when it focused more on vocabulary than spelling.

 

Am I understanding this right?

[Andrew Kern]

. And there are people, IMO, who cross that line... whether they home educate their children or have their children attend schools that are beyond their actual capacities and then have them struggle there and give up on non-academic life just to keep up with the Joneses.

 

I just read this thread and wanted to say thanks to you all for engaging with the idea. In all that you wrote there was an abundance of wisdom, and I think what Ester Maria wrote at the end of the post I've quoted might go to the very heart of it.

 

False rigor, it seems to me, is driven by this yearning to keep up with the Joneses. There must be other drives too, but this seems like the heart and soul of what distracts us from doing what is best for our children.

 

True rigor, it seems to me, is driven by a love of virtue and wisdom that leads us to "get wisdom, and with all your getting, get understanding."

 

Thanks Ester Maria and thanks to all of you for helping me see this ever more clearly.