Isn't the Well Trained Mind meant for rigorous studies?

[Joan in GE]

How do you define "rigorous?"

 

This is a good point.

 

I wanted to collect all the different ways people have defined it so far - as it is hard to talk without common definitions. But I've got to edit my husband's paper and the deadline is in an hour. But maybe someone could do it for me...

 

More later,

Joan

[justamouse]

:iagree:

 

I value the diversity of opinions on these boards. I appreciate the open discussions. Sometimes certain opinions bother me, but I back off and take a breather. After all, if everyone thought like I do, coming to the boards would be pointless! :D

 

I am not a classical homeschooler. Wait...maybe I am. I am certainly a draconian homeschooler, but I am too math/sciency to be a "true" classical homeschooler. But wait, my kids all study Latin and Greek and are bibliophiles. No, I can't possibly be a classical homeschooler -- I don't reference WTM often enough. But since we do tend to blend history and literature studies, maybe I am. No, we spend too much time on math to delve into the humanities the way classical homeschoolers should. But I do require my kids to write a lot, we discuss everything, and my kids are pretty comfortable with "verbal" standardized tests. But no one in the family has read Herodatus, so we can't possibly be bona fide classical homeschoolers..........

 

And what does a classical education look like for a future music major? What does it look like for a kid who is entering a trade after high school? What does it look like for a kid who pours untold hours into the company he has founded and so needs to get his academics done "efficiently"?

 

Hmmm.........

 

 

:iagree:

 

I love the rigorous homeschoolers and I wish they would post more. But I understand why they don't.

 

I don't often post what we do, but when I look around me, I am a total draconian homeschooler. One who is schooling through the summer. :D (Though I do believe in a bit of late start). Though I've got two in HS, I have 5 more to go and I still need all the wisdom I can get.

Edited June 24, 2011 by justamouse

[Joan in GE]

About hybrid mode - when I try it, there is a little box that goes so far to the right that I have to scroll and scroll to the right to get to the part with an arrow to be able to move down...Does anyone have that problem and know how to solve it?

 

Thanks,

Joan

[Enough]

Exactly.

 

We've stuck relatively close to the WTM model for several years. We used different materials, but followed what I perceived to be the intent of the method. And I'm glad we did. I believe these years of classical homeschooling have given him a wonderful foundation.

 

For my son, though, preparing to move into high school studies, we need to chart a different path.

 

As I recall, TWTM refers to the rhetoric years as being a time to specialize. For my student, this particular student, I believe that loosening the reigns will give him the time and emotional energy to fall in love with learning again.

 

I have nothing against a rigorous education. I just think there are lots of ways to get one.

 

And I have nothing but admiration for parents who work hard to provide the kind of education that will best benifit their children. If it's the WTM approach straight through from preschool to graduation, that's wonderful!

 

For a lot of us, though, we've been here a long time and feel comfortable and supported by the community, even if we're not marching along the same path. I, personally, have never found another board or in-person group that I felt was more valuable.

 

How do you define "rigorous?"

 

For example, if next year, as planned, I opt not to plan a specific curricula for my son for a few subjects and, instead, give him guidelines about what he should accomplish, how is that not rigorous?

 

If, instead of handing him a list of books he must read and assignments he must do (which he might not like or absorb because he's not paying attention), I tell him he must read an equal number of books of his choice and do an equal number of assignments chosen from a list of ideas (which may result in him learning and remembering significantly more information), why is the second less "rigorous?"

 

I'll grant you it's not "draconian," since I will have stopped trying to control his education. But I really do fail to see how it's less rigorous.

 

Really wise words here. I am not a veteran HSer, so perhaps my opinion is not as valuable as others' ;), but I think what you are doing and what you plan to do is absolutely, 100% rigorous.

 

I'll echo your call for a definition of rigor.

[Joan in GE]

I do think that it helps if a post or a signature line indicates someone's inclinations. There is no way to "know" everyone on the board. Half the time I am only halfway paying attention to poster names at all. I don't think you can maintain philosophical points of view with hundreds or thousands of active posters.

 

For example, my thoughts about "good enough" on a math curriculum question would be very different if I know someone's kid wants to attend a highly competitive college and major in science and/or engineering, rather than being a major theatre fan who wants to finish high school and try their luck on stage stage, or study several languages and pursue a career in diplomacy. The second two might warrant a "sure, that's probably good enough" while the first one might deserve a gentle "I don't think that will get you where you want to go" (and the last one might need some questions along the line of "do you need the higher level math to get into the more select school you want to study geo political affairs").

 

 

As other posters have noted in various ways, people can be rigorous in one area and less so in another... and differently for different children...

 

So maybe for the different children - besides or instead of the materials used, there could be the direction the child/young person is headed...

 

Eg if scientifically minded - and here someone with better verbal skills than I can surely give some better ideas, so I'm just throwing this out to start the ball rolling..."possible future engineer"

 

(Have people already discussed this in other threads and I didn't see it?)

 

eg if language oriented - possible future linguist/translator, etc.

 

Then presumably the parent is doing their best to support/stimulate/intentionally guide, etc that student in that area...

 

And one could presume that materials they were suggesting for that area were more "rigorous" whereas other suggestions might fall into another category.

 

It's true that some posters give more background than others so it is easier to identify where they are coming from with their advice...

 

There's advice that gives the maximum possible, advice that gives the average for the subjects that have to be done but there is not much interest, and then box checking advice...and it would be helpful to know which category the advice falls under.

 

Sometimes thread starters say what they are looking for very clearly. Sometimes they are trying to figure out what they are looking for...

 

As people say - it is a diverse group...

 

Julie - I do have to go to bed, but did want to say that I think there is a big difference between the TT and the STG books... TT has a large following but I can't ever remember seeing one for the STG books. I confess it was me who did not have good things to say about STG (you probably know and were being discreet which is kind), but I do think SWB is open to discussions about the materials she has chosen and changes position when she gets enough feedback - at least for some materials she has...that's not your point maybe but I'm too tired to think clearly.

 

So goodnight everyone...

[tex-mex]

... as one whose wish for a (somewhat) classical/rigorous education had to bow to the reality of who my children are:

 

1) I agree with you entirely.

 

2) I don't actually think there are any other comparable *high school* level discussion boards. An attempt was made to start one a few years back, but I believe it fizzled.

 

3) I actually 'self-censor' my comments based on a awareness of the issue.

 

4) However, due to my personal experience, I can get a little huffy/defensive at what I sometimes perceive as an arrogant, condescending tone toward those who may be just doing the best they can with what they have. (Note: I didn't sense any of that in the OP or follow-ups so far, but frankly, I'm expecting it to appear! ;))

 

5) Finally, I've wondered if we should consider labeling our posts classical or non-classical because there is such a diversity on the board.

 

6) Ooops! Thought of one more point... I, at least, am very aware that I am not the target audience of this board, but let me tell you that I have been tremendously blessed by being here (specifically the high school level); my children's education and my sanity has been very positively impacted by all the help and advice I have gleaned/received.

Many thanks to the 'classicals' among you for sharing your wonderful resource!

 

Debbie

Nicely stated.

 

I taught for years at a K-8 Charter School with a classical RIGOROUS emphasis and loved it. Finally had the opportunity to homeschool my special needs son with my beloved Saxon Math and other materials from my charter teaching years -- only to discover his learning style was NOT classical, by any means! ;) So, we tweaked the learning to suit my son's needs. And he is doing great.

 

I love the boards! I love the valuable info and sharing. So much to learn. The only issue I have (coming from one who was a full time public school teacher) is with those who look down or are arrogant in their views that the way they homeschool is THE only way or methodology. After so many years (1988-2004) teaching (and now homeschooling since 2004) -- I have seen the "pendulum" for education swing back and forth with what helps learning best. I think every student is different. You have to match learning styles with curriculum, basically.

Edited June 24, 2011 by tex-mex

[Mommy22alyns]

Every group I've ever been a part of, online as well as in real life, has always eventually expressed the view that the current members pale in comparison to those from the good old days.

 

 

So very true.

[Nan in Mass]

Can you go around the top box by moving your cursor over the white part on the side and then into the bottom section with the posts? That box is the part that shows how the posts are threaded. It also shows you which ones are new (new are orange). I scroll down the top box to see which posts I haven't read yet and who has posted under whom, then I click on the post I want to read. When I am done reading it, I hit the back button in the upper left hand corner of the screen to look at my original display of the post so I can once again see what I haven't yet read. I hope that makes sense. If there are a lot of posts I haven't read yet, I drag the cursor around the top box (rather than through it) and into the bottom section and scroll down through the full posts.

HTH

-Nan

Edited June 24, 2011 by Nan in Mass

[Hunter]

 

I was on the old forum and here's my little theory: When I started homeschooling in 2002, Vegsource was "the big" forum, and then Vegsource got all wacko about banning people and posting lots of rules about what you could post where, so folks migrated around the web to different places & after the sand was sifted, this forum turned out to be the new "big" forum, rather than just the "WTM" forum. And SWB didn't seem to mind, and her sales continued to grow. That's my un-proven hypothesis :)

Julie

 

Remember the ban on talking about eating meat on vegsource :-) All omnivores were encouraged to leave by the hardcore vegans who bemoaned the old days :-)

 

I'm not a vegan and I'm not a neoclassicist, but I go where the crowd is, as long as the list owner welcomes my type. If you google almost any curriculum, Google will bring up Amazon, CBD and TWTM every time. Google links everyone here for what they are searching for information about, so of course they read and post :-0 And in the meantime, they hear about TWTM and most of them buy it. It's all win, win for most everyone.

 

How would it serve hardcore TWTM users if this became a quieter board? Is it harmful to have to see and hear other opinions? This isn't an e-mail list that clogs up your mailbox. Just scan and skip, what isn't interesting or relevant.

 

I didn't read the whole thread. Excuse me if I've said something out of context or repetitive.

[Brigid in NC]

It seems like SWB wrote her books to propose to those interested a path, for them or their children, to a "well trained mind"...

 

I began homeschooling when my older ds was in the second grade. I "discovered" The Well Trained Mind in the summer before he started fourth grade. It is not an exaggeration to say that The Well Trained Mind transformed the way I planned and taught. It guided and empowered me -- and I will always be grateful for the book.

 

I carefully followed SWB's suggestions in elementary and middle school, (even going so far as to hunt down the elusive, out-of-print Kingfisher history text). I'm sure I'm not the oldest of the old Well Trained Mind-ers -- but I'm pretty close. I feel like Susan Wise Bauer "taught" me to be the teacher I have become -- giving me the confidence to plan a different path for my two ds's in the high school years.

 

Some of us follow TWTM and some of us don't -- or have moved on. I'm thankful for the wealth of information posted here every day as we each chart our own path for our childrens' well trained minds. :)

Edited June 25, 2011 by Brigid in NC

[WishboneDawn]

Wishbone - The hive coined the word "Draconian Homeschooler" to meet this need. There is a social group, but I don't know how active it is. There are other social groups that you might like, also. If you click on the communities button along the top, you can get to a list of all the social groups (click show all).

 

 

Thanks Nan!

[Corraleno]

How do you define "rigorous?"

 

That's exactly the problem, isn't it — everyone defines "rigorous" differently, and then it's compounded by the equally wide range of definitions for "classical." Plus, for some people these terms refer to content and for others they refer to method, and even within those applications there are variations.

 

Depending on the poster, "rigorous" may mean...

1. ...covering a specific body of knowledge as defined by a specific person/tradition (WTM, LCC, parent's own education, etc.).

2. ...using the most challenging materials available (if your child needs/wants "lighter" materials, that's OK — just don't call it "rigorous").

3. ...using the most challenging materials that work for your child.

4. ...doing more than the local unschoolers and PS kids do.

5. ...parents choose the curriculum and kids do it whether they like it or not; letting the student choose the materials/method is not rigorous.

6. ...delving deeply into a subject so that students have to really think, analyze, and apply what they know; how they acquire that knowledge is up to individual parents.

 

"Classical" may mean...

1. ...using WTM-recommended materials or methods — even if you just do Latin roots and don't read any classical literature except the Odyssey, you can still call yourself "classical" because that's what WTM is.

2. ...studying classical languages, literature, and history, regardless of how other subjects are approached.

3. ...doing chronological history combined with a Great Books study.

4. ...applying logic, critical analysis, and Socratic questioning to all subjects, regardless of the curriculum used.

 

There are so many other ways of defining and applying those terms, and so many possible combinations. Do parents who follow WTM methods, but use the "easiest" options for each subject, still count as "rigorous classical" homeschoolers? Or are they "nonrigorous classical" homeschoolers? Is that an oxymoron? What about a student who's studying Latin, doing AoPS math, and reading Herodotus for fun, but doing interest-led history and science and not doing any of it "the WTM way"? Is that "semi-rigorous, semi-classical" homeschooling? Does using relaxed methods with college-level content count as more or less rigorous than outlining a HS textbook and doing every review question and chapter test? Are quizzes and worksheets more rigorous — but less classical — than Socratic questioning? And does it really matter how it's labeled, if it works?

 

Google links everyone here for what they are searching for information about, so of course they read and post :-0 And in the meantime, they hear about TWTM and most of them buy it. It's all win, win for most everyone.

 

How would it serve hardcore TWTM users if this became a quieter board? Is it harmful to have to see and hear other opinions? This isn't an e-mail list that clogs up your mailbox. Just scan and skip, what isn't interesting or relevant.

:iagree:

I'm not sure how it would serve SWB's interests to restrict the board to those who already own and use her materials, rather than opening it up to a diverse group of homeschoolers, many of whom will end up buying her materials after hanging out here for a while. And even those who don't buy/use WTM materials often have things to contribute to the community, in terms of ideas, resources, professional knowledge, etc.

 

Jackie

[Mom0012]

Remember that SWB also wrote SOTW and FLL, and folks can use her materials without following TWTM. (For instance, MFW uses 3 years of SOTW, 1 of her Activity Books, and often MFW users also purchase her CDs and Student Pages, so they may be bigger customers than folks who just purchase TWTM.) Folks on this particular board may also use TWEM for themselves, or might just use parts of TWTM to choose curriculum, without using all of it. I do see folks post who've never read any SWB materials (and I bristle when folks post that they hate one of her books), but there still may be more who do use things she's published than you realize.

 

Personally, I haven't seen "rigor" given a bad name, but woah it feels like "non-rigorous" has been thrown out as a derogatory label all over the place -- even cast upon things that SWB recommends in TWTM (Writing Strands, TT, Science Guides, etc.). I see the defensiveness that ensues not as "against rigor" but as "in favor of the idea that rigor can be achieved in a different form." But maybe that's just me being defensive of the way I teach, which I feel is "rigorous" in terms of fighting the good fight to get maximum education into my children, but I pretty much left textbooks in the public schools when we came home.

 

I was on the old forum and here's my little theory: When I started homeschooling in 2002, Vegsource was "the big" forum, and then Vegsource got all wacko about banning people and posting lots of rules about what you could post where, so folks migrated around the web to different places & after the sand was sifted, this forum turned out to be the new "big" forum, rather than just the "WTM" forum. And SWB didn't seem to mind, and her sales continued to grow. That's my un-proven hypothesis :)

 

Julie

 

I totally agree with this. If we are using SWB's definition of rigor or classical education, why are so many of the programs she recommends considered inadequate by the board in general -- TT and IEW come to mind? I started out on the old board as well and I see more and more judgement about how others are educating their children. With the exception of a few "golden" programs like Singapore Math, Tapestry of Grace and R&S English, it seems like nothing is good enough. Programs that used to be considered solid, are now subpar.

 

I work very hard to give my children the best education I possibly can. I spend hours thinking about it, researching it, and implementing it. But their education is not the only thing that is matters in their lives. Their abilities, overall happiness and my relationship with them weighs in on what path I choose for them. Education is important but it is not everything.

 

Lisa

Edited June 25, 2011 by LisaTheresa

[stripe]

Personally, I haven't seen "rigor" given a bad name, but woah it feels like "non-rigorous" has been thrown out as a derogatory label all over the place -- even cast upon things that SWB recommends in TWTM (Writing Strands, TT, Science Guides, etc.).

And my copies of WTM even include references to outsourcing (online classes, college classes, tutors) !

 

I hate the word rigor. It really does mean harsh inflexibility and severity.

Edited June 25, 2011 by stripe

[Stacy in NJ]

I totally agree with this. If we are using SWB's definition of rigor or classical education, why are so many of the programs she recommends considered inadequate by the board in general -- TT and IEW come to mind? I started out on the old board as well and I see more and more judgement about how others are educating their children. With the exception of a few "golden" programs like Singapore Math, Tapestry of Grace and R&S English, it seems like nothing is good enough. Programs that used to be considered solid, are now subpar.

 

I work very hard to give my children the best education I possibly can. I spend hours thinking about it, researching it, and implementing it. But their education is not the only thing that is matters in their lives. Their abilities, overall happiness and my relationship with them weighs in on what path I choose for them. Education is important but it is not everything.

 

Lisa

 

I use several of the resources and methods recommended in TWTM, particularly with regards to writing. I don't follow others. I do what's "rigorous" for my children and my family with a close eye on who they are as individuals, their abilities and interests. I know enough now, after having homeschooled for 7+ years, to know I don't know or understand anyone elses circumstances as well as I understand my own. Whether or not I call myself classical or rigorous just isn't all that important to me.

[Brigid in NC]

I use several of the resources and methods recommended in TWTM, particularly with regards to writing. I don't follow others. I do what's "rigorous" for my children and my family with a close eye on who they are as individuals, their abilities and interests. I know enough now, after having homeschooled for 7+ years, to know I don't know or understand anyone elses circumstances as well as I understand my own. Whether or not I call myself classical or rigorous just isn't all that important to me.

:iagree:

[Stacy in NJ]

an online class for language learning. The first edition of TWTM mentions Friday as the day they visited their math tutor.

 

And my copies of WTM even include references to outsourcing (online classes, college classes, tutors) !

I hate the word rigor. It really does mean harsh inflexibility and severity.

[Aquinas Academy]

I consider myself a rigorous homeschooler (and the word doesn't bother me ;)). I very much enjoy threads abour rigor on these boards, although in some ways we stray from a neo-classical education as SWB defines it.

 

I have enough homeschoolers in my day-to-day life who "didn't get to school today" and when I come here, I want to be inspired to a higher ideal.

 

ETA: tried to join the Draconian Homeschoolers group and it's not clear to me how to become a member (haven't joined a group before!)

There's usually a button saying "Join this group", but the Draconian Homeschoolers didn't seem to have one. Anyone know how to join? :bigear: I love the diversity of the boards, but at the same time I'd like to be part of a more draconian group.

[justamouse]

There's usually a button saying "Join this group", but the Draconian Homeschoolers didn't seem to have one. Anyone know how to join? :bigear: I love the diversity of the boards, but at the same time I'd like to be part of a more draconian group.

:iagree:

[Elizabeth in WA]

There's usually a button saying "Join this group", but the Draconian Homeschoolers didn't seem to have one. Anyone know how to join? :bigear: I love the diversity of the boards, but at the same time I'd like to be part of a more draconian group.

 

:iagree:

[Mahelle]

Probably I'm going to get tomatoes thrown and maybe I'm just feeling grumpy with too much paperwork....and maybe I'm misunderstanding because I don't read every word in posts dealing with this...

 

It seems like SWB wrote her books to propose to those interested a path, for them or their children, to a "well trained mind".....

 

 

I'm not a rigorous homeschooler by anyone's definition, but I certainly hope that all you rigorous (or Draconian) homeschoolers keep posting and don't get discouraged by resistance. I never post here, but I visit to be inspired. Sure, sometimes I get overwhelmed by all the amazing things you people do educationally. It's a little like watching Michael Jordan play basketball or watching any other master at work. WTM is where you go to "learn from the best" if you don't mind my saying so. Susan Wise Bauer is one of my heroes and probably if I got to know some of you Draconian homeschoolers you'd be my heroes too.

 

I keep thinking that if I "hang out" here and observe, maybe someday I'll figure out how to make "rigorous" work for my family. It may never happen..... I've been at this for almost ten years now. But surely it brings my efforts and perhaps my skills up just a little bit.

 

I'll bet there are plenty of others like me who would hate to see the rigorous homeschoolers go underground.

 

 

And then "rigorous" even gets a bad name...

 

 

Well, personally I think it is just a word that isn't used much these days, at least in American English. I wasn't sure what to think at first. I think I've got it now. :) Rigorous is a good thing.

[Brenda in FL]

About hybrid mode - when I try it, there is a little box that goes so far to the right that I have to scroll and scroll to the right to get to the part with an arrow to be able to move down...Does anyone have that problem and know how to solve it?

 

Thanks,

Joan

 

I'm not sure if I'm repeating what Nan said, but if you click in the top box to the right in a blank space, then you can use your arrow keys to go up and down. There is usually enough text in view to know if its a post I want to read.

[mommaduck]

1. I know that SWB wrote a book on a particular style of homeschooling. No where was I led to believe that the forums were only for that style though.

 

2. I only know of a couple other hsing forums out there. One uses the same old format that used to be used here (very difficult to follow and have a full conversation on). Another is mostly for sale/swap. A third is not very friendly to anyone that is Christian. And a forth shut down a few years ago.

 

3. "Rigorous" is not always achievable every year, for every child, or for every family. There are those here with special needs children, those with very difficult home or financial challenges, etc. Should they be booted off the board because they aren't "keeping up"?

 

4. People may start off with one style of hsing and end up with either a mix or another style. However, they may have already formed relationships here.

 

 

I join in on the schooling forums when something interests me or I have a question. I don't always though, as I do a lot of reading and have been homeschooling for many years. I do participate more in the general board as a means of intellectual dialogue and socialising (no, I don't get a lot of that in real life and, yes, I've learned a lot here). Also, I had this one view of rigorously educating my child/ren. It didn't turn out as I planned. Things change. Not every kid is the same. Honestly, should I go into isolation because I'm not keeping up with THE BOOK? I love WTM. It was one of the first hsing books I picked up when my oldest was three. It wasn't the only book, but it is an encouraging one.

[Pamela in VA]

How do you define "rigorous?"

 

For example, if next year, as planned, I opt not to plan a specific curricula for my son for a few subjects and, instead, give him guidelines about what he should accomplish, how is that not rigorous?

 

If, instead of handing him a list of books he must read and assignments he must do (which he might not like or absorb because he's not paying attention), I tell him he must read an equal number of books of his choice and do an equal number of assignments chosen from a list of ideas (which may result in him learning and remembering significantly more information), why is the second less "rigorous?"

 

I'll grant you it's not "draconian," since I will have stopped trying to control his education. But I really do fail to see how it's less rigorous.

 

I totally agree with you!

What you have described sounds very much like scholar phase of Thomas Jefferson Education principles. It also sounds like what I want to do with my son, rising 9th, who loathes school and always has. It's been terribly "rigorous" for him since preschool (in his eyes), but that's really just a relative statement because to require him to pick up a pencil and write is draconian in his eyes. So, while I would desire to follow a more strict WTM classical plan, it just hasn't happened and probably won't in the so-called prescribed manner of WTM. It's just not meant to be for this dear child who walks to the beat of a different drummer. You can not believe how hard it is for me to have come to this realization. I would have LOVED to have been educated a la WTM.

Now, all of this does not mean we don't incorporate classical methods and resources in this school. It doesn't mean we are so relaxed that school is "lite." Far from it. We are more like the school that Gwen described...I love it!

 

It does mean that what is "rigorous" in our school is not going to be the same as "rigorous" in many of the schools represented here. So honestly, it does hit close to the heart to think others might consider his education as less than rigorous because all the "right" boxes are not checked. Maybe rigorous is better defined as doing all you can do for each individual child in the way that best prepares him/her to love learning and to know how to access and interpret information when it is necessary or desired.

As a longtime WTM board member (first year of inception), I am grateful to participate without feeling our school has to meet the "rigor" standards of anyone else's school. The diversity of styles has always been part of the richness of this board.

PameLA in VA

[Pamela in VA]

1. I know that SWB wrote a book on a particular style of homeschooling. No where was I led to believe that the forums were only for that style though.

 

3. "Rigorous" is not always achievable every year, for every child, or for every family. There are those here with special needs children, those with very difficult home or financial challenges, etc. Should they be booted off the board because they aren't "keeping up"?

 

Also, I had this one view of rigorously educating my child/ren. It didn't turn out as I planned. Things change. Not every kid is the same. Honestly, should I go into isolation because I'm not keeping up with THE BOOK? I love WTM. It was one of the first hsing books I picked up when my oldest was three. It wasn't the only book, but it is an encouraging one.

 

:iagree:

 

Very well said! I had a hard time putting these few ideas into words in my earlier post.

[Maverick_Mom]

This thread made me think of this article:

 

http://creation.com/a-balanced-classical-model-tos-talks-with-susan-wise-bauer

 

I think "balance" is the operative word here. I think there's a fine line between relaxed homeschooling and carelessness at one end of the spectrum, and there's a similar fine line between rigor and elitism at the other end.

[Ester Maria]

I bribed DC to write down together everything they knew about the word rigor, as though they were writing a dictionary entry (not the first time they do that type of exercise, it pretty helpful with vocabulary and Latin, by the way). Here is what I got (they are good! :D they missed only a few things which would normally appear, they wrote down most of it):

 

1. From Latin rigor, rigoris, rigori, rigorem... :tongue_smilie:, s.m. III decl.

2. Lexically related: rigeo, to be; rigesco, to be becoming; rigidus, -a, -um adjective; rigide adverb

3. paraphrases, in Latin, with severitas, -atis, f.

4. translates, from Latin, with severity, cold, austerity, duration

5. colloquially, Italian: precision and coherence (in reasoning): il rigore della disciplina / delle argomentazioni / a rigor di logica; diligence (in studies); legalism (in customs)

6. "see also" diligenza, severità, austerità, chiarezza, precisione, rispetto, accuratezza, esattezza, pedanteria, durezza

 

To which I asked, why are the nouns listed in (6.) not listed alphabetically (being that they had time to organize it).

To which they replied, "See, THAT was an instance of rigor!"

To which I asked, why are the nouns listed in (4.) not listed alphabetically.

To which the smart kids replied, "They are not supposed to be listed alphabetically there, but by the perceived order of occurence in translations!"

To which I asked, "Do we school rigorously?"

To which they replied, "Every good education is par excellence rigorous."

To which I asked again, "But do we school rigorously?"

To which they replied again, "We are a bit of slackers..." :lol:

 

Right. Provoke mom. Imply that you are bored. We can take care of that next year... *evil smiley*

Edited June 25, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Joan in GE]

Thank you all for helping me understand and now that I can think more clearly, I can see that I had two completely separate questions...

 

One was about rigor - and the other about gratefulness...

 

There should have been two threads...but it was muddled together in my mind at the time. (A perfect example of how conversations on this board help refine/correct my perceptions/thinking).

 

Then she opened her forums so that interested parties could have a place to discuss how to do that in practical terms and even refine her recommendations (that last is an assumption and hope on my part) and as a generous move towards people interested in her ideas and purchasing her materials....

Snip

and some people even get angry with the person hosting these forums freely to all of us..

Snip

How can people overlook the generosity of the owner????

 

This part was more about gratefulness and was more from past observations that really relate more to another board and rarely here, when I would see rudeness and what seemed to me like ungratefulness. In retrospect, I shouldn't have tried to address this in this thread.

 

1. From Latin rigor, rigoris, rigori, rigorem... , s.m. III decl.

2. Lexically related: rigeo, to be; rigesco, to be becoming; rigidus, -a, -um adjective; rigide adverb

3. paraphrases, in Latin, with severitas, -atis, f.

4. translates, from Latin, with severity, cold, austerity, duration

5. colloquially, Italian: precision and coherence (in reasoning): il rigore della disciplina / delle argomentazioni / a rigor di logica; diligence (in studies); legalism (in customs)

6. "see also" diligenza, severità, austerità, chiarezza, precisione, rispetto, accuratezza, esattezza, pedanteria, durezza

 

To which I asked, why are the nouns listed in (6.) not listed alphabetically (being that they had time to organize it).

To which they replied, "See, THAT was an instance of rigor!"

To which I asked, why are the nouns listed in (4.) not listed alphabetically.

To which the smart kids replied, "They are not supposed to be listed alphabetically there, but by the perceived order of occurence in translations!"

To which I asked, "Do we school rigorously?"

To which they replied, "Every good education is par excellence rigorous."

To which I asked again, "But do we school rigorously?"

To which they replied again, "We are a bit of slackers..."

 

That's exactly the problem, isn't it — everyone defines "rigorous" differently, and then it's compounded by the equally wide range of definitions for "classical." Plus, for some people these terms refer to content and for others they refer to method, and even within those applications there are variations.

 

Depending on the poster, "rigorous" may mean...

1. ...covering a specific body of knowledge as defined by a specific person/tradition (WTM, LCC, parent's own education, etc.).

2. ...using the most challenging materials available (if your child needs/wants "lighter" materials, that's OK — just don't call it "rigorous").

3. ...using the most challenging materials that work for your child.

4. ...doing more than the local unschoolers and PS kids do.

5. ...parents choose the curriculum and kids do it whether they like it or not; letting the student choose the materials/method is not rigorous.

6. ...delving deeply into a subject so that students have to really think, analyze, and apply what they know; how they acquire that knowledge is up to individual parents.

 

"Classical" may mean...

1. ...using WTM-recommended materials or methods — even if you just do Latin roots and don't read any classical literature except the Odyssey, you can still call yourself "classical" because that's what WTM is.

2. ...studying classical languages, literature, and history, regardless of how other subjects are approached.

3. ...doing chronological history combined with a Great Books study.

4. ...applying logic, critical analysis, and Socratic questioning to all subjects, regardless of the curriculum used.

 

There are so many other ways of defining and applying those terms, and so many possible combinations. Do parents who follow WTM methods, but use the "easiest" options for each subject, still count as "rigorous classical" homeschoolers? Or are they "nonrigorous classical" homeschoolers? Is that an oxymoron? What about a student who's studying Latin, doing AoPS math, and reading Herodotus for fun, but doing interest-led history and science and not doing any of it "the WTM way"? Is that "semi-rigorous, semi-classical" homeschooling? Does using relaxed methods with college-level content count as more or less rigorous than outlining a HS textbook and doing every review question and chapter test? Are quizzes and worksheets more rigorous — but less classical — than Socratic questioning? And does it really matter how it's labeled, if it works?

 

Thank you both for the definitions...and expansions on the meaning (and others who have posted similar concepts - it's hard to quote everyone)

 

And my copies of WTM even include references to outsourcing (online classes, college classes, tutors) !

 

I'm not sure at all how that goes against rigor? To me it means that the parent doesn't have the capacity to provide rigor in that subject but wants to make sure that their offspring has access to educational materials that meets their needs and challenge them...

 

I hate the word rigor. It really does mean harsh inflexibility and severity.

To me, that is what "draconian" dredges up. I guess I lean towards the "colloquial" Italian definitions and some of Correlano's... Someone else used the word "vigorous" and to me, rigor has vigor...

 

I'm not sure how it would serve SWB's interests to restrict the board to those who already own and use her materials, rather than opening it up to a diverse group of homeschoolers, many of whom will end up buying her materials after hanging out here for a while. And even those who don't buy/use WTM materials often have things to contribute to the community, in terms of ideas, resources, professional knowledge, etc.

 

I didn't want to restrict access - it just felt like there were some negative connotations about rigor and that seemed to go against what I perceived to be the original purpose. As people point out, maybe I have a misunderstanding of the original purpose as there is some lack of rigor even in TWTM in certain areas, but I think that reflects exactly what people have been mentioning, that it is rare to have rigor in all subjects, and we try to pursue most rigorously what meets our children's capacities, desires, and needs, though what is rigorous for one child is not rigorous for the next. (That does cause a problem for material analysis with the variety of posters - I don't mean this in a negative way, just trying to analyze the situation).

 

Honestly, should I go into isolation because I'm not keeping up with THE BOOK?

 

Please do not take offense. (And that to all others who got the same impression). I was NOT trying to imply that!

 

I could say exactly what EM says below - she says it so well (Except EM - I was not ‘condemning' diversity). It would take me ages to compose this even in my maternal tongue.

 

I believe we can all profit from the differences in perspectives and approaches that we learn about here and that the boards have sort of always had an important secondary role of serving as a place to discuss education in general, outside of the boundaries of a particular method or philosophy - so from that point of view, the diversity that has accumulated on here is something to welcome rather than to condemn. In addition, I think that allowing space, in your virtual space, even for those who question your type of education, speaks volumes about somebody.

 

I think that in their present state the boards are a good common denominator for many different types of educators and people, even if we may - sometimes drastically - part ways in what we do, how we approach education and what we believe it should consist of.

 

Sincerely,

Joan

Edited June 25, 2011 by Joan in Geneva

[Janice in NJ]

I really think we would have far fewer misunderstandings and hurt feelings if more people read the book.

 

When I find myself answering a question on these boards and I discover that the person who asked the question hasn't cracked the covers of TWTM, I am always shocked. :confused: The book lays the foundation for what I'm going to say. No, I don't follow it exactly, but its philosophy has been woven into the fiber of our education around here. (I always giggle when folks think Susan faithfully follows "the book." Really? You need to read the book! ;))

 

And I always assume that folks have read the book more than once. So I answer questions and make comments that assume we are all wandering around in the same field, which means I assume that you have explored the terrain a bit on your own. Now you are drawing conclusions, and you would like to bat those around with another human being. Ah - a framed discussion.

 

So that's the part I don't understand. How can I answer a targeted question when I assume that someone has already navigated that process of reading, reflecting, and embracing/disregarding the ideas in that book? If you haven't even struggled with the ideas in the book, my answers are likely to miss their mark. (Even if you HAVE read the book, my ramblings are likely to arc off into left field.....)

 

I don't know why folks don't read the book. :confused:

It makes me wonder if, rather than seeking answers, folks really just want to talk.

 

Peace,

Janice

[Joan in GE]

Can you go around the top box by moving your cursor over the white part on the side and then into the bottom section with the posts? That box is the part that shows how the posts are threaded. It also shows you which ones are new (new are orange). I scroll down the top box to see which posts I haven't read yet and who has posted under whom, then I click on the post I want to read. When I am done reading it, I hit the back button in the upper left hand corner of the screen to look at my original display of the post so I can once again see what I haven't yet read. I hope that makes sense. If there are a lot of posts I haven't read yet, I drag the cursor around the top box (rather than through it) and into the bottom section and scroll down through the full posts.

HTH

-Nan

 

I'm not sure if I'm repeating what Nan said, but if you click in the top box to the right in a blank space, then you can use your arrow keys to go up and down. There is usually enough text in view to know if its a post I want to read.

 

Thank you both. Actually Brenda, the arrows work better for me, so thanks for posting.

 

Nan, mine come up as orange as soon as they are under the cursor, even though I've read them already...curious.

 

About "hybrid mode"...it takes as a sequence (ETC - sequential - I was using a noun as an adjective) thought a post made in linear mode, even if it was just meant as a "new" post, not as an answer to the previous post. So that seems like a problem...

 

Then, even though I linked both of you with a quote, it doesn't come up under your previous posts about hybrid mode...ETA - at first it was at the bottom but now I see it moved AND is orange...now how does that work?

 

I'm glad to finally understand your posts Nan. I frequently had trouble figuring out who you were referencing because I've always used linear mode.

 

So how do you get your post under the one you are answering if you don't quote them when you are linear mode?

 

Joan

Edited June 25, 2011 by Joan in Geneva

[Joan in GE]

I really think we would have far fewer misunderstandings and hurt feelings if more people read the book.

snip

I discover that the person who asked the question hasn't cracked the covers of TWTM, I am always shocked. :confused: The book lays the foundation for what I'm going to say. No, I don't follow it exactly, but its philosophy has been woven into the fiber of our education around here. (I always giggle when folks think Susan faithfully follows "the book." Really? You need to read the book! ;))

 

I have been surprised too.... I guess though from some posts, people end up reading it afterwards. Maybe it's good to pop in the reminder to read the book so they know the foundation of your answer....

 

Joan

[Joan in GE]

This thread made me think of this article:

 

http://creation.com/a-balanced-classical-model-tos-talks-with-susan-wise-bauer

 

I think "balance" is the operative word here. I think there's a fine line between relaxed homeschooling and carelessness at one end of the spectrum, and there's a similar fine line between rigor and elitism at the other end.

 

Thanks for that link!

 

Joan

[Jane in NC]

I really think we would have far fewer misunderstandings and hurt feelings if more people read the book.

 

When I find myself answering a question on these boards and I discover that the person who asked the question hasn't cracked the covers of TWTM, I am always shocked. :confused: The book lays the foundation for what I'm going to say. No, I don't follow it exactly, but its philosophy has been woven into the fiber of our education around here. (I always giggle when folks think Susan faithfully follows "the book." Really? You need to read the book! ;))

 

And I always assume that folks have read the book more than once. So I answer questions and make comments that assume we are all wandering around in the same field, which means I assume that you have explored the terrain a bit on your own. Now you are drawing conclusions, and you would like to bat those around with another human being. Ah - a framed discussion.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

While I want to address my comments to Joan in particular, Janice's post lays a framework for these comments.

 

We all come to the table with premises. Like Janice, I assume that since this is the WTM board, that people have read The Book. I do not assume that everyone follows The Book. Now, apparently, we are incorrect in our assumptions. But that is my operating premise because I came to the forum after I read The Book.

 

Joan, apparently there are people who are uncomfortable with discussions of both general educational philosophy as well as specific curriculum nit picking. It has been suggested that these sensitive readers avoid certain discussions so that those of us who enjoy them can participate.

 

I have been wondering about the tag on this thread that reads "can't we all get along?" Why does a discussion of differences imply that we are not "getting along"? My own intellectual growth has developed not by memorizing facts but from a Hegelian dialectic approach (thesis/antithesis/synthesis). I welcome discussion of ideas different than mine because I may learn something.

 

And this is why TWTM worked so well for us. Discussion of Great Books opened doors not only for my son but for his parents who saw the world with new eyes. The demands of remembering my Latin and learning French often left me exhausted by day's end. My son never found joy in Dolciani texts but he admits that he learned something. To say I was Draconian paints a picture of the parent homeschooler with whip in hand. That was a joke, people!

 

It also baffles me that some posters assume our students are not willing participants in their rigorous educations, as though we are imposing something upon them. My son looked at the standard NC high school biology book and the thick Campbell (college) Biology, then chose the latter. He chose to study two languages in high school although I admit that I had the goal that he would read The Aeneid in Latin before high school ended. No, he was not a happy camper every day but then I have never known a teen age boy live through those hormonal years in complete bliss.

 

Joan, I am so glad that things have turned out so well for your son! Wishing you peace.

 

Jane

[Nan in Mass]

Joan - I go to the post under which I want to appear and click on one of the reply buttons. Anything that seems out of place was probably posted by somebody not in hybrid mode (or not in threaded mode? I haven't experimented with that one).

I think one of your sentences is mistyped? I had trouble understanding what it meant.

I will try to remember to address my posts, not that I realize how confusing it must be to some people. I now understand why some people aren't posting in the "proper" place, also. Not that it bothered me - I just wondered why.

Does that help?

-Nan

[Jenny in Florida]

It also baffles me that some posters assume our students are not willing participants in their rigorous educations, as though we are imposing something upon them.

 

I do hope that nothing I've said left that impression.

 

I have two kids. My daughter was much more driven about traditional academics. She consistently took on more than I thought was reasonable to do and worked like a dog to do it all well. Her biggest complaint about her college experience is that it was all far too light and easy and that she didn't learn enough.

 

My son loves to learn, too. But his approach is completely different. He drives himself to learn and work on things that interest him and will go through the motions but not remember anything that doesn't. After enforcing "rigor" at the expense of learning for the last several years, I'm prepared to experiment with something else.

 

By the way, he's still going to read The Odyssey and the Iliad. They are sitting on my dining table right now (two translations of the first) so that we can map out the plan for next year. He loves Shakespeare and sees several plays a year. I don't have to insist on the reading of Great Books or on discussing them. It's just part of life here.

[Nan in Mass]

Janice -

I have given up assuming that people have read TWTM when I answer a post. I now assume the opposite unless it is apparent from their post or from past posts. I would find it useful to know this about everyone and wish yes or no appeared in their profile, but then what would you do with all the people who have tried to read the book and not made it through? Or who have tried to read the book but obviously didn't really hear what SWB and JW were saying? And all of us are going to have at the very least a slightly different idea about that, if nothing else because we are ALL reading it with a purpose in mind and those purposes are as varied as our families one from another.

I have concluded that there are also many people who would like to read the book but can't. They haven't the time or the reading skills or they are unable to get their hands on a copy.

I think the people who have read TWTM or at least wish to read TWTM are in the minority, in a growing minority. I have even heard people say, "What book?"

My biggest problem is that the information I give away almost all comes from TWTM and I feel like I am giving away information that my hostesses are trying to sell. I try to be careful not to post lists of books that appear in TWTM, but so much else that I post is just a repeat of what is in TWTM that I often feel like I am doing SWB and JW a disservice by trying to help people here.

 

-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

Growing pains - As the board grows and it become undesirable if not impossible to read every post, we all need to learn how to filter the information. It doesn't hurt us as long as we know how to sift to find what we need, and as long as we feel comfortable posting, and as long as we have the time and energy to word our posts tactfully. This is true for everything now in the information age.

 

-Nan

[Brigid in NC]

The book lays the foundation for what I'm going to say. No, I don't follow it exactly, but its philosophy has been woven into the fiber of our education around here.

:iagree:

[Nan in Mass]

Grin - We just finished The Odyssey and my son refused to discuss it because it was too good. I happened to know that TWEM questions wouldn't be the sort of discussion that would bother him, so we ran through the questions quickly, but if he had still objected, I would have put the book away. If it is a book they are going to be reading over and over throughout their lives, I am happy not to discuss it if they would rather not. We didn't say a word about LoTR. *I* refused GRIN.

-Nan

[FaithManor]

It also baffles me that some posters assume our students are not willing participants in their rigorous educations, as though we are imposing something upon them. My son looked at the standard NC high school biology book and the thick Campbell (college) Biology, then chose the latter. He chose to study two languages in high school although I admit that I had the goal that he would read The Aeneid in Latin before high school ended. No, he was not a happy camper every day but then I have never known a teen age boy live through those hormonal years in complete bliss.

Jane

 

I'm with you Jane! I cannot believe the shear number of people I know in real life who assume my children are miserable and hate me for their work load. Except for ds's attitude about algebra 1 (not uncommon in 13 year old boys and I'm thankful I only have one at a time instead 150 of them as my dear friend the p.s. algebra teacher has) and dd's general dislike of Classical Rhetoric with Aristotle, we do not have angry, mentally exhausted, resentful children. They love learning and they embrace their work.

 

Dh and I do not have to be draconian, slave driving, mean spirited, heavy disciplining, constantly punishing and dragging-our-kids-through parents in order for the kids to accomplish the tasks set before them.

 

Faith

[Caroline]

I'm with you Jane! I cannot believe the shear number of people I know in real life who assume my children are miserable and hate me for their work load. Except for ds's attitude about algebra 1 (not uncommon in 13 year old boys and I'm thankful I only have one at a time instead 150 of them as my dear friend the p.s. algebra teacher has) and dd's general dislike of Classical Rhetoric with Aristotle, we do not have angry, mentally exhausted, resentful children. They love learning and they embrace their work.

 

Dh and I do not have to be draconian, slave driving, mean spirited, heavy disciplining, constantly punishing and dragging-our-kids-through parents in order for the kids to accomplish the tasks set before them.

 

Faith

 

 

Thank you Faith and Jane for expressing this sentiment. My son is actually enjoying reading Don Quixote with me. He is attempting parts of it in Spanish; I am not. (I wonder if I can find a recording of the ballet with Nureyev as the lead. I saw it in high school with my sister as an extra. I got to meet Nureyev backstage. Total aside, but I thought someone reading this thread might know the answer.) When we read Madame Bovary, I am going to attempt it in French, as I was required to in high school. He will read it in English. (My son that is, not Nureyev.)

[Brigid in NC]

 

My son is actually enjoying reading Don Quixote with me. He is attempting parts of it in Spanish

Wow! Very cool! It is so uplifting and motivating to hear things like this. :)

[Brigid in NC]

 

My son is actually enjoying reading Don Quixote

I had a class of 6 who wanted to read War and Peace. They loved the book and LOVED the accomplishment. (Ok, yea, I double posted by accident again. So I think that means that I need to get off the computer . . .) Edited June 25, 2011 by Brigid in NC

[elegantlion]

 

I have been wondering about the tag on this thread that reads "can't we all get along?" Why does a discussion of differences imply that we are not "getting along"? My own intellectual growth has developed not by memorizing facts but from a Hegelian dialectic approach (thesis/antithesis/synthesis). I welcome discussion of ideas different than mine because I may learn something.

 

And this is why TWTM worked so well for us. Discussion of Great Books opened doors not only for my son but for his parents who saw the world with new eyes. The demands of remembering my Latin and learning French often left me exhausted by day's end. My son never found joy in Dolciani texts but he admits that he learned something. To say I was Draconian paints a picture of the parent homeschooler with whip in hand. That was a joke, people!

 

 

Jane

 

:iagree: I think we can get along. I'll admit I didn't read WTM before coming to these boards. I would probably cringe if I went back and read some of my first posts. I have since bought and read the book, but we still follow an LCC principle more closely.

 

I do think there is room for all discussions on this board. I'd like to believe that those who would not categorize themselves as draconian or rigorous would not be offended by those discussions (we wouldn't fall in either category if you looked at our past year). It reminds me of those people who send their children to public school that seem personally affronted if they find out we homeschool. Being Draconian/rigorous is not an indictment against those that aren't.

 

I enjoy being challenged in a conversation, even if I'm only lurking. My son it technically not high school yet, but I've been reading on this board since I arrived. It has helped me form a better plan for his high school years.

 

I know to be successful as high school teacher/facilitator I need to learn ahead of my child. This is the only board I've found that is challenging me to do that. Instead of hurrying me to line up video teaching, online classes, CC to do all the things I felt I couldn't, they are giving me tips on how to learn with my child, ahead of my child, how might be best to approach those unknown subjects, and most importantly how to find those resources (AKA add to my amazon wish list). That personal kind of guidance is not in the book. Although I've read it and I do assume, at least at high school level, people have an understanding of WTM, I appreciate the mentorship of those that have gone before me.

 

If you look at the title of this board it is also a self-education board. Much of what we're planning for high school is part of my current self-education, so what may look like a high school question gets transferred to my own learning. *I* want to be challenged in that area.

[Stacy in NJ]

We go to war with the military we've got, and we homeschool with the kids that we've got.

 

"Rigorous" in the traditional definition can be counter productive. There will always be that dichotomy between self-motivation and a structured "forced" curricula. People react in different ways to that contradiction. My oldest son was born The Rebel Without a Cause (or Clue); my youngest is a compliant, cooperative child. While we loosely follow the flow of TWTM: the four year history rotation, writing instruction ala SWB, and an emphasis on reading and writing generally, we've varied method and substance to reflect personality, needs, desire, and motivation.

 

My focus for both of my boys is on work ethic and character development. I expect them to devote a significant amount of time and sweat to their education. I also allow alot of freedom with regards to their personal interests. I've never insisted on a musical instrument, but both my ds have independently taken up instruments and play quite well.

 

I am completely comfortable with board members discussing "rigorous" methods or curriculum and holding up what they believe to be higher standards. I just won't necessarily agree with them. :D

 

I do hope that nothing I've said left that impression.

 

I have two kids. My daughter was much more driven about traditional academics. She consistently took on more than I thought was reasonable to do and worked like a dog to do it all well. Her biggest complaint about her college experience is that it was all far too light and easy and that she didn't learn enough.

 

My son loves to learn, too. But his approach is completely different. He drives himself to learn and work on things that interest him and will go through the motions but not remember anything that doesn't. After enforcing "rigor" at the expense of learning for the last several years, I'm prepared to experiment with something else.

 

By the way, he's still going to read The Odyssey and the Iliad. They are sitting on my dining table right now (two translations of the first) so that we can map out the plan for next year. He loves Shakespeare and sees several plays a year. I don't have to insist on the reading of Great Books or on discussing them. It's just part of life here.

[Jane in NC]

I do hope that nothing I've said left that impression.

 

 

No, Jenny. It is clear that you are creating educational paths that are appropriate for your unique children.

 

One of the cautionary flags that I would like to raise though concerns closing doors rather than opening them for our children. (Jenny--I am not referring to you here!) I do not buy into the belief that one is a science person or a humanities person. I think this is a false dichotomy. The most brilliant scientists I know participate in and enjoy a number of arts. The most articulate humanities people that I know are awed by science. I believe that our children should have solid foundations in both science and the humanities (recognizing that before there were "scientists", there were "natural philosophers".)

 

Having said that, I have found it to be depressing when I was teaching at an engineering/tech university and encountered students who wanted to major in the sciences but completely lacked the appropriate high school backgrounds. We all have anecdotal information of people who dropped out of high school who have gone on to become engineers--but this is a tiny minority. Most people who succeed in science tracks in college have had exposure to math and science--if not in the classroom, then in how they lived their lives. (Face it--Nan and Faith have children who have grown up living science experiments. But not everyone does.)

 

There are compelling reasons for following a child-led education. But I would not sacrifice "well rounded" for the sake of child led. (Not that everyone does--I understand that.)

 

Which brings me back to TWTM. I believe that "The Book" gives a skeletal structure for The Well Rounded Student.

 

By the way, some of you might be interested in a new book that Bill Bryson has edited: Seeing Further. This is a series of essays written by scientists, novelists, science writers on the Royal Society. Fascinating and fun.

 

Jane

[Jane in NC]

My oldest son was born The Rebel Without a Cause (or Clue)...

 

:lol:

[cathmom]

I hate the word rigor. It really does mean harsh inflexibility and severity.

 

Out of curiosity, yesterday I looked up "rigor" and "rigorous" in the wordreference.com thesaurus to see if I could find a better synonym.

 

"Rigorous" was defined as having two senses: severe and exact; however "severe" was the most common. Severe: harsh, uncompromising, rugged. Exact: precise, meticulous, accurate. Associated words for rigorous: arduous, ascetic, bleak, careful, conscientious, definite, demanding, difficult, exact, exacting, exigent, meticulous, onerous, peremptory, stiff, strict, stringent, unsparing, vehement.

 

"Rigor" was defined as "rigidity, stiffness, hardness, sternness, hardship, difficulty, austerity, severity, stubbornness."

 

I guess I was not wrong that this word has what I consider to be a negative connotation in English, or at least, I would not want the majority of these words to be descriptive of my family's homeschooling experience.

 

(Please be aware that I am only speaking for me and my family and it doesn't matter to me if you choose to describe your homeschool as rigorous - looking this up merely confirmed to me my understanding of the word and why I resist using it.)

 

Words that I would like to describe our homeschool are vigorous, thorough, supportive, intellectually challenging, individualized, and productive. Perhaps I'll think of more later.

 

I do not assume that the students in rigorous homeschools are unhappy or that the parents are slave-drivers.

[stripe]

I'm not sure at all how that goes against rigor? To me it means that the parent doesn't have the capacity to provide rigor in that subject but wants to make sure that their offspring has access to educational materials that meets their needs and challenge them...

 

What I meant by my reference to outsourcing being mentioned in WTM was an allusion to the recent discussions about the nature of homeschooling and whether outsourcing was 'allowed.' So the fact SWB and JW include references to how to outsource means (I assume) that they consider it an acceptable alternative for some coursework. In fact I got the impression they prefer it for HS science because of lab work. So if WTM is one's manual for 'rigor,' it can't be antithetical to consider outsourcing.

[stripe]

I guess I was not wrong that this word has what I consider to be a negative connotation in English, or at least, I would not want the majority of these words to be descriptive of my family's homeschooling experience.

 

 

I don't think most people intend that meaning either, but (like you) I have the same feeling about the word.

 

I love the idea of being vigorous. Sounds energetic, like a nice dive into a frozen lake! Ha ha.