An acceptable word to replace "rigorous"?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

With the higher goal, then there are materials that meet the different levels to arrive at the higher goal - though the higher you get the more you would need more than a book it seems....but for the last part in the quote of Thompson - (in looking at Bloom's (on Wikipedia of course), I don't see that last part about the person "reconsidering themselves"..."feeling like intellectual strangers"- is that in other descriptions of the taxonomy?) I'm wondering if there can be materials that get a person there (might depend more on the subject) or whether you would have to have the kind of teacher talked about or the person becomes so intensely innerly involved that they could come to that place on their own..............

 

Back to the question of a word - I'm looking for one to describe those materials (if they exist) or teacher or personal involvement...that help bring a person to the last two or three levels in the new "rigor" thread....looks like it could be tricky...

 

there was "genuine difficulty", "severe difficulty", and finally the "reconsider self" rigorous...

 

do high school students get to that final one?

 

Trying to understand,

Joan

 

But isn't part of the issue that there is an ever receding horizon for where that last level is? I have two upper logic stage kids and one grammar stage. I gave the two older kids a diagnostic test for AoPS Algebra last week. They did great on the stuff they were familiar with, but it seems like radicals weren't something they had seen except as perfect square roots. So I gave them a quick lesson on how to manipulate something like square root of 45 minus square root of 72.

 

It wasn't really NEW info, because they knew that they could do similar factoring to find things like common denominators. But it hadn't occured to them to think of a root the same way. I was definitely pushing that upper envelope for them that afternoon. And I would like to say that it changed (if only a little bit) their view of the math world.

 

But in a couple years, that same lesson won't be rigorous for them at all (at least it better not be :tongue_smilie:). And if I tried to do that lesson with my 4th grader, I'd get nothing but a blank look.

 

But I can have a rigorous lesson with my 4th grader that involves reading and narration. I can have him reading Redwall a couple chapters at a time and be pushing his envelope, since he's only become a fluent reader in the last few months. Meanwhile his brothers are reading several novels a week.

 

Let me put it one other way. My oldest swims. He's not a high flyer, but he's a hard worker and I think with more consistent hard work, he could reach some higher levels (think high school competitive, not olympian). His individual swim practices have almost always pushed him beyond what he would have chosen to do on his own. Some of those early lessons involved just a few lengths of the pool. One of them included swimming over two miles in two hours. Some are fast tempo, some are odd lengths or partial lengths with only one part of a stroke (one arm, kick only, just the turn). There is rigor at each step (though it is also satisfying) and there is the hope of attaining a rigorous goal. It can be constantly absolute and subjective at the same time (a swim that is a personal best only netted a 4th place in his last race).

 

I have to consider the process of education in a similar way. There are absolute skill sets to master, like reading, arithmetic, basic sentence and paragraph writing. But there is a constantly moving target of knowing more and understanding more and being able to communicate more. And it doesn't end just because they graduate from my homeschool (may that day eventually come). I had an undergrad and masters' degree, moved to Europe and realized that I knew nothing about the Thirty Years' War.

 

I think that trying to pin down rigor is like standing on the beach and commanding the waves to stop. Rigor is like beauty. We might have some general concensus, but there will always be areas of contention and disagreement. It doesn't mean that we should stop trying to apply rigor (or beauty) to our lives.

 

The main thing that I'm hoping for is that the boards here never cease to be a refuge for families who are interested in more demanding levels of academics. Not that I think it will look identical for every family. But I think there are enough voices out there telling us that everything will be ok, we'll catch up eventually, unschooling is fine (even when it looks a lot like not schooling), just not being in a public school makes homeschooling superior, etc.

 

If you're not hearing that in real life, awesome, you are blessed. But there are plenty of us who feel besieged by homeschoolers who consider more than a couple hours of school oppressive, even in the upper grades. Sometimes the boards here have been a welcome refuge and encouragement that no, we aren't harming our kids by expecting them to finish the math assignment, study Latin AND German or read several history books at once.

 

Off to apply some rigor to our last week of school.

[8filltheheart]

Thank you for helping me as I grope my way to understanding/verbalization -

 

I feel understood!

 

Yes and no. Yes for some subjects, no for others where the student is more talented/ has more capacity...but the educational environment might not allow for or encourage the higher development, so it might not happen..

 

Is it correct to think you would have to pass through all the different levels?

 

With the higher goal, then there are materials that meet the different levels to arrive at the higher goal - though the higher you get the more you would need more than a book it seems....but for the last part in the quote of Thompson - (in looking at Bloom's (on Wikipedia of course), I don't see that last part about the person "reconsidering themselves"..."feeling like intellectual strangers"- is that in other descriptions of the taxonomy?) I'm wondering if there can be materials that get a person there (might depend more on the subject) or whether you would have to have the kind of teacher talked about or the person becomes so intensely innerly involved that they could come to that place on their own..............

 

Back to the question of a word - I'm looking for one to describe those materials (if they exist) or teacher or personal involvement...that help bring a person to the last two or three levels in the new "rigor" thread....looks like it could be tricky...

 

there was "genuine difficulty", "severe difficulty", and finally the "reconsider self" rigorous...

 

do high school students get to that final one?

 

Trying to understand,

Joan

 

Reconsidering self is not part of Bloom's taxonomy. I actually dismissed those words when I read them b/c it seems more like pop-psy terminology. Reconsidering preconceived suppositions I can accept, but self, no. I have a very different definition for the word self.

 

Regarding the bolded, it is what I was attempting rather poorly to communicate in Faith's thread. I do have a child that dwells in that place. I don't think you can push or pull an individual to that mental level (perhaps unless you are beyond there yourself.....since I do NOT dwell there, I can't even imagine!!! :lol:) unless the individual is already climbing on their own.

 

As I wrote in the other thread, it does sort of remind me about one of the descriptions of giftedness......the constant questioning/seeking/theorizing/comparing. My ds that dwells in that land of theory literally has notebooks full of theories/science experiment wish lists, etc. He gets books from the library, purchases TC lectures with his own money, researches STEM opportunities for high school students.....all on his own. This is something that has to come from w/in. I don't know that one has to be gifted in order to be like this, but neither do I believe it is something that someone can create in another. There is something intrinsic about it. I can't adequately explain it. But it is something I can physically "see" that is different from other kids.

 

ETA; I am trying to hurry b/c I have other things I need to be doing......I should add that I do think that are definite ways to encourage formation that lead the child up through the taxonomy. Classical education which promotes critical thinking and open-ended Socratic questioning can help students get beyond simple knowledge/understanding. However, some people are more naturally able to achieve a higher level. Going back to my own kids and math:tongue_smilie: one I did not know enough to give opportunities like I have given the younger. Both were equally gifted in math at younger ages. Younger ds is probably more mathematically advanced than graduating from chemE son b/c of the difference in exposure to theoretical math and depth at a younger age. But....older ds's math level is higher. Clear as mud??? Exposure has to be part of it. Innate ability has to be part.

 

Ugh.....I can't really type what I am thinking with a 5 yod clamoring for attention while the 18 mod is on my lap. I surrender. :lol:

Edited June 27, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[cin]

Neither does anyone else on this board, so you're in good company.

 

I'm so sorry, but this comment made me laugh. It describes how I feel most of the time! Hope that somebody figures you out, as DH says, before you die :001_huh:

[Stacy in NJ]

:001_smile:

 

A great deal of the hurt feelings is about insecurity. Because we're, in the end, reponsible for guiding and determining our children's education, we tend to be sensitive about our decisions. Are we making the best choices? If we determine that a less 'rigorous' course is appropriate for our child (TT vs. Really Hard Text Book) we squirm with the doubt that this choice is in some way a reflection of our failure, our failure to adequately prepare, engage, challenge our dc.

 

When someone post with a qestion like: "Is TT/Apologia/Sonlight a rigorous program......." and some responds with "NO", the qualifier of "depending on your goals......" should ALWAYS be added.

 

I don't think the word "rigorous" needs to be changed. I think the mindset needs to, though.

 

What is rigorous to me may not be rigorous to another student. I struggle in Math and Science, but History and English just "click" with me. I have friends who struggle with spelling and grammar still, so obviously more English would be rigorous to them. I still struggle with basic Algebraic equations sometimes, so more Math would be rigorous to me.

 

One definition from Webster's is: very strict and demanding

 

I know that if I were to take AP Calculus right now, it would be beyond demanding. If one of my friends who is good at math took it, they would think it a breeze, or at least not struggle as much as I, if at all. So, because they wouldn't struggle, they shouldn't get the AP credit? Of course they should, they did the same amount of work and whoever made the course obviously felt it was rigorous.

 

So, sometimes I believe there needs to be a line drawn between demanding and too demanding. I would get nothing out of an AP math course but I would probably enjoy and learn from an AP English course.

 

I'm fine with the fact that I'm taking Statistics next year and not going the harder road because I would probably flounder. I take no offense to those who say LoF Statistics isn't as rigorous as whatever Calculus book they'll be using. I know where I need to draw the line.

 

I think posters just need to realize that if one poster decides to pursue what they would call a rigorous course of study, they aren't jumping on others and calling what they're doing too easy or not rigorous enough. It is what they want for themselves/their children. That is the point of homeschooling, anyways. Most on here wanted to provide the types of academics they thought would be best for their student and prepare them for college or life beyond high school.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

**Disclaimer: I know AP isn't always the most rigorous, just an example**

[Stacy in NJ]

I'm no math maven, but I would probably agree with you that MUS is less rigorous than, say, Forester's. But, we also frequently get posts from experienced homeschoolers who have used programs like MUS and TT and have had children do extremely well on their SAT/ACT and then go on to major/graduate in a STEMs program. So, while your opinion may be based on actual evidence, the experience of others contradicts the idea that more rigorous is necessarily better. And, while it maybe sensible to offer a high ability math student a "richer" curriculum, it may not be the only way to be successful.

 

 

My POV is that this where the source of threads like this come from. B/c there is a distinction b/c curricula and plans It is what it is. Not every thing out there is "rigorous." But there are people who believe that what I perceive as very weak programs are their definition of "rigorous."

I think what actually matters is not what my definition is or what anyone else's definition is but what is appropriate for the individual student. For some students, MUS will meet the definition of rigorous and programs like AoPS are not even accessible. For other students, MUS is not going to meet their needs and AoPS is the correct path.

 

Stating that MUS is not the equivalent of AoPS is not an emotional charge or statement. It is simply factual. It is really irrelevant what anyone "claims."

 

So, if someone posts a question about a math program wanting one that is challenging for an advanced student and MUS is recommended and others disagree, does that mean that they are attempting to exclusively define "rigorous" or that they are simply stating a factual comparison based on their experience with both programs?

Edited June 27, 2011 by Stacy in NJ

[Stacy in NJ]

rigor or excellence. I don't think the controversy is so much about hurt feelings as it is about the desire to be recognized as elite or Not Dumbed Down.

 

To each their own. :001_smile:

Edited June 27, 2011 by Stacy in NJ

[Joan in GE]

ETD

Edited June 28, 2011 by Joan in Geneva

[Joan in GE]

Reconsidering self is not part of Bloom's taxonomy. I actually dismissed those words when I read them b/c it seems more like pop-psy terminology. Reconsidering preconceived suppositions I can accept, but self, no. I have a very different definition for the word self.

 

Regarding the bolded, it is what I was attempting rather poorly to communicate in Faith's thread. I do have a child that dwells in that place. I don't think you can push or pull an individual to that mental level (perhaps unless you are beyond there yourself.....since I do NOT dwell there, I can't even imagine!!! :lol:) unless the individual is already climbing on their own.

 

As I wrote in the other thread, it does sort of remind me about one of the descriptions of giftedness......the constant questioning/seeking/theorizing/comparing. My ds that dwells in that land of theory literally has notebooks full of theories/science experiment wish lists, etc. He gets books from the library, purchases TC lectures with his own money, researches STEM opportunities for high school students.....all on his own. This is something that has to come from w/in. I don't know that one has to be gifted in order to be like this, but neither do I believe it is something that someone can create in another. There is something intrinsic about it. I can't adequately explain it. But it is something I can physically "see" that is different from other kids.

 

ETA; I am trying to hurry b/c I have other things I need to be doing......I should add that I do think that are definite ways to encourage formation that lead the child up through the taxonomy. Classical education which promotes critical thinking and open-ended Socratic questioning can help students get beyond simple knowledge/understanding. However, some people are more naturally able to achieve a higher level. Going back to my own kids and math:tongue_smilie: one I did not know enough to give opportunities like I have given the younger. Both were equally gifted in math at younger ages. Younger ds is probably more mathematically advanced than graduating from chemE son b/c of the difference in exposure to theoretical math and depth at a younger age. But....older ds's math level is higher. Clear as mud??? Exposure has to be part of it. Innate ability has to be part.

 

Ugh.....I can't really type what I am thinking with a 5 yod clamoring for attention while the 18 mod is on my lap. I surrender. :lol:

 

Thank you for your efforts with clamoring children!

 

Your son who dwells in the land of theory sounds like Faith's daughter - I'm so glad for him that he can develop while others are languishing in institutions!

 

Thank you for the ETA conversation - it helps!

 

Joan

[Joan in GE]

snip (but appreciated)

 

I think that trying to pin down rigor is like standing on the beach and commanding the waves to stop. Rigor is like beauty. We might have some general concensus, but there will always be areas of contention and disagreement. It doesn't mean that we should stop trying to apply rigor (or beauty) to our lives.

 

snip (but appreciated)

 

If you're not hearing that in real life, awesome, you are blessed.

 

I don't get feedback either way IRL - so am dependant on the boards as well. :001_smile:

[Joan in GE]

People seem to want to be recognized for pursuing what they perceive as rigor or excellence.

 

I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at...but to me it seems like many who are doing extraordinary things with their "children/young people" (and I don't count myself as doing extraordinary things) are very discreet about it and only sometimes itemize when pressed. I wish they would talk more as every post I've read (though haven't read all posts) where people are doing extraordinary things, is very stimulating, even if it only means a minor change for us here and there, it can change the tone of our educational experience. And I am glad for their children getting such opportunities...

 

Again, not sure if that is what you meant,

Joan

[Stacy in NJ]

sense or frustration with the capture of the word "rigorous" in what they perceive as less than good enough. We recently had a thread discussing the "dumbing down" of homeschooling curriculum.

 

I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at...but to me it seems like many who are doing extraordinary things with their "children/young people" (and I don't count myself as doing extraordinary things) are very discreet about it and only sometimes itemize when pressed. I wish they would talk more as every post I've read (though haven't read all posts) where people are doing extraordinary things, is very stimulating, even if it only means a minor change for us here and there, it can change the tone of our educational experience. And I am glad for their children getting such opportunities...

 

Again, not sure if that is what you meant,

Joan

[Stacy in NJ]

I don't mind the word rigor, as long as people accept that there are differing tools and approaches which can be equally rigorous. The only thing I object to is the claiming of rigorous education as exclusive to one particular curriculum or educational plan?

 

and, :iagree:

[at the beach]

...

Edited June 28, 2011 by Violet

[8filltheheart]

I'm no math maven, but I would probably agree with you that MUS is less rigorous than, say, Forester's. But, we also frequently get posts from experienced homeschoolers who have used programs like MUS and TT and have had children do extremely well on their SAT/ACT and then go on to major/graduate in a STEMs program. So, while your opinion may be based on actual evidence, the experience of others contradicts the idea that more rigorous is necessarily better. And, while it maybe sensible to offer a high ability math student a "richer" curriculum, it may not be the only way to be successful.

 

I don't believe anyone ever stated it is the only way to be successful. However, that is completely different from saying that it is an equal way to a similar outcome. Simply b/c 2 students are successful --one having used MUS and another using something like AoPS (I'll save Foerster for later) does not mean they are cognizant equals in actuality.

 

Back to my 2 ds. I use them b/c they actually represent this conversation and I deeply regret not having explored alternative paths with my oldest. My oldest used MUS alg and geo followed by Foerster alg, Larson geo, etc. He was and is a very strong math/science student. He will be graduating in the beginning of Aug with his degree in chemical engineering. He is a great student w/something like a 3.6 or 3.7 GPA and had multiple fantastic job offers. Is he successful? Yes. Did that course plan hinder him? No. But, could he have been exposed to more and actually have reached a higher cognitive level? The answer to this question I have since learned is an unequivocal yes.

 

My youngest ds has had a math coach and has been using AoPS. He followed the exact same math path as his older brother until taking alg 3 from AoPS (albeit at a younger age…..but again, that is b/c of my inability to recognize what was actually possible). His theoretical understanding is far beyond his older brother's even though his older brother has finished math through diffEQ and he has only finished math through pre-cal.

 

Pretend my 2 ds are actually classmates. They are walking on the same path and both doing extremely well. The paths do converge, but the actual thought processes of the 2 walking the path are very dissimilar. Both understand the material and what they are doing, but one sees a larger dimension/picture than the other. The foundational materials used to get them to where they are alters the way they process what they are doing.

 

My younger ds's cognitive understanding of the processes will ultimately exceed his older brothers b/c of moving up through higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy. The materials do matter and they do make a difference.

 

Parents need to decide what is appropriate for their student and what goals they have in education b/c different materials and approaches are not in reality equal. It doesn't mean you are hampering your child's future……I didn't do that to mine. But, did I limit him? I might have. Perhaps if he had the same sort of exposure as his brother, his vision for his own future/career might have been different I can't say. Neither can he. It is what it is now. But his younger brother sees possibilities that neither older ds nor I would have considered. (and the bolded part is key to me as I consider how to educate the rest of my children.)

Edited June 27, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[Stacy in NJ]

I don't believe anyone ever stated it is the only way to be successful. However, that is completely different from saying that it is an equal way to a similar outcome. Simply b/c 2 students are successful --one having used MUS and another using something like AoPS (I'll save Foerster for later) does not mean they are cognizant equals in actuality.

 

Back to my 2 ds. I use them b/c they actually represent this conversation and I deeply regret not having explored alternative paths with my oldest. My oldest used MUS alg and geo followed by Foerster alg, Larson geo, etc. He was and is a very strong math/science student. He will be graduating in the beginning of Aug with his degree in chemical engineering. He is a great student w/something like a 3.6 or 3.7 GPA and had multiple fantastic job offers. Is he successful? Yes. Did that course plan hinder him? No. But, could he have been exposed to more and actually have reached a higher cognitive level? The answer to this question I have since learned is an unequivocal yes.

 

My youngest ds has had a math coach and has been using AoPS. He followed the exact same math path as his older brother until taking alg 3 from AoPS (albeit at a younger age…..but again, that is b/c of my inability to recognize what was actually possible). His theoretical understanding is far beyond his older brother's even though his older brother has finished math through diffEQ and he has only finished math through pre-cal.

 

Pretend my 2 ds are actually classmates. They are walking on the same path and both doing extremely well. The paths do converge, but the actual thought processes of the 2 walking the path are very dissimilar. Both understand the material and what they are doing, but one sees a larger dimension/picture than the other. The foundational materials used to get them to where they are alters the way they process what they are doing.

 

My younger ds's cognitive understanding of the processes will ultimately exceed his older brothers b/c of moving up through higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy. The materials do matter and they do make a difference.

 

Parents need to decide what is appropriate for their student and what goals they have in education b/c different materials and approaches are not in reality equal. It doesn't mean you are hampering your child's future……I didn't do that to mine. But, did I limit him? I might have. Perhaps if he had the same sort of exposure as his brother, his vision for his own future/career might have been different I can't say. Neither can he. It is what it is now. But his younger brother sees possibilities that neither older ds nor I would have considered. (and the bolded part is key to me as I consider how to educate the rest of my children.)

 

Where we differ, I think, is the emphasis on developed ability vs. natural ability. Your point, I think, is that you can form ability, or at least outcome, with the resources you use. You're using your dss as examples. My point is that we have only a very limited ability to do so, limited by the IQ and personality of the individual student. Also, I believe that personality is the great unknown - almost unquantifiable. The current popular fad of learning types (visual, verbal...) is crude a best, imo.

 

And, saying that Foerster's is more rigorous than MUS is a blanket statement that leaves a host of other issues unaddressed. And, this is fine as a simple generalization, but qualifiers abound.

[8filltheheart]

Where we differ, I think, is the emphasis on developed ability vs. natural ability. Your point, I think, is that you can form ability, or at least outcome, with the resources you use. You're using your dss as examples. My point is that we have only a very limited ability to do so, limited by the IQ and personality of the individual student. Also, I believe that personality is the great unknown - almost unquantifiable. The current popular fad of learning types (visual, verbal...) is crude a best, imo.

 

And, saying that Foerster's is more rigorous than MUS is a blanket statement that leaves a host of other issues unaddressed. And, this is fine as a simple generalization, but qualifiers abound.

 

In several of my responses I have specifically addressed that it is partially innate ability as well as inner drive. But....that being equal (which as teacher of these 2 their entire lives I see great similarities) yes, I do believe that exposure/nurture/whatever you want to call it has lead to alternative outcomes.

 

We do have that level of control, even more so in a manner of speaking about how to develop critical thinking even if not actual intellectual ability. That is at the core of the argument about the difference in knowledge-based vs. classical education.

 

ETA: as for the Foerster/MUS being a blanket statement......:confused: When only considering content and not people, it is nothing other than a factual statement. "qualifiers" and "generalizations" only apply when it comes to considering who will be using the the content.

Edited June 27, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[Stacy in NJ]

In several of my responses I have specifically addressed that it is partially innate ability as well as inner drive. But....that being equal (which as teacher of these 2 their entire lives I see great similarities) yes, I do believe that exposure/nurture/whatever you want to call it has lead to alternative outcomes.

 

We do have that level of control, even more so in a manner of speaking about how to develop critical thinking even if not actual intellectual ability. That is at the core of the argument about the difference in knowledge-based vs. classical education.

 

ETA: as for the Foerster/MUS being a blanket statement......:confused: When only considering content and not people, it is nothing other than a factual statement. "qualifiers" and "generalizations" only apply when it comes to considering who will be using the the content.

 

Again, we disagree foundationally (the bolded part). Cognitive Science tells us that our control is minimal, not nonexistent, but minimal. I recognize that this might be an unpopular statement on a chat board devoted to classical education and populated by individuals who are frequently wholly responsible for educating their children.

 

About, the second bolded part - exactly. qualifiers and generalization only apply when considering the user - but don't we always consider the user?

 

 

Just for fun, here's an interview conducted with the Tiger Mom Amy Chau and Bryan Caplan a cognative scientist:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/11/conversation-strict-parenting-amy-chua

 

 

"I have three sons – eight-year-old identical twins and a baby. I'm not permissive, we do have discipline, but the point is to make sure they treat people decently. Once my kids were born, I realised that all these things that people say about parenting are wrong according to the best science. Parents seem to think their kids are like clay, that you mould them into the right shape when they're wet. A better metaphor is that kids are like flexible plastic – they respond to pressure, but when you release the pressure they tend to pop back to their original shape. I don't know Amy and her kids, but from my reading of the book the mother-daughter relationship seemed strained for many years, and that's sad"

 

 

"BC: Most of my book is based on a summary of 40 years of adoption and twin studies – the usual result is parents just don't have much effect on their kids. In your book you have lots of great stories about how you influenced your kids, and I believe you did for a while, but what the adoption and twin evidence says is that the feeling that parents are changing their kids is based on an illusion. There is a big short-run effect, but the long-run effect is very different."

Edited June 27, 2011 by Stacy in NJ

[Corraleno]

And I'm still not clear on where all these posters are who are misunderstood and have hurt feelings. Are there people here who feel this way? Are they hurt because someone's kid has academic prowess and their child is supposedly not exhibiting such prowess? Does it make waves to discuss advanced coursework? Is it because these alleged hurt posters are confronted with their mediocrity? I don't think so.

Exactly. I've never seen anyone here request that other people not post what their kids are doing because it makes them feel bad. On the contrary, I've seen many people say that they find such posts inspirational, even if their own kids are not achieving at the same level. I don't understand why "please be respectful of other people's choices" translates into "you're not allowed to post what your own kids are doing." :confused:

 

Jackie

[8filltheheart]

Again, we disagree foundationally (the bolded part). Cognitive Science tells us that our control is minimal, not nonexistent, but minimal. I recognize that this might be an unpopular statement on a chat board devoted to classical education and populated by individuals who are frequently wholly responsible for educating their children.

 

About, the second bolded part - exactly. qualifiers and generalization only apply when considering the user - but don't we always consider the user?

 

 

Just for fun, here's an interview conducted with the Tiger Mom Amy Chau and Bryan Caplan a cognative scientist:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/11/conversation-strict-parenting-amy-chua

 

 

"I have three sons – eight-year-old identical twins and a baby. I'm not permissive, we do have discipline, but the point is to make sure they treat people decently. Once my kids were born, I realised that all these things that people say about parenting are wrong according to the best science. Parents seem to think their kids are like clay, that you mould them into the right shape when they're wet. A better metaphor is that kids are like flexible plastic – they respond to pressure, but when you release the pressure they tend to pop back to their original shape. I don't know Amy and her kids, but from my reading of the book the mother-daughter relationship seemed strained for many years, and that's sad"

 

 

"BC: Most of my book is based on a summary of 40 years of adoption and twin studies – the usual result is parents just don't have much effect on their kids. In your book you have lots of great stories about how you influenced your kids, and I believe you did for a while, but what the adoption and twin evidence says is that the feeling that parents are changing their kids is based on an illusion. There is a big short-run effect, but the long-run effect is very different."

 

Behavior and strict/permissive parenting is not the same as education. I'm not sure what you are even referring to with this statement: Cognitive Science tells us that our control is minimal, not nonexistent, but minimal. Minimal over what? IQ? Cognitive reasoning?

 

Children that spend their early childhood actively using their imagination develop greater critical thinking skills over kids who are passively learning or watching tv. Active engagement in that type of playing impacts brain development.

 

Similar research also exists for the distinction between knowledge-based education vs. higher order thinking skills via Bloom's taxonomy.

 

No, IQ is not significantly impacted. But, IQ is not the end-all be-all of the intellectual realm. IQ is only the ability that exists. How and to what extent that ability is developed is variable. If not, education itself would not matter.

[Janice in NJ]

 

And, saying that Foerster's is more rigorous than MUS is a blanket statement that leaves a host of other issues unaddressed. And, this is fine as a simple generalization, but qualifiers abound.

 

I probably shouldn't stick my nose in here, but I think the point that 8 is trying to make is that, in general, very often curriculum x is more rigorous than curriculum y. I don't use either Foerster's or MUS, so I am speaking in general. But I have used plenty of math programs. And I have found that, in hind sight, I could easily line them up from least rigorous to most rigorous. Easily. Ask me to shuffle them from most-teacher-friendly to least-t-f? Another easy task. Ask me to shuffle them from most-hands-on to least? Yup, can do.

 

Ask me to choose the right one for the right kid at the right time? Harder. Until I've used them for a couple of years ahead of the current insertion point - which I hadn't with my oldest. That made the honest, straightforward advice I received on these boards very helpful. Very! NO one would have been doing me any favors by saying things they thought I wanted to hear. ...although I can't remember ever asking for a "rigorous" text; that seems like such a ridiculous question; that's like asking for the "best" kind of salad dressing. :confused: I knew that my kid was no genius; he was just good at math. I needed something to fit his time schedule, my time schedule, his ability and mine, our budget, and our goals, etc. ..... I didn't need anything that would fit my ego. I just needed an environment that would help me to move from the general to the specific. And that environment was very honest with me. Gently but honest. But I had to ask for it. And for some reason, there was a lot less caution about "hurting people's feelings" here several years ago. We were able to talk about curriculum without having such a strong emotional connection to our choices. We embraced and abandoned materials at will; it was the nature of the game. The boards were not so much an environment to share our favorites as a playground to explore the reasons behind our choices and to gain healthy advice about what we were neglecting when we made those choices. (Really! I can't think of one great fit for us curriculum-wise that I don't have a long list of reasons why it was a terrible choice. Really! I know of nothing we have used successfully that wasn't bad for a long list of reasons. :001_smile:)

 

So that emotional connection to our choice where we feel like we have to defend our choice is something that confuses me. I really don't get it. It's such a boring thing to discuss. I like blue cheese dressing, and you like French. What's to discuss? I'll lose interest and wander off. Quickly! Even TV is more interesting than that. :001_smile:

 

In the past, I have always felt like these boards were a place where we gals stood together on one side of the tug-o-war rope and all of the "choices" were on the other side - threatening to drag us into the deep muddy pit-o-goo if we didn't stick together and tame them into submission. Me with my favorite and you with yours pulling against each other just doesn't seem as helpful. For either of us. (Not you specifically, Stacy, just in general....)

 

Back to math (and this question in general):

If the AoPS books are used correctly, they would provide an amazing math education to a very bright student. (And I do mean a mathematics education; those books offer much more than instruction.) If used as they are designed to be used, I have yet to see any other math curriculum that teaches math on that "intellectual" level. Period. So far, nothing comes close. Great format. Very inspiring. The texts are designed to be used as guided discovery. A VERY time consuming process for even a bright, inquisitive child. I would suspect that even a very bright kid isn't going to be able to jump the ditch to engage with that method within a reasonable amount of time every day. And I suspect most kids are going to need more drill and kill to be successful. But for a super-bright math student? Those books must be gold. They dig down deeply to build upon the logic behind the equations. The AoPS series offers guided deconstruction, but only after the child has attempted the deconstruction on his own. Most kids are not going to be sharp enough to handle the amount of material with that method within a reasonable amount of time each year.

 

As I've said, so far I haven't seen anything else that comes close; there is a lot more going on in an AoPS text than is readily apparent. Maybe the Singapore series comes close, but even that is more concrete. Challenging, yes. But still not on the same intellectual level as AoPS.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

P.S. Oh - and a bit of info in case you think I am looking down my nose at the inferior/non-rigorous/what-ever-you-want-to-call-it curriculum others are using :D - so far I haven't been able to use AoPS with any of my kids. None of mine have shown the aptitude to make those texts the best fit. In other words, they are at a higher level than we need. Using them would be an unwise use of time and talent.

 

AND I'm willing to be corrected. So far I have only the algebra text and the Intro to Number Theory text. Apart from the comments from folks like 8 who have personal experience with their own kids, perhaps some other folks who teach math for a living (Yoo HOOOOOOOOO, Regentrude!!!!!!) and are using the program with their kids can chime in here and correct the errors I have made. ;) I recommend Regentrude because she teaches mathematics and probably has the experience to chat about the general student population. I am curious about what percentage of the population she thinks could benefit from a text like AoPS v. spend a lot of time that would probably be better spent elsewhere. I have no experience except with my own. Of course we all have some knowledge of the difference between bright and brilliant. I have rubbed shoulders with a few brilliant people; an entirely different breed of cat. You can't build that kind of person; you can only nurture.

[Janice in NJ]

Oh shoot.

 

Cognitive Science, Bloom's Taxomony..... uh -oh. Ya'll are headed in the direction of fields of study I don't know much about.

 

Reminds me of this clip from a DVD we have. (Note: the clip is very jittery, but our family thinks Regan is a riot.)

 

 

 

Resume. I'm bowing out! I have to go clean my dirty kitchen. :001_smile:

Janice

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I don't get feedback either way IRL - so am dependant on the boards as well. :001_smile:

 

We started homeschooling when we lived in Germany, amid the high pressure academics of university trained professionals, international expats and diplomats and well to do Germans. While we had friends who taught at some of the local Gesamtschule or Hochschule, all the kids we knew were on a track to complete Abitur or an American IB or British A and O exams. They had attentive parents who had definite goals in mind. I didn't have many people suggesting that I could take things at our own pace or let education be more child directed. I did have plenty of folks asking how we would teach foreign language, lab science and calculus - even though my kids were barely in elementary school.

 

I'm really glad that I had met WTM by then. It gave me a lot of confidence to say that, yes we were teaching German and Latin and yes, we expected them to do science and math. And I'm forever thankful that we were doing study of lots of world history or I might have been trying to teach them about state history of a state we had long since left while neglecting the ancient treasures in the museums downtown and the fantastic castle ruins a few hours down the road.

 

I've met a lot of homeschoolers that I would consider to be taking their role as educational facilitator seriously. Some are working with challenging kids. Some have lofty goals. But they are working hard. I hope that I fall into this group most days.

 

On the other hand I've met some who don't seem to have a vision of what they are doing. Some who are plopping their 3rd grader in front of hours of video class every day, complaining that the kid isn't retaining information and then choosing a different video based curriculum. One who is the most creative unschooler I've ever met, who was out there encountering life abroad and having adventures that I never even considered, who now somewhat rues those choices because her rising 7th grader may have to enter school and is finding himself not ready for the work.

 

It's not my responsibility or right to parent other people's children. But these weren't faceless posters on a board somewhere. They were people I cared about with lovely kids. And I wonder if a gentle word in the right season would have been helpful.

 

A couple of my kids have lofty goals. One is interested in attending a service academy. That has about 14 applicants for every slot, and that is before weighing in local demographics of living in a highly competitive district. So I am looking for some iron sharpening iron and a gentle (or not so gentle) "have you thought this through" from time to time.

 

I'm also looking for an occasional pat on the hand and a "don't panic, you're asking too much for right now" like I actually got from SWB at a recent conference (when I was stressing that my 7th grader wasn't producing high school level essays yet).

 

It must be the last week of school. I'm not sure the above ramblings even make sense to me. Keep on keepin' on.

[Jean in Wisc]

"Rigorous means demanding strict attention to rules and procedures; vigorous means strong and active physically or mentally."

 

I would never have chosen vigorous off the top of my head, but when I saw this in the thesaurus, I though that "strong and active mentally" sounded a lot like my homeschool. We push hard--but only as hard as the child could go. We do more than most, but we do not try to do make our home a small college.

 

:)

Jean

Edited June 27, 2011 by Jean in Wisc

[Colleen in NS]

But my children are in the process of making a video of me on the WTM forums about how I don't respond when on or give the wrong answers to questions...

 

OK, now, THIS has me *howling* with laughter right now!!!!!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:

[Joan in GE]

Keep on keepin' on.

 

Thanks for the support. It's true that being in Europe is so helpful for World History study and without studying ahead on the topic, the sites aren't nearly so meaningful or attractive...

 

Joan

[Stacy in NJ]

to education. :001_smile: It's part of "environment" or nurture. Our control over outcome , whether that outcome is behavioral or educational, is minimal. Our control over IQ and cognitive reasoning are non-existent. Basically, according to cognitive science, we have a slim sliver of area we do have some control over, if only temporarily - that area is behavioral. So, whether a homeschooling parent chooses to use MUS or a more challenging math program will have a limited long term effect. In the short term, because the student is exposed to more complex reasoning, he/she may score marginally higher on an output (test like SAT), but those effects will be lost over an extended period of time.

 

Behavior and strict/permissive parenting is not the same as education. I'm not sure what you are even referring to with this statement: Cognitive Science tells us that our control is minimal, not nonexistent, but minimal. Minimal over what? IQ? Cognitive reasoning?

 

Children that spend their early childhood actively using their imagination develop greater critical thinking skills over kids who are passively learning or watching tv. Active engagement in that type of playing impacts brain development.

 

Similar research also exists for the distinction between knowledge-based education vs. higher order thinking skills via Bloom's taxonomy.

 

No, IQ is not significantly impacted. But, IQ is not the end-all be-all of the intellectual realm. IQ is only the ability that exists. How and to what extent that ability is developed is variable. If not, education itself would not matter.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Stacy in NJ

[Rosie_0801]

albeit at a younger age…..but again, that is b/c of my inability to recognize what was actually possible).

 

You know, I think you've hit on a really useful point there. I'm considering that people who have their feelings hurt by encountering anecdotes about others' rigorousness (or whatever you want to call it!) are projecting onto others their own fear of having their imagination expanded to the point where they begin to perceive their previous efforts, what they considered their absolute best, as mediocre. A bit of a challenge is one thing. You think "Ooh. That's a good idea, I'll have to try that!" Rewriting your educational world view is interesting at my stage of the game, but when it happens to me at a later stage, it's going to be much harder to be objective about my newly inspired thought experiment. I daresay I'll feel all sorts of emotions I'd rather not feel and thinking all sorts of things I'd rather not think. (Things like "OMG! I've been working my butt off already! ARGH, why do I have to read this stupid forum where people know stuff? Why didn't they have that annoyingly inspiring conversation, say, back before my kids were even born so I could have done it all that way to begin with? *sounds of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and the unwrapping of chocolates*)

 

Excuse that run-on sentence, would you? Ds has been shouting at me since 5.30am...

 

Exactly. I've never seen anyone here request that other people not post what their kids are doing because it makes them feel bad. On the contrary, I've seen many people say that they find such posts inspirational, even if their own kids are not achieving at the same level. I don't understand why "please be respectful of other people's choices" translates into "you're not allowed to post what your own kids are doing." :confused:

 

I have seen plenty of hurt feelings along these lines. No one has actually requested others not to share, but I've definitely seen the concept aired that those with advanced children should keep quiet so as to avoid offending. I've seen people accused of lying when relating anecdotes about their above average children too. Not straight requests, but very strong hinting. Of course, I've seen what you described above too. People need to take things less personally. Nobody here is raising and educating their children the way they do to spite anyone else here!

 

Rosie

[Julie in MN]

No one has actually requested others not to share, but I've definitely seen the concept aired that those with advanced children should keep quiet so as to avoid offending.

Rosie,

You seem to be careful in what you post, but I just really, really can't let this slide out of my inbox.

 

Maybe some folks have interpreted something that way, but I have NEVER seen this happen. If it has, please enlighten me with a specific link.

 

What I HAVE continually seen is a strong reaction to folks posting "the only way" -- maybe you've misinterpreted "please don't post that yours is the only way, because it's not true" to mean "please don't post"?

 

Julie

[Stacy in NJ]

I have seen plenty of hurt feelings along these lines. No one has actually requested others not to share, but I've definitely seen the concept aired that those with advanced children should keep quiet so as to avoid offending. I've seen people accused of lying when relating anecdotes about their above average children too. Not straight requests, but very strong hinting. Of course, I've seen what you described above too. People need to take things less personally. Nobody here is raising and educating their children the way they do to spite anyone else here!

 

Rosie

 

There is the flip side to this coin. There are those folks who are pursuing a very rigorous or advanced course of study who seem to subtly resent the use of the term "rigorous" in describing something they deem less than.

 

Have a gander back at the thread discussing the dumbing down of homeschool curriculum and you'll get a glimps of what I'm talking about.

[cathmom]

What does AoPS stand for?

[obsidian]

What does AoPS stand for?

Art of Problem Solving

[8filltheheart]

What does AoPS stand for?

Art of Problem Solving http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/

[8filltheheart]

to education. :001_smile: It's part of "environment" or nurture. Our control over outcome , whether that outcome is behavioral or educational, is minimal. Our control over IQ and cognitive reasoning are non-existent. Basically, according to cognitive science, we have a slim sliver of area we do have some control over, if only temporarily - that area is behavioral. So, whether a homeschooling parent chooses to use MUS or a more challenging math program will have a limited long term effect. In the short term, because the student is exposed to more complex reasoning, he/she may score marginally higher on an output (test like SAT), but those effects will be lost over an extended period of time.

 

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree. :001_smile:

 

My undergrad research was specifically on the development of cognitive thinking skills and the research I spent umpteen hrs in the stacks reading was contrary to what you are posting. Simply based on my own observations w/my own children, I would disagree anyway. ;)

[mcconnellboys]

I didn't enter into the last discussion, precisely because I do think that everyone's idea of "rigor" will be different, and that a "rigorous" education will (and should) look different for every type of child. The funny thing about rigor in education is this, for me: I don't think that every child needs it.

 

That is, some children pick up things so effortlessly and retain them so well that they don't need drill and kill. For others, they may need it only in certain areas of study that do not come naturally to them, and for still others, study may need to be a constant in order for them to make great grades - or even decent grades (once they go somewhere where grades are used, that is - and making a grade outside the home may be very different from making the same grade at home).

 

I think a discussion forum such as Homeschool - to - College is probably a place to get more information than you'd ever want to know regarding all the different ways rigor can look in a homeschooling environment. I'm just afraid that it might also just be depressing for some folks - and unnecessarily so, for their child may end up making their way in the world just as well as a child who has attended an ivy league university (or better).

 

Just as IQ is not always a predictor of success in the world, so I think that a "rigorous" education may not always be a predictor of success in the world.... I don't mean to say that we should not seek what we and our children feel to be best for us all, that we should not strive to achieve all that we can - I'm just saying that I really don't think it's necessary to try to "keep up with the Joneses," or the Smiths, or anyone else in terms of the way we structure education for our individual children....

 

And that's not to say that I've not seen children who I think may have been ill-served by parents who did not make them try hard things, or give them a broad enough education - but they do still have the rest of their lives to remedy that if they so choose. Learning needn't stop at a certain age. If they have at least the basics in place, and if they have a strong enough desire to achieve more at some point educationally, then there are many options for pursuing that in our country....

 

So I guess I would tend to talk about a "rigorous" education in terms of challenging kids as much as possible, particularly in areas that do not come easy to them, and maintaining learning discipline with the mindset of moving on to some form of post-secondary education. I guess words like "challenging" and "disciplined" would be strong key words for me....

[Rosie_0801]

Rosie,

You seem to be careful in what you post, but I just really, really can't let this slide out of my inbox.

 

Maybe some folks have interpreted something that way, but I have NEVER seen this happen. If it has, please enlighten me with a specific link.

 

It was the concept hovering in my mind, not specific posts so I'm not sure I will find it even if it is there to be found. It could be that I'm thinking of people posting that they think other people are wanting them to censor themselves, which is not quite the same thing, but destructive enough. I am usually more careful in what I post so if I find what I think I'm looking for, I shall pm you. I doubt either of us want to go here in public. I don't think I've seen this on the high school board, only on the K-8 and General. And no I don't expect you to believe me when I can't even provide a footnote! :P I was commenting.

 

What I HAVE continually seen is a strong reaction to folks posting "the only way" -- maybe you've misinterpreted "please don't post that yours is the only way, because it's not true" to mean "please don't post"?

I don't think so. I've seen that too. :rolleyes:

 

There is the flip side to this coin. There are those folks who are pursuing a very rigorous or advanced course of study who seem to subtly resent the use of the term "rigorous" in describing something they deem less than.

 

Have a gander back at the thread discussing the dumbing down of homeschool curriculum and you'll get a glimps of what I'm talking about.

 

Yes, I have seen that. I've also seen people being accused of that who I don't think are. My mother used to say, (not saying she's correct, but let's pretend for the sake of illustrating a point) really rich people have no need to be snobby. It's the wannabes who are; but the really rich are accused of it simply because they are in a position to lord it over people, so people will perceive them to be lording it even if they aren't. I see the same here.

 

 

Rosie

Edited June 27, 2011 by Rosie_0801

[Nan in Mass]

Never mind. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Nan in Mass

[Nan in Mass]

(Yes, but I apologized for that. Couldn't we just forget about it now?)

 

I feel that it is not so much that people want to be recognized or that people frustrated with things being, in their opinion, mislabeled, as that people want to warn others that not everyone shares a particular view.

 

Sometimes, too, some of us know each other well enough to be able to guess that something might not work for that person and chime in to say, "I've looked at that and I think it isn't challenging enough for your child." They happen to know what the child had done before.

[elizabeth]

I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at...but to me it seems like many who are doing extraordinary things with their "children/young people" (and I don't count myself as doing extraordinary things) are very discreet about it and only sometimes itemize when pressed. I wish they would talk more as every post I've read (though haven't read all posts) where people are doing extraordinary things, is very stimulating, even if it only means a minor change for us here and there, it can change the tone of our educational experience. And I am glad for their children getting such opportunities...

 

Again, not sure if that is what you meant,

Joan

 

Your personal message box is full. Please consider making space for messages. Please??? With sugar on top?:lol:

[Corraleno]

n/m, not worth it

Edited June 28, 2011 by Corraleno

[Jane in NC]

n/m

[PeterPan]

So I guess I would tend to talk about a "rigorous" education in terms of challenging kids as much as possible, particularly in areas that do not come easy to them, and maintaining learning discipline with the mindset of moving on to some form of post-secondary education. I guess words like "challenging" and "disciplined" would be strong key words for me....

 

Ooo, that's a very helpful definition! And what it is helpful that it acknowledges that rigor isn't always just about being advanced.

 

Back to my hovel.

[Joan in GE]

Your personal message box is full. Please consider making space for messages. Please??? With sugar on top?:lol:

 

Sorry - just read this now. I have made space!

 

Joan

[Joan in GE]

I didn't enter into the last discussion, precisely because I do think that everyone's idea of "rigor" will be different, and that a "rigorous" education will (and should) look different for every type of child. The funny thing about rigor in education is this, for me: I don't think that every child needs it.

 

Good point - I agree!

[Joan in GE]

So I guess I would tend to talk about a "rigorous" education in terms of challenging kids as much as possible, particularly in areas that do not come easy to them, and maintaining learning discipline with the mindset of moving on to some form of post-secondary education. I guess words like "challenging" and "disciplined" would be strong key words for me....

 

Yes, "challenging" does seem like a good word and you can see it in this thread now.

 

 

Joan