Yet another S/O: In an ideal world...

[Guest]

My ds is dyslexic and pretty much refuses to learn anything out of a book. I figured out today that he has basically made no progress academically in the past 3 years. You cannot force a child to learn what he doesn't find important. He knows physics in a fundamental way that someone who learned it from a book will never know. I am learning to accept him for who he is and always has been instead of who I tried to make him be. Will he ever learn theoretical physics? Only if he decides he needs it for something.:glare:;)

 

It's kind of like my Dad who knew how to use the Pythagorum Theorum even though he had no idea what it was called or what the formula was. He knew because he used it to square things in construction. He never formally studied Geometry but he *knows* Geometry!

 

Exactly; there are many ways to learn math and science, many ways of knowing, understanding, problem-solving. None of them NEED to be learned from formal textbook study; the apprentice system worked brilliantly for hundreds of years for most trades, and is still valid for a huge number of occupations and skills. Kids stopped school at twelve and went on to learn their trade hands-on. Formal textbook study does not always and NECESSARILY produce better or more efficient thinkers; nor does someone who learns primarily through his hands or through real-world practice necessarily have trouble organizing, prioritizing, or making connections. There are too many individual variables.

 

There's a revealing chapter in a book called School of Dreams, about the highest performing public school on the west coast. A physics AP teacher decides to take an eight week period of class and turn it into a hands-on project that will be judged by a committee of outside experts in science and engineering. What surprised the teacher was that the four kids at the top of the class in textbook learning not only did less well than the others -- they FLUNKED the project. They didn't get it, couldn't do it, didn't work in the way the other kids did at trying to understand it and figure it out. Afterwards, they begged to take a regular paper-based test instead, and aced that. They just couldn't perform in the real world.

 

So these types of issues can work both ways.

 

And before anyone jumps in to criticize: no, I'm not saying someone who designs bridges or rockets should not have to open a textbook. That is not the point. The point is that a primarily text-focused education is not necessarily and inevitably going to transfer over into a host of other skills like real world problem-solving, customer relations, or organizing one's time (or producing a better mechanic). Depending on the kid, it might; or then again, it might not.

[8filltheheart]

In an ideal world I would be a strewing unschooler with a heavy dose of CM nature study. In the world I inhabit at the moment, I am a fairly rigorous classical homeschooler. Definitely, worry/fear about admission into college plays a HUGE role in why I'm schooling this way. I value basic skills (and mastery of these skills) and core/canon immensely, but if college admission were no worry I would try to incorporate these more organically into our learning rather than forcing them in at mandated ages/stages via a standard curriculum.

 

I would incorporate a lot -TONS- more time outdoors/in wild nature, every single day.

 

This thread is making me uncomfortable- in a good way. ;) It's making me wonder why I'm making the choices I am (my child is still fairly young- 8- and although he has some moderate to severe sensory processing issues, so far has done well with traditional curricula) and if it's "okay" to make an unconventional choice even if your kid isn't wired differently. What if you DO have the choice about how you can teach your kid- is it possible to love TWTM and still choose a more unschool-y/child-led/organic path? I had a similar thought reading the thread a few months ago about the family that had the incredibly awesome opportunity to live abroad/no access to curriculum. :)

 

With an 8 yr old.....the answers to your questions are a resounding yes. I would suspect that a lot of the people posting in this thread did not use traditional curricula and probably still don't for many subjects. Traditional curricula are not a requirement for solid courses. (fwiw, other than math, I don't use textbooks until high school. ;) )

[Julie in MN]

They didn't get it, couldn't do it, didn't work in the way the other kids did at trying to understand it and figure it out. Afterwards, they begged to take a regular paper-based test instead, and aced that. They just couldn't perform in the real world.

 

So these types of issues can work both ways.

 

KarenAnne,

I haven't gone thru the entire thread yet, but this is a big concern of mine. In some schools -- and on some homeschool boards LOL -- textbooks are the "only" way to "challenge" your child to "higher academics." And if I'm looking for something other then a textbook, it is assumed I feel my child "can't handle it" and needs something "easier."

 

I so don't believe that, but then I find myself waffling and worrying about admissions and paper trails and prep for the classroom setting in college rather than for the learning...

 

I'll have to read your whole thread for ideas to save :)

Julie

[regentrude]

A physics AP teacher decides to take an eight week period of class and turn it into a hands-on project that will be judged by a committee of outside experts in science and engineering. What surprised the teacher was that the four kids at the top of the class in textbook learning not only did less well than the others -- they FLUNKED the project. They didn't get it, couldn't do it, didn't work in the way the other kids did at trying to understand it and figure it out. Afterwards, they begged to take a regular paper-based test instead, and aced that. They just couldn't perform in the real world.

 

 

I agree with what I believe you wanted to express - however, I have a problem with the bolded phrase. Just because somebody is not practically inclined and can not build something does not mean he can not "perform in the real world". There are actually many people whose real world job consist of working out theories with paper and pencil ... and whose performance is indeed required in order for some great practical gadget being built, sometimes dozens years later.

Let's be aware of bias - in both directions.

[Colleen in NS]

The point is that a primarily text-focused education is not necessarily and inevitably going to transfer over into a host of other skills like real world problem-solving, customer relations, or organizing one's time (or producing a better mechanic).

 

When I commented on the classically-educated mechanic, I wasn't advocating for a "primarily" text-focused education, nor do I believe that WTM chapter you referenced (Some People Hate Homer, for those who want to look it up in WTM) is doing so. I actually said this at the beginning of my comments: "I think a classical education could only serve to add to this hypothetical mechanic's life." Meaning adding to his/her practical experience. I think most home educators believe that a "primarily" text-focused education would be incredibly boring and useless. That's why we all talk in these threads about what things we are doing *in addition to* the math texts and other parent-required studies.

 

Traditional curricula are not a requirement for solid courses.

 

:iagree:

 

Just for fun, if I were to add to the first question in the OP, I'd ask myself: If I didn't have to cook/grocery shop/clean/do laundry/bake/do frugal activities to live within our means, what might my students' lives look like. Hmm....well, we'd get our required studies done earlier in the day, since cooking breakfast and washing/hanging laundry would be taken care of. And because I wouldn't have to be thinking about lunch/supper/budgeting/errands/bread-baking, I could have even more time to spend on learning things with my kids like drawing, more experiments, nature walks, painting, musical lessons, sculpting, putting things together (ds assembled fans for us the other day), taking things apart, etc. etc. etc.. The way I see it, it's the practical life stuff that gets in the way of these "different learning" activities, not the required academic stuff. :D I'd love to have a personal cook and a housekeeper! Oh the things we could do.....

Edited August 11, 2011 by Colleen in NS

[Guest]

I value basic skills (and mastery of these skills) and core/canon immensely, but if college admission were no worry I would try to incorporate these more organically into our learning rather than forcing them in at mandated ages/stages via a standard curriculum.

 

 

This poinpoints my unease, I think. As much as I felt free to tailor just about everything to dd's individual needs before she entered high school proper, there was (is) something about those official high school years that spooked me and made me think I needed to follow the typical curriculum and schedule of a highly competitive student. Even people on the boards who were pretty relaxed homeschoolers when their kids were younger make the switch to textbooks, essays, test prep. Highly competitive students, we are made to understand from a wealth of sources -- college admissions material, anecdotes, books like Tiger Mom, many threads on these boards, parents of kid who go to private schools and take huge AP loads -- do things a certain way.

 

And what is more, if you want YOUR student to be competitive, he or she too must do things in precisely this manner and at these times. I'm particularly chafing at the idea that biology, for instance, or algebra II, needs to be finished in a year (or nine months, an academic year). That timeline feels so artificial to me; yet if a kid has two years of algebra II on a transcript, enriched with Teaching Company lectures, assorted trade books on mathematical thinking and applications, excursions into other areas of math as a break or other textbooks to see how the treatment differed, and a project or two that took a good amount of time, how would something that different from the norm be evaluated by colleges?

 

My thought is that all but an extremely rare one would say this showed a kid "couldn't handle" the regular course workload or pace.

 

I also feel quite strongly, having gone to grad school in literature and taught literature classes at the University of California for a dozen years, that many kids can learn to analyze a text best if they spend a lot of time with it. A LOT. By this I don't mean the agonizingly slow, page-by-page analysis that went on in the private school dd attended briefly; I mean the kids read the book not once but several times, look for its echoes in popular culture, watch filmed versions or plays, read the book again, before they even think about writing an essay. Dd is an outlier, I know; but she prefers to read well-loved books that she wants to think about over and over and over, until their rhythms and plot structures are ingrained in her mind. This sort of approach needn't be taken with every book, of course; but even if you do three or four good length novels like this each year, you're right there eliminating the possibility of an AP-type class, simply because of pacing. And again, I'm suspecting some of the same criticisms would be leveled at the transcript or course description that you mentioned, Julie.

 

Many, many sources both in the culture and in our own minds also tell us repeatedly that breadth and coverage are the purpose in high school.

 

I can to some extent get out from under the college admissions/competitive/elite-school hype, as I don't think dd is the kind of personality would who thrive under those conditions and in that environment. I can get out from under the literature ones because that is my field of specialization and I feel confident in what dd does. But it's hard to get out from the entire cultural weight, and hard even sometimes to find a space on these boards where a unconventional path for a quirky isn't perceived as coddling, inferior, misguided, straying too far from the classical, or otherwise matter for criticism.

 

This thread got started because I wondered how many other people felt the weight of those cultural notions about what a kid needs to be doing for graduation and/or college admissions purposes, and how far those are from what the parent and the child would really love to spend more time doing instead (or am I, as I sometimes feel, really a Martian who doesn't remember her home planet or how she got to earth?). How much does fear about college admissions shape what we do as homeschoolers, during high school in particular? It's been interesting to see the wide spread, and very nice indeed to see people feeling they can be quite honest about what they would or wouldn't change, without feeling that the thread will turn into a critical one. For that I thank everyone. Hope it continues that way.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

I agree with what I believe you wanted to express - however, I have a problem with the bolded phrase. Just because somebody is not practically inclined and can not build something does not mean he can not "perform in the real world". There are actually many people whose real world job consist of working out theories with paper and pencil ... and whose performance is indeed required in order for some great practical gadget being built, sometimes dozens years later.

Let's be aware of bias - in both directions.

 

Yep, my wording was terrible. Sorry about that.

[8filltheheart]

This poinpoints my unease, I think. As much as I felt free to tailor just about everything to dd's individual needs before she entered high school proper, there was (is) something about those official high school years that spooked me and made me think I needed to follow the typical curriculum and schedule of a highly competitive student. Even people on the boards who were pretty relaxed homeschoolers when their kids were younger make the switch to textbooks, essays, test prep. Highly competitive students, we are made to understand from a wealth of sources -- college admissions material, anecdotes, books like Tiger Mom, many threads on these boards, parents of kid who go to private schools and take huge AP loads -- do things a certain way.

 

And what is more, if you want YOUR student to be competitive, he or she too must do things in precisely this manner and at these times. I'm particularly chafing at the idea that biology, for instance, or algebra II, needs to be finished in a year (or nine months, an academic year). That timeline feels so artificial to me; yet if a kid has two years of algebra II on a transcript, enriched with Teaching Company lectures, assorted trade books on mathematical thinking and applications, excursions into other areas of math as a break or other textbooks to see how the treatment differed, and a project or two that took a good amount of time, how would something that different from the norm be evaluated by colleges?

 

My thought is that all but an extremely rare one would say this showed a kid "couldn't handle" the regular course workload or pace.

 

I also feel quite strongly, having gone to grad school in literature and taught literature classes at the University of California for a dozen years, that many kids can learn to analyze a text best if they spend a lot of time with it. A LOT. By this I don't mean the agonizingly slow, page-by-page analysis that went on in the private school dd attended briefly; I mean the kids read the book not once but several times, look for its echoes in popular culture, watch filmed versions or plays, read the book again, before they even think about writing an essay. Dd is an outlier, I know; but she prefers to read well-loved books that she wants to think about over and over and over, until their rhythms and plot structures are ingrained in her mind. This sort of approach needn't be taken with every book, of course; but even if you do three or four good length novels like this each year, you're right there eliminating the possibility of an AP-type class, simply because of pacing. And again, I'm suspecting some of the same criticisms would be leveled at the transcript or course description that you mentioned, Julie.

 

Many, many sources both in the culture and in our own minds also tell us repeatedly that breadth and coverage are the purpose in high school.

 

I can to some extent get out from under the college admissions/competitive/elite-school hype, as I don't think dd is the kind of personality would who thrive under those conditions and in that environment. I can get out from under the literature ones because that is my field of specialization and I feel confident in what dd does. But it's hard to get out from the entire cultural weight, and hard even sometimes to find a space on these boards where a unconventional path for a quirky isn't perceived as coddling, inferior, misguided, straying too far from the classical, or otherwise matter for criticism.

 

This thread got started because I wondered how many other people felt the weight of those cultural notions about what a kid needs to be doing for graduation and/or college admissions purposes, and how far those are from what the parent and the child would really love to spend more time doing instead (or am I, as I sometimes feel, really a Martian who doesn't remember her home planet or how she got to earth?). How much does fear about college admissions shape what we do as homeschoolers, during high school in particular? It's been interesting to see the wide spread, and very nice indeed to see people feeling they can be quite honest about what they would or wouldn't change, without feeling that the thread will turn into a critical one. For that I thank everyone. Hope it continues that way.

 

The one thing that I read over and over in these threads is your anxiety over the issue. I think by hanging out on a classical board that your perception of how most people do things is probably skewed b/c the homeschoolers I encounter IRL don't do APs, don't take heavy course loads, and pretty much don't have high academic standards.

 

FWIW, I know that I do not believe that textbooks are all that important in creating a solid education. Actually, my personal beliefs are absolutely to the contrary. One of my favorite blogs is Charlotte Mason Tripod which is precisely about accomplishing high school science w/o a single textbook. I think your belief that somehow not using a textbook is scorned by the majority of posters on this site is not accurate.

 

I know that I do not use textbooks for literature. I don't use them for art history. I don't use them for most history topics. I do use them for science, math, and foreign language. However, if I only had 1 child and actually knew anything about those subjects (which I don't for most of them), I might take a different approach. In my reality, with a house full of multiple kids, multiple grade levels, skill levels all over the place, etc.....I have to rely on textbooks for materials I know nothing about and that are pretty standard in content in what is expected to be mastered especially when they want a career in those very fields.

 

Some subjects lend themselves to wide interpretation of what might or might not be covered. History can be whatever you want it to be to some degree. My rising 12th grader spent a yr studying the West vs. Communism during the 20th century and I labeled it 20th Century History on her transcript. (not a single textbook was used.) Literature is basically the same. You can have a lit class studying whatever you want. Last yr 2 of my kids did a study of the movie Inception and read Plato's Allegory of the Cave from Plato's Republic, a book on philosophy called Labyrinth of Reason, a book on mythology about Ariadne, the minotaur, and the labryinth (in case you haven't seen the movie, it is basically a dream labyrinth and the architect's name is Ariadne.), Through the Looking Glass, and Farhenheit 451. I labeled the course very non-creatively as Literature and Philosophy in Inception (I wrote 25 course descriptions that day and by the time I hit this one, all creativity was dead!) and explained it in her course descriptions. (again, what you see listed is what we used. There were no textbooks.)

 

Math and science are less "forgiving" as to what is normal. If you have a kid that doesn't want to pursue math and science, then being creative there is probably not as big of an issue. MacBeth (from the website I mentioned http://charlottemason.tripod.com/hisci.html) knows science and she has the ability to teach it effectively w/o a textbook. It can be done, but that is outside of my comfort zone raising future engineers and physicists.

 

As far as essays, APs, and test prep.....well, I do make my kids write essays. But, I make them write a paper a week from 3rd grade on, so it isn't anything different than they have been doing their entire school career. Writing effectively is an important educational objective, so I am glad that we have that focus. APs.....only my 15 yos has pursued that route so far in our family. I don't think they are the end all-be all and I certainly don't plan my kids' education around them. Why? B/c most schools really just do not care. Only the highly competitive ones do. Unless I have a competitive oriented child (which most of mine aren't), those schools aren't on our radar. And test prep.....we spend very minimal time on it. My experience with my kids is that some kids are good standardized test takers and some just aren't. Test prep only helps a few pts worth.....it isn't going to take a poor tester and turn them into a NMF.

 

Anyway, that is a long way of saying that it is all in the perception. High academic standards do not mean "textbooks." My personal definition (and one thing that I strongly encourage all homeschoolers to do is to create their own definitions and not worry about anyone elses!!) of high academic standards is based on input and output. I expect them to be learning from level appropriate materials (meaning high school-adult level books and not books aimed at middle schoolers) and processing the material w/some correlated level of output. So....an English credit w/o essay writing or reading quality lit would be a no go in our homeschool. But what constitutes how much reading and how much writing is also student dependent. My dd read 2-4 times as much as my sons. (all 3 of them)

 

ETA: FWIW, I don't think what I do is "unconventional." I don't think my kids are "quirky." I classify what I do as teaching the children that I have before me in a way that meets their educational needs and objectives. Both.....needs and objectives.....are weighed. We cannot have objectives that are unrealistically able to be met by their needs. Their needs must form the criteria for the objectives. But those objectives extend beyond grades 9-12. What we do does impact their future goals. So what we do is a serious decision b/c we are influencing adults' futures. So, if we make the decision to not pursue a certain course or subject matter, it means we have made the decision to shut some doors. But, the "true" reality is that those doors should never have been attempted to be opened or would probably have been shut by someone else anyway.

Edited August 11, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[KAR120C]

And what is more, if you want YOUR student to be competitive, he or she too must do things in precisely this manner and at these times. I'm particularly chafing at the idea that biology, for instance, or algebra II, needs to be finished in a year (or nine months, an academic year). That timeline feels so artificial to me; yet if a kid has two years of algebra II on a transcript, enriched with Teaching Company lectures, assorted trade books on mathematical thinking and applications, excursions into other areas of math as a break or other textbooks to see how the treatment differed, and a project or two that took a good amount of time, how would something that different from the norm be evaluated by colleges?

 

My thought is that all but an extremely rare one would say this showed a kid "couldn't handle" the regular course workload or pace.

I honestly think if you're beefing up the regular curriculum to a point that it really has substance for more than the "usual" time, then of course you can take more than 9 months. We've done that several times over! Biology became Biology and Marine Biology (only one textbook involved in the two years, but a ton of outside resources), and it's about to get stretched to a third year (textbook long gone) that we're calling Field Ecology. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a fourth and fifth, made up primarily of independent research and keeping up with the current journals.

 

Our statistics course was three years ago, but he's done more work (projects, programming) since then and still has yet to take the AP test. So by the time he's actually done it's going to have taken him at least four years. That doesn't bother me - he did the coursework on a reasonable schedule and he has been applying it in really useful directions, internalizing it in a way that just memorizing could never have done. I have no idea how I'm going to put that on the transcript, but I wouldn't change it anyway. I'll probably pick a year (either the year he did the course work or the year he takes the exam) and stick it there with no further comment. If anyone really wants to know they can have the ridiculously-long version, and probably sorry they asked. LOL Algebra is the same way - we never did an "Algebra 2" year. It's all in there somewhere. But that's where test prep comes in for us - I'd rather spend a little time familiarizing him with the SAT2 Math or having him pursue math competitions so no one bothers us about the weird sequence. It's a lot less bother than trying to pin us down to a standard course a year.

 

When I have a problem with timing is when you have a student doing a fairly standard or even light curriculum with no supplementation - like a single Introductory Algebra textbook - and taking two years to do it. Is it still Algebra 1? Sure. But I would still like to see it done in the one year generally allotted. If that pace is a problem because the work is too challenging (not because you're doing other things on top of it), then I would consider whether the student is ready for that level of work yet. But that doesn't sound like what you're worried about at all.

 

Generally, speaking as someone that probably fits your typical/ competitive model, I really don't think anything you're describing here is that far from what we do.

[8filltheheart]

I honestly think if you're beefing up the regular curriculum to a point that it really has substance for more than the "usual" time, then of course you can take more than 9 months.......

 

When I have a problem with timing is when you have a student doing a fairly standard or even light curriculum with no supplementation - like a single Introductory Algebra textbook - and taking two years to do it. Is it still Algebra 1? Sure. But I would still like to see it done in the one year generally allotted......

 

Generally, speaking as someone that probably fits your typical/ competitive model, I really don't think anything you're describing here is that far from what we do.

 

:iagree: w/ all of the above.

 

I think the pace/output is a valid issue for assigning high school credits. BUT.....if you have a student that can't, then they can't. It is far more important that their educational needs be met than some arbitrary pace. If we can't determine pace and content, I'm not sure why we would bother homeschooling. It is perfectly fine to reduce the pace, but it would be false to then attempt to claim the course was something that it actually wasn't on their transcript.

 

However, that is far different scenario than trying to aim for top-tier competitive colleges. The simple reality is that not all students are cut for that mold.

 

We shouldn't even try to cram a square peg into a round hole b/c it does not serve the student. There are schools out their recruiting different types of students. If there is angst in trying to meet specific criteria for specific schools, then we are limiting our options.

[Tullia]

What kinds of things (materials, activities, topics of discussion) are you thinking of with regard to these?

 

Dh is a professor of chemistry who publishes a lot of research, so we have occasional dinner table conversations about this kind of thing; and we own a couple of trade books about it. But I'm interested that you single out social and behavioral sciences -- psychology and sociology?? -- and I'd like to hear more about your thinking. My best friend has a doctorate in sociology and the two of us have talked a lot about the problematics of research studies, but it didn't occur to me to bring this up with dd.

 

Good questions. I never got as far as designing something specific, but wish I had. I'm looking back at our all too brief one semester course and thinking about all the things we didn't cover. My son prefers the physical sciences so that was another reason (other than time) I didn't try to expand in the direction of behavioral science. I’ve listed several resources we used below. I’d probably add some of the Teaching Company materials dealing with economics or psychology. I find rabbit trails tempting so I relied on using rhetoric as our organizing principle. People who are more intellectually disciplined than I (or not terribly interested in classical methods) might approach this differently.

 

Two possible options are to do either a brief survey of several disciplines or focus on one. Good candidates would be psychology and sociology, as you mentioned, but you could also look at economics, political science and anthropology as well as educational research. IME, most high school students would find educational, political science or economics research more accessible than some of the other options, but that would depend on individual circumstances. Before looking at a particular field I’d want to build on an overview of general philosophy and dip just enough into applied epistemology to give a high school student a sense of the questions to be asked. I’d probably choose one field of study and use specific questions to make the discussion somewhat less abstract.

 

Among other things, I’d look at would questions of how it’s decided where to draw the line between disciplines or go a bit further and talk about the boundary between legitimate inquiry and pseudo-science. That’s a point at which looking at history can be helpful.

 

One place to go after looking at the philosophical context might be to examine a single discipline focusing on the competing paradigms within that field. I’d look at the foundational assumptions of each paradigm, and compare between/among them. Then, I’d look at typically used methodologies (case studies, questionnaires, interviews, etc.) focusing on strengths and weaknesses, and ask similar questions about the analysis of data. Of course, once you start looking at data analysis you risk opening another can of worms with statistics. Math background may be a limiting factor if you want to go down that rabbit trail. Qualitative analyses may be more accessible to a student who’s not familiar with statistics or if it's not convenient to go that route. I do think it’s important to discuss the basic differences between descriptive and inferential statistics as well as the appropriate uses for each. I don’t know how high school statistics curricula treat this distinction, but undergraduate social science stats in my day dealt with this in a couple of weeks at most before focusing on inferential statistics, so I'm guessing you should be able to do this fairly quickly. [For why I think it’s important to spend time discussing this, see my example on math curricula below.]

 

The theoretical considerations could be discussed within the context of rhetoric, I’d probably frame discussions using ethical, logical or emotional considerations, as well as the major categories of forensics, politics, and ceremony, but there are other ways it could be done. One more narrowly rhetorical question I’ve pondered is whether to classify modern scientific research as belonging under the heading of artistic (entechnoi) or inartistic (atechnoi) proof. For the person conducting research, there are clearly artistic considerations which I think might also draw on epistemological questions. However, for the person who merely cites results, I’d tend toward classifying as inartistic.

 

For the more practical aspect of looking at behavioral research apart from rhetorical considerations my goal would be a fairly general one of cultural literacy. I’d focus on questions designed to get past the superficiality of the popularized versions of social/behavioral research usually presented in the news. This is the sort of information that’s usually available, but only if you have access to the original material. I don't remember the thread title, or if it was here or on the General board, but I read some interesting things here awhile back about doing internet research on the "deep web". Possible questions in no particular order:

 

 

• How are the important terms defined, and how well do the definitions fit reality?

• How was the information gathered?

• What type of analysis was done; was it qualitative or quantitative?

• What things were placed within the boundaries of the study, what was excluded, and why?

• Was this part of a longitudinal study?

• Has this study been replicated/is it a replication of earlier research?

• How do results of this study compare to similar research?

• What are the stated theoretical, methodological, or analytical limitations of this research?

• Who funded the research?

• May the results be applied to a wider population?

• What are the implications of any stated limitations which might affect how I view or use this information?

 

That last question was generated by a conversation I once had in which I tried (and failed) to explain why a study of the performance of Mrs. M’s 6th grade math students on a standardized tests over the course of several years wasn’t sufficient grounds to argue for adopting the math curriculum nationwide. :glare:

 

Here's a list of some of the books I’ve used in various ways. Please note that some of these may not appeal to everyone and not all the titles are secular.

 

 

• Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2nd Ed. ( I used this as a general guide for discussions, but did not assign it to my son. Please note that there’s a 3rd edition of this book.)

• C.S. Lewis: The Discarded Image

• David C. Lindberg: The Beginnings of Western Science

• G.H. Clark: Thales to Dewey A History of Philosophy

• Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton: The Soul of Science

• Teaching Company: we have a collection of various titles covering physics, mathematics, philosophy, western civ., and history of science. To expand the scope to include social and behavioral disciplines I’d look at the TC catalog. There are several good options.

 

[onaclairadeluna]

However, that is far different scenario than trying to aim for top-tier competitive colleges. The simple reality is that not all students are cut for that mold.

 

We shouldn't even try to cram a square peg into a round hole b/c it does not serve the student. There are schools out their recruiting different types of students. If there is angst in trying to meet specific criteria for specific schools, then we are limiting our options.

 

But what about when you are dealing with an extraordinarily bright 2e kid? You have to wonder what mold are they cut out for.

 

In my instance I think (with a question mark) that my son can handle a typical workload at a top tier school but dyslexia and expressive language difficulties constantly plague output.

 

Lately I have been interested in his ability (or inability) to write an essay on the SAT. I have gently introduced this idea to him. Even the most gentle introduction is excruciatingly difficult for him. I can only imagine what's going to happen if when he takes the SAT he gets one of those prompts with popular culture references.

 

I want my child to be able to hoop jump so that he is not limited, but sometimes the hoops that kids are asked to jump are just ridiculous. Do we seriously need our top students to be able to write about television? He would gladly write about Dickens or particle physics but it would be hard for him indeed to write about Brittany Spears. Actually it is hard for him to write about anything but if it is something wonderful and meaningful he is happy to climb that mountain.

 

My point is that there are kids out there who don't fit the mold for anything but you have to send them somewhere. Sometimes cramming them into the mold of a top tier school is the easiest fit.

[Jackie in NE]

KarenAnne,

 

This is such a great question, and one I have wrestled with for 2 years now. Dd is very focused on a rigorous college prep program. But she has many other interests that we haven't had time to pursue. If we weren't so focused on college prep, I would can the upper-level math and science (dd just doesn't like it), and I would add more foreign languages ( she loves them, and has already completed HS level Latin, Greek, and French). I would also add a second musical instrument, and maybe even a 3rd. She is accomplished in piano, but doesn't have time to take violin and flute..... Lastly, I would have loved it if she could have had time to pursue her other interests like welding, ag mechanics, and diesel engines. She always says "I'll do all that stuff in college", but I worry that we missed the opportunity to explore these things in High School.

 

Choices, choices. We all do our best.... and then worry, I guess.

 

Oh, and the other thing I would can is the logic and rhetoric stuff. She doesn't enjoy that either.

 

Great thread! ~Jackie

[Guest]

But what about when you are dealing with an extraordinarily bright 2e kid? You have to wonder what mold are they cut out for.

 

 

Anyone who knows me from the boards knows that this is exactly what lies behind my anxiety too. (And I share your horror at imagining my dd staring at an SAT prompt about popular culture and having NO CLUE to what it is referring, much less any interest whatever in writing about it.)

 

Dd doesn't fit ANY of the standard "bright kid" models, nor does she fit tidily into an LD model, as her true LDs (visual processing, dysgraphia) have been largely overcome with therapies and time. Yet she's still overwhelmingly (and charmingly, to me) eccentric.

 

In general, there are so many, many requirements and hoops for any college admissions process. For a kid who isn't competitive, who has a few very different but highly eclectic passions and who has little time for the rest of the stuff that gets urged upon her as necessary pre-requisites (to her they're just in the way of what she loves, taking up precious time and energy), who needs a lot of time and help to work out the mechanics of everyday living, social relationships, and big life transitions... it's just a entirely different kind of problem than it is for a neurotypical kid.

 

Yet this child is also gifted, highly intellectual, and is waiting for college in hopes that she'll finally find an environment and a group of people with whom she'll feel at home.

 

JennW keeps telling me that 2e kids change dramatically between ages 14 and 18, so I'm expecting -- desperately hoping -- the vision to get clearer each year. But at the moment it's still rather foggy and our path can't be foreseen; yet this is the same moment when everything all around me urges me to begin admissions battle tactics.

 

I think I'm getting close to what's at the root for me personally here, which is that dd's needs require me, ideally, to focus on the present -- her present takes all my efforts, all my concentration and research, often throws up unexpected crises or difficulties, is not a steady linear progress but takes place in huge leaps, digressions, and backtracking. Yet the internal model I carry with me, as well as the external model projected by the culture around me, is one of steady, incremental progress toward checking off all the college admissions boxes, sometimes years in advance; requires me to think of as a finished product (dd's high school education) what is actually very much a nonlinear work in process. I have to think of dd in a certain way to be able to best work with her every day, and that way clashes with the way I keep feeling pressured to think of her for college purposes.

 

In a way, it's the same kind of conundrum many parents of special needs kids face when their child is first diagnosed; your beloved child becomes, for a while when you are struggling to assimilate and understand it all, "the diagnosis." It takes time to be able to get through that and see your child as the very same child who existed beforehand, as much more than the parts of the diagnosis.

 

Sometimes I feel as though the way the larger culture pressures me to think about college gets in the way of how I want and need to think about my daughter.

 

If that makes any sense at all...

[8filltheheart]

But what about when you are dealing with an extraordinarily bright 2e kid? You have to wonder what mold are they cut out for.

 

In my instance I think (with a question mark) that my son can handle a typical workload at a top tier school but dyslexia and expressive language difficulties constantly plague output.

 

Lately I have been interested in his ability (or inability) to write an essay on the SAT. I have gently introduced this idea to him. Even the most gentle introduction is excruciatingly difficult for him. I can only imagine what's going to happen if when he takes the SAT he gets one of those prompts with popular culture references.

 

I want my child to be able to hoop jump so that he is not limited, but sometimes the hoops that kids are asked to jump are just ridiculous. Do we seriously need our top students to be able to write about television? He would gladly write about Dickens or particle physics but it would be hard for him indeed to write about Brittany Spears. Actually it is hard for him to write about anything but if it is something wonderful and meaningful he is happy to climb that mountain.

 

My point is that there are kids out there who don't fit the mold for anything but you have to send them somewhere. Sometimes cramming them into the mold of a top tier school is the easiest fit.

 

I'm honestly trying to understand your post, but I don't think that I do. I would never plan my child's academic future on an SAT essay prompt (a lot of unis do not even look at the writing score and it is simply disregarded.) However, I would definitely factor in the possible inability to have standard expressive output.

 

I'm confused as to why the "top-tier school is the easiest fit." There is a growing number of schools that have services targeted toward kids with LDs and have expanded services to aid in their success. Why would one of those schools not be a better fit for a 2E student than simply basing the decision on over all ranking? (I'm not being sarcastic. I a truly trying to understand.) A quick search found this list of universities http://www.college-scholarships.com/learning_disabilities.htm that specifically states that they offer extended services beyond the standard disability provisions (which aren't that extensive. I have a disabled student so I am very familiar with what is "standard." We have reams of paper work and approvals and the actual services that are typically allowed are minimal in terms of offering him a chance at success. We are actually paying thousands of dollars for him to be part of a separate group that mentors him on and off campus and helps him interact with his teachers b/c he shuts down due to high anxiety.)

Edited August 11, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[onaclairadeluna]

I'm honestly trying to understand your post, but I don't think that I do. I would never plan my child's academic future on an SAT essay prompt (a lot of unis do not even look at the writing score and it is simply disregarded.) However, I would definitely factor in the possible inability to have standard expressive output.

 

Oh, it's just what's on my mind lately. I am not planning my child's academic future. He is. I am just here to help. There are really two issues. The real issue of expressive output which he is working on and then the ways that these things are typically assessed. It just occurred to me that he is going to have to do a lot of testing for college. He actually does fairly well on tests but it is a nightmare for him. It's hard to pinpoint my anxiety on this. I'll have to think about it.

 

I'm confused as to why the "top-tier school is the easiest fit." There is a growing number of schools that have services targeted toward kids with LDs and have expanded services to aid in their success.

 

His GT side is stronger than his 2e side. I have gone to both a top tier school and a state school and I actually had better teachers at the state school so I am not saying this in an elitist way at all.

 

My son wants a small school with excellent math and science. Most state schools with great math and science programs are fairly large. My kids GT side is stronger than his 2e side. Both real but if they had to arm wrestle the GT side would wallop his 2e side. If when push comes to shove his 2e side winds up needed more than I expect, he will have to find an alternative path and I am glad it's there. Either way he is going to have to work hard at adjusting.

 

I fear I am not making sense. 13 years of trying to figure this kid out. Not sure if I am anywhere close to understanding what he needs, let alone explaining it. Thanks for attempting to understand what I am talking about.

 

My main point is that some kids don't really fit in anywhere so no matter what you have to do some tweaking to help them adjust.

 

Like the island of Misfit toys in Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer.

[onaclairadeluna]

Sometimes I feel as though the way the larger culture pressures me to think about college gets in the way of how I want and need to think about my daughter.

 

If that makes any sense at all...

 

It does to me. FWIW I don't spend too much time worrying about the future and yet I think I worry just as much as you do. There is plenty to worry about in the present.

 

What helped me recently was sending my child off to camp. A camp where he...drumroll please...fit in. It was amazing and wonderful. Maybe you should hunt down an experience like this for your daughter sooner rather than later. I realize that this is no easy task. But perhaps if she finds her tribe now her future path will fall more clearly in place.

 

I am always happy to read your posts. We are in the trenches. Hang in there and thanks for sharing.

[8filltheheart]

Oh, it's just what's on my mind lately. I am not planning my child's academic future. He is. I am just here to help. There are really two issues. The real issue of expressive output which he is working on and then the ways that these things are typically assessed. It just occurred to me that he is going to have to do a lot of testing for college. He actually does fairly well on tests but it is a nightmare for him. It's hard to pinpoint my anxiety on this. I'll have to think about it.

 

 

 

His GT side is stronger than his 2e side. I have gone to both a top tier school and a state school and I actually had better teachers at the state school so I am not saying this in an elitist way at all.

 

My son wants a small school with excellent math and science. Most state schools with great math and science programs are fairly large. My kids GT side is stronger than his 2e side. Both real but if they had to arm wrestle the GT side would wallop his 2e side. If when push comes to shove his 2e side winds up needed more than I expect, he will have to find an alternative path and I am glad it's there. Either way he is going to have to work hard at adjusting.

 

I fear I am not making sense. 13 years of trying to figure this kid out. Not sure if I am anywhere close to understanding what he needs, let alone explaining it. Thanks for attempting to understand what I am talking about.

 

My main point is that some kids don't really fit in anywhere so no matter what you have to do some tweaking to help them adjust.

 

Like the island of Misfit toys in Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer.

 

Is your ds 13? I ask b/c my 15 yos is 2E and there has been dramatic changes in him over the last couple of yrs. He couldn't read on grade level until mid 4th grade. His reading was excruciatingly slow even through 6th and 7th. As an 8th grader, things really started to change and last yr as a 9th grader he was finally handling not only a typical 9th grade lit load, but he was actually handling an accelerated load. This yr as a 10th grader he is taking the 2nd hardest lit class I have taught to my kids. His writing has gone through an equally dramatic change (his spelling lags severely, but it isn't quite as horrid as it used to be.)

 

If he is older (like almost 18), it is probably a different scenario.

 

Some disabilities are truly life-long disabling. That is the reality we face with our Aspie. He is highly intelligent, but he cannot cope w/stress or anxiety. His intelligence is not the most important factor in aiding him to become an independent adult. It isn't even a close second. This is where we have to be able to step back from our child and really learn to evaluate them as whole person vs. parts in isolation. His intelligence and strong academic abilities aren't enough to "quash" his disabilities. His disabilities can be masked for short periods, but the reality is that the disabilities do have more control over him than his intelligence.

[onaclairadeluna]

Is your ds 13? I ask b/c my 15 yos is 2E and there has been dramatic changes in him over the last couple of yrs. He couldn't read on grade level until mid 4th grade. His reading was excruciatingly slow even through 6th and 7th. As an 8th grader, things really started to change and last yr as a 9th grader he was finally handling not only a typical 9th grade lit load, but he was actually handling an accelerated load. This yr as a 10th grader he is taking the 2nd hardest lit class I have taught to my kids. His writing has gone through an equally dramatic change (his spelling lags severely, but it isn't quite as horrid as it used to be.)

 

 

Yes, 13. That's encouraging. He is in 8th grade and things are starting to fall into place. The only thing I think my son will ever need an accommodation for is timed writing. He is slow, slow, slow. He can keep up the pace of a HS course in terms of the calendar year but he wouldn't be able to sit for an hour HS exam. He can write well if you give him a week to do it. His spelling is "meh" but not bad for a dyslexic, probably close to grade level if not grade level.

 

I certainly hope things fall into place and this becomes less of an issue. I am treating this year as HS but not officially counting it on a transcript as HS (if that makes sense) I school through an ISP and they won't count what we are doing this year unless we accelerate which I won't do.

 

I am nudging him toward more traditional output. I think it is something he is capable of. It is tricky to bridge the gap between his thoughts and expression. Trying to feed his intellect and exercise his skills at the same time. It's like playing double dutch with flaming ropes.

[8filltheheart]

Yes, 13. That's encouraging. He is in 8th grade and things are starting to fall into place. The only thing I think my son will ever need an accommodation for is timed writing. He is slow, slow, slow. He can keep up the pace of a HS course in terms of the calendar year but he wouldn't be able to sit for an hour HS exam. He can write well if you give him a week to do it. His spelling is "meh" but not bad for a dyslexic, probably close to grade level if not grade level.

 

I certainly hope things fall into place and this becomes less of an issue. I am treating this year as HS but not officially counting it on a transcript as HS (if that makes sense) I school through an ISP and they won't count what we are doing this year unless we accelerate which I won't do.

 

I am nudging him toward more traditional output. I think it is something he is capable of. It is tricky to bridge the gap between his thoughts and expression. Trying to feed his intellect and exercise his skills at the same time. It's like playing double dutch with flaming ropes.

 

My ds's course load was absolutely skewed until recently. He started taking high school math in elementary school when he was still barely reading on grade level. :tongue_smilie:

 

FWIW, top-tier schools weren't even on our radar for him until last yr. When he took the ACT in 8th grade, there was a 10 pt split between his reading and math score and his math score, while great, was not really representative of his abilities. Why? B/c he reads so slowly. He still reads really slowly but not as bad as a couple of yrs ago.

 

He may still not be able to attend a top school though intellectually that is where he needs to be. Unless he brings up his reading scores significantly when he takes the tests in 11th grade, they will bring down his score and might mean no scholarship $$. W/o scholarships, he can't attend.

 

But, I guess I don't see it the way some of the people on the forum do. If can't go, I'm sure we'll find some place that will love having him and I know him.....he will make it work for him and get everything out of it he can. I just don't see worrying about that which I have no control over. He is incredibly inquisitive and driven and is one of the nicest young men I have ever met. His strengths will be recognized somewhere even if it isn't his dream school.

[mcconnellboys]

Would this be a world where my children would still have to complete college (or some similar form of higher learning) in order to be considered "educated," break into the job market, etc.? If so, then I guess I'd feel the need to keep things the same.

 

If, however, there was not a perceived "need" of college, in order to help one succeed in the job market, then I'd absolutely unschool. I would hope such a society would have more mentoring/apprenticeship opportunities for all, too, and I'd move them into that at middle school age....

[Jane in NC]

Would this be a world where my children would still have to complete college (or some similar form of higher learning) in order to be considered "educated," break into the job market, etc.? If so, then I guess I'd feel the need to keep things the same.

 

If, however, there was not a perceived "need" of college, in order to help one succeed in the job market, then I'd absolutely unschool. I would hope such a society would have more mentoring/apprenticeship opportunities for all, too, and I'd move them into that at middle school age....

 

Acceptance to college is one thing; funding is another. Are some of the choices that parents make tied to possible merit aid scholarships? Many state unis are affordable but those seeking small LACs may find financial aid to be insufficient. Merit aid can be a lovely thing.

 

Jane

[mcconnellboys]

Amen!

[mcconnellboys]

Here's one link to apprenticeships in various states:

 

http://oa.doleta.gov/bat.cfm

[Guest]

Would this be a world where my children would still have to complete college (or some similar form of higher learning) in order to be considered "educated," break into the job market, etc.?

 

I'm assuming a DESIRE rather than a need to complete college for my own dd's part. Also assuming, in my ideal world, affordability -- trying to get rid of all fear factors.

 

So merit scholarships and the like are not an issue for the purposes of my own mental experiment; neither are the extremely prescriptive requirements some colleges insist upon for consideration and/or the cultural pressures to compete in a certain way, to present colleges with a certain picture of accomplishment and high performance as determined by GPA, test scores, AP load, and the like.

 

I guess what I mean is that I'm pretending for the moment that there are a myriad of ways to demonstrate a child's fitness or appropriate level for college work, other than the course loads, subject requirements, and test scores that have come to be standard procedure; and that for the purposes of this thought experiment our kids would be accepted to college with their own individual and uniquely organized academic backgrounds.

 

Yes, they'd have to be able to read critically, think analytically, write clearly. So I assume everyone would want to prepare their kids to do all these things -- goals we already share on these boards. But what if these end goals were not tied to prescriptive course schedules and subject requirements? What if they could be met in any way you or your child wished?

 

What I'm trying to get at is what would happen in your child's life if anxiety, fear, financial need, or certain transcripts or test scores were not in play: if high school could be seen not as so laden with a need to perform and succeed at ever higher levels, in narrowly specified ways. What if, for example, a child could write honestly and openly about an interest in a particular topic (in math, science, history, what have you), relate how he or she went at thinking about this issue or problem or topic over the years, and not have to prove any certain level of achievement or performance as a result? That just the thinking about and studying and researching could be valued on its own terms, rather than having to be presented in terms of achievement or performance?

 

How much of what we do is aimed at producing what colleges want, rather than what our kids would truly love to do, or we would love to see them have the opportunity to do without being afraid of how a less than stellar performance would undermine their future chances at admission? How much does anxiety about having to demonstrate certain levels of achievement and performance actually, FOR SOME KIDS AND FAMILIES, stand in the way of real learning, real intellectual development, critical/divergent thinking?

 

To what degree does knowing we have to package or even market our kids for college purposes impact what say we let them have in their own educations, how we interact with them as homeschooling parents, what we decide we must value or "count"?

 

This is what I tried to articulate in an earlier post when I compared what I'm feeling about this whole process to the feeling one gets after a diagnosis (as in our case, of Asperger's). It feels like I'm being compelled to see my daughter not as what she is in the present, but as a potential college applicant for all four years of high school. I'm compelled by the weight of cultural expectations of all kinds, which I find very constricting, to emphasize achievement, performance, across the board, in some things dd has no interest in whatever; to emphasize output of certain prescribed types (again in which dd has little interest in some areas -- others are fine); to get her to think about her "passions" as a kind of prelude to the admissions essay.

 

It may be I'm just uptight and bizarre. But this is what it often feels like when I'm dealing with a nonstandard kid for whom the standard coverage- and performance-based model isn't a natural fit as it is for some kids on these boards. At least, from some other posts here, I know that if I'm loony at least I'm not alone.:D

[ChiMomNP]

There are a few things I would be doing differently for my Aspie/ADHD/anxiety-prone 12 year old. I'd use Teaching Textbooks for math instead of Saxon. I'm totally paranoid about tests scores though. I'd encourage him to pursue his interests more. I wouldn't stress over writing so much, he hates it. The physical act of writing is so tough for him. I'd do way more interest led learning. In an ideal world I wouldn't worry so much.