What Is Comparably Rigorous to TOG?

[Parker Martin]

I've seen multiple assertions that TOG is probably the most rigorous curriculum available. Agree? Disagree? Any others that offer comparative rigor?

[SewLittleTime]

:bigear:

[Candid]

I'm a happy TOG user, but I'd qualify that statement and limit its rigor to the Rhetoric level.

 

In the two grammar levels I think you find other good programs that offer a similar level of challenge. Even at a middle school levelthere continue to be other good programs that would match it.

 

At high school though when I compare reading lists the only other program that offers a similar high level is Veritas. I've heard that TOG is easier on the home school mom because they emphasize educating her and give her guided Socratic discussions to follow and I know that is the case about TOG (what I don't know is if Veritas is lower in its support since I've never used their materials.

 

And I will say the exception to this might be the last year where I think they flinched a bit on literature selections. On the other hand the inclusion of biographies might offset that. However, I will trade out some books for my oldest at that level and give him more meat. On the other hand my youngest will reach year four his freshman year and I will probably leave the literature alone for him.

[Meriwether]

I've never used TOG. I don't know how Veritas Press compares, but I do know I couldn't handle anything more rigorous than VP. If there is a significant difference between VP and TOG, I don't know how the TOG ladies do it.

[serendipitous journey]

:bigear: oooh, the rigor question. Am always interested. We're not Christian, so some of these won't work for us (everybody says there's no point doing VP Omnibus as non-Christian). still: :bigear: :bigear: :bigear:

[melmichigan]

I would agree with your statment, although one of the really nice things about TOG is that you can make it as rigorous as you want depending on your book choices, the number of books you choose, the amount of discussion you have, if you do timeline, map work, definitions, people study, etc, etc. You can do as much or as little as you want so it will depend on the family when defining rigor, and for me it is different for each child, that is what makes these discussions difficult. I do find the resources available to me to be the most rigorous I could find and still secularize the way I choose (VP wouldn't work for that).

[serendipitous journey]

I would agree with your statment, although one of the really nice things about TOG is that you can make it as rigorous as you want depending on your book choices, the number of books you choose, the amount of discussion you have, if you do timeline, map work, definitions, people study, etc, etc. You can do as much or as little as you want so it will depend on the family when defining rigor, and for me it is different for each child, that is what makes these discussions difficult. I do find the resources available to me to be the most rigorous I could find and still secularize the way I choose (VP wouldn't work for that).

 

... this corresponds to an earlier thread that placed VP as "more rigorous" than WTM/LCC, and those as "more rigorous" than TOG: folks seemed to agree that it depended on how the parent implements TOG.

 

Since the original post has young ones in the signature, and mine are small too, I'm curious if those who find TOG extremely rigorous advise starting it with primary children, or following the common advice to wait until the eldest is in year 5? And do you find TOG more rigorous than a fairly faithful TWTM plan? (more :bigear:)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

:bigear: oooh, the rigor question. Am always interested. We're not Christian, so some of these won't work for us (everybody says there's no point doing VP Omnibus as non-Christian). still: :bigear: :bigear: :bigear:

 

If I didn't want a Christian curriculum, I would use Core Knowledge. If you get the teacher's books and everything, it is a pretty solid scope and sequence! And I think it is interesting. We used it for a few years and enjoyed it.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Any others that offer comparative rigor?

 

My opinion? WTM offers a comparable level of rigor (as it is actually written, not necessarily as every Six Degrees of WTM people really use when they say they use WTM--and, yes, I'm guilty of that too).

[Heather in VA]

I agree that Omnibus would be completely undoable for non-Christians. We love it but it is very Christian. I haven't used TOG but have looked at it many times and while it seems easier than TOG to use secularly, from what I've seen of the rhetoric level, I wouldn't want to try that either.

 

If I was trying to approach the rhetoric level from a secular perspective I would use WTM/WEM. There is not as much hand holding as either Omnibus or TOG but it's laid out well with good information and doable with some effort. Of course at that level regardless of what you use discussion between the teacher and student is key. If you start a discussion and something comes up you don't know... research it together. It can be fun.

 

Heather

[serendipitous journey]

Kolbe: rigorous as TOG or more so? (but Catholic) folks on the high school forum seem to find it rigorous, but maybe more boy- than girl- friendly in high school with the history foci (not history per se, but lots of battles etc.)

Edited September 20, 2011 by serendipitous journey
clarity.

[MelissaMinNC]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this but I really belive that rigor is much more dependent (at least in the years before high school) on a teacher who is intentional, consistent, dedicated and willing to put in the effort than it is dependent on a particular curriculum, method or philosophy. Discovering what educational philosphy fits you best will help you find the curricula, the tools that you will be able to teach well, teach thoroughly.

 

I don't know. I don't think I'm saying it very well. But I guess what I mean is, decide what your academic and non-academic priorities are, then pick the tools that allow you to focus on them. Then just go to town with it, and be consistent. A stack of library books can be rigorous curriculum if you know what to do with them and follow through.

 

Am I crazy? (Wait, don't answer that...) :lol:

[polishinggems]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this but I really belive that rigor is much more dependent (at least in the years before high school) on a teacher who is intentional, consistent, dedicated and willing to put in the effort than it is dependent on a particular curriculum, method or philosophy. Discovering what educational philosphy fits you best will help you find the curricula, the tools that you will be able to teach well, teach thoroughly.

 

I don't know. I don't think I'm saying it very well. But I guess what I mean is, decide what your academic and non-academic priorities are, then pick the tools that allow you to focus on them. Then just go to town with it, and be consistent. A stack of library books can be rigorous curriculum if you know what to do with them and follow through.

 

Am I crazy? (Wait, don't answer that...) :lol:

 

I understand what you're saying, but when I hand my oldest (grade 10) her TOG assignments (Rhetoric Year 2) each week there's no escape for her from rigorous, regardless of how involved I am that week.

[MelissaMinNC]

I understand what you're saying, but when I hand my oldest (grade 10) her TOG assignments (Rhetoric Year 2) each week there's no escape for her from rigorous, regardless of how involved I am that week.

 

Yes, that's what I meant when I said in the years before high school. I realize everything shifts and changes at that point. But what does it take to get them ready for a rigorous high school experience? This is where I think curriculum choice matters (at least slightly) less.

 

Ah well, I knew I was nuts.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this but I really belive that rigor is much more dependent (at least in the years before high school) on a teacher who is intentional, consistent, dedicated and willing to put in the effort than it is dependent on a particular curriculum, method or philosophy. Discovering what educational philosphy fits you best will help you find the curricula, the tools that you will be able to teach well, teach thoroughly.

 

I don't know. I don't think I'm saying it very well. But I guess what I mean is, decide what your academic and non-academic priorities are, then pick the tools that allow you to focus on them. Then just go to town with it, and be consistent. A stack of library books can be rigorous curriculum if you know what to do with them and follow through.

 

Am I crazy? (Wait, don't answer that...) :lol:

 

I see what you're saying. I see consistency being necessary, but also consistently stepping up the game. Maybe a rigorous education takes equal parts consistency (just keep swimming!) and challenging material? I do think stretching has to be part of it.

[curlylocks]

I would agree with your statment, although one of the really nice things about TOG is that you can make it as rigorous as you want depending on your book choices, the number of books you choose, the amount of discussion you have, if you do timeline, map work, definitions, people study, etc, etc. You can do as much or as little as you want so it will depend on the family when defining rigor, and for me it is different for each child, that is what makes these discussions difficult. I do find the resources available to me to be the most rigorous I could find and still secularize the way I choose (VP wouldn't work for that).

 

:iagree: -- I would also add in "co-op" as a factor. We were part of a IRL TOG co-op and that was a good experience. It worked well for my eldest daughter. (although I think I burned out and thus my middle child is using Notgrass, but that is another discussion)

[beachpotato]

How does TRISMS compare?

[Hedgehogs4]

:iagree: -- I would also add in "co-op" as a factor. We were part of a IRL TOG co-op and that was a good experience. It worked well for my eldest daughter. (although I think I burned out and thus my middle child is using Notgrass, but that is another discussion)

 

:iagree: I am currently using TOG Y3 with a UG and LG student. For my LG student it is FUN, interesting and just right. For my UG student it is challenging, FUN, interesting and more than just right. I would call it a perfect fit right now. HOWEVER, we are part of a 5-family co-op that meets once a week for hands-on activities, literature and history discussions, fellowship and unit celebrations. I can say honestly that this keeps me accountable to pushing a little harder at home to get the stuff done each week, and really enhances the children's performance, knowing that they will be in class with their friends each week.

[sagira]

I see what you're saying. I see consistency being necessary, but also consistently stepping up the game. Maybe a rigorous education takes equal parts consistency (just keep swimming!) and challenging material? I do think stretching has to be part of it.

 

As usual, I completely agree with you, Alta Veste :)

[jewel7123]

:bigear:

[Candid]

Yes, that's what I meant when I said in the years before high school. I realize everything shifts and changes at that point. But what does it take to get them ready for a rigorous high school experience? This is where I think curriculum choice matters (at least slightly) less.

 

Ah well, I knew I was nuts.

 

Oddly, I agree with Tapestry on this question: educate the oldest student in your home school. Do that as soon as you begin. Tapestry says the oldest student is you.

 

Regardless of what you use as a curriculum you need to start learning and studying about the materials of a high school curriculum when your kids are young.

 

If you are already there then you'll need to scramble a bit to keep up and it would be wise to use a program that focuses on helping you to keep up.

[FriedClams]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this but I really belive that rigor is much more dependent (at least in the years before high school) on a teacher who is intentional, consistent, dedicated and willing to put in the effort than it is dependent on a particular curriculum, method or philosophy. Discovering what educational philosphy fits you best will help you find the curricula, the tools that you will be able to teach well, teach thoroughly.

 

I don't know. I don't think I'm saying it very well. But I guess what I mean is, decide what your academic and non-academic priorities are, then pick the tools that allow you to focus on them. Then just go to town with it, and be consistent. A stack of library books can be rigorous curriculum if you know what to do with them and follow through.

 

Am I crazy? (Wait, don't answer that...) :lol:

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Rigor is in expectations, implementation, and consistency. TOG used poorly is not rigorous. Abeka done with supplementation, challenge, and focus could be. It completely depends. As far as curriculum VP, TOG, and many, many others are all great. The one that fits and that you use is the most rigorous.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

My opinion? WTM offers a comparable level of rigor (as it is actually written, not necessarily as every Six Degrees of WTM people really use when they say they use WTM--and, yes, I'm guilty of that too).

 

I think it's really hard to beat WTM for rigor.

 

I would even go so far as to say that I think that much of what you see in other curriculums reminds me of a specific implementation of the same principles that you see in WTM.

 

Not to say that they are "just" writing a curriculum for WTM, but that WTM, VP, TOG and even AO (to some extent) are drawing from the same well. One thing that I like about WTM is that it is concept and period and person specific but not book specific. So when it is time to study Galileo I use whatever resource I have at hand in my home, on line or at the local library.

 

It gets me out of the train of thinking that one specific book or book series is the be all and end all of history study. It also gets me out of the way of thinking that I have to buy a revised curriculum that references only books that are currently in print or buy a bunch of new books to match a newer curriculum. Instead, I see that we're studying the Thirty Years War so I go and gather up what we have on the Thirty Years War (ok, I'll admit that we are weird in that we do have more than one book in the house that fits this period). Same when we get to Bach.

 

I think that doing this helps my kids to learn some of the skills of history study and research that will help them in upper levels of high school and in college. And it also frees me to use just the parts of a book that I want to use. Opens a lot of doors to using books that I might otherwise rule out because their treatment of one or two events or themes aren't to my liking.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I understand what you're saying, but when I hand my oldest (grade 10) her TOG assignments (Rhetoric Year 2) each week there's no escape for her from rigorous, regardless of how involved I am that week.

 

Sure, there are still escape hatches from rigor. There is skimming the material, not retaining what you read, doing slap dash work or not doing it at all. On the weeks when I'm not involved enough to check the maps, discuss the reading, do some reading of my own on the topic to sharpen my own wits; my sons also tend to do less well.

 

Just our experience. YMMV. Total self study has not been a recipe for success at our home, regardless of the greatness of the reading assignments or insightfulness of the questions.

[angela in ohio]

I disagree. I used TOG for a while last year (one at each level,) and it wasn't as rigorous as what I had been doing on my own with my WTM/VP mix, so I dropped it. At the high school level, both VP and WTM require more reading of whole original works than TOG and more writing, which I consider a huge part of rigor in high school.

 

I think TOG is more rigorous than many of the similar programs (Sonlight, etc.,) but (shocking!) I would say many textbook programs are also more rigorous at the elementary level than many of those.

 

Anyway, I agree with pps. I think it is 90% what you as the instructor make of it. If you really want rigor, your best bet is to learn the material and be prepared for deep discussion.

Edited September 20, 2011 by angela in ohio

[Heather in VA]

. One thing that I like about WTM is that it is concept and period and person specific but not book specific. So when it is time to study Galileo I use whatever resource I have at hand in my home, on line or at the local library.

 

 

I just wanted to point out that this is not true for WTM in high school. WTM/WEM high school is a Great Books study. While no one needs to (or could do) all books considered Great Books, it is no longer a 'have a topic and use some books related to it'. It's a systematic study of history and literature via the study of foundational books of the time. Obviously there are other ways to study history and literature at the high school level, but the approach WTM takes is a specific book approach because of it's design as a Great Book study. I just wanted to point this out since high school has been a primary topic in this thread and not everyone may realize this about WTM/WEM high school.

 

Heather

[Poke Salad Annie]

I think it's really hard to beat WTM for rigor.

 

I would even go so far as to say that I think that much of what you see in other curriculums reminds me of a specific implementation of the same principles that you see in WTM.

 

It gets me out of the train of thinking that one specific book or book series is the be all and end all of history study. It also gets me out of the way of thinking that I have to buy a revised curriculum that references only books that are currently in print or buy a bunch of new books to match a newer curriculum.

 

 

I think it is 90% what you as the instructor make of it. If you really want rigor, your best bet is to learn the material and be prepared for deep discussion.

 

:iagree:

 

A competent parent (or teacher) can put together a challenging scheme of work, and it need not be based upon a set schedule of books which must be purchased and used in order to achieve rigor. This is why I love the first edition of WTM so much. The skeleton is there. It is up to each person to fill it out as they deem best. Though each person's selections will vary due to personal choices, the rigor is still there.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I just wanted to point out that this is not true for WTM in high school. WTM/WEM high school is a Great Books study. While no one needs to (or could do) all books considered Great Books, it is no longer a 'have a topic and use some books related to it'. It's a systematic study of history and literature via the study of foundational books of the time. Obviously there are other ways to study history and literature at the high school level, but the approach WTM takes is a specific book approach because of it's design as a Great Book study. I just wanted to point this out since high school has been a primary topic in this thread and not everyone may realize this about WTM/WEM high school.

 

Heather

 

I'm in the midst of dinner preps so I can't pull out my WTM at the moment. But I think there is still significant wiggle room. As you pointed out, (and as SWB mentions in at least one lecture), no one can read all of the great books. But you can definitely read representative works and major works. I think there are few libraries that are going to lack SOME translation of Homer, though it might not have a specific translation and may not have Black Ships Before Troy (a common rec for before rhetoric). A library may not have a specific book about English history, but it will most likely have Pilgrim's Progress, some works by Austen, some works by the Romantic poets, a few Shakespeare plays on video.

 

But because the approach in WTM is about reading and understanding the works (or watching in the case of drama), if the library lacks Hamlet one can choose Macbeth or Richard III instead. If you cannot find Oedipus but do find Antigone then you can go with that.

 

What you don't have is the pressure to read a certain book on a certain week else all is lost. You don't have specific worksheets or study questions to get through to check off a period and move along. If I end up reading Dickens before Austen, I'm pretty sure that I will be able to cope. If I flip flop weeks in other curriculum packages, that may throw all sorts of things out of whack.

 

Even within WEM, I think that there is room for movement from list to list (I realize that this isn't the recommendation in the book). So if I don't have a history for a particular period, I might substitute one of the works of fiction. But that might be my tweaking beyond the intention of WEM. I see the Great Books study outlined there as something that could easily take a decade or more to get through. I think it is more of a lifestyle than a high school course outline.