Can you do it all...and do it all WELL?

[Halcyon]

So here's a fun poll for the day. Do you think it's possible to cover every subject you want to cover in a reasonably challenging and comprehensive way, such that your children retain and understand the material? Or do you think that you necessarily need to sacrifice one subject in order to master another? I guess what I am getting at is the LCC's concept of "multum non multa" states that it is better to cover a few subjects well than many subjects in a cursory manner.

 

My question is, can you cover ALL subjects WELL?

 

poll to follow.

[Dolphin]

Even SWB, says that science is not her forte. I do think that it is possible to cover ALL subject more throughly than our local PS, but not as thoroughly as I would like.

 

Nicole

[MelissaMinNC]

nm - I should have read more carefully before voting.

Edited October 21, 2011 by MelissaMinNC

[SorrelZG]

I voted no. I don't even think we could get 10 people to agree on what "ALL" even means, let alone what "doing it well" means, but no I don't believe you (general you) can do ALL of EVERYTHING and do it WELL. That's why we prioritize and set goals.

 

What she said.

[coffeegal]

Ugh... Charlotte Maison versus LCC. How old are the children? I can cover a lot of subjects with little ones in the bite-sized amounts they can handle. My highschooler needs more time with each subject. What's your goal? To ensure the kids know a lot of composers by the end of the semester or in 4 years? :D Do you want the children to know a bit about many subjects or a lot about a few? Also how many children do you have? I could cover a lot more material when I was only teaching 1 child, than I can now that I'm chasing 6. :D

[silliness7]

I voted other.

 

Maybe one can't cover every subject Well. But that might not be the goal if we set skills above content. I think we can do every skill well and put that child on the path of lifetime learning.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Yes, I believe it is possible to cover all subjects well. However, school needs to be your top priority to make that happen.

 

I don't necessarily think this means you cannot get outside help. The kids are in music and art lessons this year, which frees me from any guilt about not covering those subjects well. I can use that mental energy to do an even better job with the subjects I am responsible for teaching at home. Music and art (which we are also covering at home in other ways) are being covered well, but by someone else. That's alright with me. I think I still get credit, in that I am doing what needs to be done to successfully manage our homeschool. ;)

 

ETA: I might also add that part of the reason I think it's possible to cover all subjects well is that I don't necessarily think you have to give them all equal attention at the same time. Maybe now math is a challenge, so we're taking extra time there and LA is easy, breezy for a child so we whip through it. Covering everything well doesn't have to mean covering everything equally. To me, it means covering to mastery for each particular child, at his/her own pace.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Alte Veste Academy

[SweetMissMagnolia]

I think it depends on the situation and the kid.....

[kathymuggle]

Depends on how you define well.

 

I think it might be possible to cover all (well, not all, but the important ones to your family) well if you think long term. On a day to day or even week to week basis? Nah. Long term? Yup.

 

I think the previous poster who mentioned skill development over content was bang on as well.

Edited October 21, 2011 by kathymuggle

[TXMomof4]

I don't think it's possible to do all things amazingly well, all the time. We will rock and roll at math and grammar for a few months, then we will focus on history and spelling. All things are getting done, but not at the highest level all the time.

[elegantlion]

Depends, we use an LCC approach and it has certainly cut down on the stress. We are using a tweaked block schedule this year and it has cut further down on the stress. So while I have it set up that we CAN do well (well being subject to my interpretation) we don't always hit the mark.

 

I do thinking covering less subjects, as in using Latin to stand for vocabulary, grammar, and language, aids us in that quest.

 

In 4th grade we went from Abeka to eclectic. I spent a great deal of the year asking ds to hurry up so we could move on. I was frazzled and we didn't finish everything. We moved to LCC in 5th and it was a breath of fresh air. Whether it was age or interest he doesn't remember much from 4th grade.

[regentrude]

Answer will depend on how you define "well".

I can cover all subjects at local public school standard, no problem.

I can go above and beyond and do really to MY satisfaction only a few subjects; so I will be content with average coverage of others.

The day has 24 hours. The school day less. Something's gotta give- I want my kids to have a life outside academics as well.

 

In practice: we do math, science, history and literature really really thoroughly. All others we do, but not at the same level.

[Enough]

This is a very interesting question!! My initial reaction to the question is "No WAY" but if you change it to skills rather than subjects....

 

Maybe one can't cover every subject Well. But that might not be the goal if we set skills above content. I think we can do every skill well and put that child on the path of lifetime learning.

 

hmm, yeah, I think this is possible (and ideal, IMO).

 

And I would REALLY, REALLY love to see an educational philosophy that was comprised of a list of skills rather than subjects!

[regentrude]

This is a very interesting question!! My initial reaction to the question is "No WAY" but if you change it to skills rather than subjects....

 

 

It will STILL be a matter of what you consider "well". What level of skill?

Can I expect my child to be equally proficient on the piano, in drawing, in math, in writing, in scientific thinking, in a foreign language?

Skills take time and practice. I need to select which skills I consider most important and which less.

 

Also: because of varying amount of talent for different areas, developing skills in different areas can take vastly different times. I don't think I could get my kids to play an instrument at the same level as they are able of doing math, there simply is not enough time in the day. So, should I be content with DD "only" singing in choir, but doing math three grade levels above her age (thus clearly doing math better than music and failing the "can do everything well" test), or do I need to make her spend the time to become a great musician corresponding to her mathematical performance? Or do I need to define "well" differently for different subjects?

[AuntieM]

Nope. I learned to settle for some things just being Good Enough. It was a liberating realization. :001_smile:

 

ETA - I hope that didn't sound like I didn't care about my kids' skills. I just meant that all the tiny details can drive one insane. Small bites over more relaxed time allowed my kids to make interdisciplinary connections that, before, I had made my business to shove down their throats. Mine have learned better, overall, by being taught *how* to learn, while I've learned to not let myself get nervous about them not being young whiz kids. Their abilities have always come around, jumped in leaps, as they've matured.

Edited October 21, 2011 by AuntieM

[Enough]

It will STILL be a matter of what you consider "well". What level of skill?

 

Absolutely.

 

I think a smaller bite- skill- is easier to do well than a big bite- subject/content. But yes, how you define "well" is the kicker, for sure.

[silliness7]

Answer will depend on how you define "well".

I can cover all subjects at local public school standard, no problem.

I can go above and beyond and do really to MY satisfaction only a few subjects; so I will be content with average coverage of others.

The day has 24 hours. The school day less. Something's gotta give- I want my kids to have a life outside academics as well.

 

In practice: we do math, science, history and literature really really thoroughly. All others we do, but not at the same level.

 

Absolutely it will. That is the beauty of homeschooling. Set your goals based on natural talent, interest, opportunity, long-term benefits, etc. and go for it. If you set attainable goals with the right amount of challenge and meet them, you are doing well. Of course setting appropriately challenging yet attainable goals can be quite tricky. :D

[Canadianmumof5]

I could rule the world if I only had 1 child :D

[elegantlion]

Can someone clue me in on what "LCC" means? I looked in the abbreviation thread and couldn't find it.

 

Latin-Centered Curriculum.

[Trresh]

I voted other.

 

My true vote would be:

 

Absolutely. It takes time, effort and planning, but it can be done but not by my slacker (meant affectionately, of course) children and me.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Trresh

[elegantlion]

I could rule the world if I only had 1 child :D

 

:lol::lol: I only have one and don't feel that way at all. :lol: :lol:

[jenL]

I don't think it's possible to do all things amazingly well, all the time.

 

:iagree: "All the time" is key here as there are so many factors that can interrupt our best intentions to do it all: temperment of the children (and the mom), ability to obtain resources, time, outside influences (could be work related, family related, church related, etc), health of the child/mom, support of the spouse. These are just some of them.

 

One thing I've learned is that there is just TOO much to teach, and that I will NEVER be able to cover it all. I will do my best do cover what I can well, but it won't ever ALL get done. That is impossible. Once I allowed myself to realize this, a whole lot of unnecessary stress was lifted, and now I am a calmer homeschooling mom. Gosh, I haven't even been able to learn all I can about a specific subject because in essence our ability to study something is limitless. If this weren't the case, we wouldn't have perpetual students, professors, scientists, linguists, anthropologists, sociologists, mathematicians, astronomers, philosophers, theologians, historians, and so on.

Edited October 21, 2011 by jenL

[Cassy]

I can cover all subjects, and cover them well. I'm 100% motivated, passionate about education and learning, and determined that my children should have the best possible education I can provide.

 

Unfortunately my DC are not so motivated, passionate or determined. I throw all my time, energy and ingenuity into attempting to make lessons fun and interesting. Mostly my efforts go unrewarded.

 

Cassy

[Julie Smith]

What do you consider ALL subjects?

 

Math

Reading

Grammar

Spelling

Writing

Geography

History

One or two foreign languages

Art (painting, drawing, clay)

Art history

Music (piano, violin...)

Music history/appreciation

Science

Social studies

Computer studies

....

 

I can think of many many more subjects that a student might take in highschool. It would be impossible to even take ALL subjects.

[Paige]

I voted other because I think it depends on the child and parent. If your child struggles with the basics, no, she probably won't have time to focus on "everything." If you have a child that begs for more, loves to learn, and finds learning easy, then you probably could do it all- less time spent on core subjects frees up time for other subjects, and if the child wants to spend "free time" learning new subjects, then that would allow you to cover more. If your child would prefer to spend free time swinging and playing with action figures rather than reading, you won't cover as much but that is perfectly fine and good. Also, a gifted organizer mother with fewer children can cover more than an absentminded organizationally challenged mother of bunches. I don't think more is always better, however.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Do you think it's possible to cover every subject you want to cover in a reasonably challenging and comprehensive way, such that your children retain and understand the material?

 

Short answer: yes

 

However, part of that is because you qualified it well. If you had said "ideally" or "every child" or "will remember every iota of information in 15 years," then my answer would have been no. But I have no doubt that a dedicated parent can cover the material in the way that you state assuming the student is capable of that caliber of education.

 

Of course, then the next question is would we? Maybe another conversation sometime :)

[lauracolumbus]

I checked other b/c if I only had one young child I think I could (but I could be deluding myself as well). But the older and more numerous they get, the harder I think it is to accomplish this.

 

Laura

[lauracolumbus]

And if I had known when they were young that we would be homeschooling and not started in the middle. And if I had been smarter in curriculum choices. And if I had . . .

[Jennifer in MI]

I haven't read all the responses yet. But, for me, it depends on the ages. The younger kids? Heck yes. I sure can!

 

As the kids get older, I feel like they need teachers for whom the particular subject they are teaching is their forte. So, I outsource. I keep literature and history at home. Writing goes to an on-line instructor. Upper level maths and sciences get done at the community college.

 

If the kids ever decide to take a computer science class or something specialized like that, I'd find another teacher.

[Sahamamama]

My question is, can you cover ALL subjects WELL?

 

Perhaps other people can, but we can't at this point. There are many factors affecting our effectiveness. ;)

 

• My health/low energy level :sleep: Hormone issues....
  
• Daughters' high energy level, LOL :Angel_anim: The Angel :biggrinjester: The Clown:svengo:The Drama Queen
  
• Husband's job (unpredictable schedule, weeks away traveling, then working from home :glare:) um, I mean :001_wub: so glad he's home...
  
• Our lack of space (small house)
  
• And so on and so forth
  

I look at what some homeschoolers do, and try to imagine US being that productive... and I just can't do it. I can't even imagine it, truthfully. If we tried to do "everything, and well" at the girls' young ages, for the long haul, we would all burn out.

 

For next year (2nd & K), our priorities will probably be:

 

• Level 1: Literature/Poetry (RA) + Bible/Christian Faith (RA)
  
• Level 2: English Concepts & Skills + Math Concepts & Skills
  

----------^-ESSENTIAL-^--------------------------

 

• Level 3: Memory Work in many areas (because they CAN and they amaze me!) + Exercise/Nature/Outdoor Time (because they need it)
  
• Level 4: Greek/Latin (word roots for 2nd grader only) + Musical Instrument (recorder for 2nd grader only)
  

-----------^-IMPORTANT-^-------------------------

 

• Level 5: History (RA) + Geography (RA) + Science (RA)--keeping it limited to a shelf-full of books to read through in a year
  
• Level 6: Art (9 weeks) + French (9 weeks) + Music (9 weeks) + German? Greek alphabet? (9 weeks)
  

-----------^-OPTIONAL-^----------------------------

 

See? I would like to "do it all," but it just isn't realistic. When would we breathe? sleep? plunge the toilet? And, yes, for K & 2nd, I do think that "History" and "Science" can be limited to well-chosen read alouds, audiobooks, field trips, and nature time, and that is still "doing it well" for those ages. Art, artist study, composer study, and even languages (unless you already know them) are hard for most parents to pull off at home, IMO. The basics -- faith, reading, writing, math -- take time at these early stages.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Not all subjects (thankfully!) require the same amount of effort to do well. Handwriting can be done by handing my child a book and asking them to copy the words. Other subjects need much more input from me to cover it comprehensively and intelligently.

[joannqn]

I voted not really, but only because I'm having trouble balancing the needs of my older two with the needs of my younger two. If it were just the older two, then I would have voted no problem covering the subjects I wish to cover, which isn't necessarily all of the ones people here cover. We don't do Latin, for example.

[Halcyon]

I like the idea expressed by a PP that you CAN do it all well, just not at the same time. Right now, we're focusing on the American Revolution, and doing it well takes a lot of time, which means that Science, our other major content subject, gets shorter shrift. But once we're done with the Revolution, we will dig deep into our Science project. So it's a back and forth thing.

[Donna]

I voted the first option but only because right now, with only one child at home, I am managing it.

 

Maybe I don't get done everything I would like to get done every week but I do tend to over-plan and there are lots of "extra" things that sometimes get in the way but I am managing to do all the subjects I want to do, and some dd asks to do, at a high level over the length of the school year.

 

I do admit that it was close to impossible to do everything at the level I wanted to do with 3. It seemed foreign language and art never got done well and we didn't get to as much science or history as I scheduled and always ended up finishing up over the summer.

[DesertDweller]

From my own experience, no. I tried. Always had great plans, but things just never quite went together in every subject all the time.