What is considered rigorous for x grade?

[...................]

That was extremely well-said Angela! And I can only hope to be and continue to be that kind of Mom.

 

Sahamamom- I knew somebody would laugh over that!! Lol

[Kathryn]

Here's the thing though, my child is the ASD kid. My child DOES NOT learn from life situations. My child will not absorb information and incorporate and assimilate it into his body of knowledge and be able to apply it without explicit instruction. Nobody knows anyone else's children or how they learn. To say that this or that or the other isn't needed or worth it or this or that or the other is more important just doesn't work unless you're talking about your own knowledge of your own children that you've dealt with. I'm tired of hearing people talk down to parents of early elementary children and say that all they need to do is read them fairy tales, bake cookies, and talk about things at the grocery store. Children are all different and they all have different needs for learning. I don't have the luxury of being "relaxed" or of unschooling, even at this young age. It may work wonderfully for some parents and some children, but not for everyone.

 

And I think it's really strange to focus on the fact that people here are asking questions and talking about academics as a way to say that they're focusing too much on that and not on character or service. This is a homeschooling board. It seems to me that it would stand to reason that we'd be here primarily (especially on the curriculum board) to discuss academics.

 

ETA - and what the ASD kid learned on the field trip is that girls with polka dot socks are mean--or some other completely random generalization that will take a while to sort through. ;)

Edited February 7, 2012 by kebg11

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

I am the queen of avoiding a false dichotomy as I am married to a computer programmer who studies philosophy in his spare time. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Sounds like my dh. He's interested in pretty much everything and had a really hard time picking a major and a job. He ended up majoring in computer science and philosophy and minoring in music and math. Some days he wishes he was building houses, and has had this as a summer job while in college.

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

I've avoided this thread up until now as well as the "post a rigorous schedule for X grade" because I'm not really sure how I'd define rigorous nor do I really care. One of the reasons that I wanted to homeschool was so that I could provide a tailored education for each of my children. When planning for each of my kids I try to pick things that will challenge and engage them. And it looks different for each child. It's fun to see what other people are doing. Sometimes it gives me ideas of things I might want to try. But I don't look at their schedules and worry about whether I'm not doing enough or doing too much. I just do my best to learn about how *my* kids learn and try to figure out what would work best for them.

[SorrelZG]

ETA - and what the ASD kid learned on the field trip is that girls with polka dot socks are mean--or some other completely random generalization that will take a while to sort through. ;)

 

 

You'll find the same sorts of generalizations coming from completely NT adults on homeschooling forums. I've found that it's not an uncommon human tendency.

[angela in ohio]

Here's the thing though, my child is the ASD kid. My child DOES NOT learn from life situations. My child will not absorb information and incorporate and assimilate it into his body of knowledge and be able to apply it without explicit instruction.

 

But my example wasn't about a child learning from a life situation. :confused: The child did learn by explicit instruction from the mother in the car. It's just that that instruction was actually relevant to the child at the time, came from her own mother, and happened during "down time," which was my point.

[sewingmama]

I'm tired of hearing people talk down to parents of early elementary children and say that all they need to do is read them fairy tales, bake cookies, and talk about things at the grocery store.

 

:iagree:

 

I tried the "better late then early" track when we first started. An hour or two of formal work and then just doing "whatever". What I ended up with was a child that HATED school and refused to do any of it - every day was a battle and she would wander around the house aimlessly getting into trouble and throwing tantrums. She also spent all her time BEGGING to go to school where they did "fun" work. Every day she told me "I hate homeschool - I want to go to real school".

 

So I ditched that this term - we still do the formal seatwork but then we do all the other subjects and the "fun' or "busywork" I guess that she wants. Overnight she was a changed child - she now does all her work without complaint so she can get to the "fun" stuff. She wants to "do learning" -she doesn't want to play all day - which is fine if your kids are happy with that -but mine wasn't. And yes I do realise that children learn plenty of things on their own through play and that is a viable and valueable option - but it just didn't work for my child - the hands on projects for school ARE her play.

 

Thank you for saying this! I think that about 99% of the early-learning resources that I've come across are "better late than early," so these boards are an important source of counter-argument to that theory.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I spent forever trying to find a K curriculum that wasn't lame. Cutting things out, themes with apples, take them to the store and show them the vegetable section- :banghead:- In my opinion that is what you do with 2 yo's. My DD was not interested in it and nor is my 4 yo who taught himself to read and can do math in his head.

Edited February 7, 2012 by sewingmama

[kubiac]

Curriculum is not the end. It is the means.

 

Rigor is about engaging and connecting with your child and the material. In the early grades, the "rigor" part belongs to the parent. The child is the recipient of Mom's dedication, love, and willingness to use whatever means necessary to get through to him, whether in academics or relational skills. Mom is on the line for the rigor lessons at this stage. Will she study TWTM or CM's original works? Will she work a week ahead of her child, making sure she understands his grammar and math before she turns to teach him? Will she study her child and understand the effect of her budding attempts to transfer knowledge to him? Will she apply all the maturity, humility, and wisdom she may possess to this overwhelming responsibility of raising and teaching her child?

 

As his skills and abilities grow, some of the rigor is transferred to the child. The parent begins expecting him to recall his prior learning while still leading him in the process of adding to his knowledge. In the rigorous homeschool, Mom is teaching character as diligently as she teaches fractions. She cares that her child can understand what he reads, and she also makes sure that his reading material nourishes his soul as well as his brain. She doesn't slack on his math lessons, because she knows that her diligence in helping him grasp the foundation will make all the difference when he gets to higher math. But he has to pay attention and do his assigned work! Both mother and child are working hard during the upper grammar and logic stages.

 

Finally, the time comes when the child has acquired an astounding array of virtue and skill. He now owns a personal understanding of the value of education. Now he is a full partner in his own upbringing. Mom may still direct, supervise, and teach at this point, but it is the child's Well-Trained Mind that answers the challenge of rigor in learning. At this stage, Mom begins to see her child soar beyond her highest expectations or dreams. She's no longer studying a week ahead, because his mind is quicker than hers. He's off and running, she's left behind. (This is why so many of us begin looking for online classes for some high school courses.) The time she used to spend working through his Algebra book, she now spends on her knees in prayer for his happiness, safety, and future. He's got the rigorous approach to study now. Mom is the anchor, and the one with the unfailing love and faith.

 

None of this is about curriculum.

 

Mom can begin this journey armed with TWTM, AAS, FLL, WWE, SOTW, and BFSU (and an iPad) and do either a wonderful or an awful job. The outcome will depend mostly upon herself, and how she weathers the learning curve. SWB did everything a person can do to make that ride smoother, but Mama, it is still going to be a learning curve. Use these tools, but remember they are tools. You are not teaching a curriculum. You are teaching a child.

 

Mom might do a wonderful job with nothing more than a library card, a whiteboard, and the internet for the first three years. The world of classical education is at her fingertips online. She can learn her philosophy from arguably the greatest classical educator who ever taught children: Charlotte Mason. She can learn from CM's own written word at AmblesideOnline, and then she can use online books or library books that make the grade, and apply the philosophy she has internalized. MEP math for free, nature study (the real kind), a book of poetry, and good habits, and this parent-child team is well on their way to greatness.

 

A homeless Dad can get his hands on a bunch of outdated encyclopedias. One Dad did just that.* He never read CM, or SWB, or Climbing Parnassus or anything like it. He just knew his daughter needed to learn something, so he went out and found something and taught her to make the most of it. As a devout Christian, that man was operating on faith. Whatever our religious beliefs, all homeschoolers are operating on some sort of unproven confidence that we can and should do a good job raising children with homeschooling as a huge part of that endeavor. Homeschooling is the road less traveled. It is a matter of faith.

 

So, yes, learn about methods, philosophies, curriculum, and what other families are doing. Just remember that buzzwords like "rigor" and "success" have much more to do with relationship and character than with a booklist. Don't watch the clock. Watch your child. Don't compete with others. The greatest benefit of homeschooling is the freedom to match the educational experience to the child. Do that. He'll grow best if you teach him.

 

Those of us who have been where you are now need to take the time to say this. I've seen abbeyj say it, and 8filltheheart said it, and probably others. I just wanted to say it, too.

 

Love and the best wishes in the world to new homeschoolers in their first, second, or third year with very little ones. It can be such a beautiful and wonderful time with your little ones at home. I cherish the memory of this stage with my older boys, and I'm so thankful to still be going through it one more time with my seven-year-old who is growing too fast.

 

Love,

TD

 

 

*(To learn more about this totally non-ideal situation that amazingly turned out OK for father and daughter, google these keywords: Ruthie Portland Father Forest Encyclopedia. Let me just make it really clear that I don't think anybody should get some old encyclopedias and live in the woods with their child. Not endorsing homelessness as a homeschooling method. Srsly.)

 

Well-said, madam. Well-said!

[Kathryn]

But my example wasn't about a child learning from a life situation. :confused: The child did learn by explicit instruction from the mother in the car. It's just that that instruction was actually relevant to the child at the time, came from her own mother, and happened during "down time," which was my point.

 

Oh, no, no, no! I wasn't criticizing your post! I thought that was a GREAT example. I was just taking the mention of an ASD child to point out that what may not be necessary for one child academically is for another. Some people can get away with less curriculum in their day. Some want more. Some need more.

[kubiac]

First you have statistical criteria - rigorous would be (well) above what is the *norm*. Many people, when they call themselves rigorous, have this in mind: they do more, and better, than what is the "default standard" of their time, place, and zeitgeist.

 

However, even the educational "norm" is "adjusted for inflation" in very many places, so the education an average child is getting as a "default" one is already subpar very often. Many people are not trying to 'compete' or 'outrigor' others, but believe the norm to be so woefully inflated that what they are doing is essentially a correction of things back to where they should be, but are not. As a result, they appear rigorous, and they may even use that word to speak the common language with others, but in their mind, their children are receiving what should be a perfectly ordinary education.

 

Then there are people for whom even that "correction" is not enough because they have children of particular intellectual dispositions who, even with the "correction", do not benefit from such an education to an extent to which they could - and, arguably, should. Because they still require more, even in a system without an inflation, so a rigorous education is not rigorous for them without further adaptations. And here is where the individualization kicks in, especially for extremely bright children, and where the "rigor" becomes a somewhat fuzzy, subjective category.

 

I know I drool over you all the time, but: DEAR GOD WOMAN, WHO ARE YOU AND HOW DO WE GET MARRIED?! You are the Best.

[Kathryn]

I know I drool over you all the time, but: DEAR GOD WOMAN, WHO ARE YOU AND HOW DO WE GET MARRIED?! You are the Best.

 

:lol:

[MeganW]

It's funny though...

 

When I hear someone talk about "rigor" with a 5, 6, or 7 year old, I just don't get it. I mean, why would you want "rigor" for such a young child? I am very academic and take academics pretty seriously. I also take a Learning Lifestyle seriously and try to always be learning, reading, discussing, and keeping my mind open (and in order to do so, avoiding junk TV, most entertainment, silly magazines, etc. etc.)...But I just don't get the idea of a 6-7 year old being academically "rigorous" with multiple curricula for several subjects, hours of formal schooling every day, etc.

 

I asked the question about a year ago. At that time, I was thinking that most multiple-year curriculum started in kindergarten. For example, math - I was asking what the most rigorous was, assuming that we would choose a math and stick with it. (HA HA HA HA!)

 

I think most new homeschoolers probably have that idea - that they are making long-term decisions now, and they want to make smart ones.

 

We also worry (no matter how often we are told otherwise) that the kids in public school are doing more. If we are homeschooling for a better education, we feel that we need to be doing at least as well as the local public school. (And ours here are GREAT - I have a LOT to live up to!) Those kids are all reading, writing, adding, subtracting, etc. etc. before they get out of kindergarten. So that's why I asked about rigorous kindergarten. I wanted to be sure that if my trial year of homeschooling didn't go well, my kids were able to go to public school for first grade and not be ridiculously behind.

Edited February 8, 2012 by MeganW

[Ester Maria]

I know I drool over you all the time, but: DEAR GOD WOMAN, WHO ARE YOU AND HOW DO WE GET MARRIED?! You are the Best.

:lol: Thanks. Every once in a while I do put together a fairly coherent post, LOL, so I am glad if you like them. :)

 

I am in the middle ground here. I do not think that rigor is exclusively in the eye of the beholder, and I do think some of it can be compared or even quantified, but I also think one must keep in mind the concrete child, rather than an abstraction. Some kids do pull their maximum out of what are fairly unimpressive schedules, but they require a LOT out of those kids, while others, even if they work several years ahead than the "norm", are still essentially underperforming.

 

I agree with Tibbie that curriculum is a tool, not a goal in and of itself. In many cases there are many ways of getting to the same or comparable end point, which is why focusing on curricula is problematic in these discussions. I can imagine myself teaching Latin pretty well even if you mandated to me that I use a "natural method" curriculum as a spine - because the quality of what is actually going on would be with the teacher, with the side explanations, with the context and specific connections. On the other hand, if a student self-studies, then the quality of a curriculum is a much greater concern if that is all they can reasonably get. When kids are little, YOU are the main factor and even if you homeschool without a fixed curriculum at all (BTDT too), you can homeschool rigorously, just like you can have the best materials, but if you lack that point of engagement, understanding and context, it will not be rigorous, it will be an overkill, and a not particularly enjoyable one. It is when kids take the reins into their hands little by little when the quality of materials becomes a more pressing matter, especially if you are not on the top of them all the time, and when it starts to matter whether you use good materials.

[boscopup]

Oh, no, no, no! I wasn't criticizing your post! I thought that was a GREAT example. I was just taking the mention of an ASD child to point out that what may not be necessary for one child academically is for another. Some people can get away with less curriculum in their day. Some want more. Some need more.

 

I think with a non-NT kid, you just have to adjust per that child and ignore what is typically recommended for an NT kid. These threads are usually talking about typical kids. You won't see people recommending 2nd grade math programs for 4 year olds in general just because a PG child might need such a program at that age, kwim?

 

I am one that thinks that you typically don't need curriculum for preschool activities. That said, my DS2 didn't pick up colors or counting to 10 or other such things via daily life and going to the grocery store like my other two have. I did need to use a workbook to teach him these things explicitly. That doesn't change my opinion on the need for lots of curriculum in the preschool years. If your child is having challenges and is not learning the typical way, then you need to do what your child needs (even if it means lots of curriculum), as you have and I have. :)

[ClassicalTwins]

I have found these replies quite intersting and enlightening. I don't know if I am rigorous or not...nor do I care. My boys are learning what we teach and then they go off into their own little worlds and teach themselves other things. One subject that caught thier minds was the Titanic. I don't know what they saw that made that an obsession, but it lead to getting several books, a DVD documentary (they were completely absorbed in....I had to force myself not to snore) & then they figured out the route on our wall maps. Another topic more recently was Bridges, how they are built since they are in water. That led to yet another snoring documentary that they couldn't take their eyes off of and then hours of building different types with tinker toys to see which structure could support more and why.

 

I myself am amazed. What I appreciate as a homeschooler is they have time to do this.

Edited February 8, 2012 by ClassicalTwins

[dhudson]

I think "deliberate" is a much better word than rigorous. I am deliberate in what I teach whether it be math, LA, Bible, Latin or character. I read the books, check out curricula, then make a list of what we need to accomplish in a given year- realistically. I am deliberate in knowing what each child needs and know that one size does not fit all in learning styles. I want the same end results but sometimes that looks vastly different in learning. With my oldest I can give him a book to read or work through and he knows the info so then I may give him more. My dd needs to touch, feel and experience what she is learning so we may learn fractions while cooking or need to build a mock Parthenon or let her draw and narrate to get her to remember her history. My other ds needs all the facts clearly presented in a methodical way. I teach from the same curriculum but do not move on until my children know what they need to and then we move on to the next thing. We have fun, do great projects but we try not to get stuck on a project that takes too much time. It is the learning that's important.

 

I also have a beginning and ending for school to allow them time to be kids, tons of learning happens in play time too. My kids have built a Taj Mahal, a WW I mock battle, and a Roman Coliseum in their spare time - for fun. I think we need to be deliberate in what we are teaching and that will be rigorous.

 

I also make sure I am challenging them academically in some things, not everything at once. I am continually evaluating what they need to be challenged in but I pick and choose my battles carefully.

 

 

I agree with Tibbie 200% that curriculum is a tool. Actually I agree with all of what Tibbie said.

[ElizaG]

I think "deliberate" is a much better word than rigorous. I am deliberate in what I teach whether it be math, LA, Bible, Latin or character. I read the books, check out curricula, then make a list of what we need to accomplish in a given year- realistically.

:iagree: This reminds me of the following definition, from an educationist article called What Rigor Is Not.

 

"Rigor is the goal of helping students develop the capacity to understand content that is complex, ambiguous, provocative, and personally or emotionally challenging."

 

 

As for the other way of evaluating rigor... getting specific about what skills and content should be taught to a student of a given ability level... I think this can be done, but it would depend on how we answer the question, "what is the purpose of classical education?" Going by past threads, people's answers are all over the map on this one. They don't even seem to shake down by religious affiliation, nationality, personal academic background, or any of the usual demographics that I can think of. :001_huh: So if we don't have a shared understanding of why we're doing this, I don't see much likelihood of us having a common standard on the specifics of what.

 

Personally, I like to see lots of examples of what other self-defined "rigorous" homeschoolers and highly regarded schools around the world have done -- and then look at what their alumni have gone on to achieve (using "achieve" in the broadest possible sense). Or the other way around... think of someone whose level of education and personal formation we admire, and work backwards to find out how they were educated.

 

ETA: Another interesting definition, not likely to be found in a dictionary:

 

"Rosenstock defines rigor as 'being in the company of a passionate adult who’s rigorously pursuing in inquiry in the area of their subject matter and is inviting students along as peers an adult discourse' I love this as it clearly places the teacher as the more expert, passionate learner much in the style of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development as the more expert adult steps in to scaffold the learner along through their creative learning process. Rosenstock’s charge to his faculty…What do you love to do outside of school…BRING IT IN! Make it a part of what you teach and learn each day as you work with the students."

 

This is clearly oriented toward higher education, but it can be done to a limited extent even with elementary students, and their homeschooling parents who are amateur but passionate scholars of something or other. (EM will surely correct me here, but etymologically, I think this means that we love learning, and are willing to suffer for our studies. ;))

Edited February 8, 2012 by Eleanor

[ClassicalTwins]

I bet all of us are more rigorous than this

An article from the NY Times

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/education/despite-focus-on-data-standards-for-diploma-may-still-lack-rigor.xml

[Sahamamama]

I deleted my post because, well, being tired of being misunderstood works in both directions. FWIW, my point was that if you have a kid who at 3, 4, or 5 is beyond most ABC & 123 Kindergarten programs, then of what use to you is that type of Kindergarten program? I don't care if or when some other person's kid learns his colors. My perspective is shaped by the fact that I have three children who were reading any book on the shelf, with understanding, before their fifth birthdays. My perspective is shaped by who they are. I couldn't in good conscience put these kids in our local schools (public or private) if I wanted to. This reality shapes our family's definition of "normal," and impacts whether or not something is (for us) rigorous or meaningless busywork.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Sahamamama

[Haiku]

To me rigorous has to do with how much a child is stretched in their learning. I have looked at some curricula and thought, "This would be easy for most children of this age." That's not rigorous. I have looked at some curricula and thought, "This would require a lot of mental effort and growth for a child this age." That, to me, is rigorous.

 

It also depends on the child. What is rigorous for one child might be too easy or too hard for another (I have that situation in my own family).

 

Basically, anything a child can whip through in record time or which he never makes a mistake on is not rigorous. Rigor requires effort and challenge.

 

Tara

[SorrelZG]

I remember thinking, "What do parents do for the first five years of a child's life? Don't they teach them these things?"

 

I've often wondered that myself .. well, more specifically, I've wondered how they managed to avoid learning this stuff before it was formally presented via a "preK" or "K" curriculum. It kind of threw me to realize my young child already knew what was being taught in the formal programs before being of that age but I still personally count switching to formal mode early on in response to that realization a mistake in reasoning on my part.

 

I understand that each parent and child has different needs so in saying that I'm not saying every-single-person should not teach formal academics - just that the reality I've realized is that not all who don't switch to formal academics early on are delaying learning.

[ClassicalTwins]

To me rigorous has to do with how much a child is stretched in their learning. I have looked at some curricula and thought, "This would be easy for most children of this age." That's not rigorous. I have looked at some curricula and thought, "This would require a lot of mental effort and growth for a child this age." That, to me, is rigorous.

 

 

 

Basically, anything a child can whip through in record time or which he never makes a mistake on is not rigorous. Rigor requires effort and challenge.

 

Tara

 

Perfect!!!

[Embassy]

Yes, with two year olds. I finally just made up my own K program, and it was something like a gentle First Grade. :D We did not need the Color of the Week or the Shape of the Month for K (or even Pre-K). I remember thinking, "What do parents do for the first five years of a child's life? Don't they teach them these things?"

 

I've often wondered that myself .. well, more specifically, I've wondered how they managed to avoid learning this stuff before it was formally presented via a "preK" or "K" curriculum. It kind of threw me to realize my young child already knew what was being taught in the formal programs before being of that age but I still personally count switching to formal mode early on in response to that realization a mistake in reasoning on my part.

 

I understand that each parent and child has different needs so in saying that I'm not saying every-single-person should not teach formal academics - just that the reality I've realized is that not all who don't switch to formal academics early on are delaying learning.

 

I think if you have an accelerated learner or a child who just picks up things easily then the typical Kindergarten curriculum isn't necessary. But many children who live in educational rich environments don't pick up these skills without direct instruction and they may not learn them easily or until Kindergarten age. And then there are parents who focus on other skills during those early years. I've worked with parents who wonder what they have done wrong because their child was not able to learn x, y, and z as effortlessly as other children. It isn't because the parent hadn't tried or put forth effort. The child just required a different way to learn the material.

[Soror]

I think if you have an accelerated learner or a child who just picks up things easily then the typical Kindergarten curriculum isn't necessary. But many children who live in educational rich environments don't pick up these skills without direct instruction and they may not learn them easily or until Kindergarten age. And then there are parents who focus on other skills during those early years. I've worked with parents who wonder what they have done wrong because their child was not able to learn x, y, and z as effortlessly as other children. It isn't because the parent hadn't tried or put forth effort. The child just required a different way to learn the material.

 

Nevermind, I will leave it at I agree. My first needed time to mature and different teaching methods. I am a better late than early subscriber and my son is better off for it. I also believe in rigor as well, those ideas are not at odds with other.

Edited February 9, 2012 by soror

[SorrelZG]

I think if you have an accelerated learner or a child who just picks up things easily then the typical Kindergarten curriculum isn't necessary. But many children who live in educational rich environments don't pick up these skills without direct instruction and they may not learn them easily or until Kindergarten age. And then there are parents who focus on other skills during those early years. I've worked with parents who wonder what they have done wrong because their child was not able to learn x, y, and z as effortlessly as other children. It isn't because the parent hadn't tried or put forth effort. The child just required a different way to learn the material.

 

Yes, I do understand that. My comment was on a different tangent (I think, this whole thread is thoroughly confusing me). My primary bother has been the misrepresentation of the "better late than early" philosophy with a broad generalization.

[the evolving homemaker]

I think his creative play and time hanging out with his sister are equally important at this time.

 

:iagree:

 

I think the important part is reading your child. I sometimes wonder why we as homeschoolers put so much pressure on ourselves. Learning happens in SO many beautiful ways, just not with 'rigorous' aggressive curriculum, standards, expectations. It is easy for me to forget that my children don't have to be brain-iacks, my goal is for them to love learning and to know how to learn about things they are curious about. But I know I get caught up in asking myself, "are we doing enough? could they be smarter? are they going to get into a good college? will they have their choice of jobs? am i challenging them enough? are they going to be well rounded enough? should i be doing MORE?"

 

and then i answer myself after a few hours of stressing about it with, "Are they happy? YES Are they learning? YES Are we enjoying ourselves? YES Are they fiercely creative and imaginative? YES" and then i remind myself that is enough for us. :001_smile:

 

That is how I meander through these valleys of the homeschooling 'rigor'. :lol:

[littleWMN]

I think if you have an accelerated learner or a child who just picks up things easily then the typical Kindergarten curriculum isn't necessary. But many children who live in educational rich environments don't pick up these skills without direct instruction and they may not learn them easily or until Kindergarten age. And then there are parents who focus on other skills during those early years. I've worked with parents who wonder what they have done wrong because their child was not able to learn x, y, and z as effortlessly as other children. It isn't because the parent hadn't tried or put forth effort. The child just required a different way to learn the material.

 

:iagree: As the mother of a child with special needs, I'll just say I agree and leave it at that. :)

[TracyP]

I think if you have an accelerated learner or a child who just picks up things easily then the typical Kindergarten curriculum isn't necessary. But many children who live in educational rich environments don't pick up these skills without direct instruction and they may not learn them easily or until Kindergarten age. And then there are parents who focus on other skills during those early years. I've worked with parents who wonder what they have done wrong because their child was not able to learn x, y, and z as effortlessly as other children. It isn't because the parent hadn't tried or put forth effort. The child just required a different way to learn the material.

:iagree:

Edited February 9, 2012 by TracyP

[SorrelZG]

Nevermind, I will leave it at I agree. My first needed time to mature and different teaching methods. I am a better late than early subscriber and my son is better off for it. I also believe in rigor as well, those ideas are not at odds with other.

 

 

I just noticed you updated your post. I was left confused by your original post because I wasn't sure whether you were saying he needed early formal instruction or that he needed to wait (totally my own comprehension error). I appreciate your edit (not that it was even to me .. I just wanted to understand)..

 

 

 

Meanwhile, I personally have one accelerated child that appears to need to delay formal academics (he's accelerated without it and has been fighting it since I introduced it) and one completely different child who would just simply benefit from delaying but actually asks for formal work (but struggles with it to the point of frustration - and yes, totally doesn't get things that have come effortlessly and early to her brother). I don't understand why anyone has to take personal offense to the reality that others have completely different individual experiences with their own unique children that skews their perspective -- I'm actually well acquainted with the frustration but what's with people taking it personally? :confused:

[laundrycrisis]

To me, rigor is what you reach for when you find the level of work that is challenging your child and helps him/her to acquire new skills and knowledge. They should have to work at it enough to feel like they were stretched a bit. If it is totally easy and doesn't require much effort or thought, it is busywork. If it is so hard that it feels overwhelming and impossible from where they sit, it will only discourage them. But for our son, when I find the level of "maybe I can do this; I will try", and he works through it with some effort, and then that level gets easier and easier, and then I move him on and push him a little more into harder work, I know we are doing it. IMO rigor is the commitment to maintaining that level of challenge and progress, challenge and progress, and to putting the time and the work into keeping that going. At our house, rigor doesn't match up to grade levels and it's not done with "impressive" materials. What is hard for him this week is rigorous for him this week. If by next week he's reached the point where a specific thing isn't mental work for him anymore, it's time to find a way to make it more challenging or move on to the next level. It's constantly meeting him where he is at today and helping him be a little further along tomorrow.

[TracyP]

Meanwhile, I personally have one accelerated child that appears to need to delay formal academics (he's accelerated without it and has been fighting it since I introduced it) and one completely different child who would just simply benefit from delaying but actually asks for formal work (but struggles with it to the point of frustration - and yes, totally doesn't get things that have come effortlessly and early to her brother). I don't understand why anyone has to take personal offense to the reality that others have completely different individual experiences with their own unique children that skews their perspective -- I'm actually well acquainted with the frustration but what's with people taking it personally? :confused:

 

Well, it's funny in some ways. I so often come here and leave feeling validated in my decisions. Just today I finally made the decision to stop trying to teach my 4 yo his colors. It is not sticking and I don't think it is worth our time. I actually thought to myself that not knowing colors at this age is okay. Kindy currics all start with learning colors anyway.

 

Sooo, then I read comments like, "What do parents do for the first five years of a child's life?" (sahamama) followed by your comment, "I've often wondered that myself .. well, more specifically, I've wondered how they managed to avoid learning this stuff before it was formally presented via a "preK" or "K" curriculum." Well, it hurt my feelings. I'm a big girl, it's all good. That is why I stuck a smilie on my comment. But it was painful to read, and I did take it personally. Whether I should have or not is irrelevant. I did. I'm over it. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.:D

[laundrycrisis]

Well, it hurt my feelings. I'm a big girl, it's all good. That is why I stuck a smilie on my comment. But it was painful to read, and I did take it personally. Whether I should have or not is irrelevant. I did. I'm over it. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.:D

 

:grouphug: :iagree:

 

I also have a kid who does not just pick stuff up, but needs to be very specifically taught, sometimes with a lot of repetition. I have worked at growing a thick skin. I know that those who only have kids who learn quickly and easily, just by exposure, are not going to understand what it's like to have to work hard at teaching what look like very basic things. I do my best to take their perspective and lack of this experience into account when I react to things they say, even when I have been criticized for "taking things too seriously" or "making them too formal". But maintaining my shields gets old, and sometimes these comments really sting.

[Karen in CO]

Well, it's funny in some ways. I so often come here and leave feeling validated in my decisions. Just today I finally made the decision to stop trying to teach my 4 yo his colors. It is not sticking and I don't think it is worth our time. I actually thought to myself that not knowing colors at this age is okay. Kindy currics all start with learning colors anyway.

 

 

Could he be color blind? My ds is. He had a terrible time learning his colors in kindy (and first and second grade) because he didn't see nearly as many colors as the rest of us. He still can't pick a blue crayon out of box unless its labeled. Just a thought. Other than that. Play with your 4yo. Take him out to real places and let him do real things. Zebras are black and white. Lions are brown and so is mud. A rigorous schedule of play with lots of emphasis on large motor development is well accepted in most societies for 4yos. He will really only be that small once, and they do outgrow legos and mud.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Karen in CO

[boscopup]

Could he be color blind? My ds is. He had a terrible time learning his colors in kindy (and first and second grade) because he didn't see nearly as many colors as the rest of us. He still can't pick a blue crayon out of box unless its labeled. Just a thought. Other than that. Play with your 4yo. Take him out to real places and let him do real things. Zebras are black and white. Lions are brown and so is mud. A rigorous schedule of play with lots of emphasis on large motor development is well accepted in most societies for 4yos. He will really only be that small once, and they do outgrow legos and mud.

 

I agree, but I'll also add that my DS2 didn't learn his colors from doing the above, and he's not color blind. What finally taught him? R&S Adventures With Books (ABC series). He was the same way with counting to 10. He didn't learn by counting steps or counting M&Ms or counting cookies. He learned by going through R&S Counting With Numbers. He had to be explicitly taught these things with a workbook. And it actually took very little time once I used the workbooks.

 

But yeah, if you are only seeing this problem with colors and not other things, I'd definitely check for color blindness. I was concerned with that possibility for a while, but it turned out that DS2 just learns differently and thinks differently than his brothers (who have both learned these things organically).

[sagira]

I know I drool over you all the time, but: DEAR GOD WOMAN, WHO ARE YOU AND HOW DO WE GET MARRIED?! You are the Best.

:lol::lol:

 

All I have to say about this thread is - "Handle with Care" ;)

[Karen in CO]

Very true some kids require the direct instruction for things that other learn organically, and sometimes neither method works. My sweet ds has a favorite black sketch book that is green. None of us have the heart to tell him it isn't really black.

[Meriwether]

Very true some kids require the direct instruction for things that other learn organically, and sometimes neither method works. My sweet ds has a favorite black sketch book that is green. None of us have the heart to tell him it isn't really black.

 

:lol: My husband called home from work one day and asked me to pack his chocolate brown shirt with the stripe on the collar. I tried. I really did. The only one I saw with a stripe was olive green. I showed him the shirt later and said it was the best I could do. He said, " Oh great, you got the right one." Even looking at it, he insisted it was chocolate brown.:001_huh:

[SorrelZG]

Well, it's funny in some ways. I so often come here and leave feeling validated in my decisions. Just today I finally made the decision to stop trying to teach my 4 yo his colors. It is not sticking and I don't think it is worth our time. I actually thought to myself that not knowing colors at this age is okay. Kindy currics all start with learning colors anyway.

 

One the one hand I can see that this was set up to be very bad timing ...

 

Sooo, then I read comments like, "What do parents do for the first five years of a child's life?" (sahamama) followed by your comment, "I've often wondered that myself .. well, more specifically, I've wondered how they managed to avoid learning this stuff before it was formally presented via a "preK" or "K" curriculum." Well, it hurt my feelings. I'm a big girl, it's all good. That is why I stuck a smilie on my comment. But it was painful to read, and I did take it personally. Whether I should have or not is irrelevant. I did. I'm over it. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.:D

 

 

..on the other (and please grant me grace because I realize I can be thick skulled) I still don't understand why it hurt your feelings in a "taking it personally" kind of way. (Not talking about should or should not ... just trying to understand why it did happen.) I mean, sure -- (trying to think through this to reach understanding) I realized eventually that my oldest was skewing my perception of normal and all my children so far have picked up on things like color and shape easily, no thanks to me -- but if they didn't it wouldn't be because of me either. Now as my second born gets older, I'm finding there are things she just isn't picking up on naturally the way her older brother did. Also, she's not doing things that other little girls her age are doing. Now, I do start to feel that icky feeling ... I'm not exactly sure why ... it's probably the same one that causes friends to start talking about themselves and their own children in some kind of explanatory/defensive way when I have mentioned in the past things my son is doing (except those are not age typical, .. I think the things the girls are doing that mine isn't are age typical). So yes, I understand an icky feeling .. but still not taking it personally.

 

Is it because it sounds like a judgement is being made about your parenting? That your teaching has been lacking? In my trying to understand I'm thinking about how (not an academic example) my son has some behavioral tendencies that no one I know personally has dealt with in their own children and I can't help but feeling at times, especially when certain topics of parenting come up, as if it is presumed to be due to something we are doing (or not doing) as parents. Now whatever they are meaning or not meaning, that stings.

 

Thank-you for coming back, btw.

[Embassy]

 

Is it because it sounds like a judgement is being made about your parenting? That your teaching has been lacking? In my trying to understand I'm thinking about how (not an academic example) my son has some behavioral tendencies that no one I know personally has dealt with in their own children and I can't help but feeling at times, especially when certain topics of parenting come up, as if it is presumed to be due to something we are doing (or not doing) as parents. Now whatever they are meaning or not meaning, that stings.

 

Thank-you for coming back, btw.

 

I can see how it would involve hurt feelings because it is propagating a stereotype that the reason why little Johnny doesn't know his colors or shapes is because his parents haven't been doing their job. At least in my experience, parents of children that don't learn things easily work much harder toward educational goals than your standard parent who cares about education.

[Crimson Wife]

I also have a kid who does not just pick stuff up, but needs to be very specifically taught, sometimes with a lot of repetition. I have worked at growing a thick skin. I know that those who only have kids who learn quickly and easily, just by exposure, are not going to understand what it's like to have to work hard at teaching what look like very basic things. I do my best to take their perspective and lack of this experience into account when I react to things they say, even when I have been criticized for "taking things too seriously" or "making them too formal". But maintaining my shields gets old, and sometimes these comments really sting.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

My oldest is one of those "learn through osmosis" kids while my 2nd, while very quick to learn something when specifically taught, does require that explicit teaching. Except in math, the situation is the exact opposite- DS grasps things intuitively while DD needs to be specifically taught. They're both perfectly bright, they just have different learning styles.

 

It took having a 2nd child with a different learning style to really "get" why certain things are included in a curriculum.

[TracyP]

One the one hand I can see that this was set up to be very bad timing ...

 

 

 

 

..on the other (and please grant me grace because I realize I can be thick skulled) I still don't understand why it hurt your feelings in a "taking it personally" kind of way. (Not talking about should or should not ... just trying to understand why it did happen.) I mean, sure -- (trying to think through this to reach understanding) I realized eventually that my oldest was skewing my perception of normal and all my children so far have picked up on things like color and shape easily, no thanks to me -- but if they didn't it wouldn't be because of me either. Now as my second born gets older, I'm finding there are things she just isn't picking up on naturally the way her older brother did. Also, she's not doing things that other little girls her age are doing. Now, I do start to feel that icky feeling ... I'm not exactly sure why ... it's probably the same one that causes friends to start talking about themselves and their own children in some kind of explanatory/defensive way when I have mentioned in the past things my son is doing (except those are not age typical, .. I think the things the girls are doing that mine isn't are age typical). So yes, I understand an icky feeling .. but still not taking it personally.

 

Is it because it sounds like a judgement is being made about your parenting? That your teaching has been lacking? In my trying to understand I'm thinking about how (not an academic example) my son has some behavioral tendencies that no one I know personally has dealt with in their own children and I can't help but feeling at times, especially when certain topics of parenting come up, as if it is presumed to be due to something we are doing (or not doing) as parents. Now whatever they are meaning or not meaning, that stings.

 

Thank-you for coming back, btw.

 

I left my lengthy answer and got logged out. ^&%&*^&! Ahem, moving on...

 

I don't think he's color blind. He can sort colors. He just seems to need much more direct instruction than some? many? most? kids.

 

Yes, I feel like it is a judgement on my parenting. I take it personally because it is a sore spot for me. I hate the thought that someone would look at me/him and think that the reason he needs a Kindy curriculum is because a lack of teaching, or worse caring on my part. My mom is convinced that if only she lived closer he wouldn't be this way. She could help with the kids and I could devote more time to him. Obviously (in her mind), having 5 kids is the root of the problem. Very, very, sore spot for me.

 

Still, even without my personal baggage, I think I would take it personally. Not because I should or anything, just because.:tongue_smilie:

[SorrelZG]

I can see how it would involve hurt feelings because it is propagating a stereotype that the reason why little Johnny doesn't know his colors or shapes is because his parents haven't been doing their job. At least in my experience, parents of children that don't learn things easily work much harder toward educational goals than your standard parent who cares about education.

 

Sincere question, is it really? I came to the forum some months back over a confusion I had with CM philosophy that says a child should not see a misspelled word but also that you should wait until a child is nine to begin spelling. I was wondering, how on earth do these children avoid writing until then?! My child was five and already writing (for fun) sentences, a paragraph and several "hymns". I was genuinely perplexed -- was I propagating a stereotype regarding children (and their parents) that don't do their own writing until they are older? It certainly wasn't remotely on my mind. :confused: It seems natural for questions to arise when your "normal" comes up against something unfamiliar to your sphere of experience (and no, I don't intrinsically count it a privileged experience to get to educate an accelerated child either, for what it's worth - ie, it's not just an indirect way to boast about my little Precious).

 

You know, I understand the frustrations of the ladies with accelerated children as well and the only point I was ever trying to make here was that "delaying formal academics" does not equal "lame education" or "not meeting your child where they are at" or "refusing to let them do things they want to do" .. any number of complete misrepresentations of a whole educational philosophy. I suppose the problem is that unfortunately there are people who will give well meaning but inapplicable advice (I've received plenty) but it's no justification for broad generalizations. I've been considering that it was foolish of me to try to stand up for a philosophy I only recently began educating myself about. It was just fresh in my mind and I've thought all these wrong things before, such as: "better late than early" = "educational neglect of my accelerated child".

 

I am, again, thankful that the horrifying idea was patiently laid before me on multiple occasions - now I need to learn something else even more important from those ladies - when to keep my mouth shut! :tongue_smilie:

 

 

eta .. except now Tracy goes and replies immediately after I say that ...

[SorrelZG]

 

Yes, I feel like it is a judgement on my parenting. I take it personally because it is a sore spot for me. I hate the thought that someone would look at me/him and think that the reason he needs a Kindy curriculum is because a lack of teaching, or worse caring on my part. My mom is convinced that if only she lived closer he wouldn't be this way. She could help with the kids and I could devote more time to him. Obviously (in her mind), having 5 kids is the root of the problem. Very, very, sore spot for me.

 

Still, even without my personal baggage, I think I would take it personally. Not because I should or anything, just because.:tongue_smilie:

 

 

I'm so sorry for that, Tracy. I do have similar feelings but about different things and with different people. :grouphug:

 

I don't want people to get the wrong idea so I've stopped talking about my son to friends, seeking advice, because it has become apparent that they have their own insecurities (I have mine, I just don't expect others to have them due to my tendency towards being consumed with my own problems - trying to change that) and it seemed to make them feel bad or not want to talk. I don't want that to happen here too. I know on the other hand (because I saw the thread on the SN board) that others feel like they can't talk about their children or what they're doing here either because of those same feelings you have. I wish we could all be encouraging to one another instead of discouraging -- I'm sorry that I apparently failed on my end.

[TracyP]

I'm so sorry for that, Tracy. I do have similar feelings but about different things and with different people. :grouphug:

 

I don't want people to get the wrong idea so I've stopped talking about my son to friends, seeking advice, because it has become apparent that they have their own insecurities (I have mine, I just don't expect others to have them due to my tendency towards being consumed with my own problems - trying to change that) and it seemed to make them feel bad or not want to talk. I don't want that to happen here too. I know on the other hand (because I saw the thread on the SN board) that others feel like they can't talk about their children or what they're doing here either because of those same feelings you have. I wish we could all be encouraging to one another instead of discouraging -- I'm sorry that I apparently failed on my end.

 

Thank you, but don't feel bad.:grouphug: I don't think we should feel like we need to walk around on eggshells around here. I typically weed out the comments that are unhelpful to me, and grab on to the ones that I can glean something from. Until I had #3, I would have thought it was ridiculous to explicitly teach something like colors and shapes. I know there was no ill intent.

[Embassy]

Sincere question, is it really? I came to the forum some months back over a confusion I had with CM philosophy that says a child should not see a misspelled word but also that you should wait until a child is nine to begin spelling. I was wondering, how on earth do these children avoid writing until then?! My child was five and already writing (for fun) sentences, a paragraph and several "hymns". I was genuinely perplexed -- was I propagating a stereotype regarding children (and their parents) that don't do their own writing until they are older? It certainly wasn't remotely on my mind. :confused: It seems natural for questions to arise when your "normal" comes up against something unfamiliar to your sphere of experience (and no, I don't intrinsically count it a privileged experience to get to educate an accelerated child either, for what it's worth - ie, it's not just an indirect way to boast about my little Precious).

 

No, I don't see your example as one where you are promoting that stereotype. You were inquiring about your child and an educational philosophy. It doesn't appear that you were making a generalization about why other children don't have certain skills.

[SorrelZG]

No, I don't see your example as one where you are promoting that stereotype. You were inquiring about your child and an educational philosophy. It doesn't appear that you were making a generalization about why other children don't have certain skills.

 

I went back in this thread and reread the quotes (what I responded to and with - I had no memory of the specific words used, only what I was thinking) and I get it now. That was a thoughtless indiscretion. My apologies again to Tracy and others.

[Embassy]

I went back in this thread and reread the quotes (what I responded to and with - I had no memory of the specific words used, only what I was thinking) and I get it now. That was a thoughtless indiscretion. My apologies again to Tracy and others.

 

:grouphug::)

[Mrs Twain]

I've seen several postings wanting to know rigorous for xgrade...what makes one home's curriculum more rigorous than another??:lurk5:

 

It is interesting to read the philosophy debate.

 

Here is my attempt at a specific answer about how I attempt to be rigorous in academics (in case anyone is interested). I am not assuming that this is good for all families, but this is how I plan my homeschool program. Please don't be offended if you don't plan your school this way. I am only sharing my principles and how I plan.

 

1. I look at a couple of scope and sequences for each child's grade level and try to include all of it in our year as our minimum requirements. I use The Core Knowledge K-8 Sequence and my state's Standards of Learning. Part of the reason I do this is so that my kids could easily transfer back to public or private school if that situation ever comes up.

 

I choose curricula which will meet the goals in these scope and sequence lists. Sometimes I use one program, and sometimes I combine two or three different curricula if needed in order to accomplish my goals. It is not important how many programs I use or how long I spend on each subject, but that I accomplish my objectives for the year.

 

2. In addition to the basic minimum above, dh and I consider what we think would provide an excellent education. This inspires us to go more in-depth with our basic subjects using supplements and add additional subjects. Such subjects that we add or supplement include math, science, world/American history, state history, geography, civics, government, basic economics, logic, memory work, and public speaking. Some of these supplemental subjects we only teach once per week, but even doing them only once per week gives our curriculum good variety and richness.

 

3. Each child needs to be challenged. In particular, I have a first grader who is exceptionally bright and complains if I give her work that is too easy. I have learned to disregard grade level designations on programs and choose what is appropriately challenging for her abilities. About half of her day includes work at a 3rd grade level or higher. Not all of my children are grade levels ahead, but I will not hesitate to move my children ahead if they are bored with or breezing through grade level work.

 

4. I plan to have school 180 days per year because that is our state law, but also because I want to take advantage of the time I have with my kids to teach them all I can. In general I don't skip school for anything unless it is absolutely unavoidable. We are serious about school, and we work hard every school day. I don't answer my phone or my door, or skip school on nice days just because we would like to go to the park.

 

5. We almost always finish our curricula. I cringe when I read things by homeschoolers who joke about things like how they never finished a math book in any year they taught their kids. Even if we have to do school for "extra days" into summer in order to finish, then we will do it. We will attempt to meet all of our goals (see #1) to the best of our abilities.

 

BTW in case anyone is wondering, my kids are happy with our homeschool. Two of my kids have been in public school and don't want to go back, despite the fact that our homeschool is much more rigorous than our local public school. My kids work hard, but they get plenty of breaks during our school day, and every afternoon is reserved for free time, sports, art lessons, and/or playing with friends. It is possible to be rigorous in academics and have a lot of time to pursue other goals as well.

[Crimson Wife]

Sincere question, is it really? I came to the forum some months back over a confusion I had with CM philosophy that says a child should not see a misspelled word but also that you should wait until a child is nine to begin spelling.

 

Trying to say this gently, but I think you may be misinterpreting what CM wrote. She was talking about studying spelling and grammar as formal subjects. Those certainly CAN wait until a child is 9 or 10. Children who are exposed to quality literature as in the CM approach will typically learn a lot just by doing copywork. That foundation allows them to begin the formal study of spelling and grammar on the later side without any problem.

 

II have not personally chosen to wait so long to begin grammar & spelling with my kids, but I certainly think that following CM's advice could fit in with an overall rigorous education.

[sagira]

Trying to say this gently, but I think you may be misinterpreting what CM wrote. She was talking about studying spelling and grammar as formal subjects. Those certainly CAN wait until a child is 9 or 10. Children who are exposed to quality literature as in the CM approach will typically learn a lot just by doing copywork. That foundation allows them to begin the formal study of spelling and grammar on the later side without any problem.

 

II have not personally chosen to wait so long to begin grammar & spelling with my kids, but I certainly think that following CM's advice could fit in with an overall rigorous education.

 

:iagree: