Charlotte Mason (and maybe TWTM): weak for science-y pupils?

[pehp]

I would love a little input from those of you who are more experienced and seasoned than I am. My son is turning 5 in June--so we're not facing 'crunch time,' but I am researching and thinking a lot about educational philosophies.

 

As we embark upon homeschooling I am deeply drawn to both Charlotte Mason and classical education--I visualize some sort of combination of the two. I am a total bookworm, and I'm sure that is why. :) I have read TWTM, of course. I've also read several 'interpretations' of CM's philosophy but soon will be hunkering right down on my kindle with the real deal.

 

One question that keeps rising in my mind is how science is handled as the child progresses....I have the feeling that my son will be a math/science boy (my husband is an engineer, and our son is clearly already a very mechanically-oriented thinker)--and I think that living books are VITAL even if you become a scientist....but I know science in CM's day and science today are rather different. And when I read Educating the Wholehearted Child (which is simply Sally Clarkson's explanation of how she homeschooled her children....mostly via a CM method), I was extremely unimpressed--nay, even displeased!--by the 'lite' approach she took to sciences. (I remember reading something like "we are raising wholehearted people, not scientists"--as though those things are incongruent?!) Frankly I was totally turned off by that comment, and I love Sally Clarkson generally.

 

So I think--does doing this CM approach preclude my child from pursuing the hard sciences???

 

But then I read Arthur Robinson--and he's a kook, no doubt, but his children--from what I can tell--basically did a ton of math and a ton of reading from living books, and yet they excel in the maths/sciences. (I don't subscribe to everything he says, obviously, one must separate the wheat from the chaff, but the results speak for themselves.)

 

I do think that TWTM trains a child to think critically--and that is the basis of everything. (Do you think CM also trains a child similarly? I am really unfamiliar with the older grades when it comes to CM.) So perhaps it's not so much about a focus on learning science concepts at a young age, but learning to think.

 

It's completely unripe yet for me personally because it is still so early in the game. But now is the time to think about these things, I think! This one thing is what is keeping me from really thinking a CM approach (or maybe, even a classical approach?) is workable in the long run--after, say, the elementary years....that it may be too 'lite' on the sciences.

 

What say you, Hive?

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

The beauty of this is you can make it as science-y as you want. If you just want to do nature hiking and study science this way then go for it. If you want to dig deeper into science you can do that too. There are many curriculums out there that are starting points for you....but it is up to you on how in depth you want to take it. The only limitation is you and your child.

[Rosie_0801]

Well, any time is a good time for thinking! :rofl:

 

 

But really, there isn't a homeschooling police, so you are free to do science as you see fit. The author of the WTM book doesn't do everything exactly by the book, so there is no way the rest of us are bound to it! You can mix and match as you like. There are plenty of people here who start off CM with their littles, move more WTM with their biggers. There are plenty of people who don't follow either. There are people who like WTM science, people who don't think much of it at all. So play about here for a bit and read science and technology threads. There's no need to limit yourself to the K-8 forum ;) (Some of the best science threads happen on the High School board.) Eventually you'll work out how you want to approach the subject. In the meantime, you haven't read all the Junior non-fiction books in the library yet, have you? :tongue_smilie:

 

Rosie

[jar7709]

I consider us CM-y and we are also a sciency family. I am one of those not impressed by TWTM approach to science, but there are many that disagree, I'm sure, and many, many of us combine elements of several different approaches. What I think is key is finding what works for your family--and that usually changes over time, too. Enjoy your reading, try not to get overwhelmed, just pick out good books to start and remember there's no way through it but to do it. :001_smile:

[....]

We try to follow TWTM, but math and science are the big priorities in our homeschool. We start with math each day. We use math programs, a math lab, living books, work problems together on the dry erase board, etc. Two of my kids are also going into some science field. The oldest is 10 and they've already worked through 4 science textbooks together. We just started a physics textbook and lab kit last week.

 

FWIW, my 10 yro insists that she wants to be an equine or livestock vet. ;) She even printed out the class requirements from Texas A&M's veterinary program and she has them taped to her wall upstairs. My son (the 9 yro) wants to be some kind of architect/builder/engineer/herpetologist. :tongue_smilie:

 

If your family wants to make science a priority, go for it!!

[Woodland Mist Academy]

So many good responses!

 

The beauty of this is you can make it as science-y as you want........ The only limitation is you and your child.

 

:iagree:

 

I consider us CM-y and we are also a sciency family. I am one of those not impressed by TWTM approach to science, but there are many that disagree, I'm sure, and many, many of us combine elements of several different approaches. What I think is key is finding what works for your family--and that usually changes over time, too. Enjoy your reading, try not to get overwhelmed, just pick out good books to start and remember there's no way through it but to do it. :001_smile:

 

:iagree:

 

We try to follow TWTM, but math and science are the big priorities in our homeschool. We start with math each day. We use math programs, a math lab, living books, work problems together on the dry erase board, etc. Two of my kids are also going into some science field. The oldest is 10 and they've already worked through 4 science textbooks together. We just started a physics textbook and lab kit last week.

 

FWIW, my 10 yro insists that she wants to be an equine or livestock vet. ;) She even printed out the class requirements from Texas A&M's veterinary program and she has them taped to her wall upstairs. My son (the 9 yro) wants to be some kind of architect/builder/engineer/herpetologist. :tongue_smilie:

 

If your family wants to make science a priority, go for it!!

 

:iagree:I could have written this; it is so similar to my experience. My 10yo daughter wants to go into veterinary medicine or perhaps wildlife biology. Sometimes on a tough school day she'll ask if what she's trying to learn will help her get into vet school. When I say yes, she refocuses and gets to work.

 

I use TWTM and CM as foundations, guidebooks, etc.

 

.......

But really, there isn't a homeschooling police, so you are free to do science as you see fit.......

 

Thanks goodness! Otherwise, I'd be in trouble!:leaving:

[Mrs Twain]

From what I have seen, I think there is general weakness among homeschoolers in math and science. I am not saying that all homeschoolers are weak in math and science. There are many people on this forum who are exceptionally strong in those subjects. However, from what I have read and seen in CM, homeschool conventions, homeschoolers I know, and other homeschooling areas, I am not very impressed in general.

 

As far as examples, I don't agree that all you need to do for elementary science is walk around outside and journal. I don't agree with some people who say that no formal math needs to be taught in elementary grades, etc. I like CM's approach to history, but that is all I use of it.

 

When I have been to large homeschool conventions, almost every academic talk and workshop is about writing or language arts or history or reading. The number of math and science workshops can usually be counted on one hand if they exist at all. I think there is a great imbalance here. Perhaps that is because most mothers or homeschool pioneers have been liberal arts types of people. I don't know.

 

I do think we need to greatly increase the emphasis on math and science in general in the homeschooling world. Also, I think there are very few people who follow one homeschooling philosophy exclusively. You can follow CM or WTM in the respects that you like, and follow a different philosophy in other subjects (namely math and science) if you feel that is right. That is what we do.

[Photo Ninja]

I am a firm believer in learning as much as I can about educational philosophies, including CM and classical, then adopting those parts that fit best into our life and goals and meets our needs. You can do this, too. You can have a goal of your dc being well educated in math and science, but use the methods you find most successful for your family.

 

Dh is an engineer, and very much a math and science person. I am not. I prefer literature and history and fine arts. I was determined to teach it all to my dc so they would have the academic skills to follow whatever path they chose in the future. I don't believe that hsing means students need to be weak in math and science and writing skills, as is often stated. If you purpose to teach your dc math and science skills, they will learn them.

 

So math can be taught by finding a curriculum that works for your and your dc and using it. Teach math skills, expect mastery of the basics before moving on to abstract math like Algebra and Geometry. You can do it.

 

For science, I didn't use a set curriculum in elementary school. Mostly, I read books aloud. Lots of books. Lots. I wanted to expose my dc to lots of science topics, not just the few topics mainline curriculum providers thought elementary dc should learn through a boring, shallow chapter. I knew what I wanted my dc to learn. I picked a topic, went to the library, and checked out as many books as I could on that subject. We learned about seasons and weather, and plants and animals and habitats, astronomy, spiders, sharks and oceans, plus whatever my dc were interested in at the time. We discussed. I asked questions and my dc had to think and use what they knew to answer. They learned to think and wonder and figure out how to use the info they learned.

 

I suggest you find books by Gail Gibbons and Franklyn Branley, as a start. These two authors were our favorites for science topics at preschool and young elementary grades. They are meaty books, often with some hands on ideas to illustrate the topic. We read Dorling Kindersley and Usborne books. We read and read. If it was possible to go on a field trip somewhere related, we did. During my dc's 'insect' infatuation, we spent a lot of time at the Natural History Museum in the insect room. The Ass't Curator knew my dc by name because they asked so many questions. We also read biographies and watched documentaries. We explored science. My dc did sketch nature when we were learning about plants and habitats. Incorporate whatever works for you and what you are studying.

 

Sometimes we stuck with the same science topic for six or eight weeks because there was so much to cover and my dc wanted to learn more. Sometimes two weeks was plenty at that time, which was okay because I knew we would return to that content in a few years, at a higher level. Sometimes I insisted we move on to another topic, but let my dc continue to explore their interest area on their own. They did. I wanted my dc to have a broad base of science knowledge so that when they were in middle and high school, they would be able to go more in depth.

 

People couldn't believe that my dc learned so much just because we read a lot, but they really were sponges about learning. We did do activities, either experiments or narration or making notebooks or lapbooks about some of our science topics. But my dc gained a strong base of science knowledge during elementary years because we read and discussed.

 

In middle school, we switched to using a textbook because I wanted to be sure my dc learned how to use a textbook (which we didn't use except for math), and because the content was becoming more focused at those grade levels. My dc found General Science and Physical Science to be almost complete review of what they already knew from our years of reading books, and we had already done most the experiments as well. That reassured me that my dc already had a very firm foundation of science knowledge. My dc went on to complete the usual high school courses of Biology and Chemistry, plus other courses of their choice. One ds completed Physics and Physics II. Another took Biology II, and my dc also took cc science courses. One ds could hold his own (and still does) on Theoretical Physics topics because he is very interested. He studies it on his own because he finds it interesting. He is not a STEM major in college, but he has recounted several interesting conversations he has had with science majors and professors (one where a professor asked him to consider changing his major to Physics). My dd has a major heavy in Biological sciences, and has five Anatomy courses to complete, as well as Biology and some physical science courses. She has three Anatomy courses left, and is still going strong. She was prepared well enough in science to be successful in all the college science courses she has taken.

 

All that resulted from no formal textbook science curriculum in elementary school. We just read books by authors who cared about science, discussed the topics, and explored our world. I let my dc ask questions, and when I didn't know the answer, I admitted it, and we found the answer. Sometimes we needed more books, or we needed someone we could ask. But we found the answers. Remember, I am the one who is not very interested in science, but I still succeeded in teaching science to my dc.

 

All that to say, go ahead and read real books on science topics to your ds. He can learn that way. It felt very casual to me, almost too easy, but it was effective and met my goal of dc who have strong science knowledge.

[regentrude]

TWTM does a great job in the humanities and in the development of basic skills, beginning at a young level.

For math, I find it average and not really outstanding.

For science, what they do at elementary level looks just fine - but at the rhetoric level, I consider TWTM's suggestions for science severely lacking. This can, however, easily be remedied by using better materials than the ones suggested.

For a math and science minded kid, you can build on the good things of TWTM and discard the not-so good ones and replace them with better curriculum. In our case, we like many aspects of the humanities approach and use, for instance, the Great books studies for integrated history and literature. At the same time, we won't have anything to do with their math/science curriculum.