Something I've been thinking about a lot recently

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I am a student at heart. I love learning for learning's sake. The Well Trained Mind spoke to me on a deep level when I first read it, and I so wished that I had had an education like that when I was a kid. I went to college, got a master's degree. Dh has a law degree. We value higher education and are gearing our kids toward college and higher degrees.

 

That said, I'm starting to think that I may change the way I do things and let our school be more interest led. I look at dh's one brother and his wife. They married very young, never went to college, had children early, etc. Very different from how dh and I did it. But, they have a nice house, happy kids, take nice vacations, etc. They are one example out of thousands of people that I know who did things differently than I did. I guess what I'm finally realizing on a more subconscious level is that there are many paths to success (however one defines that for oneself) and happiness.

 

Do my kids really need to know how to diagram sentences? Do they need to know about sines, cosines, and tangents? I mean, yes, depending on what career path they choose, they might need to know these things, but should I be focusing on honing their strengths and interests instead of trying to make sure they are very well educated in every subject? I think the things I know enhance MY life, especially since I enjoy reading, so having a broad base of general knowledge is beneficial to me. But, not knowing certain things doesn't seem to detract from the quality of other people's lives. Should I let my children choose what they think is important for their lives?

 

Why or why not?

[*Michelle*]

One of the things that really drew me to TWTM was that it emphasizes a broad base of knowledge during the grammar and logic stages and a narrowed emphasis within the child's interest in the rhetoric stage. I don't expect my kids to study so widely when they get older, but I want to make sure they've had at least a taste of all of these different areas so that they can determine where their interests lie later on.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

You have to prepare your children for whatever life they choose. You don't know that they'll succeed through college, but you also don't know if they'll need college, so prepare them for whichever. If you fail to do it, you are "un-choosing" some options for them, for life. You are limiting their possibilities.

 

Focus on their strengths and abilities while making sure they have that broad general education. Homeschooling is the one method that really affords time to do both. You don't have to choose between underwater basket weaving (if that's their passion) and calculus. They can do both. You can value both.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Tibbie Dunbar

[PeacefulChaos]

One of the things that really drew me to TWTM was that it emphasizes a broad base of knowledge during the grammar and logic stages and a narrowed emphasis within the child's interest in the rhetoric stage. I don't expect my kids to study so widely when they get older, but I want to make sure they've had at least a taste of all of these different areas so that they can determine where their interests lie later on.

 

I think this kind of sums it up for me. :)

 

I also know that I'm in the minority on this board, in that I really don't care whether my kids go to college or not - if they get married young or not - how old they are when they have kids - etc. :) I don't buy into happiness being defined just one way. And I don't believe success has anything to do with education, money, or any of that. So it's only natural, I guess, that I feel this way about it... :)

[Cassy]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this. The difference is in the motivation. DH and I have completely disagreed on this. He had a very traditional education, and believes that he would never have been so successful without it; I, on the other hand, would have done far better if I'd had some motivation, if I'd had a burning passion to inspire me. Slowly DH is coming round to the view that there are many paths to a successful life.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Cassy

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I didn't take what she said that way at all. And either way, that isn't what I meant when I said I think about that often.

 

I guess how I took it is that there is more than one path to get to the goal and who says my path has to look the same as yours.

 

Wendy, I realized how biased my opinion is right now b/c of a student I'm helping, so I edited my post. I understand that the OP is not the same as the parent of my student and doesn't intend to neglect the 3R's, etc. So I toned it down, and I apologize, OP.

 

I don't think there's one right way, either. One of my sons has no intention of going to college, and I totally support that. I just don't think it's right for me to be the one to fail to prepare him so that he can't pursue what he decides to do in life.

[*Michelle*]

I also know that I'm in the minority on this board, in that I really don't care whether my kids go to college or not - if they get married young or not - how old they are when they have kids - etc. :) I don't buy into happiness being defined just one way. And I don't believe success has anything to do with education, money, or any of that. So it's only natural, I guess, that I feel this way about it... :)

 

I'm right there with you!

[AK_Mom4]

We have always chosen to guide our children towards going to college. If they choose not to go, then that's up to them but at least they will have the option.

 

We do interest-led education quite a bit for DD11. But I'm not going to let her skip out on math next year because it's not as interesting as mummifying chickens. But there is no reason a child can't study what they find themselves led to AS WELL AS getting sufficiently well-educated.

[Catherine]

But one factor that deters me from taking a totally interest-led path is knowing some people who've chosen this for their families and seen the outcome. Both of the people I know whose unschooled kids are now grown express regrets about not providing their kids with

 

1. more basic employable skills

2. more academic skills so that they can choose that path if they want to.

 

I hate being a wet blanket. I am *my own* wet blanket because I second-guess my own homeschool path often. Right now I'm reading Unbroken and it certainly is a vivid portrait of someone who did not "fit the mold" of conventional schooling, yet was extremely successful in life. I just don't have any answers, except that I try very hard to follow my kid's interests as much as I can.

 

Catherine

[Tess in the Burbs]

We are coming to the conclusion that what was expected of us is not what we have to expect of our kids. Society and economics are different now. I plan on preparing my kids to go to college or higher level educational paths. If they choose something else that is fine. We have been looking into different careers and the path you need to be successful and hope to present our kids many options to choose from to find their interest/career.

 

But I talked with a mom the other day whose kids were homeschooled and she admitted neither went past algebra at home. Both kids want to be engineers. One is struggling with math in a community college and the other is scared to go to college for fear of having to take a history class.

 

I want my kids prepared. We aren't strictly classical. But we cover the subjects needed to get into college. It's up to them to take that path, but this mom is making sure they can't say I didn't prepare them!:tongue_smilie:

[JennW in SoCal]

It isn't an either/or issue. You can be very interest led in your homeschool and yet provide a sound, well rounded, college bound education for your children. It is an issue I wrestled with quite a bit when I started homeschooling and had young children. I knew my kids just soaked up learning through following their interests, yet I wanted that quality education. Most of all I wanted to produce life long learners.

 

Through these boards I know others have had similar mental wrestling matches, and the common realization, the mutual light bulb moment is realizing that you can and probably should do both --- structured school for skills and interest led learning for content.

 

Skills are the Three R's, including sines and cosines, sentence diagramming and reading and writing about literature your student wouldn't choose on his own. Those skills are essential for furthering learning, whether in college or pursuing interests. Skills are something that needs to be worked on each day, and would actually include a musical instrument and/or foreign language.

 

Content is everything else including history, science, geography, culture, art. Yes the WTM advocated presenting all of these subjects in a tidy and linear fashion, but it isn't the end of the world if the year you had planned to devote to modern history is instead spent on the Middle Ages because your child is obsessed with knights. The amazing thing about devoting time to these passionate interests is that all kinds of related and random facts and connections get implanted in their growing brains. Content can come in a variety of formats, and is a wonderful thing because it doesn't look and feel like "school". It is learning for learning's sake and it is pleasurable.

 

I did no formal science with my boys until high school, yet that excelled in their first formal courses and scored high on state standardized tests. Same with history and literature. All three subjects often intertwined nicely, actually. Before high school almost all content was all interest led unless they were in between passionate interests in which case I'd use a book list based off of the WTM suggestions. Both are successful college students and both still enjoy learning for learning's sake. In fact my youngest has said he is most grateful for homeschooling because he isn't burnt out on learning as many of his community college classmates were.

[PeacefulChaos]

Well see I don't see it as completely one or the other. There is interest led within the realm of what needs to get done. So, for example, I want my kids to learn grammar concepts. That part isn't negotiable to me. But do I think they need to learn diagramming if they hate it? No. Not at all. I think diagramming is useful, but it doesn't make sense to all people. Why do it if it makes no sense to my child? He won't get anything out of it. There are other ways/methods.

 

Math isn't negotiable to me, but my two boys are completely different and so I'm doing things in a completely different way with each of them.

 

History is important to me, but if my child said I want to spend a year studying the history of technological inventions or a year on native Americans then why not?

 

I think reading classics is important, but I'm totally willing to let my kids pick which ones they want to read.

 

:iagree:

[KrissiK]

I guess I look at education less as acquiring knowledge and more as "training the mind", hence the term "The Well-Trained Mind". Maybe diagramming sentences won't of any use to them per se, but the training of the mind they get by learning to organize, be methodical, and analyze a sentence will be of use to them whatever they do in life. When your view of education is simply about knowledge, how much knowledge, what kind of knowledge, just opening up your kid's head and filling it with knowledge, you sell them short and have a short-sighted view of education yourself. I want my kids' minds trained so that they can look at the world and not be sucked in by every fad and philosophy. I want them to be able to read a newspaper or a political ad and be able to figure out what's really being said and not said. I want them to be able to pick apart an argument and understand it logically. Those are life skills, but we train our kids to think that way by teaching them the subjects we teach them - algebra, Latin, grammar, Logic, History.

[pbb119]

I totally get where interest-led is good, but I don't know, I think it depends on the age, too. My kids change what they are "into" weekly, sometimes, daily, so I don't take their current interests all that seriously in terms of their education. But if they express in interest in something, we will view informative videos or web pages, I will provide books or whatever, but at the end of the day, I still put a lot emphasis on classical textbook education. The thing is, a good, classic education is a tool in their belt. It is not a useless tool even if you never intend on going to college. I hope that by homeschooling, I can expose them to such a wide variety of subjects, skills, occupations, fields, etc. that they will have a rich and diverse collection of things to choose from when they begin to start forming more mature, legitimate interests. I really think that there is a balance that is extremely difficult to achieve.

[freeindeed]

We are moving into a more relaxed, interest-led learning style this coming school year. We are taking a break from Sonlight so my ds9 will be older when we do Core F. We are going to use Further Up and Further In (unit study using the Chronicles of Narnia series.) I also purchased some "fun" math books for our "Fun Fridays." We will take rabbit trails and simply enjoy learning. We are working on connecting as a family. I feel like we just need a breath of fresh air in our homeschool and in our lives, period.:) I have several recent blog posts about this subject.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I totally get where interest-led is good, but I don't know, I think it depends on the age, too. My kids change what they are "into" weekly, sometimes, daily, so I don't take their current interests all that seriously in terms of their education. But if they express in interest in something, we will view informative videos or web pages, I will provide books or whatever, but at the end of the day, I still put a lot emphasis on classical textbook education. The thing is, a good, classic education is a tool in their belt. It is not a useless tool even if you never intend on going to college. I hope that by homeschooling, I can expose them to such a wide variety of subjects, skills, occupations, fields, etc. that they will have a rich and diverse collection of things to choose from when they begin to start forming more mature, legitimate interests. I really think that there is a balance that is extremely difficult to achieve.

 

Part of me thinks this way, but then part of me thinks about my brother, who is a well-read, self-educated young man. He enlisted in the Marines as soon as he turned 18 and learned airplane mechanics and hydraulics. He has a brilliant mechanical mind and can look at a piece of machinery and can tell how it works and how to fix it. He didn't go to college, but reading all kinds of books was highly encouraged in my house growing up, and he is knowledgeable, but also able to think things through. This well-rounded background is not necessarily a help to him on his current job. Most of the guys he works with have not had the same education level as he does. Many of them couldn't name a piece of classic literature, let alone carry on a conversation about one. And their thought processes are different, too. They are trained to do one thing, and they do it, go home and forget about it. My brother finds it challenging to make friends and have conversations with co-workers because his mind doesn't work like that. He thinks things through, sees a bigger picture, etc. But, he has no desire to become management or anything thing else. He likes the dirty grunt work of working on machinery and fixing it. So, in his case, his more classical education is kind of a hinderance. This is more what I'm thinking. What if my kids want to do something like this instead of going to college?

 

I plan to give them a good, basic general education. I think it will serve them well. I just don't know if I want to keep up the intensity that we've been doing. As my 16 & 18 year old niece and nephew tell my kids all the time, they're already smarter than most high schoolers they know! :tongue_smilie:

[KrissiK]

The thing is.... education should not be about preparing a child for a certain "career path". I don't care if my child wants to be a doctor or a lawyer, or a hair stylist or a dog catcher. And maybe each one, in their lifetimes, will be all of the above. I'm not educating my kids with a career in mind. I changed my mind regarding a career a gazillion times as a child and even into college. And even now, I'm thinking about something completely different than what I went to college for. I am educating my children so they will be able to function in life and to me, that's more than just learning how to cook and balance a check-book. I believe that is what a true Liberal Arts education is all about. I want my kids to be educated. And not minimally educated. Well-educated. That's what appeals to me about a classical education. I want them to have the capacity to think, analyze, understand, enjoy beauty. I want them to be well read, to be able to speak well. All of those things that I am not. What career they choose is irrelevant, in my opinion, as long as it earns them a decent living.

Edited May 30, 2012 by KrissiK

[Halcyon]

The thing is.... education should not be about preparing a child for a certain "career path". I don't care if my child wants to be a doctor or a lawyer, or a hair stylist or a dog catcher. And maybe each one, in their lifetimes, will be all of the above. I'm not educating my kids with a career in mind. I changed my mind regarding a career a gazillion times as a child and even into college. And even now, I'm thinking about something completely different than what I went to college for. I am educating my children so they will be able to function in life and to me, that's more than just learning how to cook and balance a check-book. I believe that is what a true Liberal Arts education is all about. I want my kids to be educated. And not minimally educated. Well-educated. That's what appeals to me about a classical education. I want them to have the capacity to think, analyze, understand, enjoy beauty. I want them to be well read, to be able to speak well. All of those things that I am not. What career they choose is irrelevant, in my opinion, as long as it earns them a decent living.

 

Well said.

[amy g.]

I think that the content being taught, and method of teaching are two very different things.

 

My belief is that learning inherently feels good to humans just as eating, and sex do. The problem is that we confuse quality content with a more controlling strict WAY of teaching.

 

I'm not sure I can explain it, but I'll give it a try. My oldest went to a private kindergarten that used very advanced materials. Every child had to be tested to be accepted. But the classes were taught in a very age appropriate mother hen type of environment.

 

Even with a August birthday, and multiple learning disabilities, my daughter THRIVED in that environment. She would do everything expected because she agreed that the work had value, and the adults made an investment in her, so she was willing to really push herself to excell.

 

When we moved, and she tried public school for first grade, she felt that the adults were demanding very mediocre work in a very forceful dogmatic way. She could not buy into that at all. When they that they were giving her a zero for not following directions she said, "Good. Now I can finish it the way I want it to be done." The teacher said, "She will never make it if she wants to spend that much time on each assignment."

 

When I took her out to homeschool, I tried to give her high enough level work that wasn't just busy work, and enough time to do the kind of job she could feel good about. I have strived for a non combative, non punitive school and relationship with all of my children.

 

Sometimes my son will say, that he would have done better with a teacher who really pushed him, but he did agree that he would of spent all of his time trying to outsmart such a teacher, and get out of doing the work.

 

I still love The Well-Trained Mind, and can not wait until I can get more time to teach my youngest girls, but I will continue to present it in a manner that is respectful to each child's differences, and feeds the desire to learn more instead of extinguishing it.

[regentrude]

I can not choose what path my children take - but I see it as my task to prepare them to be in a position to make a choice.

This means for our family: we need to educate them in such a way that they are prepared to study any major in college. Period. We do not specialize in high school.

 

I do not see the contradiction between interest and rigorous education. Even with a rigorous college preparatory education, my kids have plenty of time to explore their interest, develop hobbies, follow rabbit trails. To me, education is about choices. I can't make choices for them, but I can make sure they HAVE choices.

 

ETA: We do not diagram sentences. It is not part of what we consider necessary.

[Chris in VA]

I guess I look at education less as acquiring knowledge and more as "training the mind", hence the term "The Well-Trained Mind". Maybe diagramming sentences won't of any use to them per se, but the training of the mind they get by learning to organize, be methodical, and analyze a sentence will be of use to them whatever they do in life. When your view of education is simply about knowledge, how much knowledge, what kind of knowledge, just opening up your kid's head and filling it with knowledge, you sell them short and have a short-sighted view of education yourself. I want my kids' minds trained so that they can look at the world and not be sucked in by every fad and philosophy. I want them to be able to read a newspaper or a political ad and be able to figure out what's really being said and not said. I want them to be able to pick apart an argument and understand it logically. Those are life skills, but we train our kids to think that way by teaching them the subjects we teach them - algebra, Latin, grammar, Logic, History.

 

Beautifully said. I want to give my kids' minds a good workout, and I use Latin/languages, logic, math, lit, etc to do that.

 

I want to give them the possibility of enjoying the economic boost that comes from going to college--it's still the fact that those who do, tend to make more $, and that is important to me, because I want them to have the options that not living in poverty or near poverty can give them.

 

OTOH, we all know very happy people who are very intelligent and never pursued formal, higher education. I do believe, however, that they tend to be lifelong learners of something. So, teaching my kids that learning is pleasureable and that they can do it is also something I value--interest-led learning is one way to show them that.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[LaxMom]

I'm totaly supportive of people following different paths, based on their goals.

 

Our goal is for the children to have as much choice as possible. Krissi's thoughts below describe the path we are following to reach the goal we have made.

 

I guess I look at education less as acquiring knowledge and more as "training the mind", hence the term "The Well-Trained Mind". Maybe diagramming sentences won't of any use to them per se, but the training of the mind they get by learning to organize, be methodical, and analyze a sentence will be of use to them whatever they do in life. When your view of education is simply about knowledge, how much knowledge, what kind of knowledge, just opening up your kid's head and filling it with knowledge, you sell them short and have a short-sighted view of education yourself. I want my kids' minds trained so that they can look at the world and not be sucked in by every fad and philosophy. I want them to be able to read a newspaper or a political ad and be able to figure out what's really being said and not said. I want them to be able to pick apart an argument and understand it logically. Those are life skills, but we train our kids to think that way by teaching them the subjects we teach them - algebra, Latin, grammar, Logic, History.

[Bluegoat]

I think it is really a kind of balancing act. I remember being in high school and thinking that interest led education was the way to go - I figured I knew what I was interested in and could self-educate when I was inspired to.

 

My view changed slightly when I went to university, and not because I struggled. In my first year I studies the Great Books and history of thought in the West, and I suddenly realized that there was a whole world of ideas that I didn't know existed. It was only by good luck that I stumbled upon them, and yet they were really basic things that would have been taken for granted a few generations ago.

 

There is a good chance I would never have noticed them on my own, because in fact I had brushed against them - but I didn't know what they were and so I didn't notice them or I couldn't interpret them.

 

These weren't things that just happened to be interesting to me in an aesthetic sense - they actually revolutionized my worldview and made me look at history and popular ideas in a completely different way. And the same was true of other students who came to very different conclusions than I about the ideas themselves, so I don't think it was just a matter of ideas that were somehow personally appealing to me.

 

To me these were not just things that make me "cultured" or will give me success in life. In fact I don't know that they are especially likely to help with the latter. But they do help make me into a person who can think about the big questions in life, who can engage in the public discourse and be a good citizen in a self-conscious and aware way. And I think that is something I need to give my kids.

 

I don't think, by any means, that there is only one way to sucess, or that people who have never encountered the big ideas are shallow or usless. I have heard some pretty insightful and enourmous ideas from people with no educational advantages. But I do sometimes get the feeling that some people are kind of asleep to the implications of big ideas - (and maybe that affects the middle class more than the really disadvantaged?)

 

As for diagramming sentences and other such things - I would pass this by if I thought my student would not have a useful interaction with it. It isn't, IMO, an essential. But facility with language is an essential - it is fundamental to being able to talk about ideas, which are to me the really important things. And language is an fundamental part of being human and its study gives us a lot of insight into what it means to be human.

 

So I guess I think there is a body of cultural knowledge and some skills I need to impart, but I think there is a ton of room within that to follow kids interests. If they decide, for example, that they would like to throw out my plans for literature for a year and immerse themselves in Russian novels and poetry, I will be quite happy to oblige. And we study art and science (at an elementary school level) in an mostly interest led way.

 

As for success - I want my kids to have a lot of skills, some that would be good for university, but other things as well. How to grow a years worth of food, repair a car, build a shed... I don't really care if my kids go to university or not.

[AimeeM]

I think you can let your child lead the way in some areas and that you should ADD those areas of interest to your studies; but I will not go so far as to say that one should allow education to be completely child led.

 

Your child may be very interested in science, but hate math (who doesn't like to blow stuff up?!?); however, one will not get very far in a science related field if they aren't very good in math (even if they dislike it). You can have a passion for history but if you aren't very good in writing, you will never clearly portray your knowledge to others and you will have a very difficult time later in life if you lack the basic skills others have.

 

 

I think being completely child led in studies is actually short changing your children. Children aren't well known for thinking ahead or considering their future, while living their present; that's what Mom and Dad are for. My husband just KNEW, as a child, that he would be a famous drummer when he grew up. Given the opportunity, that is all he would have studied. Alas, that didn't work out - good thing he had a solid education and a secondary love of science/math. Lol!

[rwjx2khsmj]

This reminds me so much of the depth and breadth conversations that have been on this board in the past. Excellent thinking and sharing going on and so much to the benefit of our children.

 

I love the idea of letting my children persue their interests AND I know that without introducing them to new ideas, art, music, literature, math, grammar, vocabulary, language, etc. their interests will be limited by their lack of knowledge.

 

When my children are truly interested in something nothing I do will stop them from learning about it. When they are passionate about something there is no way that I can prevent the glorious excitement of acquiring knowledge.

 

By leading them through a world of new ideas and opportunities in a (sometimes) organized way I allow my children the luxury of finding things that interest them. The structure and tools that I provide through a classical education allow them to build the wings they will use to soar.

[Alphabetika]

I guess I look at education less as acquiring knowledge and more as "training the mind", hence the term "The Well-Trained Mind". Maybe diagramming sentences won't of any use to them per se, but the training of the mind they get by learning to organize, be methodical, and analyze a sentence will be of use to them whatever they do in life. When your view of education is simply about knowledge, how much knowledge, what kind of knowledge, just opening up your kid's head and filling it with knowledge, you sell them short and have a short-sighted view of education yourself. I want my kids' minds trained so that they can look at the world and not be sucked in by every fad and philosophy. I want them to be able to read a newspaper or a political ad and be able to figure out what's really being said and not said. I want them to be able to pick apart an argument and understand it logically. Those are life skills, but we train our kids to think that way by teaching them the subjects we teach them - algebra, Latin, grammar, Logic, History.

 

:iagree:Yes, yes, yes! Not just content (not even primarily content, in some cases) but skills and the overarching philosophy of having a sharp and ready mind. This looks different for different students in the same household. At least in our household.