Am I the only one who doesn't care for Ruth Beechick?

[JudoMom]

What am I missing? I find her writing to be a bit condescending or something. I can't quite figure it out. I tried her little 3Rs books and didn't care for them and I just recently started her A Biblical Home Education book and the same "attitude" is bothering me.

 

Am I crazy?

 

ETA: The title should say "Ruth Beechick's writings" not just "Ruth Beechick", because I'm sure she's quite a lovely lady and I don't hold anything personal against her.

[abbeyej]

No, I'm not a fan either. I remember being so disappointed by the Three Rs books... I found them off-putting and not particularly insightful. I did wonder if maybe I hadn't read or known or thought about home schooling before, perhaps I would have liked them better? As it was, I just couldn't understand why I find them recommended so frequently.

[Kathleen in VA]

I'm a Ruth Beechick fan up to a point. I like her book "You Can Teach Your Child Successfully" a lot. I like her straightforward approach and I dislike authors who are chatty and fill their books with fluff. I like reading a book that is practical and in which I can find valuable, usable ideas.

 

I just skimmed the sample of the book you linked to and I'm wondering if what you don't like is the way she speaks with authority. She doesn't get into the "This is just my opinion" or "From my perspective" or any of that apologizing for her point of view kind of stuff. She just tells you what she thinks and lets you decide whether to take it or leave it.

 

I also think her age, education, and experience may have something to do with the tone you describe. She does have a doctorate degree (in education?) and although we, as homeschoolers, don't often put a lot of stock in those higher degrees (especially those in the field of education) she, perhaps, feels that entitles her to speak with more authority.

 

Just guessing.

[Michelle T]

I found them kind of boring, and not anything applicable to my homeschool.

Michelle T

[mompotter]

I don't really care for her writing either. I think some of her ideas are great but I don't enjoy reading her books. I thought it was just me. ;)

[kalanamak]

Not the only one. Besides a bit of the school marm tone, I found the three little books (A Strong Start...etc) to be un-outline-able. Too this-y and that-y. Poor editing.

[Kelli in TN]

I will join the others in saying the three R's booklets would hard to apply to real life. The only other thing I ever read from her was a magazine article and it's tone was pretty know-it-all.

[Janie]

I think Abbey has hit on a key point.

 

Way back in the early '80s (I know, some of you were not yet born, but I was beginning our home education journey with our flock of four), Ruth Beechick was like this board is to many of you. In a time when little was available for home educators (Abeka was the only curriculum, with BJ beginning later and the few homeschooling groups were miles away), Beechick was the answer for many questions. I particularly found her You Can Teach... book helpful.

 

Now that home education has become so popular and accessible, Beechick does tend to sound a little like your descriptions.

 

But she still holds a place of high regard for me. :)

[G5052]

I think Abbey has hit on a key point.

 

Way back in the early '80s (I know, some of you were not yet born, but I was beginning our home education journey with our flock of four), Ruth Beechick was like this board is to many of you. In a time when little was available for home educators (Abeka was the only curriculum, with BJ beginning later and the few homeschooling groups were miles away), Beechick was the answer for many questions. I particularly found her You Can Teach... book helpful.

 

Now that home education has become so popular and accessible, Beechick does tend to sound a little like your descriptions.

 

But she still holds a place of high regard for me. :)

 

I agree. Mary Pride was in the same category. We haven't been homeschooling nearly as long as you (8-9 years now depending on how you count it), but the veteran homeschoolers I talked to at the beginning recommended that I read Beechick and Pride first. As time went on, I realized that neither really represented my view and values, but they certainly got me started. We do Sonlight for history/lit which is based on many of Ruth Beechick's ideas, and for that I'm thankful.

[Christine]

I find her writing to be a bit condescending or something. I can't quite figure it out. I tried her little 3Rs books and didn't care for them . . .

 

"An' I can't stan' 'em." (courtesy of Singing in the Rain)

 

I can't stand her writing! I even kept her books (3Rs) for about 5 years thinking that it was a timing thing. I would pick them up every couple of months and try again. . . .

 

I never finished a single one of her books, because I just. couldn't. do. it.

[angela in ohio]

It's the You Can Teach... book that is really invaluable. Other than that, I don't use the rest of her writings.

[Liz Mc in SC]

The only one of the 3 R's helpful to me was the Math...

[Ashleen]

I like the way she cuts through the BS and gets to the point. She says in a 28 page book on learning to read more useful information than most 350 page books on the same subject. I really appreciate the no-nonsense approach and I keep her books next to Rupp's Home Education Year by Year on the shelf: books I don't read all the time but consult over the summer when I'm reassessing.

 

I honestly think that the people on this forum are not her intended audience. I think she is trying to bring comfort to women who are not especially academic themselves who want to homeschool anyway. She is trying to tell them, "Yes, you can do this!" So she boils things down to essentials and doesn't overwhelm.

[mom2att]

I didn't find her books particularly useful in the beginning, because dd could do most of the stuff mentioned in the 3R's books before we even started out. I have read them again recently, as ds is in the K-3 range and much more in need of her gentle approach. The schools and many homeschool curricula have such an advanced approach to early education, and for some kids that is just not a good fit. I think Beechick's 3R's are a good read for the parent who may be frustrated with trying to push a child into learning s/he may not be ready for--it's a good reminder to take time to set solid foundations and not turn learning into a race.

 

Now as for her book Adam and His Kin . . . that I couldn't stand!

[ClassicMom]

I think Abbey has hit on a key point.

 

Way back in the early '80s (I know, some of you were not yet born, but I was beginning our home education journey with our flock of four), Ruth Beechick was like this board is to many of you. In a time when little was available for home educators (Abeka was the only curriculum, with BJ beginning later and the few homeschooling groups were miles away), Beechick was the answer for many questions. I particularly found her You Can Teach... book helpful.

 

Now that home education has become so popular and accessible, Beechick does tend to sound a little like your descriptions.

 

But she still holds a place of high regard for me. :)

 

I agree here. When we began homeschooling in 1993, there was more than there was in the 80's but it was still very limited. The big companies; BJU, ABeka, Calvert, etc. were mostly available and a few eclectic items MCP, etc. But nothing compared to what you have now.

 

Ruth Beechik was highly regarded and a very useful resource at the time.

While I did have trouble using her 3 books, I didn't have much else to lean on except for Ann Ward's PreK.

 

I will say that I did glean much more from her 4th-8th book than others. But I also understand what you are saying.

 

She will still be highly regarded in my eyes also for the reasons mentioned above. ;)

[siloam]

I like the way she cuts through the BS and gets to the point. She says in a 28 page book on learning to read more useful information than most 350 page books on the same subject. I really appreciate the no-nonsense approach and I keep her books next to Rupp's Home Education Year by Year on the shelf: books I don't read all the time but consult over the summer when I'm reassessing.

 

I honestly think that the people on this forum are not her intended audience. I think she is trying to bring comfort to women who are not especially academic themselves who want to homeschool anyway. She is trying to tell them, "Yes, you can do this!" So she boils things down to essentials and doesn't overwhelm.

 

I would agree that this is the target group, but I also think many of these people walk away disillusioned with RB promises what she recommends is enough. I am one of them.

 

First of all, as an 80+ yo woman who is still out there making a difference, I am 100% behind Ruth Beechick. I hope to be just like her when I am 80. :D

 

I have owned all her book, or almost all of them. I might have missed one. I do appreciate the practical, straight forward side to her books. But the longer I used her material, the more I came to the conclusion that her methods would never help us reach our hsing goal (our meaning not only dh and mine, but the kids own goals).

 

Here is my 2 cents. It is really easy to say be relaxed when you, as the teacher have a mastery of the topic and can step in a that teachable moment and answer any questions the child has. That type of relaxed/unschooling works. But when you, as the teacher, do not understand it and the child asks you a question...well that is not pretty:

 

"Mom, can you help me I don't know what this is."

"Ok let me read it...hmmmm...I don't know either. Let's look up the answer."

Teacher's Manual is dug out and pages fliped

"Ok this says that____ is the answer."

"Why?"

Both look from the answer page to the question page.

"I don't know, I guess just skip this one."

 

For me, RB methods were just an excuse to not have to learn the material.

 

The longer I hs the more I move away from her ideas and towards other philosophies for meeting our goals. Our current struggle is overcoming 3 years of not covering grammar because it, "isn't necessary." Now I have a 5th grade child, who is an excellent writer and enjoys Classical Writing, but can't keep up with the grammar requirements. I purchased JAG hoping it would help make grammar easier, and it has, but this is a child who learns in layers over time. We stared JAG and did fine with the first few topics, which we had struggled through with CW. Then we got to new material and after a couple of concepts you can tell she was just overloaded. We restarted JAG, and she is doing great with the first concepts. I anticipate that once we hit new material for a couple of weeks, she will again hit a wall. Now I really think it would be better to be covering grammar science 2nd grade. No they aren't going to get it all in 2nd grade, but they will build a foundation, so that by the time they are in 5th they can handle grammar without so many restarts. You can be sure my 3rd and 2nd graders are getting grammar this year. :D

 

I also feel RB has too much of a focus on creative writing, in the early years (and by extension SL) and not enough of an emphasis on phonics and spelling. There are all areas I have started out very RB hand had to change things because they weren't meeting our needs/goals. Nor am I the only one, but I know several people who were very RB with me who have also abandoned it as their children get older.

 

That said if your goals are more relaxed, or if you as the teacher knew the material so you can take advantage of those teachable moments, then RB would still be a good fit.

 

Heather

 

p.s. I had to also say that the premise of A Biblical Home Education was a mis-match for our philosophy of hsing, which lines up much more with WTM. Basically this book makes the assertion that the early church failed in not creating their own educational system, but instead modeling it after the secular system. To me she was saying that we need to drop the classics, and isolate our kids from any outside secular influences to create a totally Christian education system, complete with the use of KJV only (yes she has a whole chapter dedicated to the argument of why the KJV is mis labeled as an 11th grade reading level and why it is the only accurate translation for not using the Greek texts). Now I have no problem with KJV, or KJV only people, they have a right to hs as they please. I just have never agreed with that sort of isolation, either in the use of the Bible or in hsing in general. It doesn't fit my hsing philosophy. I was totally shocked to see it coming from RB. I felt she was really laying how she truly felt on the line for the first time. It is the one RB book I sold, and it was when I really started to question the validity of her hsing philosophy.

 

[Colleen in NS]

What am I missing? I find her writing to be a bit condescending or something. I can't quite figure it out. I tried her little 3Rs books and didn't care for them and I just recently started her A Biblical Home Education book and the same "attitude" is bothering me.

 

Am I crazy?

 

ETA: The title should say "Ruth Beechick's writings" not just "Ruth Beechick", because I'm sure she's quite a lovely lady and I don't hold anything personal against her.

 

I know this wasn't the intent of your post, but it made me go check out the book and I liked the Table of Contents and Index so much, I'm going to request that my library purchase it so I can read it. :) Thanks for posting the link!

[Dayle in Guatemala]

You know, I've never read any of her stuff. I just use LLATL and I like that!

[6packofun]

I agree. Mary Pride was in the same category.

 

And I agree, too. But I think that much of their tone reflects their intention to "defend" homeschooling against the critics that were more plentiful 2 decades or more ago! They were pioneers defending a lifestyle that was developing (or redeveloping!) in our country and so I think that has a lot to do with the attitude we hear in their words today. Much of it now seems old hat, as well, but only because of their work and the work of many parents who fought for homeschooling when their children were young. :)

[Ashleen]

Here is my 2 cents. It is really easy to say be relaxed when you, as the teacher have a mastery of the topic and can step in a that teachable moment and answer any questions the child has. That type of relaxed/unschooling works. But when you, as the teacher, do not understand it and the child asks you a question...well that is not pretty...

For me, RB methods were just an excuse to not have to learn the material.

 

Oh. I can see where that would be a problem. I'm the sort who wants to rush in there with college-level information in each subject the minute the children turn 5, so for me it was enormously helpful to be reminded over and over to calm the heck down and go slowly. But if I were already relaxed and going slowly, I can see where being told to relax even more would not be beneficial.

[Kelli in TN]

And I agree, too. But I think that much of their tone reflects their intention to "defend" homeschooling against the critics that were more plentiful 2 decades or more ago! They were pioneers defending a lifestyle that was developing (or redeveloping!) in our country and so I think that has a lot to do with the attitude we hear in their words today. Much of it now seems old hat, as well, but only because of their work and the work of many parents who fought for homeschooling when their children were young. :)

 

I think you are right. We started in 1991 and homeschoolers were still considered on the edge of crazy. I remember telling our little country church that we would be homeschooling and it created a big brouhaha throughout the church!! It was a different environment for homeschoolers back then.

 

Now homeschooling is nearly mainstream and the pioneer writers of the homeschool books that many of us cut our teeth on sound over the top defensive. I guess because back then it took over the top defensiveness just to hold your own. I am so glad it is easier now.