sonlight core d bizarre history

[Kathryn]

 

 

 

Eons ago, SL included the books/notes (the Lamplighter books?), with extensive notes from John. Then they removed them, on John's doing. He felt, at that time, he just couldn't continue using them because of all the inaccuracies.

 

Then, in 2012 catalog year, Sarita & the powers currently mutilating running SL, decided that really the Christian focus of the Lamplighter books was more important than accurate history, and so the reinserted them into Core D & E (or 3 & 4, or whatever the heck they now call them). I *believe* the notes of John's, then, are the ones from when they used these books eons ago, NOT new notes that John wrote.

 

This was the thing that led me to just completely and utterly walk away from SL; I'd been sort of weaning myself off them for a while, buying from them only what I absolutely had to, but when they pulled this......yea, final straw.

 

The Light and the Glory books and all the corresponding mess from last year when all that happened was my final straw as well. The "history" being discussed on this thread is something different. It doesn't appear in the IG sample to be connected to the Light and the Glory book.

[Nancy Ann]

I am so glad you all liked my word mystified! :)

 

I can't explain it any better or different than what I said. It makes complete and perfect sense to me. :) Sorry, we don't understand each other. I do think we have different priorities and that is not a bad or wrong thing in my opinion.

 

ETA: to answer someones question. I do believe teaching historical facts, I never said this was not important, just not as important to me as the humanities part. In all my years of homeschooling I have encountered countless threads, book reviews, historians who all have different opinions and different facts about history. Some differences are big and some are subtle. I see no end to it. I see that their are several people who it is a priority to get the most factual, unbiased historical information they can. I did start out homeschooling 13 years ago, doing just that. But, to be honest it seemed a fruitless endeavor. I don't think I am comprising my child education by any means because I am not concentrating all my efforts on historical accuracy. I have other priorities that I feel are more important than historical accuracy. I by no means am saying historical accuracy is not important. The things you have all mentioned in this thread about that list is very trivial in my opinion and if you have used Core D you would see that it had an absolute minuscule effect on the whole Core. I understand their is apprehension in trusting Sonlight as a source if you feel they get so many historical facts wrong, that makes complete sense. But again, I just don't feel like they have gotten all that much wrong compared to what they have gotten right.

 

It's about priorities and perspective in teaching our children and not about what is right or wrong to teach our kids.

[Aslana]

 

This board never ceases to amaze me. The condescending tones are rampant. Yes, I think its bizarre that SL would include these things, and it gives me pause on the rest of their notes, but there is no reason to attack someone's decision to use this curriculum. It seems you have a bone to pick with SL, whatever, but lighten up on the accusations. Who cares if someone else chooses to use something that you dislike? I can see why you are incensed about the inaccuracies displayed in this, but the "can't believe people pass over crap like this..." is just too much.

 

I read her post much differently. No one is being flippant or condescending. We are asking a valid question--why would anyone choose to use something that gets the history so very wrong--despite the fact that there is ample proof otherwise?

 

It's like this: I may disagree with creation science, but at least I can say they do try to back it up scientifically. They do cite sources that aren't just AIG. I don't agree with them and I would never use them, but I couldn't dismiss them as outright lies.

 

Likewise, I don't read WTM and in fact, have never used it. However, if someone posted that quote as coming from WTM with a source and I was able to prove that the quote was not factual at all, why would you continue to defend something many others have proved not true? I'd have every right to question the WTM source as I would the Sonlight source.

 

That's not condescending. That's asking a legit question. WHY would you continue using something that gets the history so blatantly wrong and cites, as its source, a person who has been disqualified by every single historian out there (including Christian ones)?

[Kathryn]

 

 

This board never ceases to amaze me. The condescending tones are rampant. Yes, I think its bizarre that SL would include these things, and it gives me pause on the rest of their notes, but there is no reason to attack someone's decision to use this curriculum. It seems you have a bone to pick with SL, whatever, but lighten up on the accusations. Who cares if someone else chooses to use something that you dislike? I can see why you are incensed about the inaccuracies displayed in this, but the "can't believe people pass over crap like this..." is just too much.

 

I apologize for the language I used. I used the early cores on the recommendation of a friend before we found our groove. But, once I looked further into the coming years, I was very disappointed. As a historian, the absurdities of Sonlight's notes (among many other issues) really make me wonder how it has been held in such high esteem.

 

But, as to who cares, it's not just something I dislike. I've come across plenty of programs that I personally dislike and have no problem with others using them at all. This is something that is teaching complete fiction as fact, and I find that to be a problem. Personally, I don't see how someone can feel comfortable trusting a such a program.

[SarahW]

This board never ceases to amaze me. The condescending tones are rampant. Yes, I think its bizarre that SL would include these things, and it gives me pause on the rest of their notes, but there is no reason to attack someone's decision to use this curriculum. It seems you have a bone to pick with SL, whatever, but lighten up on the accusations. Who cares if someone else chooses to use something that you dislike? I can see why you are incensed about the inaccuracies displayed in this, but the "can't believe people pass over crap like this..." is just too much.

 

I think it is because for Kathryn and I history is our profession.

 

What this curriculum is saying is akin to the theory that man never landed on the moon, that the pictures of Armstrong et. al. are a vast conspiracy cooked up by NASA. I'm sure if a curriculum said that every science-minded person on this board would be incensed.

 

I can laugh at this, ok, but at the end of the day it makes me very, very, very angry. And sad.

 

 

ETA: Kathryn and I posted at the same time.

Edited May 8, 2013 by SarahW

[TheReader]

The Light and the Glory books and all the corresponding mess from last year when all that happened was my final straw as well. The "history" being discussed on this thread is something different. It doesn't appear in the IG sample to be connected to the Light and the Glory book.

 

oh, woops. Sorry for the inaccuracies on my part, and thanks (sincerely) for correcting it :)

 

I still wonder if the notes from John are other recycled notes.......so strange.

 

Glad I left them behind when I did; a slanted bias is one thing, inaccurate history is something else entirely.

[Aslana]

More importantly, if I were Holzman, I would be exploring my options legally against Sonlight regarding having this now not true information removed--or at least, having my name removed from it.

[Kathryn]

More importantly, if I were Holzman, I would be exploring my options legally against Sonlight regarding having this now not true information removed--or at least, having my name removed from it.

 

He and his wife Sarita own Sonlight.

[Alessandra]

I am simply dumbfounded.

[3peasinapod]

I apologize for the language I used. I used the early cores on the recommendation of a friend before we found our groove. But, once I looked further into the coming years, I was very disappointed. As a historian, the absurdities of Sonlight's notes (among many other issues) really make me wonder how it has been held in such high esteem.

 

But, as to who cares, it's not just something I dislike. I've come across plenty of programs that I personally dislike and have no problem with others using them at all. This is something that is teaching complete fiction as fact, and I find that to be a problem. Personally, I don't see how someone can feel comfortable trusting a such a program.

 

That's cool. I am finding this thread irritating and enlightening! If I had not read this, I would not have been able to pick out inaccuracies such as this, and I am thankful for that.

 

PS: I changed my previous original post because it felt inflammatory to me.

[Aslana]

He and his wife Sarita own Sonlight.

 

My point is invalid then. :) I misunderstood and thought Holzman was no longer with the company. Maybe I was thinking of that Apologia dude.

[SarahW]

I keep trying to figure out how to respond to this post because I find myself completely mystified by this position. History deals with actual past events, not made up ones. That's why it's a big deal. The rest of your post has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. One can study the "human" side of history without compromising on the facts. To insinuate that those who teach their children only about events that are accepted by scholars in history, anthropology, linguistics, etc., as having actually occurred don't impart any sort of knowledge as to how those people felt is outrageous.

 

Yes, I've been scratching my head about how to respond to that, too.

 

I remember a few years ago I was wading knee deep in a random obscure homily of Gregory of Nyssa where he suddenly started talking about the massacre of the innocents of Matthew 2. His description was so detailed and vivid that I went looking for more information on it, and I found research which said that Gregory was probably himself a witness (or secondary witness) to a similar incident that occurred in Asia Minor a few decades before. Suddenly, it sunk in that Matthew 2 was not just a random incident of a megalomaniac in a dusty corner of the Roman empire, it was a horror that happened with some regularity throughout the empire throughout time. What kind of political entity would think that was valid? What was the morale of the people who lived under such circumstances? Or the threat of such an occurrence? What were the morals and ethics and philosophy of the society that put up with this for centuries? Did a society that regularly practiced abortion by exposure simply not find this as horrible as we would today?

 

This is history. Real history. Actual history. History that actually tells us something about the nature of homo sapiens. To replace this with mere fictions is, I believe, a grave disservice to ourselves.

[Nancy Ann]

The condescending tone in this thread is worse than any of the historical inaccuracies. Basically, people are puffing themselves up about how knowledgeable they are about history and us other poor homeschool moms just don't know what we are doing. We don't realize that we are teaching our children the same thing as never having landed on the moon. How are we not to be insulted by these comments, opinions and attitudes. I was trying to find some neutral ground in my post that suggested maybe we have different priorities and that no one is wrong or bad. Maybe you all agree with that but the general feeling of these comments do not reflect that. These sorts of comments being made reflect how absurd Sonlight is and how terrible it is to teach history with it.

 

This whole thread drives home even more why I make humanities a priority over historical fact.

 

As women...as moms and as homeschool moms we have got to learn to treat each other better, with kindness, understanding and accepting people where they are. Not allowing BEING RIGHT to be more important than the person. So many times on this board and other homeschool boards, being right seems to be the most important. That is sad....way more sad than the historical inaccuracies being talked about.

[Kathryn]

 

 

My point is invalid then. :) I misunderstood and thought Holzman was no longer with the company. Maybe I was thinking of that Apologia dude.

 

http://www.sonlight.com/who-are-we.html

 

Still owner, just no longer active in "regular day-to-day operations."

[Spy Car]

Oh dear.

 

Bill

[Aslana]

The condescending tone in this thread is worse than any of the historical inaccuracies. Basically, people are puffing themselves up about how knowledgeable they are about history and us other poor homeschool moms just don't know what we are doing. We don't realize that we are teaching our children the same thing as never having landed on the moon. How are we not to be insulted by these comments, opinions and attitudes. I was trying to find some neutral ground in my post that suggested maybe we have different priorities and that no one is wrong or bad. Maybe you all agree with that but the general feeling of these comments do not reflect that. These sorts of comments being made reflect how absurd Sonlight is and how terrible it is to teach history with it.

 

This whole thread drives home even more why I make humanities a priority over historical fact.

 

As women...as moms and as homeschool moms we have got to learn to treat each other better, with kindness, understanding and accepting people where they are. Not allowing BEING RIGHT to be more important than the person. So many times on this board and other homeschool boards, being right seems to be the most important. That is sad....way more sad than the historical inaccuracies being talked about.

 

Since I started it, I'll answer it. I asked you a simple question--why would you use a program that teaches something so inaccurately. You answered that you did not care about the inaccuracies as the humanities were more important. I did not disagree with the humanities being important, I disagreed that they were MORE important than the factual information in history. You discounted this by saying, essentially, history lies.

 

So now, what we are trying to do is get back to my original question--why use a product so factually absent? That is not bashing Sonlight (we've got plenty of reasons to do that, none of which belong in this conversation), that is simply asking you to tell us why you feel it is okay to hundreds of dollars for a non-factual curriculum, when for half the price you can get the facts in other, more accurate curricula.

 

And no, what's sad is everyone getting all bent out of shape over every little thing ever said to them or anyone else. That's sad. This discussion is not. This discussion is asking a valid question--one that has yet to be answered!

 

That's not condescending! That's not rude! That's asking for those defending Sonlight and the inaccuracies to give us the reason why it is okay to have such blatantly incorrect information taught to a child. I even said I would have questioned it if WTM or any other curricula posted the same thing. And it should be questioned! To not question it is more wrong than any implied or supposed "condescending" attitude in this thread.

[Violet Crown]

 

Why did they go there, I wonder?

Silly. The bluegrass.

 

Http://Tinyurl.com/cqpufkv

[StartingOver]

I ordered complete cores for the first 4 years (P 3/4 - Core B or Core 1 ), by then I realized that I just want the books. I used Sonlight many years ago and don't remember anything that drove me up the wall. I have used the IG's since then just for the page that lists in what order the books are read. I toss a few each year because we are secular. Way to many changes last year for me to get another IG, E will be our last, it is just a book list to me now. We will just determine which we want to read, and where to add books in, or use them all as extra reading.

 

Running to look at Core D and see if that is in it. I am curious now, not that I would ever see it.

 

ETA: No, not in my 2011 IG. But it does reinforce my decision to not order anymore. I will find them used if I need an IG !

 

ETA Again, I found it is on page 43, notes on before the whites in the 2011 edition.

[Shahrazad]

I understand that errors need to be examined in relation to how serious they are but I'd consider something like this to be the sort of thing that would get someone laughed out of the room if they stated the OP's mentioned information as if they were fact. This combined with the previous thread on whitewashing slavery and Sonlight's whole THUMB initiative (which I personally find despicable) is more than enough to convince me that I wouldn't touch it (even if I was secularizing it) with a 10-ft pole.

[SarahW]

The condescending tone in this thread is worse than any of the historical inaccuracies. Basically, people are puffing themselves up about how knowledgeable they are about history and us other poor homeschool moms just don't know what we are doing. We don't realize that we are teaching our children the same thing as never having landed on the moon. How are we not to be insulted by these comments, opinions and attitudes. I was trying to find some neutral ground in my post that suggested maybe we have different priorities and that no one is wrong or bad. Maybe you all agree with that but the general feeling of these comments do not reflect that. These sorts of comments being made reflect how absurd Sonlight is and how terrible it is to teach history with it.

 

This whole thread drives home even more why I make humanities a priority over historical fact.

 

As women...as moms and as homeschool moms we have got to learn to treat each other better, with kindness, understanding and accepting people where they are. Not allowing BEING RIGHT to be more important than the person. So many times on this board and other homeschool boards, being right seems to be the most important. That is sad....way more sad than the historical inaccuracies being talked about.

 

I'm really not sure why you feel so attacked.

 

But let me just say that my frustration on this issue is not just about you personally. Though I am insulted by your pp about not caring about historical facts.

 

My frustration is with the larger concept that history is just some loosey goosey (timey-wimey) subject like literature, or art - just do what you like with it and carry on. History is a science. A social science, ok, but there are methods and procedures that need to be followed. We would never accept a science curriculum that said that man never landed on the moon as valid, so why is it that when a history curriculum makes the same sort of error everyone seems so apt to just shrug and say whatever?

 

I'm not calling into question your own intelligence here, I'm just completely baffled by the mindset I see displayed when a basic issue of historical fallacy crop up.

[Nancy Ann]

So now, what we are trying to do is get back to my original question--why use a product so factually absent? That is not bashing Sonlight (we've got plenty of reasons to do that, none of which belong in this conversation), that is simply asking you to tell us why you feel it is okay to hundreds of dollars for a non-factual curriculum, when for half the price you can get the facts in other, more accurate curricula.

 

 

 

 

I have answered this question in every one of my posts. I am sorry you don't see it or get it. We are obviously coming from very different directions. For one, my opinion is not that Sonlight is so factually absent. I agree they get some stuff wrong. We do not use the Marshall books in this house, but for religious reasons and also the historical information. I feel fully capable of being able to direct my children when we come up against something that I believe to be not accurate or for whatever reason. The benefits of Sonlight and all the good that I see in Sonlight FAR exceeds the "factually absent" parts. I just don't agree with you that the factually absent parts of Sonlight are all that much or all that big of a deal that it cannot be easily rectified by explaining to my children or further study from other sources.

 

As stated before my priority for humanities is the other reason why I have no problem using Sonlight. I think Sonlight does the best job for teaching humanities and since that is a priority for me than I use Sonlight. Just because I say historical accuracy is not as important as humanities does not mean I don't care whatsoever for historical accuracy. I honestly just not care about it as much as some of you because the list that was given that started this thread is so minute in the grand scale of history and what is taught in Core D. I feel like I just keep repeating myself. I think we just disagree and why does it even matter why other's use Sonlight? I doubt there is any reason we could give you that you would understand because we just see things very different regarding this. Again, this is not a criticism or an accusation that my way is better.

 

I am aware of other curricula that teaches history. I am also aware of all the arguing that goes on with these threads and other threads with the discrepancies with that historical information. Aslo, Sonlight does the best at what I want and need for schooling my kids.

 

 

 

I'm really not sure why you feel so attacked.

 

Though I am insulted by your pp about not caring about historical facts.

 

My frustration is with the larger concept that history is just some loosey goosey (timey-wimey) subject like literature, or art - just do what you like with it and carry on. History is a science. A social science, ok, but there are methods and procedures that need to be followed. We would never accept a science curriculum that said that man never landed on the moon as valid, so why is it that when a history curriculum makes the same sort of error everyone seems so apt to just shrug and say whatever?

 

I'm not calling into question your own intelligence here, I'm just completely baffled by the mindset I see displayed when a basic issue of historical fallacy crop up.

 

 

Being insulted by my opinion is unfortunate and not sure why you choose to do that. I am certainly not insulted by your opinion nor anyone else who has one different than mine. I am insulted in the manner in which the opinion is given.

 

History is far from science in my opinion. There are procedures but to me history is about people and humanities and not about approaching it like a science. It is just a different perspective and approach I have to it.

 

I use a creation based science so I assume many people would believe I was using a curriculum that was similar to saying that man never landed on the moon. The idea that I believe in a Creator and the world was made in days instead of years is a big deal for some.

 

I don't consider the issues with Sonlight history to be the same as teaching my children we never landed on the moon. When I do come across something that isn't right to my knowledge I correct it. But the truth is my approach to teaching history is to constantly remind my children that we don't know exactly all of the details for this. I understand as a historian many would completely disagree, and I guess we will just have to disagree.

 

Science changes and so do opinions about history. Many of Einstein's theories were thought to be fact, or at least were the main thought of the time. When Quantum Physics came along he didn't want to believe it. It debunked many of his beliefs. I think he died still not agreeing with Quantum Physics, but that is a theory that hold great weight nowdays and some of Einstein's theories have gone to the way side. Not all of them obviously. I don't see how history is any different. Historical opinions change and new information is found and discovered. History and science are not solid in my opinion.

 

ETA: I love your use of Timey Wimey!!

[melmichigan]

Sorry guys, this has been around. This is in my 2010 IG, page 43 of the History Study Guide entitled North America Before the White Man, the original copyright on this IG is 1990, and annually for 1991-2010. That was the last year I bought IG's.

[stripe]

I know I am not very well informed historically. So I feel it's all the more important to use books and other materials that are based on some attempt to represent actual history. We all have our points of views, interpretations, and perspectives, but when those feelings lead us to create some wholly alternate history that there is no evidence for, that is troubling. Also troubling is the idea that something is true and cannot be criticized unless I can prove it did not happen is a logical fallacy, called appeal to ignorance, or, in Latin, argumentum ad ignorantiam. An educational book that advocates this sort of "reasoning" is unappealing to me -- even if I happen to agree with the author's conclusions, I really can't stand bad argumentation and basically reject such material.

 

I can't place such a high premium on feeling good and promoting warm feelings that I am willing to use inaccurate and misleading information with my children.

 

Given that John Holzmann is not a homeschooling mom, I don't think questioning him is attacking other HSing moms. I try hard not to attack others in real life or online, even when I completely disagree. I do think it is legitimate to evaluate, positively and negatively, companies selling their products as to ease of use, accuracy, and style, as well as whatever other criteria seem valuable to us when making choices.

[SarahW]

Being insulted by my opinion is unfortunate and not sure why you choose to do that. I am certainly not insulted by your opinion nor anyone else who has one different than mine. I am insulted in the manner in which the opinion is given.

 

I am insulted because it sounds like what you are saying is that I spent over 10 years (and countless thousands of dollars) studying for nothing.

 

History is far from science in my opinion. There are procedures but to me history is about people and humanities and not about approaching it like a science. It is just a different perspective and approach I have to it.

 

Then you do not understand historiography, and you do not understand what I studied for 10 years. I am sorry but it is so.

 

I use a creation based science so I assume many people would believe I was using a curriculum that was similar to saying that man never landed on the moon. The idea that I believe in a Creator and the world was made in days instead of years is a big deal for some.

 

I don't consider the issues with Sonlight history to be the same as teaching my children we never landed on the moon. When I do come across something that isn't right to my knowledge I correct it. But the truth is my approach to teaching history is to constantly remind my children that we don't know exactly all of the details for this. I understand as a historian many would completely disagree, and I guess we will just have to disagree.

 

No, we don't disagree here. We don't know all the details. That's why I went to school for 10 years. So we could know more details.

 

Science changes and so do opinions about history. Many of Einstein's theories were thought to be fact, or at least were the main thought of the time. When Quantum Physics came along he didn't want to believe it. It debunked many of his beliefs. I think he died still not agreeing with Quantum Physics, but that is a theory that hold great weight nowdays and some of Einstein's theories have gone to the way side. Not all of them obviously. I don't see how history is any different. Historical opinions change and new information is found and discovered. History and science are not solid in my opinion.

 

YES! And how does it change?! Because it is a science! We study it, and because we study it we know more. It's wonderful. Knowing more, learning more, understanding more, it goes on and on, and as we do it (in a sound way that leads us to accuracy instead of away from it) we gain a better understanding of it. Should the fact that we don't know everything right now stop us from ever trying to know anything? God forbid!

 

It would be great if we could teach our kids only that which will never ever be debunked as being false. But short of having a time machine, we just can't do that. But that doesn't mean we can't teach anything! Neither does it mean that we should be comfortable with teaching something that has already been debunked! What we can do is teach the most solid information that we can, and gradually teach them how to study those things for themselves, and eventually they will pick an area of study for themselves where they will be able to pick apart everything they have learned, research it, and add to our pool of knowledge and understanding. That's human inquiry, that's the goal. I'm sorry if it seems so dialectical that it seems to disallow any knowledge, but to me it is exciting and wonderful.

[HRAAB]

While I love history and could easily spend all my free hours putting together our history course, I am not an historian. Whatever I choose as my main source, I want to be able to trust as much as is reasonably possible when it comes to facts that are verifiable. Although I might find the bias in some history programs irritating, or even infuriating, in a way I can understand that whereas I cannot understand using absolutely ludicrous facts like those in this IG. Blatant inaccuracies - and nonsense - is not something I want to spend money on. I put enough hours into homeschooling without wading through this. I haven't used Sonlight in probably 10 years because of other concerns I had with them, but had I been thinking about them, I would certainly appreciate the time and information shared by some of the posters with more knowledge than I have.

[Kathryn]

YES! And how does it change?! Because it is a science! We study it, and because we study it we know more. It's wonderful. Knowing more, learning more, understanding more, it goes on and on, and as we do it (in a sound way that leads us to accuracy instead of away from it) we gain a better understanding of it. Should the fact that we don't know everything right now stop us from ever trying to know anything? God forbid!

 

It would be great if we could teach our kids only that which will never ever be debunked as being false. But short of having a time machine, we just can't do that. But that doesn't mean we can't teach anything! Neither does it mean that we should be comfortable with teaching something that has already been debunked! What we can do is teach the most solid information that we can, and gradually teach them how to study those things for themselves, and eventually they will pick an area of study for themselves where they will be able to pick apart everything they have learned, research it, and add to our pool of knowledge and understanding. That's human inquiry, that's the goal. I'm sorry if it seems so dialectical that it seems to disallow any knowledge, but to me it is exciting and wonderful.

 

LOVE this!

[WishboneDawn]

The condescending tone in this thread is worse than any of the historical inaccuracies. Basically, people are puffing themselves up about how knowledgeable they are about history and us other poor homeschool moms just don't know what we are doing. We don't realize that we are teaching our children the same thing as never having landed on the moon. How are we not to be insulted by these comments, opinions and attitudes. I was trying to find some neutral ground in my post that suggested maybe we have different priorities and that no one is wrong or bad. Maybe you all agree with that but the general feeling of these comments do not reflect that. These sorts of comments being made reflect how absurd Sonlight is and how terrible it is to teach history with it.

 

I guess you can not be insulted by reflecting on the criticisms offered and seeing if they might be valid. It happens to me all the time on this board. Sometimes the criticisms are valid but you have other reasons for your approach that balance that and you share them ("That's a good point. I'll have to be careful with the notes but Sonlight has been working great for us so I don't plan to ditch it"). Sometimes the criticisms aren't valid but that can only be determined through a reasoned debate.

 

This whole thread drives home even more why I make humanities a priority over historical fact.

 

I have never seen a definition of the humanities that excluded historical fact. The humanities are about understanding human culture, not simply understanding the feelings of certain people in the midst of different events. Facts don't distract from that understanding, then\y enlighten it. Human events happen in sequence, one thing leads to another, places and seasons and dry facts of all sorts play key roles in the how and why of things. You can understand how the African-American feels in the middle of the Civil War but if you don't understand the facts that led to him being there in that place and time, then you've only got a tiny slice of the pie and the big picture will remain hidden from you. And the Humanities are about the big picture.

 

I have to question your understanding of that word.

 

As women...as moms and as homeschool moms we have got to learn to treat each other better, with kindness, understanding and accepting people where they are. Not allowing BEING RIGHT to be more important than the person. So many times on this board and other homeschool boards, being right seems to be the most important. That is sad....way more sad than the historical inaccuracies being talked about.

 

This is primarily a board for home educators (You're still a man, right Bill?) with a particular focus on the Classical style. I am not here to get hugs and unconditional support. I am here because I'm looking for ways to give my kids the best education I can and this place has excellent resources for that (like trained historians). If I came on here and talked about the way I was approaching a subject that had educated professionals in that field raising their eyebrows then I would not thank them for smiling, nodding and not saying a thing in the name of womanly bonding. I would hope they would point out my error and then I would have a long conversation with them to sort the whole matter out. That is the support I want and expect here.

 

And no, one thread amongst the many millions that exist on the internet where woman are debating something rather then agreeing for the sake of being nice is NOT more important then baseless and laughable claims made in a popular history program that the Europeans were in North America 2000 years ago.

 

 

 

 

[EKS]

We are asking a valid question--why would anyone choose to use something that gets the history so very wrong--despite the fact that there is ample proof otherwise?

 

People choose to use materials that get the science wrong, so why not history?

[mellifera33]

[melmichigan]

 

One of these days I'll have to figure out how to do that kind of thing on my computer.

[Moxie]

 

 

My frustration is with the larger concept that history is just some loosey goosey (timey-wimey) subject like literature, or art - just do what you like with it and carry on. History is a science. A social science, ok, but there are methods and procedures that need to be followed. We would never accept a science curriculum that said that man never landed on the moon as valid, so why is it that when a history curriculum makes the same sort of error everyone seems so apt to just shrug and say whatever?

 

 

This isn't true. All kinds of carp is accepted to make it fit with a certain religious POV. I started a thread some time back about a popular homeschool science book that teaches that humans aren't mammals--we're "special". I'm Catholic and use secular material every chance I get.

[albeto]

If the curriculum isn't based on facts, what is it based on? I would rather have my children read about the life of a European Jew during World War II than a Jew living in Kentucky in the year 64 or whatever. But then, I guess it depends what one means by "historical fiction."

 

Teaching children to convert others to join their religion.

 

 

We, however, are citizens of God’s Kingdom. We want

to know about all the cultures and peoples for whom

Jesus died and whom God wants to become part of His

Kingdom

 

notes, page 15

[SarahW]

This isn't true. All kinds of carp is accepted to make it fit with a certain religious POV. I started a thread some time back about a popular homeschool science book that teaches that humans aren't mammals--we're "special". I'm Catholic and use secular material every chance I get.

 

Did it say we were featherless bipeds instead? :laugh:

 

No, probably not. Yes, there's carp everywhere unfortunately. What's the name of this science book? I want to know. Just curious, really, I am already planning on using secular science. I guess I'm a weirdo who likes keeping religion in the Religion curriculum.

 

But I am having a hard time grasping SL's religious pov for this weirdness. Is it really that important to try to say the Native Americans already had the Ten Commandments? Is it to deny the importance of the Spanish missionary activity? Is it some sort of American-Christian manifest destiny? Just from looking at the sample I can't really tell, but there has to be some sort of reasoning going on here.

[Moxie]

I'm pretty sure it was Bob Jones.

[albeto]

Oh dear.

 

Bill

 

 

 

This thread is yet another example of why people are wise to start asking for accountability when education is done at home.

[Colleen]

I am also still working with ancient SL IG's which thankfully do not have these oddities or agendas.

 

Alas, friend, the eye roll-worthy chart has been around a good long while. I do believe at one point I expressed on the SL forums my views on its inclusion. It's embarrassing, plain & simple. Previously it was buried in the notes at the back of the IG ~ which is likely why my aforementioned expression of dismay stirred little interest. (One might also argue that it proves that many of us don't even use the notes.) Apparently SL's latest reinvention places the chart in a more noticeable position ~ to the point of being included in the sample. Oy. Fortunately, I already own all the Cores I'll ever need.

 

So now, what we are trying to do is get back to my original question--why use a product so factually absent?

 

The inclusion of a chart with which I disagree isn't a hill to die on for me. I've used SL for 13 years and am still enjoying it as much as ever, but by no means would I claim it or any curriculum is the epitome of factual perfection. History isn't a science, as proved by the naysayers who take issue with some of SWB's interpretations. (And btw, one of my degrees is in history, so I, too, have studied it formally and have an appreciation for it in that regard.)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This thread is yet another example of why people are wise to start asking for accountability when education is done at home.

 

 

Yet in my FB WTM group, a friend is discussing racist Native American costumes in her local elementary, costumes which are stereotyped and which display tremendous ignorance of history on the part of the teachers and people in charge. Should the homeschoolers in her town be accountable to these administrators who themselves are unfit teachers?

 

Maybe it's more to the point to say that anyone who takes on the responsibility of educating children should take the job seriously and not just choose convenience over truth.

[albeto]

I'm not calling into question your own intelligence here, I'm just completely baffled by the mindset I see displayed when a basic issue of historical fallacy crop up.

 

 

I see this as a symptom of a larger problem. When education is not held accountable to any standard, anything goes. Jews settled KY? Sure, why not. If you can conceive it, you can teach it. Early humanity used dinosaurs as beasts of burden 6000 years ago? Sure, why not. If the imagination goes there, it could be possible. Information is secondary to the real goal of communication in a way that doesn't make another person feel defensive? Sure, why not. Facts are superfluous.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Alas, friend, the eye roll-worthy chart has been around a good long while. I do believe at one point I expressed on the SL forums my views on its inclusion. It's embarrassing, plain & simple. Previously it was buried in the notes at the back of the IG ~ which is likely why my aforementioned expression of dismay stirred little interest. (One might also argue that it proves that many of us don't even use the notes.) Apparently SL's latest reinvention places the chart in a more noticeable position ~ to the point of being included in the sample. Oy. Fortunately, I already own all the Cores I'll ever need.

 

 

 

Really?? Oh, geez. I thought it was just in the years that had the Light and Glory books, and I bought my cores 3 and 4 between those two eras. Off to have a look, shall report back directly,

 

~Tibbie, once again proving that she rarely reads the IG's or the fine print on anything

 

EDITED TO ADD: p. 41 of the History Guide. I'll be darned. Obviously I never used it but it's there, along with the "North America Before the White Man" article.

[Job384]

I like Sonlight because they pick some great books, and I buy directly from them to reward the time they've spent finding those books for me. I leave out the books I don't like. Same with the notes. A note like this would not be incorporated into our school day unless I wanted to make a point about the need to be skeptical and verify what one reads.

 

A guiding principle of my homeschool is "Question everything." I do not teach, "Find an authority you think you can trust and believe whatever it says."

[albeto]

Yet in my FB WTM group, a friend is discussing racist Native American costumes in her local elementary, costumes which are stereotyped and which display tremendous ignorance of history on the part of the teachers and people in charge. Should the homeschoolers in her town be accountable to these administrators who themselves are unfit teachers?

 

Perhaps there should be no accountability at all. If there is no perfect solution, we shouldn't bother with any improvement. ;)

 

Maybe it's more to the point to say that anyone who takes on the responsibility of educating children should take the job seriously and not just choose convenience over truth.

 

 

I'm pretty confident in my assumption Nancy Ann does take her responsibility seriously, and doesn't believe she's choosing convenience over truth. My comments aren't about her or home educators like her. They're following the lead of trusted advisers, but these trusted advisers are accountable to no one. Therefore, anything goes.

[LucyStoner]

We don't get a line item veto on history or a red pen to add in whatever the heck we feel like.

[SarahW]

 

I see this as a symptom of a larger problem. When education is not held accountable to any standard, anything goes. Jews settled KY? Sure, why not. If you can conceive it, you can teach it. Early humanity used dinosaurs as beasts of burden 6000 years ago? Sure, why not. If the imagination goes there, it could be possible. Information is secondary to the real goal of communication in a way that doesn't make another person feel defensive? Sure, why not. Facts are superfluous.

 

 

Yes, yes. And yet it is usually the same people who cry about how postmodernism is making the world go to sh*its and destroy Christianity. If I was scratching my head I'd be bald.

[Butter]

It sounds like they might be throwing a bone to Mormons by including this dating with a note.

 

Except those dates and locations are NOT what Mormons believe so that wouldn't make sense.

[MinivanMom]

Sorry guys, this has been around. This is in my 2010 IG, page 43 of the History Study Guide entitled North America Before the White Man, the original copyright on this IG is 1990, and annually for 1991-2010. That was the last year I bought IG's.

 

Sure enough! It's right there on page 43 of the History Study Guide! You can tell I've never read through all the appendices. We were already moving onto something else due to many other issues with Sonlight as a company, but I am truly gobsmacked.

[stripe]

Except those dates and locations are NOT what Mormons believe so that wouldn't make sense.

Tthe Goldring/Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life doesn't seem to be promoting this idea of early Jewish settlements in Kentucky and Tennessee in its Encyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities. They seem to peg the date of first Jewish settlers closer to the early 1800s for KY and 1838 for TN.

 

http://isjl.org/history/archive/index.html

[airforcefamily]

we shouldn't bother with any improvement

 

One person's improvement is another person's regression. I think it would be great if all children receive what I think of as a good education but I would prefer everyone have the freedom to educate their children as they see fit even if it means some parents teach that dinosaurs were used to pull plows. Standards must be written by a person or group before implementation and therefore will always have some bias, preventing them from encompassing what everyone accepts as facts. As long as there are no huge problems with a child's education (I don't think errors in some historical facts is that much of a problem) I'm not ok with the collective 'we' deciding what improvements to make or what standard to hold families to.

[Moxie]

I'm not really that into all these debates so I'm sure this is a silly question--how do these silly dates support Sonlight's extreme protestant/missionary POV??

[PachiSusan]

I would prefer everyone have the freedom to educate their children as they see fit even if it means some parents teach that dinosaurs were used to pull plows

 

Oh my gosh - I really have NO input on this issue, but that comment made me belly laugh!!! Thank you!!!!!!

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[albeto]

and therefore will always have some bias, preventing them from encompassing what everyone accepts as facts.

 

The funny thing about facts is, they are true regardless of whether everyone accepts them as such. I can appreciate your passion for freedom, I have it too. Historically speaking (heh), ignorance doesn't foster freedom.